Gay-Baiting Congress Puts on a Show This Week

[Eggs Mayonnaise]

Well, the ban on gay marriage isn't going to pass in Congress AGAIN, so this issue doesn't even have a proper majority opinion behind it.

 

[SSgt_Sniper]

He's got a point there. You had to have a minimum of so much land (I want to say it was ten acres or somesuch) to vote originally.

 

[Eggs Mayonnaise]

What's the point? That social justice takes time to be reflected in our laws? That's not arguing for a ban on gay marriage, that's arguing AGAINST it.

 

[SSgt_Sniper]

The larger point is that the larger the voting pool became, the worse the people running got. In other words, spreading out the vote helped us how? Not a politically correct way of looking at it, but it is true.


Back on point, there is a majority vote against gay marraige. Key point being the word. Most are like me, you want a legal union, have a legal union, but don't call it a marraige. THAT'S NOT WHAT IT IS.

 

[Eggs Mayonnaise]

But that's why this issue remains divisive: people are unnecessarily applying a religious definition to a word where its context is strictly legal.

Which is why opponents keep writing the bill as a ban on gay MARRIAGE rather than bothering to qualify the legal definition of a domestic partnership. It's meant to make people react emotionally to the issue rather than consider its legal ramifications.

 

[Astral]

What's the point? That social justice takes time to be reflected in our laws? That's not arguing for a ban on gay marriage, that's arguing AGAINST it.

You call it social justice and I call it destruction of our culture.

 

[Astral]

But that's why this issue remains divisive: people are unnecessarily applying a religious definition to a word where its context is strictly legal.

Which is why opponents keep writing the bill as a ban on gay MARRIAGE rather than bothering to qualify the legal definition of a domestic partnership. It's meant to make people react emotionally to the issue rather than consider its legal ramifications.

That is were you show your bung holed stupidity and ignorance! Marriage is a spiritual Union that just GETS legal recognition not the other way around retard! If the gubermint so chose to completely do away with marriage it still does not take away the spiritual meaning behind it!

Just because the law recongizes something does not mean its a product OF the law!

 

[SSgt_Sniper]

Legally speaking (and marriage started out as a LEGAL union, not a religious one) a marraige is one man and one woman. That's what it is. That's what it should be.


My whole point here is to point out that the Gay community is just as hung on the word as the straight community. It's more of the in-your-face attitude that backfires on them EVERY time. The radical fringe of the Gay community (the loudest part of the community as a whole) has decided to make it an attack on straights. They want that word, they want to slap Joe and Mary normal in the face, they want to take something of theirs (J&M) and make it their own.

While the main part of the community just sits and goes "I'd like to be able to visit my other at the hospital, or insure them, blah blah" stuff that people ultimately don't care about, it's the fringe that seems to run the movement, and I think hurts it on nothing more than the fact they are detirmined to shock and more or less assault middle america. Not thinking about the fact there's more middle america then radical gays.

 

[Eggs Mayonnaise]

Preserve your culture all you want. Churches can still refuse to perform gay ceremonies all they want, they wouldn't be forced to change.

That's not what this law is about. This law is about denying rights to some citizens based on bias.

 

[Astral]

Legally speaking (and marriage started out as a LEGAL union, not a religious one) a marraige is one man and one woman. That's what it is. That's what it should be.


My whole point here is to point out that the Gay community is just as hung on the word as the straight community. It's more of the in-your-face attitude that backfires on them EVERY time. The radical fringe of the Gay community (the loudest part of the community as a whole) has decided to make it an attack on straights. They want that word, they want to slap Joe and Mary normal in the face, they want to take something of theirs (J&M) and make it their own.

While the main part of the community just sits and goes "I'd like to be able to visit my other at the hospital, or insure them, blah blah" stuff that people ultimately don't care about, it's the fringe that seems to run the movement, and I think hurts it on nothing more than the fact they are detirmined to shock and more or less assault middle america. Not thinking about the fact there's more middle america then radical gays.

Again let me ask you this! You are saying that there was no such thing as marraige until a gubermint came around and etched it into law? Dont be an assclown! Of course marriage is religious in every facet!

 

[Eggs Mayonnaise]

And for the record, you have been debating with a gay man who isn't hung up on the word, doesn't care what the legal term is called, and who pointed out the in-your-faceness of it from the start.

 

[Astral]

Preserve your culture all you want. Churches can still refuse to perform gay ceremonies all they want, they wouldn't be forced to change.

That's not what this law is about. This law is about denying rights to some citizens based on bias.

No wait? You didnt notice that there have been law suits? Its not stoping there you retard. Get with the fucking program. It is not only about getting legal recognition it is also about RAMMING it down our fucking throats! They will eventually sue the fuck out of the churches until an assclown JUST LIKE YOU, comes around and says we dont have a right to our religion and force a preacher to marry them under legal threat of suit!

JUST FLAT OUT FUCK YOU AND YOUR FUCKED UP STUPIDITY!

 

[Gurk_MacGuintey]

It's like debating through a time machine with the past.

Or with an acne-riddled geek pretending he's a puffy-shirted elder and his cardboard box is a time machine to the past, anyway...

So, you consider the acceptance, celebration and promotion of the filthy and disgusting 'lifestyles' of homosexual pervertry to be "evolved and enlightened"?

... of course you do. You're a disgusting cunt-licking lesbian, aren't you?

 

[Gurk_MacGuintey]

Biologically? Yes.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual

There are many different factors which contribute to a person becoming a homosexual instead of a heterosexual. Biology is one of them. I can show you even more if that isn't enough.

What part of "definitive scientific proof" did you utterly fail to understand, Messman?

There is not one single shred of definitive scientific PROOF that the degenerate behaviors of filthy and disgusting homosexual perverts is anything other than learned behavior. Until such time as there is such definitive proof, it must be assumed that these vile and amoral miscreants CHOOSE to engage in the filthy and repugnant behaviors that define them as homosexuals.

 

[Gurk_MacGuintey]

A marriage is one man and one woman. That's what it is.


That said, civil unions between whomever and whomever I have no problem with. Just don't call it something it's not.

HOLY FUCK!

Gurk agrees with the hugest pussy on TK!

 

[SSgt_Sniper]

Again let me ask you this! You are saying that there was no such thing as marraige until a gubermint came around and etched it into law? Dont be an assclown! Of course marriage is religious in every facet!

No, it's not. Marriage wasn't actually in the good book until about Babylon. There was no instution capable of creating such a concept until roughly that time. There was the concept of commitment between a man and a woman, but it was a government that put the word marriage out there.

 

[SSgt_Sniper]

And for the record, you have been debating with a gay man who isn't hung up on the word, doesn't care what the legal term is called, and who pointed out the in-your-faceness of it from the start.

Smarter than half your community you are. A union format for you I hope there becomes. Radicals of your movement you should wrest control of it from. Annoying Yoda-speak is.

 

[Eggs Mayonnaise]

We're not the ones introducting Defense of Marriage acts and Bans on Gay Marriage amendments to the Constitution. We're on the defense here, we're being attacked by radicals who have the power to make law, so of course we're going to get testy.

If the lawmakers would bother to write decent laws that aren't so easily dismantled in the courts, then there wouldn't be such an air of hostility to the debate.

 

[SSgt_Sniper]

Actually, the whole "defense of marraige" thing, while retarded, comes from a gay-rights activist that went on the political show circuit and on three occasions when asked the question "So would you be happy if a form of civil union came into being named specifically for your community?" he responded, "No. Until we are allowed to marry, it won't be over."

God I wish I could remember the asshat's name right now.......

 

[Astral]

No, it's not. Marriage wasn't actually in the good book until about Babylon. There was no instution capable of creating such a concept until roughly that time. There was the concept of commitment between a man and a woman, but it was a government that put the word marriage out there.

ummm negative buddy. I understand that the Bible might be an intial source but ultimately proves to be insufficent because of time frames.

Historically marriage in every culture has been attributed to something NON legal! In fact that is also how you can prove it to be far beyond legal is because it is a foundational component to society! EVERY fucking place on earth recognizes Marriage between a man and a woman! Law was force to recognize this. Just think logically about this. You cannot remove religion from it. And you most certainly cannot say the law was first! big fucking negative!!!! Even in nature there are apparent signs of male/female pairing off! where is their fucking laws?