Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/21 ... arriage%2F

What's with the mouth being taped shut thing? Is there ANYBODY who thinks homosexual activists and their allies don't have a voice? All other things aside, is there ANYBODY who thinks homosexuals are being silenced; that they aren't allowed to speak?

Surely it must be something else. I don't see how having a mouth taped closed relates to not choosing to recognize homosexual marriage.

dback in 5-4-3-2...

Cmon d...

...don't leave us hanging...

JohnStOnge wrote:http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/21 ... arriage%2F

What's with the mouth being taped shut thing? Is there ANYBODY who thinks homosexual activists and their allies don't have a voice? All other things aside, is there ANYBODY who thinks homosexuals are being silenced; that they aren't allowed to speak?

Surely it must be something else. I don't see how having a mouth taped closed relates to not choosing to recognize homosexual marriage.

John, your refusal to see that homosexuals are just normal people is amazing. The tape over the mouth and how it relates to gay marriage is the same as it relates to marriage between heterosexuals.

After marriage, you can say goodbye to oral.

Cluck U wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/21 ... arriage%2F

What's with the mouth being taped shut thing? Is there ANYBODY who thinks homosexual activists and their allies don't have a voice? All other things aside, is there ANYBODY who thinks homosexuals are being silenced; that they aren't allowed to speak?

Surely it must be something else. I don't see how having a mouth taped closed relates to not choosing to recognize homosexual marriage.

John, your refusal to see that homosexuals are just normal people is amazing. The tape over the mouth and how it relates to gay marriage is the same as it relates to marrige between heterosexuals.

After marriage, you can say goodbye to oral.

Cluck U wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/21 ... arriage%2F

What's with the mouth being taped shut thing? Is there ANYBODY who thinks homosexual activists and their allies don't have a voice? All other things aside, is there ANYBODY who thinks homosexuals are being silenced; that they aren't allowed to speak?

Surely it must be something else. I don't see how having a mouth taped closed relates to not choosing to recognize homosexual marriage.

John, your refusal to see that homosexuals are just normal people is amazing. The tape over the mouth and how it relates to gay marriage is the same as it relates to marrige between heterosexuals.

After marriage, you can say goodbye to oral.

"DANGER! DANGER! DOES NOT COMPUTE! DOES NOT COMPUTE!"

Maybe we DO need to pay Ralph so he can put AGS back up.

No, our voices are not being heard, by those that can help us.

Cluck U wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/21 ... arriage%2F

What's with the mouth being taped shut thing? Is there ANYBODY who thinks homosexual activists and their allies don't have a voice? All other things aside, is there ANYBODY who thinks homosexuals are being silenced; that they aren't allowed to speak?

Surely it must be something else. I don't see how having a mouth taped closed relates to not choosing to recognize homosexual marriage.

John, your refusal to see that homosexuals are just normal people is amazing. The tape over the mouth and how it relates to gay marriage is the same as it relates to marriage between heterosexuals.

After marriage, you can say goodbye to oral.

dbackjon wrote:No, our voices are not being heard, by those that can help us.

Well, I think your voices on that issue are certainly being heard. I think it'd be more correct to say that not enough of those who can bring about what you want brought about have been convinced by what they've heard. I have little doubt that you'll get what you want at some point.

JohnStOnge wrote:

dbackjon wrote:No, our voices are not being heard, by those that can help us.

Well, I think your voices on that issue are certainly being heard. I think it'd be more correct to say that not enough of those who can bring about what you want brought about have been convinced by what they've heard. I have little doubt that you'll get what you want at some point.

Equality always wins out in the end - because it is the morally right thing to do.

Probably our voices are not being LISTENED to (except when they want to tap the gAyTM) by those that can effect a change.

JohnStOnge wrote:

dbackjon wrote:No, our voices are not being heard, by those that can help us.

Well, I think your voices on that issue are certainly being heard. I think it'd be more correct to say that not enough of those who can bring about what you want brought about have been convinced by what they've heard. I have little doubt that you'll get what you want at some point.

And it'll be a much better world when they do. Your conk politicians will actually have to win elections with brains and ideas and way to actually improve people's lives, rather than distracting them with gay marriage and their ominous threat to destroy the american family, whatever the fuck that is.

John you are a bigot.

CID1990 wrote:Maybe we DO need to pay Ralph so he can put AGS back up.

It's a fair question. I think some in the pro-life movement my be offended that they are using their symbol when clearly gays and lesbians can stand up for their own rights whereas the unborn can't.

On the other hand, the gay and lesbian issues have gone in one ear and out the other ear of this administration and straights who support SSM are silent and aren't doing much to help. It makes sense in that respect.

D1B wrote:...gay marriage and their ominous threat to destroy the american family, whatever the fuck that is.

Says the man who never raised a family.

travelinman67 wrote:

D1B wrote:...gay marriage and their ominous threat to destroy the american family, whatever the fuck that is.

Says the man who never raised a family.

Says the man who's fucked up two families with divorce.

D1B wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Says the man who never raised a family.

Says the man who's fucked up two families with divorce.

Eat sh*t, Junkie.

My kids have gone/are going to college, ones already happily married, and I'm still friends with and talk to both my ex's on a regular basis.


"It's a swing and a miss for D1B! He's outta there....."

travelinman67 wrote:

D1B wrote:
Says the man who's fucked up two families with divorce.

Eat sh*t, Junkie.

My kids have gone/are going to college, ones already happily married, and I'm still friends with and talk to both my ex's on a regular basis.


"It's a swing and a miss for D1B! He's outta there....."

Whatever helps you sleep at night, alcoholic.



Mr. and Mrs. Tman with Skeeter Tman, circa 1980

D1B wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Eat sh*t, Junkie.

My kids have gone/are going to college, ones already happily married, and I'm still friends with and talk to both my ex's on a regular basis.


"It's a swing and a miss for D1B! He's outta there....."

Whatever helps you sleep at night, alcoholic.



Mr. and Mrs. Tman with Skeeter Tman, circa 1980

Bitch!

Personally I don't care if queers are able to marry. It doesn't bother me one bit. For Chrissakes my own brother is gay and I sure as hell wish he would settle down, get married and quit bringing a different homo to Thanksgiving every year; I can't keep up with all their names. I'll just call them all Lance so I can be right 50% of the time.

In all seriousness (not my brother... he really is gay) I don't think it is anybody's goddamn business what happens in somebody else's family. If you're worried about the erosion of the American family then you're not spending enough time thinking about your own. Hell, if gays were allowed to legally marry then we'd likely hear a lot less about it on TV because it would be old hat.

If gays are that anxious to add another misery to their lives (not to mention another pathway to wealth redistribution) then they should damn well be allowed to. The government has too much control over the institution as it is. I was so pissed that I had to get a damn wedding license I was tempted to see if my wife wanted to just declare a common-law marriage.

I'll arrange my own family in the way my wife and I think it should be and we'll stay the fvck out of everybody else's business and expect everybody to stay the fvck out of ours.

Equality always wins out in the end - because it is the morally right thing to do.

I would say that, in the modern context of our culture, radical egalitarianism always wins out. There is no problem with treating people equally as far as marriage has gone. Marriage has been considered to be an arrangement between one member of one sex and one member of another sex. Anyone who wished to particpate in it could and can participate in it. If you, tomorrow, found a member of the opposite sex who would agree to marry you you could enter into the arrangement in any state in this country just like anybody else can. There is no discrimination. Everybody is given the same option. The fact that some would prefer not to exercise it does not mean they're being discriminated against.

To use an illustration that has been used very frequently but is nevertheless valid: A homosexual is no more discriminated against by the idea that marriage involves members of opposite sexes than someone who would like to enter into polygamy is discriminated against by the idea that marriage involves just two people. Any would-be polyamist can enter into the same arrangement that anybody else can. They just can't enter into an arrangement that they'd like to...and nobody else can either. Everybody is given the same opportunity.

Finally, homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same thing. They are not equal states. One, heterosexuality, is the normal state while the other, homosexuality, is disfunctional.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Equality always wins out in the end - because it is the morally right thing to do.

I would say that, in the modern context of our culture, radical egalitarianism always wins out. There is no problem with treating people equally as far as marriage has gone. Marriage has been considered to be an arrangement between one member of one sex and one member of another sex. Anyone who wished to particpate in it could and can participate in it. If you, tomorrow, found a member of the opposite sex who would agree to marry you you could enter into the arrangement in any state in this country just like anybody else can. There is no discrimination. Everybody is given the same option. The fact that some would prefer not to exercise it does not mean they're being discriminated against.

To use an illustration that has been used very frequently but is nevertheless valid: A homosexual is no more discriminated against by the idea that marriage involves members of opposite sexes than someone who would like to enter into polygamy is discriminated against by the idea that marriage involves just two people. Any would-be polyamist can enter into the same arrangement that anybody else can. They just can't enter into an arrangement that they'd like to...and nobody else can either. Everybody is given the same opportunity.

Finally, homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same thing. They are not equal states. One, heterosexuality, is the normal state while the other, homosexuality, is disfunctional.

Marriage is a Social bond determined by the people, the idea that marriage has always been "one man and one woman" for all time is total BS--it has always been defined by the people and the fact that our government will show favoritism to one viewpoint and not any others is sickening (and the fact that they are even involved in the recognition of marriage is even more sickening), why should the government endorse a marriage that only meets the context of christian marriages? Because we were founded on Christian values? So we make laws based on something that isn't in the constitution, but rather what the founders would have wanted? In that case I think we are constitutionally inclined to bring back slavery, and deprive the right to vote from minorities and women. You state polygamy as an example of a discriminated marriage--I have no problem with the idea of government recognizing polygamy as a matter of fact centuries ago polygamy was a valid marriage (King David had a bunch of wives, in the Koran there is a verse supposedly endorsing polygamy)..the reason our government doesn't endorse it is because of the tax benefits involved, theoretically speaking all the taxpayers could get in one big marriage and it would be a futile tax credit/cut.

youngterrier wrote:Marriage is a Social bond determined by the people, the idea that marriage has always been "one man and one woman" for all time is total BS--it has always been defined by the people and the fact that our government will show favoritism to one viewpoint and not any others is sickening (and the fact that they are even involved in the recognition of marriage is even more sickening), why should the government endorse a marriage that only meets the context of christian marriages? Because we were founded on Christian values? So we make laws based on something that isn't in the constitution, but rather what the founders would have wanted? In that case I think we are constitutionally inclined to bring back slavery, and deprive the right to vote from minorities and women. You state polygamy as an example of a discriminated marriage--I have no problem with the idea of government recognizing polygamy as a matter of fact centuries ago polygamy was a valid marriage (King David had a bunch of wives, in the Koran there is a verse supposedly endorsing polygamy)..the reason our government doesn't endorse it is because of the tax benefits involved, theoretically speaking all the taxpayers could get in one big marriage and it would be a futile tax credit/cut.

There is all sorts of polygamy in the Bible.

JayJ79 wrote:

youngterrier wrote:Marriage is a Social bond determined by the people, the idea that marriage has always been "one man and one woman" for all time is total BS--it has always been defined by the people and the fact that our government will show favoritism to one viewpoint and not any others is sickening (and the fact that they are even involved in the recognition of marriage is even more sickening), why should the government endorse a marriage that only meets the context of christian marriages? Because we were founded on Christian values? So we make laws based on something that isn't in the constitution, but rather what the founders would have wanted? In that case I think we are constitutionally inclined to bring back slavery, and deprive the right to vote from minorities and women. You state polygamy as an example of a discriminated marriage--I have no problem with the idea of government recognizing polygamy as a matter of fact centuries ago polygamy was a valid marriage (King David had a bunch of wives, in the Koran there is a verse supposedly endorsing polygamy)..the reason our government doesn't endorse it is because of the tax benefits involved, theoretically speaking all the taxpayers could get in one big marriage and it would be a futile tax credit/cut.

There is all sorts of polygamy in the Bible.

exactly...and when I say Christian marriage I want to clarify that I meant "today's mainstream Christian definition of marriage"

youngterrier wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I would say that, in the modern context of our culture, radical egalitarianism always wins out. There is no problem with treating people equally as far as marriage has gone. Marriage has been considered to be an arrangement between one member of one sex and one member of another sex. Anyone who wished to particpate in it could and can participate in it. If you, tomorrow, found a member of the opposite sex who would agree to marry you you could enter into the arrangement in any state in this country just like anybody else can. There is no discrimination. Everybody is given the same option. The fact that some would prefer not to exercise it does not mean they're being discriminated against.

To use an illustration that has been used very frequently but is nevertheless valid: A homosexual is no more discriminated against by the idea that marriage involves members of opposite sexes than someone who would like to enter into polygamy is discriminated against by the idea that marriage involves just two people. Any would-be polyamist can enter into the same arrangement that anybody else can. They just can't enter into an arrangement that they'd like to...and nobody else can either. Everybody is given the same opportunity.

Finally, homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same thing. They are not equal states. One, heterosexuality, is the normal state while the other, homosexuality, is disfunctional.

Marriage is a Social bond determined by the people, the idea that marriage has always been "one man and one woman" for all time is total BS--it has always been defined by the people and the fact that our government will show favoritism to one viewpoint and not any others is sickening (and the fact that they are even involved in the recognition of marriage is even more sickening), why should the government endorse a marriage that only meets the context of christian marriages? Because we were founded on Christian values? So we make laws based on something that isn't in the constitution, but rather what the founders would have wanted? In that case I think we are constitutionally inclined to bring back slavery, and deprive the right to vote from minorities and women. You state polygamy as an example of a discriminated marriage--I have no problem with the idea of government recognizing polygamy as a matter of fact centuries ago polygamy was a valid marriage (King David had a bunch of wives, in the Koran there is a verse supposedly endorsing polygamy)..the reason our government doesn't endorse it is because of the tax benefits involved, theoretically speaking all the taxpayers could get in one big marriage and it would be a futile tax credit/cut.

+1
Good post.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Equality always wins out in the end - because it is the morally right thing to do.

I would say that, in the modern context of our culture, radical egalitarianism always wins out. There is no problem with treating people equally as far as marriage has gone. Marriage has been considered to be an arrangement between one member of one sex and one member of another sex. Anyone who wished to particpate in it could and can participate in it. If you, tomorrow, found a member of the opposite sex who would agree to marry you you could enter into the arrangement in any state in this country just like anybody else can. There is no discrimination. Everybody is given the same option. The fact that some would prefer not to exercise it does not mean they're being discriminated against.

To use an illustration that has been used very frequently but is nevertheless valid: A homosexual is no more discriminated against by the idea that marriage involves members of opposite sexes than someone who would like to enter into polygamy is discriminated against by the idea that marriage involves just two people. Any would-be polyamist can enter into the same arrangement that anybody else can. They just can't enter into an arrangement that they'd like to...and nobody else can either. Everybody is given the same opportunity.

Finally, homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same thing. They are not equal states. One, heterosexuality, is the normal state while the other, homosexuality, is disfunctional.

Actually, I agree with most of this. I just don't see where the argument to not recognize gay marriage comes in.