Gay Marriage Stuff

RBBailey

Well-known member
Jul 26, 2004
6,758
3
Oregon
www.flickr.com
Here is the thing about the gay marriage thing.

I've stated, and will again, no one can tell you what to do with your private life. No one should be kept from having the same rights as any one else as a couple.

The problem I have with gay marriage is that it isn't marriage. They are calling it marriage as a purposeful slap in the face to tradition. It isn't marriage. Marriage is man and woman. Call it whatever else you want, but don't call it marriage. And stop calling him your wife (yes, it is happening) you are just making my point more valid -- you are simply hijacking the terms for the express purpose of making a political statement and for sticking it to the traditional social norms.

Basically, it would be the same if the courts started making it a law to call all Rovers "Jeeps". Not to make a gay joke out of a Jeep, but that's the way I see it. Marriage is marriage, it isn't some made up legal document for political purposes.

When it comes to the right and wrong of the gay lifestyle. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's wrong. And so is being a cheat and an idiot and all the other crap humans do -- so what. It isn't natural, there is absolutely no way you can convince me otherwise -- our society as a whole would not exist if homo was natural... just think about it for a second....... no babies, no population, no history.... homo is not natural, it is a deviation from the natural way of doing things whether you were "born" that way or grew up that way, or became that way does not change that one fact, that it is not natural, neither evolution nor creation happen that way.

If you are gay, so what if I think it's a sin, I'm a crappy person too, I'm not saying you are any less of a person, or of any less value. Just please stop forcing your views on me. It's like being half way through a basketball game and having a 3rd team come in and start saying their rights are being violated by not being able to play soccer with us, on the same court, at the same time.
 

Roverlady

Well-known member
Apr 20, 2004
7,825
0
45
Shenandoah valley
Did you just decide today that you needed to re-visit this topic, start a new thread and tell everyone your opinion for no apparent reason?
 

marc olivares

Well-known member
Apr 20, 2004
3,535
0
i'm not gay and i dont think your a crappy person....but

i would like to see the incessant whining stop.

dont you get tired of constantly griping?
i know i get tired of your use of DWEB as your personal "venting" spot...
 

Roverlady

Well-known member
Apr 20, 2004
7,825
0
45
Shenandoah valley
I do like all the analogy attempts though...from Jeeps to Basketball games.

Ben, stick to talking about trucks and history maybe! ;)

And please tell me you don't teach "...our society as a whole would not exist if homo was natural.." to your schoolkids.
 

cptyarderho

Well-known member
Apr 23, 2004
2,904
0
Va
Roverlady said:
Did you just decide today that you needed to re-visit this topic, start a new thread and tell everyone your opinion for no apparent reason?


ditto. give it a rest, this has been beaten to death. I may marry a man this weekend just for fun now.:bigok:
 

cptyarderho

Well-known member
Apr 23, 2004
2,904
0
Va
just had a thought. How many gay couples do you know? Any? what do they say about it? If you tell me you do not have any gay friends, well... someone is not telling you the truth.:rolleyes:
 

garrett

Well-known member
Jun 18, 2004
10,931
5
53
Middleburg, VA
www.blackdogmobility.com
Yeh I always heard "liberals" were whiney little bitches, but damn man. The "right wing" here on Dweb cries more than anyone.

I trained a guy this weekend that had stainless steel D shackles hanging from every corner of his Jeep and he was less whiney.
 

gugubica

Well-known member
Dec 8, 2006
641
0
Middle O' Missouri
I am (for the most part) a member of that "right wing." Just so you know, I think it is cool they can get married. Good for them. It is not expressly forbidden in the Constitution, so I don't think the government has any business telling people who can or can not get married.

The problem lies in the fact that marrage has become a civic rite instead of a religious one. The second the government started controling it (issueing licences, taxation catagories,etc.) it became a civic ordeal. And, as stated, they should have no business denying any individual or group said rite (pun intended).

I don't partisipate in the lifestyle, but really, I don't care. It does not make them less of a person. Oh, and if anyone is standing in line in CA, congratulations!
 

maxyedor

Well-known member
May 9, 2006
1,353
0
Really, you have nothing better to worry about than terminology? "A rose by any other name would smell so sweet", if a contrived definition bestowed upon a certain grouping of letters defines your relationship with your wife, you should probably seek counseling. I think half the reason gay people want to get married is to piss of the right wing that's so against it, and won't own up to it, they hide behind the "sanctity of marriage" and how gay marriage will be the end of the western world, get over it and quit you bitching.
 

Blue

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2004
10,081
887
AZ
Did you see those two old bags that just got married up in San Fran? That's some funny shit to have as the headliner for the gay marriage movement!
 

Bannon88

Well-known member
Nov 3, 2004
1,967
0
50
Columbia, IL
Come on.

This is all you got......

Perhaps we should come up with a new word for real marriages, I mean over 50% end now in divorce, so perhaps the term "marriage" needs and overhaul.

Why do you care is homos and lesbos use your hetero word to describe their relationship. They can have it, big deal.

Give them a few years of being married and the rates of divorce in the gay world will soon rival the divorce rates of traditional marriages. What did it accomplish? They are left with dealing with a whole new legal world of gay divorce, who wins......like always the Lawyers.

It's not like the term marriage is copyrighted by heterosexuals, is it?

I didn't get the memo if it is.
 

jhmover

Well-known member
Apr 23, 2004
5,571
3
California
Damn! This is on TV and radio 24x7 this week, now I have to be bombarded on Dweb, too? Ack! Who gives a shit!!!!!
 

DiscoJen

Well-known member
Aug 27, 2004
3,652
0
54
The Lou!
For crying out loud, give it a fucking rest already you crybaby. No one is making you gay. This has been discussed more than enough already thank you very much. It IS the general forum and you can talk about what ever you want to talk about...but it's BEEN talked about it. It's talked about at least once a year since I've been here, and it's always brought up when it time to vote. I think we have it all covered and we all know where everyone stands and we all still get along regardless of our differences of opinion.

Or are you just trying to go out of your way to get a rise outta me since it didn't work the last time? Or the time before. Or even the time before that...

Yeah, last time I heard, judgement is also a sin...See ya in hell I guess.
 

nosivad_bor

Well-known member
Mar 27, 2004
6,061
64
Pittsburgh, PA
Hey Ben, people had the similar complaints about 50 or so years ago when there were still laws on the books in many states prohibiting interracial marriage. You see how silly that thought is after a little time passes? Same with this gay marriage thing.
 

Durda

Well-known member
Feb 20, 2007
169
0
AZ
Lincoln was fond of asking rhetorically, 'If you called a dog's tail a leg; how many legs would it have?' The answer of course is four. 'If you call it a leg, that doesn?t make it so.'

Unfortunately using another term, for homosexual unions is insufficient to accomplish the goals of those 'getting married' in California. They want their lifestyle to be endorsed by the government and accepted by society.

The control of language in a debate is essential to winning it. In a debate that might well last for generations the very first step is to set the language within society for you side to prevail. For instance when was the last time you heard the term 'swamp' or 'jungle'? Those terms conjure up images of festering decay, disease, danger...and are quite pass?. Now we use the terms 'wetland' and 'rain forest'. The change to more positive terms was not by accident. And it worked...it is now a serious felony (several actually) to disrupt wetlands in ways that past generations would deem laudable.

Another example is the 'Patriot Act' :patriot: how could anyone be against it? It's the freaking P-a-t-r-i-o-t Act! The Act of course has nothing to do with patriots but those who wrote the law have a formidable weapon to defend their position by virtue of its name alone.

The homosexual agenda is to bring their lifestyle into the mainstream, and now they have the government declaring that their lifestyle is socially equivalent to anyone else?s. That is a powerful tool when you wish to bend and mold society.
 

MarkP

Well-known member
Apr 23, 2004
6,672
0
Colorado
Durda said:
Lincoln was fond of asking rhetorically, 'If you called a dog's tail a leg; how many legs would it have?' The answer of course is four. 'If you call it a leg, that doesn’t make it so.'

Unfortunately using another term, for homosexual unions is insufficient to accomplish the goals of those 'getting married' in California. They want their lifestyle to be endorsed by the government and accepted by society.

The control of language in a debate is essential to winning it. In a debate that might well last for generations the very first step is to set the language within society for you side to prevail. For instance when was the last time you heard the term 'swamp' or 'jungle'? Those terms conjure up images of festering decay, disease, danger...and are quite pass?. Now we use the terms 'wetland' and 'rain forest'. The change to more positive terms was not by accident. And it worked...it is now a serious felony (several actually) to disrupt wetlands in ways that past generations would deem laudable.

Another example is the 'Patriot Act' :patriot: how could anyone be against it? It's the freaking P-a-t-r-i-o-t Act! The Act of course has nothing to do with patriots but those who wrote the law have a formidable weapon to defend their position by virtue of its name alone.

The homosexual agenda is to bring their lifestyle into the mainstream, and now they have the government declaring that their lifestyle is socially equivalent to anyone else’s. That is a powerful tool when you wish to bend and mold society.


Very well stated. Once the 'language' is managed and the laws changed, it is now the responsibility of the government to drive the particular agenda into all areas of society, to include education. Obviously the 'government' is FOR the people and anyone opposing the agenda is AGAINST the people. Those that opt out of public school are seen to opt out of the agenda, hence homeschool becomes unacceptable. The slippery slope of 'government approval'.