Gay Marriage.

Post Reply New Topic

It doesn't. People can get married without having sex at all.
Plenty of infertile people and old people also get married. As do many couples who simply have no intention of ever getting married? Why should these people be allowed to, yet two men or two women cannot, because they will not reproduce?

Well, it’s clearly easier to imagine something I “might” say and respond to that, rather than respond to what I’ve actually said.



I imagine it is boring for you, because you already know the correct answer …



… and there it is. I think you have a very simplistic view.

I’ll ask you a question Pat Buchanan once asked David Brinkley. If America were to take in a million immigrants and put them up in Virginia, and it had the choice between a million Englishmen and a million Zulus, which group would be easier to assimilate and would cause less problems for the people of Virginia?

And, to Griff, you’re incorrect. Before the 1965 Immigration Act, most Americans understood that the culture of America was a specifically European culture.



If anyone imagines that offends me, they’re mistaken. I’m not a practising Christian.
I specified white, Christian ancestry to differentiate from white, Jewish or white, Muslim ancestry.

Anyway, these days we have a new religion – political correctness. You can’t disprove the existence of God, but these days you’re supposed to believe things that are demonstrably untrue, such as that men are no different to women, that the races are all the same, and that homosexual partnerships are really no different to heterosexual ones.

By the way, did you know that in the US if a hispanic person commits a crime, they’re “white”, but if they’re the victim of a crime, they’re “hispanic”. But that’s another story.

That may have been true in the past, but out here in the real world that hasn't been true for a very long time. Your argument could also be used to support the idea that divorce should be illegal, since allowing a couple with children to divorce would mean that the children would no longer be brought up by both biological parents. Or worse, a divorced person with children could remarry, resulting in a "blended family" in which a child was being brought up by one biological parent and one parent to whom they are unrelated.

When the divorce laws were changed so that it was easier to get a divorce, there were a lot of protests by religious groups and social conservatives. And they used the same kind of arguments that those who oppose gay marriage have come up with. The key difference here is that allowing a same-sex marriage will have no effect on more traditional opposite-sex marriages (which is not the case with allowing divorce).

Marriage is a partnership between two people, to announce that they have formed a pair bond. Whether that bond will or won't produce children is irrelevant.

If it comes to unawnsered questions, somebody also commented on the sterile couples.

Yes, if marriage is for the purpose of procreation, then sterile couples should not be allowed to get married.

neither. the englishmen would be beaten up and called fags and the zulus would be discriminated against and called n****rs. they're in virginia, afterall.


and as far as assimilation goes...i'd dare to say the zulu. they face more struggle to get here and have more respect and desire to be a part of this country than the englishmen who are moving from an already free society of wealth to another one.


i love meeting africans who have just immigrated here...they're so refreshing and almost always give me a positive feel for immigration. the funny thing is a lot of them hold it more sacred that many mexicans who have moved here and had an easy time just crossing the border. to that extent, i think illegals should be deported and strictly enforced...but at the same time, those who work hard and truely want to be assimilated into the country deserve to be here.


and yes, your statement is racist BS. stop listening to that nazi buchanan and grow a brain.

1. all the races are the same. there's no scientific evidence to prove otherwise...there's sociological differences but that mostly goes back to institutionalized racism and a very long history of racism.

2. homosexual partners aren't really different than heterosexual partners.

3. you're so caught up in being anti-politically correct that you give up being empirically correct in the process....which makes pretty damned stupid. quite the posturing and read a book. considering your beliefs on point 1 with race, look up and read the mismeasure of man by stephen jay gould....you need to.




which is why hatecrime laws are mostly BS.

In the South Park episode "Cartman's Silly Hate Crime 2000", Cartman throws a rock at Token, a black classmate, and is charged with a Hate Crime... and gets convicted. The judge, when he finds Cartman guilty, says:

"I am making an example of you, to send a message out to people everywhere: that if you want to hurt another human being, you'd better make damn sure they're the same color as you are!"

The main problem Christians have with gay marriage that they never want to admit directly is that in their view, marriage isn't about love. It's about control. I.E., male dominance, female submission. Gay marriage doesn't sit well with Christian conservatives, because how can it be called a proper marriage without a loyal housewife who bakes pies, vacuums carpets, and sucks her husband's cock on command?

"Let a wife submit to her husband as her husband has submitted to God," isn't that how it goes?

well i asked a christian about it in person and they said they don't want their tax dollars going towards supporting what they see as a sinful lifestyle. i replied "well i don't want my tax dollars going towards religious organizations...should i look to ban religion?" and they just looked at me like i was crazy.


but then again, we live in a country that believes "one nation under god" belongs in the pledge and it's an affront against the country and history to remove it....when in actuality the phrase was put into the pledge in 1957 and most people are just too ignorant to know any better because they were either born right around the time of the change or afterwards and haven't known any different. which, again, is why history is so important. because without it, people wander around beating their chests like they're right but have no clue about what really went on and the real context of much of what constitutes our world today.

Indigenous northern Europeans have light coloured skin and sub-saharan Africans dark skin. That is just one of many differences between groups of people that have lived geographically separated from each other for significant periods of time (thousands of years). How do you account for the difference in skin colour if "races are all the same"?

Clearly your assertion is absurd. There's plenty of scientific evidence that contradicts it. The skin colour example with regard to genetics is just one.

I haven't time to post too much on this, but I will say that your response to codarac is rather poor. Why can't you address the individual points he's raised? As for suggesting he should "read a book" it's quite clear from this thread that he's read significantly more of them than you have.

Anyway, if you wish to redeem yourself why don't you try putting-together a lucid answer to the first paragraph of this post without directing the words "racist", "bigot" or "BS" at me? That should be a challenge!

the implications of saying that the races are not equal was an obvious implication that not all races are equal mentally and that whites are smarter than black to put it in its most base form. this was also implied earlier when he talked about englishmen migrating vs zulu. an obvious white peoples vs black peoples comparison that is made by someone who obviously has a racial agenda beyond simply "they have a different color skin and many black people in america have problems with retaining sodium because the africans who survived the boat trips over to america were the ones who could retain sodium for large amounts of time which leads to such problems as high blood pressure, heart attack and early death." the implication was obviously that they are not as mentally capable as whites are and that is simply racist BS and is entirely unfounded.

the book i recommended goes to great lengths to show how measuring intelligence has been used and skewed in various racist ways and that when everything breaks down, there is little to no difference and most differences come from sociological differences rather than genetic differences.


now if codarac was being so entirely basic and simplistic to think that "all women are equal to men" means that they have the exact same cognitive process and hormonal and emotional basis and men....then that's pretty damned stupid. same with if he thinks that "all races are the same" means that we all have the same pigmentation and same level of tolerance to various diseases and dietary products....that's still extremely stupid and not worth making a statement over. not to mention is basically baiting such a response as i had given. and i can back up my responses. how about you back up how women and blacks aren't equal to white men.

i can't even fathom how one might consider homosexual relationships different than heterosexual ones...but then again, i've actually had gay friends and i know that most gay people are pretty laid back and regular people with regular relationships. so i gotta call bigotry on this one until new evidence is presented otherwise and put under the microscope.

give me a reply that isn't BS and i'll concede to not call you and codarac racists nor use the terms bigot or BS in my responses. you ask me for a lucid response without those words but all you give me is a garbage response...i won't respond favorably to that.


oh yeah....and you said how blacks aren't the same as white people....how about how homosexual relationships aren't equal to heterosexual? can you weasel your way out of that one with some garbage literal translation of what's written? because if your response is that it's two men and two women...that's no basis for declaring the relationships different because relationships are based off of the dynamics between two people and their relationships with each other. whether the sex is homosexual or heterosexual never almost never has any bearing on that.

Even ignoring the phrase "one nation under God," the pledge of allegiance should be condemned as unpatriotic. I mean, teaching a bunch of kids to recite the same thing in unison when they don't even understand half of what they're saying isn't celebrating liberty. It's borderline fascism.

Well, "little", is rather subjective. Its use does, however, still recognise there is a difference. You see, even you accept that there are genetic differences, and that they manifest themselves in obvious physical ways such as skin colour and build. It's not a huge leap of imagination to move on from that and accept that there are cognitive differences. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that. Now, I can understand you Yanks getting all worked-up over this, especially due to the appalling way you've treated black people in your country up until fairly recently. But you're going to have to get over your guilty conscience sooner or later and accept that recognising there are differences does not justify discrimination based on those differences, unless those differences affect how a person can perform in their work, for example.




Depends how you define "equal". Clearly there's a correlation between being male and muscle volume, weight and height. Similarly, there's a correlation between being of sub-saharan African ancestry and skin colour and height. Evidence points to IQ being correlated with race, too. Why shouldn't it be? It would seem rather odd if it wasn't, wouldn't it, considering the many other differences that can be correlated with race?




Well, I have a female friend who's bisexual, but I can still see there are obvious differences.




You're letting yourself down again, old chap!

dude not only dose that not make sense but its stupid, why would riping a child out of its culture and familiar surroundings d it any good?



i believe that creation was random chance, nature isnt a thing its survival, eco systems dont survive out of mutual interest, nature is chance and survival


QFT


personally i couldnt care less im not involved in a religion or culture that forbids it, and i dont wanna do it ............ i dont know if this has come up but where i am (i dont know if its state or federal) but there is a register that gives couples all the legal rights of marriage and stayed out of the religious s**t by not calling it marriage, i like that one

what ive never understood is why a number makes anyone better than a number, a friend of mine allwase bragged abut his IQ but recently dropped out of high school and is remembered as a complete idiot