Gay Marriages

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Oh wait, on second thought I can't be like you, I'm a mouse studying to be a rat.

So yea, homosexuality is right and heterosexuality is wrong. How dare anyone uphold traditional principles. We here at Liberal Inc. believe in the intolerance towards those that disagree, and our spokesman is Arvestaked.

I did not express intolerance to those who disagree with me, you testicle. Somehow people have gotten the idea that tolerance means not discussing and not having conflicting opinions. And I said homosexuality is amoral. Apparently you have an issue with reading and/or understanding. Furthermore, much of tradition is based on ignorance. Go stand outside and watch all those stars revolve around the Earth; it is truly lovely.

[anileve]

Originally posted by Arvestaked The idea of "normal" is merely the average of everyones eccentricities. And you can quote me on that.

And, thanks for the support, anileve.

And I did, yep sir! Check out my signature as a proof. When brilliancy shines I shall reach out and grab it! Anytime Arvy, and it's so nice to see you back posting dear.

[Aphrodit3]

I voted Yes.
Who are we to say what's right/wrong/normal? I think it's fair to allow two people who love each other, to get married. Let go of your homophobia, please.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Well of course homosexuality is "right" and not "immoral" because with moral relativism anything goes. There is tolerance on our secular campuses today for almost any belief or practice in this day, but intolerance towards those who disagree with a said belief or practice. Professors are forced into humiliating "sensitivity training" sessions if they criticize homosexual behavior. The rationale for the prohibition of non-coercive intolerance against homosexuals and other egregious things is the desire to avoid offending members of, for example, a particular sexual orientation. There is, of course, no interest at all in wanting to avoid offending members of a different religious orientation such as a Muslim, or a Christian. Tolerance as practiced by "liberals" is basically intolerance of those that disagree by being labeled as "bigots" or "homophobes", or the like.

The modern "liberal" agents of moral intolerance are quick to point in horror to the medieval church’s unhealthy collaboration with the state by which the former coercively enforced standards that should be limited to the latter. I don't defend this collaboration. However, it should be expected that these same modern "liberals" that are horrified at the collaboration of church and state in past Christian eras will now invite the arm of a godless, secular state Leviathan today to coercively enforce intolerance against those who cry out against depravity in the modern society.

I see I was right. You have nothing on which to base a belief that homosexuality is immoral. Your tangential leaps do you no credit.

[ckBejug]

Yes.

We're a free nation, and by that concept alone, they should be able to join in union together. Just because they have a different sexual preference than hetrosexuals, they're not free to get married. That doesn't make sense. That doesn't sound right, does it? Both parties consent. Go for it.

People get married on lesser merits than the love that is so obvious that these homosexuals getting in line to be married in SF show in their actions, and words, and just the beam on their faces. As for those who just get married on the fly, as a joke, because they're drunk! oh, just because they are man and woman it's a-ok. First of all, if you try to go the 'it's not moral' route, please explain to me the morality and therefore legality of miss Britney Spears and coutless numbers of other heterosexual, and therefore 'right' ahem, moral, men and women who get married for 5 minutes (oh, I'm sorry, 48 hours) in Vegas. Believe me, two homosexuals who would fight back come hell or highwater to show how much they are in love and want to be together deserve the title of 'married' more than some blondy drunk ass teeny bopper airhead does. Go ahead and try to convince me otherwise!

I said yes to the legalization of gay marriage or "civil unions". Disregard what the Bible says about homosexuality, Sodom and Gommorrah, put that out of your mind. Why? This nation is not a Christian nation and should not be governed by the laws of the Bible. Government cannot legislate morality beyond laws designed to protect the basic rights of U.S. citizens. And if any one of you tells me now that it's your basic basic right not to see gay people climbing all over eachother in public, spare me, ok? I've seen plenty worse from heterosexual couples practically having sex in the streets. Seriously anyone who even utters the word yuk deserves nothing less than a playful romp on a busy street full of fast-moving traffic. This is a question of two people in love with eachother who want to spend their lives together. Read all the material out there, look at the articles that talk about couples that have been together for FIFTY years who want to get married to show just how much they love eachother and how much they want to spend the rest of their lives together. Plenty of people get married for the WRONG reasons, so don't give me this 'it's just for a tax break' bull. You know that's not true. Who would go through that much hardship just for a few bucks off taxes?? Yes, oh please, let me face persecution and angry mobs and terrible hardship so I can file as a 'couple' and save $100. Right.

[Hogg]

How does marriage change the relationship if they've already been together for 50 years?

Don't bring up the point of seeing gay couples showing PDA compared to heteros because there's a huge difference. What they do in public really has nothing to do with marriage anyway. It's not like they can't do it if they're not married. Using that as an argument against gay marriage is pretty weak. (These last few sentences weren't directed to you, ck).

[ckBejug]

Originally posted by Hogg How does marriage change the relationship if they've already been together for 50 years?

It doesn't change the relationship. It makes them married. They are bound to eachother in a sense. If you put a question like that out there you can ask, in the same breath, why would a man and woman get married? If being together for a very long time without being married is the same thing anyway. The point is, it's not the same thing. Or else being married would be an obsolete practice now. Which it isn't.

Originally posted by Hogg Don't bring up the point of seeing gay couples showing PDA compared to heteros because there's a huge difference. What they do in public really has nothing to do with marriage anyway. It's not like they can't do it if they're not married. Using that as an argument against gay marriage is pretty weak. (These last few sentences weren't directed to you, ck).

I know.

[fstkhnan]

Originally posted by Aphrodit3 I voted Yes.
Who are we to say what's right/wrong/normal? I think it's fair to allow two people who love each other, to get married. Let go of your homophobia, please.

what kind of love is that? same sex?? give me a break!

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by fstkhnan what kind of love is that? same sex?? give me a break!

That is not an arguement. You are implying that one who is homosexual is incapable of love and that is nonsense. You apparently have been ignoring everything that has been said.

[fstkhnan]

Originally posted by Arvestaked That is not an arguement. You are implying that one who is homosexual is incapable of love and that is nonsense. You apparently have been ignoring everything that has been said.

no of course they could be in love, but with the opposite sex, I just dont imagine that there could an actual love between 2 same sexes! but thats just what i think !