Five reasons why gay marriage is a basic, conservative value

page: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 23 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


For an apparently heterosexual male, you seem to be heavily invested in the gay marriage issue, ollncasino. Since there are many gay and lesbian couples who have already gotten "married" in a sense, can you please outline for me here exactly what the consequences of that have been for you? In your own time.




posted on May, 23 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
You know the stereotype, those who are most vocally against something harbor some desire for it.


You are vocally against marriage retaining its tradtional meaning.

Using your own line of reasoning, those who are most vocally against tradtional marriage harbor some desire for it.

So according to your own logic (twisted with the purpose of developing a clumsy ad hominem attack) you actually support tradtional marriage.

Welcome on board.




Did you miss the question about George Washington's wife's name? And Lincoln's? What did they do for the country? Hate for you to miss that one as I know it's very important to you.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Evansr
You know what the problem is with marojity deciding this kind of issues?
Black slaves and no rights for women..yeah, i went there.


Gays' already have equal legal rights in the UK with civil partnerships.

That has not stopped them from agitating for the legal meaning of the word marriage to be changed.

Same-sex couples may choose to have a civil partnership but no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.


"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

Marriage, civil union, the old ball and chain. No matter what, it means the same thing. Why dicker with terms? Love is love, and if two people share it, it should be celebrated. And as a legal contractual agreement, should be legal and protected no matter who the two parties are.

/TOA



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
However my whole argument pales in comparison to another glaring reason, all human beings, from murderers to saints, are 100% equal, there is no group or individual who deserves anymore rights than any other individual or group and that NOT debatable.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But heterosexuals DO make a big deal out of their sexual preferences.

They talk about their spouses, have pictures hanging around... They procreate and brag about it. They flirt with members of the opposite sex, hold hands, hug and kiss in public. A female teacher tell her class about her husband, when she's getting married, etc. It's all very easy and acceptable in our society to flaunt our sexuality. As long as it's heterosexual.


If I was a golfer, I wouldn't expect people with no interest in golf to listen to me going on about it.

No one is interested in gays going on about being gay, unless they are gay.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But heterosexuals DO make a big deal out of their sexual preferences.

They talk about their spouses, have pictures hanging around... They procreate and brag about it. They flirt with members of the opposite sex, hold hands, hug and kiss in public. A female teacher tell her class about her husband, when she's getting married, etc. It's all very easy and acceptable in our society to flaunt our sexuality. As long as it's heterosexual.


If I was a golfer, I wouldn't expect people with no interest in golf to listen to me going on about it.

No one is interested in gays going on about being gay, unless they are gay.





Yet you expect those who are not homophobic like you are to listen to you go on for pages about your homophobia (that you wish to not refer to as homophobia, one of the most prominant symptoms). You've defeated your own argument on this one.

Also, if your little argument up there were true, golf would die out as nobody would ever discuss it, those with a love for golf who are empty and alone in the world of sports would go their entire life not knowing the joy of teeing up their ball and driving it down the fairway just because those who actually play golf aren't allowed to discuss it in public. The poor golf lover to be would go through life with a void, never knowing there was a sport out there just for him, that he could love and participate in. Oh, if only there was an outdoor sport where walking, skill in swinging a club, using reasoning to put a tiny ball into a cup and the joy that comes from it existed... but alas, I cannot rename rugby as "football" or something like that, it would be sacrilege!
edit on 23-5-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amadeo
For an apparently heterosexual male, you seem to be heavily invested in the gay marriage issue, ollncasino. Since there are many gay and lesbian couples who have already gotten "married" in a sense, can you please outline for me here exactly what the consequences of that have been for you? In your own time.


Gays want to redefine marriage to include homosexual unions yet any hetrosexual who opposes that is "heavily invested in the gay marriage issue... for an apparently heterosexual male".

You aren't gay by any chance?


Legal union between a man and a women = marriage

Legal union between two men (or between two women for the pedantic fowls on this board) = a civil union

Why do gays need to hijack the word 'marriage' and change it in a very legal sense, when they already have all of the rights (in the UK at least) of a married couple via a civil union?

In your own time.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


well that's where your wrong, I know plenty of people who aren't gay who are utterly obsessed with the topic and even 'anti-gay' sorts have been known to ask surprisingly invasive questions of homosexuals about their lifestyles



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 



Originally posted by ollncasino
If I was a golfer, I wouldn't expect people with no interest in golf to listen to me going on about it.

No one is interested in gays going on about being gay, unless they are gay.


You don't speak for everyone. People are different. I happen to like hearing about love and relationships, whether they're gay or not. If YOU aren't interested in something, then don't listen to it.


I don't like to see fat people in shorts, but if I do, it's MY responsibility to turn away, not to make a law against it.

This whole idea of making laws to control the behavior of others so YOU won't be offended has really gotten out of hand. If you're offended, deal with it like a man instead of calling on the government to make you feel better. The government isn't there to make laws so that you won't have to see and hear anything you consider offensive. Learn how to deal with your prejudices instead of asking the government to control the behavior of those who offend you.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Yet you expect those who are not homophobic like you are to listen to you go on for pages about your homophobia (that you wish to not refer to as homophobia, one of the most prominant symptoms). You've defeated your own argument on this one.


Enough of the ad hominem attacks twittie pie.

Being opposed to gays hijacking the word 'marriage' doesn't make a person homophobic.

The fact that you are now resorting to insults suggests that you are aware of the weakness of your own position.

You still haven't made a coherent argument why the traditional, legal and theological meaning of the word 'marriage' should be changed.


edit on 23-5-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amadeo
reply to post by ollncasino
 


For an apparently heterosexual male, you seem to be heavily invested in the gay marriage issue, ollncasino. Since there are many gay and lesbian couples who have already gotten "married" in a sense, can you please outline for me here exactly what the consequences of that have been for you? In your own time.


He's been asked this question before, and he always sidesteps it. I wonder if that's because.... there isn't really a good answer?



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You don't speak for everyone. People are different. I happen to like hearing about love and relationships, whether they're gay or not. If YOU aren't interested in something, then don't listen to it.


I don't like to see fat people in shorts, but if I do, it's MY responsibility to turn away, not to make a law against it.

This whole idea of making laws to control the behavior of others so YOU won't be offended has really gotten out of hand. The government isn't there to make laws so that you won't have to see and hear anything you consider offensive.

Learn how to deal with your prejudices instead of asking the government to control the behavior of those who offend you.


Two points.

It is impossible to debate with people who are pro gay marriage for long before they start making personal attacks.

It is ironic that you talk about not making laws but tunring away when in California, they introduced a bill that forced educators to teach children of all grades about gay accomplisments during 'gay month'.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Yes. I agree. We shouldn't let gays destroy the sanctity of marriage. Heterosexuals truly value and honour marriage - something "the gays" would never be able to do. The sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour Vegas marriage and the Kardashian’s 72-hour marriage will be broken if gays were allowed to marry.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Insults? Pointing out the progression of things isn't "insulting". Apparently we are getting closer to the crux of your issues as you are becoming quite defensive.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You don't speak for everyone. People are different. I happen to like hearing about love and relationships, whether they're gay or not. If YOU aren't interested in something, then don't listen to it.


I don't like to see fat people in shorts, but if I do, it's MY responsibility to turn away, not to make a law against it.

This whole idea of making laws to control the behavior of others so YOU won't be offended has really gotten out of hand. The government isn't there to make laws so that you won't have to see and hear anything you consider offensive.

Learn how to deal with your prejudices instead of asking the government to control the behavior of those who offend you.


Two points.

It is impossible to debate with people who are pro gay marriage for long before they start making personal attacks.

It is ironic that you talk about not making laws but tunring away when in California, they introduced a bill that forced educators to teach children of all grades about gay accomplisments during 'gay month'.



No one has made any personal attacks at all. If you see something as a personal attack, it's in your eyes, not in everyone else's. Just as your opinion about gay marriage is in your eyes, not in everyone else's.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gemwolf
Yes. I agree. We shouldn't let gays destroy the sanctity of marriage. Heterosexuals truly value and honour marriage - something "the gays" would never be able to do. The sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour Vegas marriage and the Kardashian’s 72-hour marriage will be broken if gays were allowed to marry.


Very witty!!!

Love the avatar too... my pooch doesn't smoke, but when walking around with pupperoni, looks very much like that!



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Insults? Pointing out the progression of things isn't "insulting". Apparently we are getting closer to the crux of your issues as you are becoming quite defensive.


Calling someone homophobic isn't an insult?

Please, try to debate and not get personally abusive.

The fact that you are resorting to insults does suggest that you are frustrated in some manner.

By the way. I am still waiting for a coherent reason why the tradtional, legal and theological meaning of the word marriage should be changed?



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gemwolf
Yes. I agree. We shouldn't let gays destroy the sanctity of marriage. Heterosexuals truly value and honour marriage - something "the gays" would never be able to do. The sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour Vegas marriage and the Kardashian’s 72-hour marriage will be broken if gays were allowed to marry.


Nice straw man argument there.

Don't they burn so well?



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Insults? Pointing out the progression of things isn't "insulting". Apparently we are getting closer to the crux of your issues as you are becoming quite defensive.


Calling someone homophobic isn't an insult?

Please, try to debate and not get personally abusive.

The fact that you are resorting to insults does suggest that you are frustrated in some manner.

By the way. I am still waiting for a coherent reason why the tradtional, legal and theological meaning of the word marriage should be changed?



Much less insulting than telling two homosexuals they aren't allowed to be "married".
It has been clearly explained to you by numerous posters that the "traditional, legal and theological meaning" of the word marriage is not what you interpret it to be and has changed numerous times over the years, even here in our own country concerning marriages between individuals of different races, but you choose to ignore that.
Ignoring the answers and not getting the answers are two very different things.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 



Originally posted by ollncasino
You still haven't made a coherent argument why the traditional, legal and theological meaning of the word 'marriage' should be changed.


Traditional, legal and theological marriage are already different from each other.

Traditional marriage covers many things. Arranged marriage, marriage for wealth (like cows and property), simple cohabitation. (Marriage hasn't always been a legal OR religious entity)

Theological marriage is a ceremony performed in association with religion or a church. (A civil marriage may or may not be included)

Legal marriage is the contract the state oversees between 2 willing participants. (A religious component may or may not be included).

Your assumption that they are all the same and all strictly defined is incorrect. But if you were to accept and realize that FACT, it would blow your position out of the water.





top topics
 
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join



 
$('#skin').click(function(){ window.location.href = "http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1008463/pg1"; });