Gays!!!

[Spherical Time]

Even in Massachusetts gay marriage was forced onto the populace and there was not tens of thousands of gay couples running to the hitching post.

Wait. Isn't that a good thing? It shows that gay couples are respecting the establishment of marriage instead of rushing out and getting hitched unprepared.

Yarg. Real respect for marriages part MCMXXV: People shouldn't be getting them on whims.

 

[kiwimac]

All that the LGBT community is asking for is the right to marry a person of THEIR choosing, isn't that what we all want? Why should person x be able to marry person y while persons a,b,& c cannot? What is just about that? and why is that hard for some to understand?

 

[sidhe]

All that the LGBT community is asking for is the right to marry a person of THEIR choosing, isn't that what we all want? Why should person x be able to marry person y while persons a,b,& c cannot? What is just about that? and why is that hard for some to understand?

Because, kiwi, if LGBT people get to marry people of their choosing, next people will be marrying tuna salad sandwiches and forcing children to participate in Caligula-esque orgies as part of kindergarten.

At least, that's what I've heard. I got married, and as of yet, the only difference is I get less sleep.

 

[sidhe]

Welcome to Clownland

Could this be Cowtown, instead?

We're goin' down to Cowtown
A cow's a friend to me
Lives beneath the ocean
That's where I will be
Beneath the waves, the waves
And that's where I will be
I'm gonna see the cow beneath the sea

 

[morningstar2651]

In all of those crowds of GLBT's screaming and ranting for same-gender marriage rights only a minute fraction are actually believing in marriage of any kind.

Even in Massachusetts gay marriage was forced onto the populace and there was not tens of thousands of gay couples running to the hitching post.

Can you name one person that was forced into a gay marriage?

This is all about an agenda to force Christian culture onto and into society at large.

Fixed.

I study reality. History is replete with the outcome of this kind of morality gripping a populace. It is lascivious licentiousness without any shred of doubt. If it were not for Christians standing in (and leading) the opposition of licentiousness, things would be even worse in a society where one in four teen girls have an STD and homosexuality is a fad practiced by more than just those that demand that they are born gay. And now, we are at a point where there is a promiscuity cancer vaccine.

And unsafe sexual practices are once again raging. In your community as well.

Support planned parenthood. They actually teach people how to have safe sex.

You can't stop history from being ignored. But you can be a person not wanting to support that and in the best of involvement, being a persson trying to stop it from happening again.

"If we take a traditional (and predominantly Christian) view of the collapse of Rome, then conventional wisdom tells us that Rome was destroyed by decadence, sunken beneath the rising scum-line of its orgies, of its own sexual permissiveness. The merest skim through Gibbon, on the other hand, will demonstrate that Rome had been a heaving, decadent and orgiastic fleshpot more or less since its inception. It had fornicated its way quite successfully through several centuries without showing any serious signs of harm as a result. Once Constantine had introduced compulsory Christianity to the Empire, though, it barely lasted for another hundred years." -- Alan Moore, Arthur Magazine

 

[Andreusz]

Sidhe and SelfInflikted ... thanks for the excellent posts in the last three pages or so!

 

[Spherical Time]

why is that hard for some to understand?

Because "the other side" lied about it.

I mean, that's pretty unequivocally true. They said that churches would be forced to marry gay people and that homosexuality would be taught in the schools. They knew these things were false, and said them anyway.

That's why people are confused.

 

[sidhe]

Because "the other side" lied about it.

I mean, that's pretty unequivocally true. They said that churches would be forced to marry gay people and that homosexuality would be taught in the schools. They knew these things were false, and said them anyway.

That's why people are confused.

To be fair, I think the number of people who know those things are false is limited. Most people are blindly repeating what they've heard spun by propagandists.

*patiently waits for the PC_F "That's what 'you' GLB'T's do. 'Typical'. 0 x 0 = atheism" response*

Also, once the claims about what would happen were shown to be false, most people didn't want to believe that their spiritual leaders lied like dogs. Thus, it must be the other side lying, because they have God[sup]tm[/sup] on their side.

 

[sidhe]

Hi, buzz.

 

[drstevej]

And what exactly is a pervert? I know I am and I am not gay.

To pervert is to distort or twist. Sexual perversion is a distortion and twisting of the divine design.

 

[Spherical Time]

To be fair, I think the number of people who know those things are false is limited. Most people are blindly repeating what they've heard spun by propagandists.

<snip>

Also, once the claims about what would happen were shown to be false, most people didn't want to believe that their spiritual leaders lied like dogs. Thus, it must be the other side lying, because they have God[sup]tm[/sup] on their side.

Well, perhaps some people didn't knowingly lie but the leaders did. The people that made the ads did.

 

[drstevej]

All that the LGBT community is asking for is the right to marry a person of THEIR choosing, isn't that what we all want? Why should person x be able to marry person y while persons a,b,& c cannot? What is just about that? and why is that hard for some to understand?

What if the person of one's choosing is 4 years old or one's sibling or one's mom?

 

[Spherical Time]

What if the person of one's choosing is 4 years old or one's sibling or one's mom?

What if it's a turtle?

Or a small orbital satellite?

 

[drstevej]

What if it's a turtle?

Or a small orbital satellite?

The comment was regarding persons so I stayed in that parameter. I also stayed with a singular person and did not explore the Big Love option.

 

[Spherical Time]

The comment was regarding persons so I stayed in that parameter. I also stayed with a singular person and did not explore the Big Love option.

Okay then.

What if it's a blind dead insensate mute on life support?

What if it's a imaginary friend?

What if it's . . . a trekkie?

 

[Wyzaard]

The comment was regarding persons so I stayed in that parameter.

Not really, no... a 4-year-old child is hardly in any position to give informed , uncoerced consent.

 

[Spherical Time]

****. You repped me, didn't you. Wowzers.

/edited cause I don't know what the content level of CF is at the moment.

Thanks, Steve.

 

[Bombila]

What if the person of one's choosing is 4 years old or one's sibling or one's mom?

What percentage of heterosexuals choose to marry a four year old, a sibling, or their mom?

That's at least as valid a question/objection as the one you just put forth, isn't it?

It is ridiculous stuff like this which poisons the anti same sex argument every time. They say something which is so counter to reality that sane people who might support them in some small way roll their eyes and go buy a rainbow flag to hang off the balcony in support of sanity.

We have same sex marriage in Canada. No four year olds yet married.

As for you, DrSteveJ, I had thought better of you.

 

[drstevej]

one's clone?

a buzzard?

 

[drstevej]

Not really, no... a 4-year-old child is hardly in any position to give informed , uncoerced consent.

Doesn't stop Nambla. I mean why be so darn restrictive? Isn't that the argument?