A Defense of Marriage/Gay Rights Amendment

[Rooster]

"Yes, but I'm talking about wiring in the brain. If you're repulsed by something it isn't viable to go against that repulsion and to ask for homosexuals not to act on urges that do not harm others is unreasonable."

Who do necropheliacs hurt? Who do those interested in beastiality hurt? Who does polygamy hurt? Our understanding of depression and other mental ailments has proven that most malladies are the result of a chemical imbalance. Instead of fixing the problem, our society tells us we must accept them, and have gone so far as to pander to their whims. The simple fact is that there is something wrong with deviants. Instead of fixing the problem, our society has tried to justify their existance.

I've often been labled as a homophobe, or a person who hates homosexuals. I am neither afraid of them, nor hate them. I feel bad for them. Just as bas as I feel for anyone with clinical depression, multiple personalities, or bi-polar disorder.

[brandnewcadillac]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
Uhh, no I wouldn't have.

God damn, it's like CB reincarnate.

The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a sacred tradition which should not be tampered with unless willed by the masses, which, at the moment, is not.

Also, nowhere in the constitution does it say that everyone has the right to marry, whereas the other two cases you brought up are.

My parents are divocred, a good friend of mine will, hopefully, soon be too.

yes, we know the definition.
we are discussing whether that definition should be changed.
you can quote websters all you want, but that isnt a legitimate argument why we shouldnt change that definition.

[brandnewcadillac]

Originally posted by shartley

they are being denied the ability to marry their partners who they are in love with on the sole basis of gender. it is a gender issue. yes, a man has the right to marry a woman and vice versa, but the government should not be able to step in between two loving partners because of their sex.

[71 LS6]

^^ Read his first ^^

they are being denied the ability to marry their partners who they are in love with on the sole basis of number. it is a number issue. yes, a man has the right to marry a woman and vice versa, but the government should not be able to step in between loving partners because of their number.

Your argument does work both ways.

what carnifex would have said 200 years ago:

"What it boils down to is that negroes are salves and inferior to us whites. Always has been, and hopefully, always will be.

what carnifex would have said 100 years ago:

"What it boils down to is that women are housewives. Always has been, and hopefully, always will be.

what carnifex would have said 50 years ago:

"What it boils down to is that divorce should be illegal. Marriage is sacred. Always has been, and hopefully, always will be."

What Carnifex will say in 50 years if gay marriage is made legal:

"What it boils down to is that marriage is between two people, always has been, always will be.

What you will say:

"That's a definition, not an argument. We want to change the definition to exclude numbers."

50 years later:

Carnifex: "What it boils down to, is marriage is for people, always has been, always will be."

Your response:

"That's a definition, not an argument. We want to change the definition to incorporate animals."

[-Carnifex-]

Other guy who's name isn't worth typing out: If you don't see what I've been saying as an arguement then obviously you have no reverence for the institution. The sacred institution should not be altered by a minority which initially scoffed it.

Shartley: I'm serious Shartley, the lack of education, i.e. use of condoms, on sex is what causes the spread of STDs in this country.


Rooster: That's certainly a valid aruguement. I'll have to change the arguement to consent and threat to others.

Poligamy, hurts society.

Bestiality, can hurt the animal, also consent cannot be given (by the animal).

Necrophilia, if consent is given, then there's no real claim except that it's icky.

[-Carnifex-]

It says nowhere in the constitution that everyone has the right to marry. I agree that they deserve a civil union which offers the same benefits, but they do not deserve marriage, soley because of what marriage is and has been for a very long time.

If you can show me where, in the constitution, it say that everyone has the right to marry, please, show me and you'll win.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by brandnewcadillac


dude, what's your point?
you complain that gays can't have stable relationships, and yet when they want to (through marriage), you want to deny them the ability to.

My point is clear, and your obviously missing it.

Marriage is the final step that stable and loving couples take in order to raise children. It is not designed to make a relationship stable.

That's what the gay community wants marraige to do, to strongarm stability into unstable relationships. They want marriage to do something that it frankly, isn't designed to do.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
If it's beyond their control you shouldn't use it as an arguement. It hurts the cause.

That's a nonsense thing to say. That's like saying that someone that's driven to kill because of a mental imbalance should be left alone because it's beyond his control.

[-Carnifex-]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


That's a nonsense thing to say. That's like saying that someone that's driven to kill because of a mental imbalance should be left alone because it's beyond his control.

Homosexuality doesn't kill.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by brandnewcadillac
but the issue remains that the government should not come in between two loving people on the basis of gender. this case can not be made for polygamists.

wait a minute. The government is getting between two loving people now? That's just not true. There's a big difference between not supporting gay marriage and actually preventing gay cohabitation. And nobody )except the extremists) is doing that.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by brandnewcadillac
i went back over it and it remains a bad argument.
it is not for you to judge why gays want marriage.
totally irrelevant argument either way you look at it.

No it isn't, not even remotely. Marriage was designed for one specific purpose and one purpose only. Gays aren't going to use it for that purpose (becaues they really can't). They want it to do something else entirely, that it isn't meant for. Therefore, no cookies for them.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CaptaiN_JacK
what carnifex would have said 200 years ago:

"What it boils down to is that negroes are salves and inferior to us whites. Always has been, and hopefully, always will be.

I doubt it, because that is patently untrue. Now, if slavery had existed in that form since the beginning of modern wester civilization he would have a point in saying that. But that's not how it happened. Marriage has been a man and a woman since the dawn of western civilization.

what carnifex would have said 100 years ago:

"What it boils down to is that women are housewives. Always has been, and hopefully, always will be.

And that also would be completely untrue. True that the modern woman has more independence and rights then ever in the past (except maybe in certain matriarchal societies), but that was a process that slowly evolved over thousands of years. Woman slowly and surely moved out of that traditional role for centuries. Why, women weren't originally involved in wars in any sense of the word, but during the American revolution they served as nurses and other non combat functions in the armed forces. Its not like women were considered sub-standard piles of waste that could be beaten with sticks whenever we wanted prior to women's suffarage. They did have less rights, but they were't exactly beaten to death simply for existing.

what carnifex would have said 50 years ago:

"What it boils down to is that divorce should be illegal. Marriage is sacred. Always has been, and hopefully, always will be."

Except that too is a false statement. Divorce was recognized by the church for centuries, although largely frowned upon.

Its certainly more common now, but look at where that got us. The family has eroded substantially since divorce became common. The impact on the children of this country has been very significant.

its impossible for social norms to remain unchanged in some way. all it takes is someone blind and deaf to not undestand that.

I still love the way people talk about marriage like its just a social norm, the way walking on the right side of the street is a social norm. It is the most basic and most fundamental institution in the civilized world, recognized in every culture to have ever lived. It's not like "take you shoes off in someone's home". Its a fundamental core belief that frankly should not be destroyed because some people don't like being different.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


My point is clear, and your obviously missing it.

Marriage is the final step that stable and loving couples take in order to raise children. It is not designed to make a relationship stable.

That's what the gay community wants marraige to do, to strongarm stability into unstable relationships. They want marriage to do something that it frankly, isn't designed to do.

But what if they want to adopt? And they can adopt legally in some states.

And what about married couples without children, why would they get married?

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ShortStrokeTX
I know for a fact that polygamy would not be started up again by the church of latter day saints because, after having been to the church quite a few times, that the practice of polygamy is condoned by 99% of the church. And also the big boss of the church says Polygamy isn't a good thing so the rest of the church will follow that.

condoning it means they approve of it.

And that's what they say now, when it isn't legal. How does anyone know for a fact what will or won't happen if it suddenly wasn't illegal anymore.

Sorry about bringing up something from the last page but it really annoys me when people are ignorant of another religion so much that they would spew BS like that.

I love when people just start this nonsense too. "He disagrees with me, and since I know everything that makes him ignorant".

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-


Homosexuality doesn't kill.

True, but the point is, just because you can't help yourself doesn't make it ok.