Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

Cardinal · May 2, 2013

Bronson said:
Nope

They do not change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?.

On this point alone, it should be mentioned that we don't care that this is a problem for you. As we do not care about "changing the definition", you're appealing to an emotion we don't have. "You're trying to change the definition!!" is the biggest yawn inducing argument the anti-gay-marriage crowd has, as far as we're concerned. If you want it to have an impact, that argument is best reserved for people who already agree with you. We simply don't care.

Gaugingcatenate · May 2, 2013

CriticalThought said:
Got it! You don't like gay people. Pretty simple. All the rest is just your rationalizations.

I like people just fine, don't care much whether they are gay or straight ... actually I rather care not to know, so just don't tell me as I am not going to bed with you so why would I need to know or care? So, I am tolerant. That is all I can be. If I genuinely thought that this, along with other things not just this, would not hurt society much less help it, I wouldn't speak out so vociferously. Fine with it just being there, part of life, not in any frame of mind to endorse the behavior, not support it Behooves one to look ahead, too, envision ahead of what you are dismantling. Weaken society to such an extent it can no longer defend such tolerance...and then where are you?

So, I don't care what you are, just don't make such a big deal of it. I think you all just like the attention.

CriticalThought · May 2, 2013

Bronson said:
You have to resort to ad hominems and emotional arguments because you're grasping at straws

Promiscuity is far more prevalent in the homosexual community and within their relationships than heterosexual relationships as a % of population. Sexual compulsion among gay men is unusually high as well.

Big spike in cases of syphilis in S.F. / Gay, bisexual men affected most - SFGate

Imagine that...unmarried men having sex. What a surprise! I wonder if there was some sort of institution out there that would promote monogamous, committed relationships so that these gay men would be less likely to practice promiscuous sex. Hm...what kind of institution could manage to accomplish such a task?

I love that you are making such a great case for same sex marriage. Please continue.

Secondly, the weakness of individual people does not tarnish the credibility of the institution. Marriage is one of the oldest institutions of the human race, with specific social and economic purposes. Gay "Marriage" doesn't fit into the institution anymore than I would fit in at all an all female fitness club as a male, or that woman marrying a roller coaster does. Any marriage other than man + woman is not real marriage. They are pretend marriages. Homosexuals are defined by their sexual behavior while heterosexuals are defined by their roles as parents. Biologically it's irrefutable. Children do best when raised by their biological parents in a low conflict household. I find it ironic that you're projecting that other people have "childlike views on marriage" when the notion of "Gay Marriage" is about as childlike a want as there could be. Wanting Gay Marriage is an emotional and selfish need, with no respect for the institution, much like how a when a 5 year old wants something, he just "wants it", regardless.

Meh. The evidence clearly shows that children do just as well raised by same sex couples as they do raised by opposite sex couples and that is the consensus of just about every child welfare and mental health organization in the country...so your statement is self serving not factual.

Gay "Marriage" isn't real marriage

It's pretend marriage

Uh huh. When Britney Spears filed annulment after mere hours of marital bliss with Jason Alexander that was totally "real marriage". :roll:

This notion you have that you can declare what marriages are real and which are "pretend" is rather grandiose. Call it what you please. Marriage is what the participants make it, and if you want to pretend that you have the power to decide whose marriage is real and whose is pretend, then feel free to entertain that delusion, but the rest of us like to live in reality.

CriticalThought · May 2, 2013

Gaugingcatenate said:
I like people just fine, don't care much whether they are gay or straight ... actually I rather care not to know, so just don't tell me as I am not going to bed with you so why would I need to know or care? So, I am tolerant. That is all I can be. If I genuinely thought that this, along with other things not just this, would not hurt society much less help it, I wouldn't speak out so vociferously. Fine with it just being there, part of life, not in any frame of mind to endorse the behavior, not support it Behooves one to look ahead, too, envision ahead of what you are dismantling. Weaken society to such an extent it can no longer defend such tolerance...and then where are you?

So, I don't care what you are, just don't make such a big deal of it. I think you all just like the attention.

You argue that gays are hurting society just because they want same sex marriage. You admit you have no evidence to support the claim that same sex marriage does harm society, but you have no problem accusing gays of harming society nonetheless. When you accuse an entire group of people of harming society without any evidence to support that claim it is animosity. It is prejudice. It is bigotry. Whatever you want to call it, you clearly do not like gay people and that mars any chance of you looking at this from a reasonable point of view. You destroyed your entire credibility in this debate when you crossed that line. It would be like me arguing "Christians hurt society by promoting their religion". What basis is there for an intellectual or reasonable discussion at that point?

I'm sorry, but you put yourself in the same category as the Westboro Baptist Church when you asserted harm without evidence. Distasteful at best.

Gaugingcatenate · May 2, 2013

CriticalThought said:
You argue that gays are hurting society just because they want same sex marriage. You admit you have no evidence to support the claim that same sex marriage does harm society, but you have no problem accusing gays of harming society nonetheless. When you accuse an entire group of people of harming society without any evidence to support that claim it is animosity. It is prejudice. It is bigotry. Whatever you want to call it, you clearly do not like gay people and that mars any chance of you looking at this from a reasonable point of view. You destroyed your entire credibility in this debate when you crossed that line. It would be like me arguing "Christians hurt society by promoting their religion". What basis is there for an intellectual or reasonable discussion at that point?

I'm sorry, but you put yourself in the same category as the Westboro Baptist Church when you asserted harm without evidence. Distasteful at best.

No, minimum what we need from your side is proof that your major tinkering with one of our most integral societal building blocks does no harm. Society has that right, has that obligation to posterity. You are the one wanting something special, prove it to us. We don't have to prove anything, we like things just fine right now. We know what works for society, we have over 200 years of continuous prosperity and enlightenment overcoming tyranny of our own from our own, ended it with the Revolutionary War, then tyranny of our own by our own ending with the Civil War. What our founders understood was slow change means solid and stable change, change for change's sake is simply common-sensically imprudent.

And when one sets the parameters of bigotry to suit their own ends, well, I might suggest that those who bandy about such words as bigot, accusing another, who is only speaking their mind honestly, as showing animosity... further even, to call it prejudice... that seems a mirror to your own remarks, some call it projection.

Listen, you want intellectual debate, would first suggest you dial back on the ad hominem attacks, not start calling people names like bigot. Or when losing control pulling out the most radical group on the other side and, because you cannot mount a proper argument, you say another is in the same category as that group? Those are not arguments, my fellow citizen.

Regroup, maybe re-figure and then restate.

Bronson · May 2, 2013

Verthaine said:
Then what are you trying to do?
How does changing the definition of marriage affect YOU personally?

When did I ever claim it affected me personally? You're falling into the old cliche canards that don't interest me.

Radical militant homosexual community?Ohhh spooky language.Why are you allowed to other demonize people?And are others allowed to demonize you?
Are people allowed to call you a megalomaniac?Since you insist that your opinions are facts.

Homosexuals are demanding special rights to change institutions and definitions of words that have existed since the beginning of human history. It's radical and extreme. There is no reason why gays can't create their own institutions of civil unions and have their own exclusive institutions, but that isn't good enough for them. They want to change existing institutions that have specific social and economic purposes for their own selfish gain while at the same time excluding other groups that would want to join this same club based upon their sexual behavior too. In the end, all these different combinations of people based upon sexual behavior that fall outside of institution of marriage are just make believe pretend marriages.

Since you are constantly on these types of threads,doesn't that make you a militant?

No it doesn't. This is a message board where political discussion takes place.

And since the majority of this country supports SSM,doesn't that make you the radical?

If the majority of the country supports it then let's vote on it state by state. That's not what is happening here though. CA (the most liberal state in the union) voted AGAINST gay marriage and that wasn't good enough for radical militant homosexuals. They are using the courts to go around the will of the people. I have no problem with each state voting for what kind of "marriage' they want because that was intent of the Founders. Social experiments be left to the states. The Feds should stay out of it. That isn't what's happening now though. The radical left abuses the courts to mainstream their agenda against the will of the people.

Yet you trying to prevent others from choosing for themselves how they define a word, and prevent them from joining an exclusive club,and trying to prevent others from changing an institution.

Marriage has always meant man + woman. Words and institutions have meaning and purpose. If you want to call ketchup mustard by all means, go for it. You're just pretending ketchup is mustard however. Ketchup is still ketchup.

Explain to me again just why institutions aren't allowed to be changed,if the majority of poeple want to?

There is no need to change the institution of marriage to appease the feelings of homosexuals. It just trivializes the institution. If you open the door for teh gays, other groups who want to "marry" based upon sexual behavior or whatever combination they can think of will want to as well like the woman marrying a roller coaster.

Gay Marriage isn't real marriage

It never will be

Bronson · May 2, 2013

CriticalThought said:
Imagine that...unmarried men having sex. What a surprise! I wonder if there was some sort of institution out there that would promote monogamous, committed relationships so that these gay men would be less likely to practice promiscuous sex. Hm...what kind of institution could manage to accomplish such a task?

I love that you are making such a great case for same sex marriage. Please continue.

Dodge noted

It's amazing how all of the sudden you think because gays are married, that somehow they don't divorce, cheat on each other, ect. while at the time ranting that marriage is already tainted because of the high divorce rate among heterosexuals. It's laughable.

Meh. The evidence clearly shows that children do just as well raised by same sex couples as they do raised by opposite sex couples and that is the consensus of just about every child welfare and mental health organization in the country...so your statement is self serving not factual.

Children do BEST when raised by their biological parents in a low conflict household. Any other parental environment is not optimal and vastly inferior.

Uh huh. When Britney Spears filed annulment after mere hours of marital bliss with Jason Alexander that was totally "real marriage". :roll:

So we're judging an entire institution on the behaviors of celebrities now? You're getting desperate. Maybe you have not heard of this:

'My Fair Wedding' Host David Tutera -- Allegations of Sex Addiction ... Prostitutes | TMZ.com

This notion you have that you can declare what marriages are real and which are "pretend" is rather grandiose. Call it what you please. Marriage is what the participants make it, and if you want to pretend that you have the power to decide whose marriage is real and whose is pretend, then feel free to entertain that delusion, but the rest of us like to live in reality.

Marriage is not what participants make it. Marriage is a specific institution with social and economic purposes that has existed since the beginning of human history. Gay Marriage no more relevant than roller coaster girl's marriage. Both are pretend marriages. Not real marriages.

Bonzai · May 2, 2013

Bronson said:
When did I ever claim it affected me personally? You're falling into the old cliche canards that don't interest me.

Homosexuals are demanding special rights to change institutions and definitions of words that have existed since the beginning of human history. It's radical and extreme. There is no reason why gays can't create their own institutions of civil unions and have their own exclusive institutions, but that isn't good enough for them. They want to change existing institutions that have specific social and economic purposes for their own selfish gain while at the same time excluding other groups that would want to join this same club based upon their sexual behavior too. In the end, all these different combinations of people based upon sexual behavior that fall outside of institution of marriage are just make believe pretend marriages.

No it doesn't. This is a message board where political discussion takes place.

If the majority of the country supports it then let's vote on it state by state. That's not what is happening here though. CA (the most liberal state in the union) voted AGAINST gay marriage and that wasn't good enough for radical militant homosexuals. They are using the courts to go around the will of the people. I have no problem with each state voting for what kind of "marriage' they want because that was intent of the Founders. Social experiments be left to the states. The Feds should stay out of it. That isn't what's happening now though. The radical left abuses the courts to mainstream their agenda against the will of the people.

Marriage has always meant man + woman. Words and institutions have meaning and purpose. If you want to call ketchup mustard by all means, go for it. You're just pretending ketchup is mustard however. Ketchup is still ketchup.

There is no need to change the institution of marriage to appease the feelings of homosexuals. It just trivializes the institution. If you open the door for teh gays, other groups who want to "marry" based upon sexual behavior or whatever combination they can think of will want to as well like the woman marrying a roller coaster.

Gay Marriage isn't real marriage

It never will be

Reread what you said " CA (the most liberal state in the union"...................It obviously isn't "the most liberal state in the union" and you just proved it in the conclusion to that statement....................

CriticalThought · May 2, 2013

Bronson said:
Dodge noted

It's amazing how all of the sudden you think because gays are married, that somehow they don't divorce, cheat on each other, ect. while at the time ranting that marriage is already tainted because of the high divorce rate among heterosexuals. It's laughable.

You argued that promiscuity is high among unmarried gay men. I argued that allowing gay men to marry may lower promiscuity. Is that really that hard to follow?

Children do BEST when raised by their biological parents in a low conflict household. Any other parental environment is not optimal and vastly inferior.

Yeah...I'm gonna take the word of the child experts who actually study this and who are motivated to look out for the best interests of children over your word on this issue. Sorry, but a politically motivated individual who, as far as I can tell, has no education or professional background on this topic, is not going to outweigh the thousands of people who do.

Now this is where you post fatherless statistics comprised of single mothers and try to make an uneducated ploy that they are somehow relevant to same sex couples.

So we're judging an entire institution on the behaviors of celebrities now? You're getting desperate. Maybe you have not heard of this:

Hey, you are the one trying to dictate "real marriage" on the basis of people's sex alone. It is your logic, not mine.

Marriage is not what participants make it. Marriage is a specific institution with social and economic purposes that has existed since the beginning of human history. Gay Marriage no more relevant than roller coaster girl's marriage. Both are pretend marriages. Not real marriages.

Well good for you. If that is the way you see it then fine. You are certainly entitled to your view. I recognize that same sex unions have existed in human history just as long as opposite sex unions, and whether or not you want to call them "marriages" is a matter of personal choice. I'm not gonna make you do it. I don't care what you think is "real" or "pretend" because you are just a random person with an opinion. Restating your opinion over and over again just makes you look like you are trying to force other people to accept it and that just comes across as desperate, but whatever. Do what you like.

CriticalThought · May 2, 2013

Gaugingcatenate said:
No, minimum what we need from your side is proof that your major tinkering with one of our most integral societal building blocks does no harm. Society has that right, has that obligation to posterity. You are the one wanting something special, prove it to us. We don't have to prove anything, we like things just fine right now. We know what works for society, we have over 200 years of continuous prosperity and enlightenment overcoming tyranny of our own from our own, ended it with the Revolutionary War, then tyranny of our own by our own ending with the Civil War. What our founders understood was slow change means solid and stable change, change for change's sake is simply common-sensically imprudent.

And when one sets the parameters of bigotry to suit their own ends, well, I might suggest that those who bandy about such words as bigot, accusing another, who is only speaking their mind honestly, as showing animosity... further even, to call it prejudice... that seems a mirror to your own remarks, some call it projection.

Listen, you want intellectual debate, would first suggest you dial back on the ad hominem attacks, not start calling people names like bigot. Or when losing control pulling out the most radical group on the other side and, because you cannot mount a proper argument, you say another is in the same category as that group? Those are not arguments, my fellow citizen.

Regroup, maybe re-figure and then restate.

Dude, you stated, in your own words, that gays are harming society by seeking same sex marriage. You already made up your mind. I know your type. I could find all the evidence in the world, and you would move the goal posts in perpetuity because your problem is with gay people, not with same sex marriage. You will never be satisfied because you want to believe that same sex marriage is harmful. As I said, you lost your credibility when you are argued there wasn't enough evidence and then turned around and argued that gays were harming society. You can't have it both ways. Either you take back your statement that gays are harming society and admit you don't know what the long term effects of same sex marriage will be or you continue this charade that you actually care about evidence when it is clear by your own words that you have already made up your mind.

Gaugingcatenate · May 3, 2013

CriticalThought said:
Dude, you stated, in your own words, that gays are harming society by seeking same sex marriage. You already made up your mind. I know your type. I could find all the evidence in the world, and you would move the goal posts in perpetuity because your problem is with gay people, not with same sex marriage. You will never be satisfied because you want to believe that same sex marriage is harmful. As I said, you lost your credibility when you are argued there wasn't enough evidence and then turned around and argued that gays were harming society. You can't have it both ways. Either you take back your statement that gays are harming society and admit you don't know what the long term effects of same sex marriage will be or you continue this charade that you actually care about evidence when it is clear by your own words that you have already made up your mind.

Dude yourself. We all know YOUR type. You want something just because you want it, does not matter one whit whether it is good for anyone else, you want it so you are just gonna get it, stomp that foot down, harder until you get your way...well, tough...does not work that way in debate nor in society.

YOU THINK BY SOME SLIM CHANCE YOUR MIND IS NOT ALREADY MADE UP??? Sure it is. So check your own vices before you start trying to sling them my way.

You could find all the evidence in the world, except for the slight inconvenience that you cannot, or you would have already provided same. There is no evidence at all for your side. So you have shown absolutely NOTHING. ZILCH NADA NOTHING.

You lost the argument when you say gays are not harming society, cannot prove it, then expect the side currently having dominance, my side, to prove, to do the work, for you. NO. Not my obligation, I do not care to change anything, this is debate, you must provide the evidence to prove your side if you expect change. Not expect my side to prove my side right, my side is even now on the positive side of the resolution already having long since established systems that last, that work, societies having a long history of existence with what is now in place, ours being the strongest and most prosperous in history right here in America. That is all the proof necessary for my side, where is your evidence to counter? Is ours perfect, no, just better than any other system ever attempted. And you seek to dismantle it... best advice goes something like this, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

No place in history have we any evidence [ and homosexuality has existed for perhaps nearly just as long IN society ] of this lifestyle you promote being anything more than a momentary thing, not a lasting lifestyle. We that believe in the idea of maintaining stability and a strong culture, a positive and normal culture have no obligation to dismantle what we have built just for 3% of our population who are demanding something they have not earned nor can prove is a benefit to us, cannot prove will last in any meaningful way nor is proven to be the best for the rest of society.

I have no obligation to take back anything, prove me wrong then you will have earned. You folks on the left always want something for nothing, an "A" not for having the correct answer, but just for having exerted some little bit of effort. Sorry, not even a passing effort. Back to the proverbial drawing board.

Political correctness has long outlasted its utility for the left... this side now requires proof and logic where in the past you have provided none...and still offer nothing. Better start running, if you want to catch up.

Peter Grimm · May 3, 2013

Mr. Invisible said:
"Some protesters opposed to the measure legalizing same-sex marriage hurled glass bottles, cans and metal bars, and riot police responded with tear gas at the Invalides memorial and museum complex, near the National Assembly." (French protest against gay marriage turns violent)

So people are really just pissed that they didn't get their way and are now throwing a giant tantrum. Real mature :roll:

Yeah, those darned guys.... George Washington and John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.... they're so "immature." They were just mad that they had to pay taxes and they threw a giant "tantrum."

You know, if government is supposed to be about the will of the people, God forbid that people should actually rise up and make their voices heard.

It's not even the gay issue that bothered me about your post, it's the fact that you view citizens on a scale of "mature" vs "immature," like citizens are supposed to be children of the state or something.

That thinking bothers me.

Citizens ARE the state.

Bronson · May 3, 2013

Bonzai said:
Reread what you said " CA (the most liberal state in the union"...................It obviously isn't "the most liberal state in the union" and you just proved it in the conclusion to that statement....................

Is it your contention that everyone who is a Liberal Democrat supports gay marriage?

Bronson · May 3, 2013

Cardinal said:
On this point alone, it should be mentioned that we don't care that this is a problem for you. As we do not care about "changing the definition", you're appealing to an emotion we don't have. "You're trying to change the definition!!" is the biggest yawn inducing argument the anti-gay-marriage crowd has, as far as we're concerned. If you want it to have an impact, that argument is best reserved for people who already agree with you. We simply don't care.

Again you couldn't be more disingenuous with your reply

I'm not shouting and using exclamation points and I've never said it was a "problem for me"

The fact of the matter is marriage since the beginning of mankind has always meant man + woman. Not man + ? or woman + ?. If gays get the special right to change the definition of marriage to fit their sexual behavior and selfish needs, than every other combination of people who want to get "married" based upon their sexual behavior will want the same special right too. You're reduced to hyperbole and objectification because you don't have an argument. You're position is based purely in emotion which is why you are getting upset now.

Cardinal · May 3, 2013

Bronson said:
Again you couldn't be more disingenuous with your reply

I'm not shouting and using exclamation points and I've never said it was a "problem for me"

The fact of the matter is marriage since the beginning of mankind has always meant man + woman. Not man + ? or woman + ?. If gays get the special right to change the definition of marriage to fit their sexual behavior and selfish needs, than every other combination of people who want to get "married" based upon their sexual behavior will want the same special right too.

Actually, by this logic, you can conclude that if men and women can get married, then gay people will want to be married as well. Remember: the slippery slope starts at the top.

Verthaine · May 3, 2013

Bronson said:
When did I ever claim it affected me personally? You're falling into the old cliche canards that don't interest me.

You're not the most riveting writer yourself,Bronson.
And if it doesn't effect you,why are you even making a concern about it?

I fully admit I have two solid and logical reason why I am pro SSM.
My daughter is gay.
And I am in the wedding business (and it's a very lucrative industry)

I'm dong it for love of my daughter and the opportunity to make lots of cash.

What's your stake in sticking your nose into other peoples business other that gratifying your own ego?

You gone beyond just stating an opinion,you yourself are tryoing to convince others to adopt your beliefs.
Nothing wrong with that.

But ultimately,you're on the losing side.

Bronson said:
Homosexuals are demanding special rights to change institutions and definitions of words that have existed since the beginning of human history.

Actually,all they are asking to do is be allowed to get married.

No one is going to force you to marry a guy.

Bronson said:
It's radical and extreme

So was Patrick Henry's "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death".
Sometimes,being radical and extreme isn't such a bad thing.
You sure as hell haven't proven that SSM is going to be a bad thing.

Bronson said:
There is no reason why gays can't create their own institutions of civil unions and have their own exclusive institutions, but that isn't good enough for them.

It wasn't good enough for Mildred and Richard Loving,and I and my wife are glad it wasn't good enough for them.
Since you yourself have stated that it doesn't effect you,why should you care?
Why do you insist on sticking your nose into other peoples business?
That's a very nasty habit you have there.
Sticking of noses into things that don't concern may have caused more deaths and injuries than cigarette have.
And for far longer

Bronson said:
They want to change existing institutions that have specific social and economic purposes for their own selfish gain while at the same time excluding other groups that would want to join this same club based upon their sexual behavior too.

Still demonizing people,I see.

Sounds like you are talking about some secret society bent on world domination.
Sort of a Gay Illuminati.
Didn't people really no different from you used to say very similar things about "them thar uppity niggers" and "those thar evil Jews"?

Explain what these "selfish gains"are?
I gain financially from gay weddings.
What's wrong with that?

And just who are these "other groups" you speak of.
The wouldn't be the child diddlers,sheep*****s,and out and out wingnuts,are they.
Do I need to lump you in the group you into the bigot group again?

Bronson said:
In the end, all these different combinations of people based upon sexual behavior that fall outside of institution of marriage are just make believe pretend marriages.

You really don't know a lot of gay people,do you Bronson?
How may gay couples do you really know for a long time.
How may of them are within you intimate inner circle of friends?
Homosexuality is not just based on sex alone.
There is a love aspect to it also.

Two of my dearest and oldest friends,Ethan and Phillip have been "married" to one another for damn near 30 years,29 of they before they got legally married this year.

Other than it being two guys,there's nothing really different what they go through together than what me and Selena,and countless other married coupes go through.
There's nothing "pretend" about their relationship.They've had their good times,there bad times,they've raised a good son (from Phill's first marriage).
They are good people,and I see no reason why shouldn't be allowed to get that "paper".
What they have isn't a crime.

And if you keep insisting on lumping gay people with child molesters,sheep******,and other assorted wackjobs,I'm going to keep lumping you in with the rest of the bigots.

.

Bronson said:
No it doesn't. This is a message board where political discussion takes place.

And a whole lot of prostelytizing,fearmongering,misinformation distribution,egostrokng,and just sticking noses into other peoples business,especially when it does't effect them.
Sort of like what you've been doing quite awhile

Bronson said:
If the majority of the country supports it then let's vote on it state by state. That's not what is happening here though. CA (the most liberal state in the union) voted AGAINST gay marriage

Now that all the dirty,slimy tactics that lots of religious people used to sway the public of CA when they voted against it has come out in the open,I'm quite interested on how they would vote today.

Bronson said:
and that wasn't good enough for radical militant homosexuals. They are using the courts to go around the will of the people.

Then change the legal system.Don't hate the players,hate the game.
Good luck with that.It'll be easier just to let the gays get married.

Bronson said:
I have no problem with each state voting for what kind of "marriage' they want because that was intent of the Founders.Social experiments be left to the states.

Wasn't Jim Crow a "social experiment"?
That was left to the States.
Just saying.
Historically speaking,how have gays been treat by the States?
Or by the people within those States?

Bronson said:
The Feds should stay out of it. That isn't what's happening now though.

I agree the Feds should say out of it,
We had a chance to change that.Instead,we chose Romney.

Bronson said:
The radical left abuses the courts to mainstream their agenda against the will of the people.

The same things have been said during the Civil Rights Act of !964 by it's opponents.
Employing the same language as bigots from a bygone era really isn't helping your case.

Bronson said:
Marriage has always meant man + woman.

Really, appealing to tradition?
Why not appeal to religion while you are at it?

I've noticed you still haven't explained why traditions shouldn't be allowed to change.

"Procreation" means man+woman.That hasn't changed.

"Marriage",on the other hand, is what you and the other person make of it.
Every married person knows that.
Straight or Gay.

Bronson said:
Words and institutions have meaning and purpose.

And neither of them stay the same forever.

Bronson said:
If you want to call ketchup mustard by all means, go for it. You're just pretending ketchup is mustard however. Ketchup is still ketchup.

Why should you care so much then to devote so much energy and timein this thread.No one is forcing you to call ketchup "mustard".

Marriage is not a condiment.
It is a process. Marriage is still a marriage.Whether it's straight or hetero.

There's a whole lot more baggage that comes with a marriage than just a dictionary definition.

Bronson said:
There is no need to change the institution of marriage to appease the feelings of homosexuals. It just trivializes the institution.

And the 50% percent divorce rates among hetero marriages doesn't?

By the way Bronson,speak for your own damn self.
Gays getting married to one another may trivialize you institution of marriage,but it sure as hell doesn't trivialize the marriage between Selena and me.

Bronson said:
If you open the door for teh gays, other groups who want to "marry" based upon sexual behavior or whatever combination they can think of will want to as well like the woman marrying a roller coaster.

Once again,the spooooooky language. Trying to envoke an emotional response (in this case it "fear"on) on those who read your post,aren't you?
You're doing the same thing you blast others for doing.
I believe that is called "hypocrisy".

Bronson said:
Gay Marriage isn't real marriage

It never will be

That's your opinion,and you are welcome too it.
Because I sure as hell don't want it.

My opinion is that gay marriages are real,and I've witnessed it numerous times
And more and more people everyday are agreeing with my opinion.

"Married" couples have ALWAYS been easy to spot.
Through out the ages,one can basically tell which couples are married.
Gay people have been married to one another for as long as there have been humans.
What they didn't have was a piece of paper.

Verthaine · May 3, 2013

Bronson said:
Again you couldn't be more disingenuous with your reply

I'm not shouting and using exclamation points and I've never said it was a "problem for me"

The fact of the matter is marriage since the beginning of mankind has always meant man + woman. Not man + ? or woman + ?. If gays get the special right to change the definition of marriage to fit their sexual behavior and selfish needs, than every other combination of people who want to get "married" based upon their sexual behavior will want the same special right too. You're reduced to hyperbole and objectification because you don't have an argument. You're position is based purely in emotion which is why you are getting upset now.

You know,Bronson,It' really isn't logic if people constantly find holes in it.
And your logic has been very leaky.

Bronson · May 3, 2013

Cardinal said:
Actually, by this logic, you can conclude that if men and women can get married, then gay people will want to be married as well. Remember: the slippery slope starts at the top.

Now you're just being silly and not worth anyone's time

Verthaine said:
You know,Bronson,It' really isn't logic if people constantly find holes in it.
And your logic has been very leaky.

You're emotional arguments have not refuted logic. Try again

Boo Radley · May 3, 2013

Bronson said:
Now you're just being silly and not worth anyone's time

He's actually correct. If you use the slippery slope fallacy argument concerning same sex marriage, the slope really begins with allowing marriage. You may not like it, but that is where it begins. Better to not use such fallacious arguments in the first place.

Bronson · May 3, 2013

Verthaine said:
You're not the most riveting writer yourself,Bronson.
And if it doesn't effect you,why are you even making a concern about it?

I fully admit I have two solid and logical reason why I am pro SSM.
My daughter is gay.
And I am in the wedding business (and it's a very lucrative industry)

You keep trying to attack me personally that doesn't interest me. You also admit that this is an emotional issue for you. Not a logical or rational one.

I'm dong it for love of my daughter and the opportunity to make lots of cash.

Selfish and emotional

What's your stake in sticking your nose into other peoples business other that gratifying your own ego?

When other people try and change society and institutions/meaning of words that have existed since the beginning of time, that makes it my business. I care about the children who have no say and are forced into these Frankenstein families because of cultural marxism and political correctness.

You gone beyond just stating an opinion,you yourself are tryoing to convince others to adopt your beliefs.
Nothing wrong with that.

The definition and notion that marriage = man + woman is not an opinion. It is fact.

But ultimately,you're on the losing side.

Emotional conjecture.

Actually,all they are asking to do is be allowed to get married.

If I wanted to join an all female gym club, all I would be doing is asking. That doesn't mean they would let me join. All sisters wanting to marry sisters, brothers wanting to marry brothers, fathers wanting to marry adults sons and women/men wanting to marry roller coasters would be doing is to be allowed to get married. It's all trivial and selfish.

No one is going to force you to marry a guy.

Canard. False premise.

So was Patrick Henry's "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death".
Sometimes,being radical and extreme isn't such a bad thing.
You sure as hell haven't proven that SSM is going to be a bad thing.

SSM isn't an improvement or superior form of "marriage". It's a pointless, unnecessary and trivial thing. Gays should respect the institution of marriage as it currently stands and create their own institution. Instead they selfishly want to change marriage to fit their emotional needs while still excluding other groups that want to "marry" based upon sexual behavior the same "special rights".

It wasn't good enough for Mildred and Richard Loving,and I and my wife are glad it wasn't good enough for them.
Since you yourself have stated that it doesn't effect you,why should you care?
And for far longer

Gays are the ones who insist on sticking their noses in other people's business. Gays are the ones who insist they deserve the special right to change the definition of marriage as it has always been know since the beginning of human history over any other group that wants to "marry" based upon sexual behavior.

Still demonizing people,I see.

Still engaging in ad hominems, hyperbole and emotional arguments I see

Sounds like you are talking about some secret society bent on world domination.
Didn't people really no different from you used to say very similar things about "them thar uppity niggers" and "those thar evil Jews"?

Sounds like you are engaging in conspiracy theories. Also looks like you are desperately rolling out the "bigot card" because you are losing the debate

Explain what these "selfish gains"are?
I gain financially from gay weddings.
What's wrong with that?

At the expense of the institution of marriage. At the expense of children who have no say when they are thrust into these inferior combinations of families. The radical militant gay activists have said, and you can read the link in this thread, that this attack on marriage is not about equality. It is about the destruction of the traditional family. Historically, this type of thinking has proved to be a disaster. In their own words. "Why can't children have 5 parents?". Unfortunately these selfish radicals never ask these children if they want 5 parents. People who are advocating obviously don't care what the children think.

And just who are these "other groups" you speak of.
The wouldn't be the child diddlers,sheep*****s,and out and out wingnuts,are they.
Do I need to lump you in the group you into the bigot group again?

Have mentioned it many times in this thread but once again you have to try and engage in laughable hyperbole because you are unable to refute logic. Bigot Card = you're losing the debate

You really don't know a lot of gay people,do you Bronson?
How may gay couples do you really know for a long time.
Homosexuality is not just based on sex alone.

I actually have known quite a few gay people and have nothing against gay people personally. What I have an issue with is people trying to change institutions that have existed since the beginning of human history for their own selfish needs. Homosexuality is based upon sexual behavior. That is what identifies a homosexual. Now you're once again doing the emotional argument thing, and dismissing science.

Two of my dearest and oldest friends,Ethan and Phillip have been "married" to one another for damn near 30 years,29 of they before they got legally married this year.

It's not real marriage. It's pretend marriage.

Other than it being two guys,there's nothing really different what they go through together than what me and Selena,and countless other married coupes go through.
There's nothing "pretend" about their relationship.They've had their good times,there bad times,they've raised a good son (from Phill's first marriage).

I'm sure they are wonderful people. Doesn't mean they get the special right over other groups that want to marry based upon sexual behavior or because they "want to get married". I'm sure Roller Coaster girl is a really sweet person. Doesn't mean her marrying a roller coaster is real marriage.

And if you keep insisting on lumping gay people with child molesters,sheep******,and other assorted wackjobs,I'm going to keep lumping you in with the rest of the bigots.

I haven't done that though. You are the one who is now doing it and projecting your own bigotry. Using the "bigot card" = you are losing the debate

And a whole lot of prostelytizing,fearmongering,misinformation distribution,egostrokng,and just sticking noses into other peoples business,especially when it does't effect them.

Ad hominems and hyperbole. Doesn't interest me.

Now that all the dirty,slimy tactics that lots of religious people used to sway the public of CA when they voted against it has come out in the open,I'm quite interested on how they would vote today.

Again you are being disingenuous. I have never once mentioned religion or used religion as a basis for this discussion. The fact of the matter is CA voted down gay marriage and the radical militant homosexuals didn't accept the will of the people. They are trying to use the courts to override the will of the people.

Then change the legal system.Don't hate the players,hate the game.

So you're fine with using the court to ram a political agenda down the throat of the public (no pun intended) as long as it fits your beliefs ideologically. Fascism.

Wasn't Jim Crow a "social experiment"?
Or by the people within those States?

Being gay is not a race. Equating the real struggle that African Americans went through in this country to homosexuals have special rights to change definitions of words to quench their selfish emotional needs is laughable.

The same things have been said during the Civil Rights Act of !964 by it's opponents.
Employing the same language as bigots from a bygone era really isn't helping your case.

Being gay is not a race. Equating the real struggle that African Americans went through in this country to homosexuals have special rights to change definitions of words to quench their selfish emotional needs is laughable.

Really, appealing to tradition?

I've noticed you still haven't explained why traditions shouldn't be allowed to change.

"Marriage",on the other hand, is what you and the other person make of it.
Straight or Gay.

You still have not shown how allowing gay marriage to exist improves upon the institution of marriage because it doesn't. It trivializes marriage. Marriage has always had specific social and economic purposes. Gay Marriage doesn't nothing to improve upon that. Traditions don't necessarily exist just because they are "old fashioned". They can exist because through trial and error over centuries, humanity has found them to be the most optimal way to do things. Nobody thought of gay marriage before because it's not a good idea. Just like allowing someone to marry a roller coaster isn't a good idea. Sure emotionally that woman wants to marry a roller coaster, but it is the selfish emotional need of a child.

And neither of them stay the same forever.

Ketchup will always be ketchup. Mustard will always be mustard. Marriage will always be marriage despite what homosexuals or w/e combination of trivial unions people can think of.

Why should you care so much then to devote so much energy and timein this thread.No one is forcing you to call ketchup "mustard".

Marriage is not a condiment.
It is a process. Marriage is still a marriage.Whether it's straight or hetero.

There's a whole lot more baggage that comes with a marriage than just a dictionary definition.

On the contrary marriage is much more important than a condiment. It has specific social and economic purposes that benefit society as a whole. Trying to change it's definition is absurd. You're the one who wants to flippantly change the meaning of words to fit your emotional needs. Those are childlike needs. Not logical or rational needs.

The only type of marriage that is real marriage is man + woman. Man + ? or woman + ? is not real marriage. It never will be.

And the 50% percent divorce rates among hetero marriages doesn't?

No they don't. Individual human flaws do not discredit an entire institution which has been shown to be a bedrock of humanity since the beginning of the human race.

Gays getting married to one another may trivialize you institution of marriage,but it sure as hell doesn't trivialize the marriage between Selena and me.

Gays getting married does trivialize the institution of marriage. It's pretend marriage. Not real marriage. I can claim I'm part of an all female gym, but that doesn't make it true.

Once again,the spooooooky language. Trying to envoke an emotional response (in this case it "fear"on) on those who read your post,aren't you?
You're doing the same thing you blast others for doing.
I believe that is called "hypocrisy".

Hyperbole and objectification because you can't refute facts

My opinion is that gay marriages are real,and I've witnessed it numerous times
And more and more people everyday are agreeing with my opinion.

Sham marriages. Not real. A lot of ignorant people are easily swayed by emotion. Doesn't make them experts.

"Married" couples have ALWAYS been easy to spot.
Gay people have been married to one another for as long as there have been humans.
What they didn't have was a piece of paper.

Gay marriage has never been a widespread notion. Not even in Sparta where there was rampant homosexuality. Historically there is no evidence that gay marriage has ever been a widely accepted or practiced as a concept. If gays want to have a ceremony and call it marriage they can but that doesn't make it real marriage. They are sham marriages. Pretend marriages.

Anyways you're all over the map here emotionally and resorting to cheap personal attacks. Feel free to reference this post and any previous post if you have any further replies. The whole "you're a bigot because you don't agree with me" is tired and cliche and not worth taking seriously.

Bronson · May 3, 2013

Boo Radley said:
He's actually correct. If you use the slippery slope fallacy argument concerning same sex marriage, the slope really begins with allowing marriage. You may not like it, but that is where it begins. Better to not use such fallacious arguments in the first place.

Legalize polygamy: Marriage equality for all. - Slate Magazine

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.

Verthaine · May 3, 2013

Bronson said:
You keep trying to attack me personally that doesn't interest me. You also admit that this is an emotional issue for you. Not a logical or rational one.

Selfish and emotional

When other people try and change society and institutions/meaning of words that have existed since the beginning of time, that makes it my business. I care about the children who have no say and are forced into these Frankenstein families because of cultural marxism and political correctness.

The definition and notion that marriage = man + woman is not an opinion. It is fact.

Emotional conjecture.

If I wanted to join an all female gym club, all I would be doing is asking. That doesn't mean they would let me join. All sisters wanting to marry sisters, brothers wanting to marry brothers, fathers wanting to marry adults sons and women/men wanting to marry roller coasters would be doing is to be allowed to get married. It's all trivial and selfish.

Canard. False premise.

SSM isn't an improvement or superior form of "marriage". It's a pointless, unnecessary and trivial thing. Gays should respect the institution of marriage as it currently stands and create their own institution. Instead they selfishly want to change marriage to fit their emotional needs while still excluding other groups that want to "marry" based upon sexual behavior the same "special rights".

Gays are the ones who insist on sticking their noses in other people's business. Gays are the ones who insist they deserve the special right to change the definition of marriage as it has always been know since the beginning of human history over any other group that wants to "marry" based upon sexual behavior.

Still engaging in ad hominems, hyperbole and emotional arguments I see

Sounds like you are engaging in conspiracy theories. Also looks like you are desperately rolling out the "bigot card" because you are losing the debate

At the expense of the institution of marriage. At the expense of children who have no say when they are thrust into these inferior combinations of families. The radical militant gay activists have said, and you can read the link in this thread, that this attack on marriage is not about equality. It is about the destruction of the traditional family. Historically, this type of thinking has proved to be a disaster. In their own words. "Why can't children have 5 parents?". Unfortunately these selfish radicals never ask these children if they want 5 parents. People who are advocating obviously don't care what the children think.

Have mentioned it many times in this thread but once again you have to try and engage in laughable hyperbole because you are unable to refute logic. Bigot Card = you're losing the debate

I actually have known quite a few gay people and have nothing against gay people personally. What I have an issue with is people trying to change institutions that have existed since the beginning of human history for their own selfish needs. Homosexuality is based upon sexual behavior. That is what identifies a homosexual. Now you're once again doing the emotional argument thing, and dismissing science.

It's not real marriage. It's pretend marriage.

I'm sure they are wonderful people. Doesn't mean they get the special right over other groups that want to marry based upon sexual behavior or because they "want to get married". I'm sure Roller Coaster girl is a really sweet person. Doesn't mean her marrying a roller coaster is real marriage.

I haven't done that though. You are the one who is now doing it and projecting your own bigotry. Using the "bigot card" = you are losing the debate

Ad hominems and hyperbole. Doesn't interest me.

Again you are being disingenuous. I have never once mentioned religion or used religion as a basis for this discussion. The fact of the matter is CA voted down gay marriage and the radical militant homosexuals didn't accept the will of the people. They are trying to use the courts to override the will of the people.

So you're fine with using the court to ram a political agenda down the throat of the public (no pun intended) as long as it fits your beliefs ideologically. Fascism.

Being gay is not a race. Equating the real struggle that African Americans went through in this country to homosexuals have special rights to change definitions of words to quench their selfish emotional needs is laughable.

Being gay is not a race. Equating the real struggle that African Americans went through in this country to homosexuals have special rights to change definitions of words to quench their selfish emotional needs is laughable.

You still have not shown how allowing gay marriage to exist improves upon the institution of marriage because it doesn't. It trivializes marriage. Marriage has always had specific social and economic purposes. Gay Marriage doesn't nothing to improve upon that. Traditions don't necessarily exist just because they are "old fashioned". They can exist because through trial and error over centuries, humanity has found them to be the most optimal way to do things. Nobody thought of gay marriage before because it's not a good idea. Just like allowing someone to marry a roller coaster isn't a good idea. Sure emotionally that woman wants to marry a roller coaster, but it is the selfish emotional need of a child.

Ketchup will always be ketchup. Mustard will always be mustard. Marriage will always be marriage despite what homosexuals or w/e combination of trivial unions people can think of.

On the contrary marriage is much more important than a condiment. It has specific social and economic purposes that benefit society as a whole. Trying to change it's definition is absurd. You're the one who wants to flippantly change the meaning of words to fit your emotional needs. Those are childlike needs. Not logical or rational needs.

The only type of marriage that is real marriage is man + woman. Man + ? or woman + ? is not real marriage. It never will be.

No they don't. Individual human flaws do not discredit an entire institution which has been shown to be a bedrock of humanity since the beginning of the human race.

Gays getting married does trivialize the institution of marriage. It's pretend marriage. Not real marriage. I can claim I'm part of an all female gym, but that doesn't make it true.

Hyperbole and objectification because you can't refute facts

Sham marriages. Not real. A lot of ignorant people are easily swayed by emotion. Doesn't make them experts.

Gay marriage has never been a widespread notion. Not even in Sparta where there was rampant homosexuality. Historically there is no evidence that gay marriage has ever been a widely accepted or practiced as a concept. If gays want to have a ceremony and call it marriage they can but that doesn't make it real marriage. They are sham marriages. Pretend marriages.

Anyways you're all over the map here emotionally and resorting to cheap personal attacks. Feel free to reference this post and any previous post if you have any further replies. The whole "you're a bigot because you don't agree with me" is tired and cliche and not worth taking seriously.

Your constant dodges are noted.
And all your cheap tactics you yourself have been employing is for all to see.
Yep,I'm selfish and emotional.So what,doesn't mean I'm wrong.

And you're arrogant and ego-maniacal,so neither of us are perfect.
If marriage is the bedrock of society,then surely it is strong enough to support gay marriage.

Why don't we let others decide for themselves who is winning the debate between us,shall we,or is that too much to ask of you?
You calling gay marriages "shams" and pretend marriages doesn't make it reality,it make it JUST YOUR OPINION.

If you are so tired of being referred to as a bigot,may I suggest you stop behaving like one?All I'm doing is calling a spade,a spade.
That's logical,isn't it?

I also admit that it is a financial issue,Anything wrong with that?
Me making lots of money off gay weddings trumps you feeding your "feewings" and ego any day,at least to me it does.

The issue isn't the definition of marriage,the issue is whether or not it can be changed.You have failed to show how SSM is truly harmful.

SSM may be trivial to you,but it isn't to a lot of people.Your opinions,on the other hand,are trivial also.

Let's face it,I can't convince you,and you can't convince me.
But how we convince others is entirely different thing.

And more and more,my stance on SSM are convincing more people than yours are.

Marriage is not the same as a female only gym.

The reason why no one has come up with the idea of SSM is because people like you used to kill people for that.

Being gay is not about race.It's about being gay?
I've already asked you how gays historically been treated by people just like you.You didn't answer that,I noticed.
How the hell is gays wanting to get married sticking their noses into YOUR business?You have already stated that it doesn't effect you.Yet you are still trying to convince people to be against SSM.Sounds like you are sticking you're nose into other peoples business to me.

Cardinal · May 3, 2013

Bronson said:
Now you're just being silly and not worth anyone's time

*Shrug." Whatever. Gay marriage will probably be the law of the land within the year, five years tops, and your opinion will be just that. Your opinion. It won't have any effect on me or anyone else.

Verthaine · May 3, 2013

Bronson said:
Legalize polygamy: Marriage equality for all. - Slate Magazine

Looks like an "Opinion piece" to me.People are allowed to have those.

No one has to agree with it.

AGENT J · May 3, 2013

oh no equal rights are coming for gays

that means soon it will be legal to marry your dog and for your horse to be able to vote, the end is near, the end is near!!!!
:scared:

LMAO where did i here this nonsensical, dishonest, appeal to emotion fear tactics at before?

oh thats right, people said those, inane, mentally inept comments when minorities were given rights, and when woman were giving rights. It was stupid and illogical then and nothing as changed about that argument today. Its still illogical and stupid.

Paris Riots After Gay Marriage Vote

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides

Gaugingcatenate

CriticalThought

CriticalThought

Gaugingcatenate

Bronson

Bronson

Bonzai

CriticalThought

CriticalThought

Gaugingcatenate

Peter Grimm

Bronson

Bronson

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides

Verthaine

Verthaine

Bronson

Boo Radley

Bronson

Bronson

Verthaine

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides

Verthaine

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"