Marriage equality 5, Neanderthals 0
Marriage equality 5, Neanderthals 0
Ballot initiatives instituting marriage equality were approved in Maine, Maryland and Washington.
A proposed constitutional amendment to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples was defeated in Minnesota.
A recall effort against an Iowa Supreme Court justice who ruled in favour of marriage equality was rebuffed.
A proposed constitutional amendment to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples was defeated in Minnesota.
A recall effort against an Iowa Supreme Court justice who ruled in favour of marriage equality was rebuffed.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."
-- Author unknown
-- Author unknown
Re: Marriage equality 5, Neanderthals 0
The results everywhere were a victory for progressives, and against rolling back human rights to the 1950s and the 1850s.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Re: Marriage equality 5, Neanderthals 0
History marches forward. Against the tide of Republican evil.
yrs,
rubato
yrs,
rubato
-
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: Marriage equality 5, Neanderthals 0
So
republicans = evil
Glad to know that.
Last time I checked "grouping people" into a category was a very republican thing to do, or so people say.
So, all republicans are bad in your mind?
If not so, then please clarify.
oldr_n_wsr = no party affiliation
republicans = evil
Glad to know that.
Last time I checked "grouping people" into a category was a very republican thing to do, or so people say.
So, all republicans are bad in your mind?
If not so, then please clarify.
oldr_n_wsr = no party affiliation
Re: Marriage equality 5, Neanderthals 0
It drives my Christian Conservative (nutcase) family members crazy (crazier) that I am ok with Gays getting married. I wonder if I will live to see it "OK" in this state.
Interestingly there is a lawmaker here who wants to see MJ legalized. I would bet that would happen before gay marriage.
Interestingly there is a lawmaker here who wants to see MJ legalized. I would bet that would happen before gay marriage.
Re: Marriage equality 5, Neanderthals 0
The very expression, "marriage equality," is an absurdity. While a gay "marriage" can have many of the same characteristics as NORMAL marriage (esp. for lesbians in long-term relationships), it is a fundamentally different institution.
The only reason anyone would vote in favor of this perversion of marriage is to stop the endless whining.
The only reason anyone would vote in favor of this perversion of marriage is to stop the endless whining.
Re: Marriage equality 5, Neanderthals 0
Suck it up as another defeat for evolutionary throwback losers like yourself.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."
-- Author unknown
-- Author unknown
Re: Marriage equality 5, Neanderthals 0
Fundamentally different in what way? The only difference I can see is that gay coupless cannot reproduce, but neither can many "normal" couples; e.g. postmenopausal women cannot reproduce, is the marriage of a postmenopausal woman to a man fundamentally different than normal marriage? Should such people be prevented by law from marrying?
-
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:21 pm
Re: Marriage equality 5, Neanderthals 0
Fundamentally different in a way that he will go on about while never actually mentioning anything specific.Big RR wrote:Fundamentally different in what way?
Re: Marriage equality 5, Neanderthals 0
Anyone pretending not to "notice" the fundamental difference between a normal marriage and a gay "marriage" is either intentionally obtuse or so unconcerned with reality as to render his opinions irrelevant.
Normal marriage has, at its core, the prospect of bringing children into the world, nurturing them, developing "good citizens" and remaining together through more than a single lifetime. The fact that it so often comes up short is not particularly relevant. Virtually everyone aspires to this ideal when they stand in front of the official and swear love and fidelity in marriage.
Gay marriage is, at its core and assuming the best, two people wanting to formalize what they hope will be a permanent, monogamous relationship between them. Period. They do not constitute a "family" in any meaningful sense, and absent artificial intervention, they cannot reproduce. Their "sexual" relationship, to the extent there is one, has nothing to do with normal human biology or reproduction, and is ultimately nothing more than enhanced co-masturbation.
The concept of "adultery" when applied to a gay "marriage" is rather silly. It is a relationship of convenience affecting only two people. Who besides them gives a shit?
Is this specific enough for you, Reaper?
When two homosexual people get "married," it probably is not a bad thing, from a public policy standpoint. It confers some nice benefits on the couple that they might not otherwise get, and there is probably little tangible harm to the society at large. In fact, if it results in less male-homosexual promiscuity, it might slow the spread of diseases for which I would have to pay under Obamacare. If such a measure were presented to me as a ballot initiative in PA (we don't have that right now), I would probably vote in favor of it.
Mainly, to stop the whining.
It is with no great pleasure that I disagree with my Church Elders on this particular point.
Normal marriage has, at its core, the prospect of bringing children into the world, nurturing them, developing "good citizens" and remaining together through more than a single lifetime. The fact that it so often comes up short is not particularly relevant. Virtually everyone aspires to this ideal when they stand in front of the official and swear love and fidelity in marriage.
Gay marriage is, at its core and assuming the best, two people wanting to formalize what they hope will be a permanent, monogamous relationship between them. Period. They do not constitute a "family" in any meaningful sense, and absent artificial intervention, they cannot reproduce. Their "sexual" relationship, to the extent there is one, has nothing to do with normal human biology or reproduction, and is ultimately nothing more than enhanced co-masturbation.
The concept of "adultery" when applied to a gay "marriage" is rather silly. It is a relationship of convenience affecting only two people. Who besides them gives a shit?
Is this specific enough for you, Reaper?
When two homosexual people get "married," it probably is not a bad thing, from a public policy standpoint. It confers some nice benefits on the couple that they might not otherwise get, and there is probably little tangible harm to the society at large. In fact, if it results in less male-homosexual promiscuity, it might slow the spread of diseases for which I would have to pay under Obamacare. If such a measure were presented to me as a ballot initiative in PA (we don't have that right now), I would probably vote in favor of it.
Mainly, to stop the whining.
It is with no great pleasure that I disagree with my Church Elders on this particular point.
Re: Marriage equality 5, Neanderthals 0
Of course. How could the fact that so many opposite-sex married couples do not have children, and that so many same-sex marrieds do, have any bearing on your "marriage-is-only-for-raising-children" argument?dgs49 wrote:The fact that it so often comes up short is not particularly relevant.
Except that it completely demolishes it.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."
-- Author unknown
-- Author unknown
Re: Marriage equality 5, Neanderthals 0
So then I guess you'd require fertility testing for all couples wantiing to marry and similarly prohibit post menopausal women from marrying, as well as any couple who cannot or will not reproduce? Somehow I doubt it.
-
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:21 pm
Re: Marriage equality 5, Neanderthals 0
Then explain why infertile people can get married. I eagerly await your scathing response which will in no way actually answer my question.dgs49 wrote:Normal marriage has, at its core, the prospect of bringing children into the world, nurturing them, developing "good citizens" and remaining together through more than a single lifetime. The fact that it so often comes up short is not particularly relevant. Virtually everyone aspires to this ideal when they stand in front of the official and swear love and fidelity in marriage.
So all you have is strawman garbage to try and say that a same-sex relationship can only be a relationship of convenience. Try again with a real argument.dgs49 wrote:The concept of "adultery" when applied to a gay "marriage" is rather silly. It is a relationship of convenience affecting only two people. Who besides them gives a shit?
Re: Marriage equality 5, Neanderthals 0
That certainly must limit your sex life.dgs49 wrote:Their "sexual" relationship, to the extent there is one, has nothing to do with normal human biology or reproduction, and is ultimately nothing more than enhanced co-masturbation.
You can only have sexual intercourse when you're trying to reproduce and a blow job would be too much like having a gay experience.
No wonder you often write as though your penis is in retrograde.
Re: Marriage equality 5, Neanderthals 0
I rely for guidance on the "great" former president who correctly advised America that being the recipient of a blowjob (or giving one, for that matter) is not "having sex." Same goes for standing still while your comrade buggers you. So much for homosexual "sex" practices.
But of course if you are a contemporary Liberal, words mean whatever you want them to mean, in the context of which any discussion of word meanings is pointless.
But of course if you are a contemporary Liberal, words mean whatever you want them to mean, in the context of which any discussion of word meanings is pointless.
-
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:21 pm
Re: Marriage equality 5, Neanderthals 0
Again: If the ability to make babies is so important to getting married, then why are infertile people allowed to marry?
Re: Marriage equality 5, Neanderthals 0
Because "enhanced co-masturbation" isn't as much of an abomination if it's engaged in by a male and a female.
Last edited by Crackpot on Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Marriage equality 5, Neanderthals 0
There's something in common to all of those who obsess as much as Dave does about how gay men have sex.
I'm sure Marcus Bachmann would have a place for him in his "social circle".
I'm sure Marcus Bachmann would have a place for him in his "social circle".
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."
-- Author unknown
-- Author unknown
Re: Marriage equality 5, Neanderthals 0
Wow! Straight from the rubato school of 'debating'...dgs49 wrote:Anyone pretending not to "notice" the fundamental difference between a normal marriage and a gay "marriage" is either intentionally obtuse or so unconcerned with reality as to render his opinions irrelevant.
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Re: Marriage equality 5, Neanderthals 0
Then what is it if it isn't "sex"?dgs49 wrote:I rely for guidance on the "great" former president who correctly advised America that being the recipient of a blowjob (or giving one, for that matter) is not "having sex."
Is it pretending to be gay by performing nonsexual acts with your heterosexual partner, which of course is allowed in dgs-world as long as the partners aren't gay.
I get it now.
It's okay to have an orgasm without having intercourse as long as you're with someone of the opposite sex, because those masculine sperm will be following the rules by looking for a nearby egg.
If there's no egg in the room, the act can only be described as gay unallowable non-sex.