another post about gay marriages... but this one might make you go "hmmmm"...

BlurOfSerenity

New Member
i got this from someone's livejournal. it's the best thing on the subject i've read yet.



1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
 

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Every time I read one of these things, It makes me go Hmmmmm...alright, but not for the reasons mentioned in that journal...
 

Shadowfax

<b>mod cow</b>
ash r said:
i got this from someone's livejournal. it's the best thing on the subject i've read yet.



1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

crap.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

tell my aunt & uncle that...who got married years ago, but turned out not to be able to get kids...not by their choice

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

hahaha :D right. of course the kids will be more open minded than kids raised by parents who detest gay people, but it doesn't mean they'll turn out gay as well. that's a character/sexuality thing.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

erm. right?

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

see answer to question #4...

rest of the statements..not even going to bother to reply to them. this should belong in the entertainment forum. "best thing on the subject yet" doesn't really describe it...does it?

most retarded, out-of-the-world, short-sighted point of view comes more close to it.
people who take this kind of crap seriously, usually give me a good laugh...
 

ResearchMonkey

Well-Known Member
1. Homosexuality is not natural, because one must evacuate their bowels to keep from spewing forth vile infectious excrement froth from their violated anus on those loose bowels days.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they have the potential to produce children, the unknown
N’th factor. Homosexual relationships are always infertile relationships, there is no N’th.

3. Obviously, gay parents will have far greater chances of rearing a fucked up kid since an infant mostly runs on primordial instincts. Like a cat that suck or your earlobe is cute, it’s an emotionally fucked up cat.



4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since liberals have already taken away some of the strengths and commitments of marriage such as easy divorces and the MTV consequences free lifestyle.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and is applied equally to all that meet the socially accepted definition of marriage no matter their race or natural place in this world.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because liberal judicial legislation is circumventing the grand design of our great nation of the people, for the people and by the people.



7. Gay marriage is not supported by the free democratic society in which we live and therefore the people should decide as the see it to be.



8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, because validated behaviors are more easily learned and being tall is genetic and passed down thru generations of men/women pro-creating .



9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People will demand to marry children, siblings, and dead people.

10. Children that have both a mother and father by far are more likely to be successful in life and be a more emotional balanced person not a burden on the social programs. Consequence free living is why so many single parents are single parents.

11. Gay marriage will further the degradation of the foundation of our society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and was a stronger institution before the weak and selfish individuals had to find excuses to wriggle out of their liberally applied choices. We wouldn’t be in this mess if it weren’t for the weak of mind. Cars are a tool; marriage is an institutional tradition.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "different but equal" institution is always constitutional. Especially when it is a behavioral act rather than the results of a biological union and the continuation of a family line that contributes to the human race.








Just because we accept the homosexual lifestyle that does not mean we validate or welcome the behaviors as being a positive contributor to the future of mankind.
 

Thulsa Doom

New Member
Now is this just a joke or are you really truly THAT much of a right wing out of touch with reality close minded wack job? I was gonna reply but as i read i figured no hes just messing around. Who could possibly still hold such enormous double standards and follow such incredibly incorrect logic point after point after point. So ill give you the benefit of the doubt here that you had your tongue rather deep in your cheek. correct me if Im wrong of course.
 

ResearchMonkey

Well-Known Member
HaHa! I love your attack of the presenter rather then address the issue. It’s so simpleton to attack with out shedding a single ray of light.

You my friend are wrong on several levels; I am in touch with the majority of Americans. The logic is clear and simple, but it’s deeper and more complicated than your liberal emotional reasoning.

I said what the majority of people think. Whereas the original post was full of nonsensical comparisons, comparing ideals to cars (I bet you thought that was both enlightening and clever).

Can you make a case of why progressive homosexuality union is the same as traditional heterosexual marriage in the long standing tradition?

.
 

PT

Off 'Motherfuckin' Topic Elite
Shadowfax said:
crap.


tell my aunt & uncle that...who got married years ago, but turned out not to be able to get kids...not by their choice



hahaha :D right. of course the kids will be more open minded than kids raised by parents who detest gay people, but it doesn't mean they'll turn out gay as well. that's a character/sexuality thing.



erm. right?



see answer to question #4...

rest of the statements..not even going to bother to reply to them. this should belong in the entertainment forum. "best thing on the subject yet" doesn't really describe it...does it?

most retarded, out-of-the-world, short-sighted point of view comes more close to it.
people who take this kind of crap seriously, usually give me a good laugh...
Sarcasm, Shadow. Say it with me here, it's Sarcasm.
 

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Remember the young man who was beaten to death in Montana a few years back for being gay? One of the thugs who assaulted him was raised by a lesbian couple. So much for your 'tolerance' theory...
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
source


Just FYI. They fought for the right to marry. And then wanted a divorce within 5 days. Explain to me again why we're supposed to change a 5000 year old definition of marriage.
 

Rose

New Member
ResearchMonkey said:

3. Obviously, gay parents will have far greater chances of rearing a fucked up kid since an infant mostly runs on primordial instincts. Like a cat that suck or your earlobe is cute, it’s an emotionally fucked up cat.
3. Obviously. :rolleyes:


4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since liberals have already taken away some of the strengths and commitments of marriage such as easy divorces and the MTV consequences free lifestyle.

4. Sorry, but no. Gay marriage won't make straight marriage less meaningful. Unless you're a really insecure straight married person, I suppose. This logic makes no sense.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and is applied equally to all that meet the socially accepted definition of marriage no matter their race or natural place in this world.
5. So everyone is equal as long as you're just like me (you, whatever)? Natural place in this world? Let's not talk about the caste system in some country(ies) that won't allow 'lower-class' citizens to marry 'upper class' citizens. So if you mean to restrict this to just America, fine, but don't go bringing in the whole world.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because liberal judicial legislation is circumventing the grand design of our great nation of the people, for the people and by the people.

6. So you're agreeing that the courts and government has no right to interfere with gay marriage, including prohibiting homosexual marriage by amending local, state, and federal constitutions, laws, etc?


7. Gay marriage is not supported by the free democratic society in which we live and therefore the people should decide as the see it to be.
7. It seems that if there's such a fuss, then gay marriage IS supported by the free democratic society in which we live, just not by everyone.


9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People will demand to marry children, siblings, and dead people.

9. Um, no. Homosexuality might open the door to 'crazy behaviour', but marriage will not. And in case you don't know - France already has a law which allows living people to marry the dead. I believe about 50-100 people have taken advantage of this law.

11. Gay marriage will further the degradation of the foundation of our society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and was a stronger institution before the weak and selfish individuals had to find excuses to wriggle out of their liberally applied choices. We wouldn’t be in this mess if it weren’t for the weak of mind. Cars are a tool; marriage is an institutional tradition.
11. Gay marriage will further the degradation of the foundation of our society? Does anyone else find this as laughable as I do? Seriously. A lot of things contribute to the degradation of the foundation of our society, but I doubt allow homosexual couples to marry will hardly be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "different but equal" institution is always constitutional. Especially when it is a behavioral act rather than the results of a biological union and the continuation of a family line that contributes to the human race.
12. "different but equal" is the same as "separate but equal", no? And this is always constitutional? Get those damn'd black people back in their own schools, own busses, and own watering holes. Because it's obviously constitutional this way and heaven forbid we mix races less we degrade our society even more. :rolleyes:

Just because we accept the homosexual lifestyle that does not mean we validate or welcome the behaviors as being a positive contributor to the future of mankind.
Just because we accept the homosexual lifestyle that does not mean we must shun them as lesser beings than the Hetero-Supremacists.
 

Thulsa Doom

New Member
ResearchMonkey said:
HaHa! I love your attack of the presenter rather then address the issue. It’s so simpleton to attack with out shedding a single ray of light.

well if you like I can go line by line and cut your post to shreads. but as I said I began to doubt as I read through it that you were being serious. Now how uncivil of me would it have been if I had jumped all over you when you were just playing lets go overboard to make a point.

Whereas the original post was full of nonsensical comparisons

“Obviously, gay parents will have far greater chances of rearing a fucked up kid since an infant mostly runs on primordial instincts. Like a cat that suck or your earlobe is cute, it’s an emotionally fucked up cat.”

:confused:

Can you make a case of why progressive homosexuality union is the same as traditional heterosexual marriage in the long standing tradition?
.

I don’t need to. Can you make a case of why homosexuals should NOT be allowed to do what heterosexuals are allowed to do simply on the basis of their sexual persuasion? Can you make a case for why you think the government should be dictating which committed willing adults can marry which other committed willing adults? Can you make the case for why a fundamentally religious notion should be the basis for legal precedent that allows for discrimination against a group of people? You are the one attempting to impose your beliefs on others proactively. Its up to YOU to justify this action. Not me to justify why gays shouldn’t have to be a victim of it.
 

Sharky

New Member
Thulsa Doom said:
Can you make a case of why homosexuals should NOT be allowed to do what heterosexuals are allowed to do simply on the basis of their sexual persuasion?
He already did.

Can you make a case for why you think the government should be dictating which committed willing adults can marry which other committed willing adults? Can you make the case for why a fundamentally religious notion should be the basis for legal precedent that allows for discrimination against a group of people? You are the one attempting to impose your beliefs on others proactively. Its up to YOU to justify this action. Not me to justify why gays shouldn’t have to be a victim of it.
The government isn't dictating anything. The People have voted in a referendum. And I fail to see where homosexuals are "victims" of anything.


It all fits in with the Days of Bread and Circuses.

:shrug:
 

chcr

Too cute for words
People are afraid of things that are different. I think they're misguided in this instance, but if they pass the referendum you only have two choices (legally). Abide by it or move. Government "by the people" is easy when you agree with the majority.
 

Thulsa Doom

New Member
Sharky said:
He already did.

must have missed it. can he do it again?

The government isn't dictating anything. The People have voted in a referendum.

So if "the people" vote Jim Crow laws back into existance then its ok?

And I fail to see where homosexuals are "victims" of anything.

So if I arbitrarily decide (along with the majority of "the people") that you personally should not be allowed to marry the willing legal adult you love then youre not a victim of my attempt to control your behavior? Behavior that does no harm to you or others? How bout if I decide I can declare null and void any marriage you may already have partaken in simply because I dont like who you married? Still not a victim? *waiting for technical loophole argument*

As for homosexual marriage being the cause of the end of civilization as we know it, as patently ridiculous as this old argument is, its also quite irrelevant. You simply cannot create laws that dont allow one group to do what another group can do simply because you associate that one group with immorality (as defined by religion to boot).
 
Top