Why "protecting marriage" is retarded

[dannno]

They have that right, same as everyone else. Nobody is saying gay people can't marry, just that they must find a person of the opposite gender, just like everyone else, in order to do so.

The point is that the state is differentiating between the man and the woman and only allowing certain parties to make the contract. That is discrimination now matter how you look at it.

If marriage licenses were initially created to control inter-racial marriage, then why haven't we abolished state marriage licenses? They seem to be only used to control who can and cannot get married. Always have, always will. It's always been about discrimination.

consider the injustice towards single people that get none of these tax perks and other incentives offered by the state to families.

I have. It's wrong. That is precisely why the state should not be involved in marriage.

And blind people pay taxes that support building streetlights that they can't use also. Big freaking deal. For that matter, consider the injustice towards single people that get none of these tax perks and other incentives offered by the state to families.

Bologna. The blind man benefits from the street lights because it allows their seeing eye dog to walk them home or to the store at night. The street lights allow the blind man's caretaker to walk down the street so they can come over and take care of them at night. It allows the blind man to be illuminated so that the police or watchful citizens can see if he is being robbed, deterring potential criminals.

 

[Emrys359]

First off it isnt a question of semantics at all. That is simply what politics has turned it into. Government does join people in the union of marraige god does. Therefore who marries who is none of your damn business nor is it the place of any political figure to decide who is allowed to love who or how they are allowed to show that love. In a world with so little love and so much selfishness I would think that for me or you or anyone else to say anyone else should be denied that love or to bind themselves together through that love is, if we are to believe that god is all about love, a sin and perhaps the lowest and most vile of all sins. I mean honestly. Is there some valid argument as to why one man should be allowed to decide who another man loves or how? Dont get me wrong. Im not gay and to be honest gay people tend to wierd me out. But the truth is the truth even if it wierds me out or I dont like it. Simple as that.


There is a valid argument that children who grow up with same sex parents could have thier morality and ideologies run a little wonky from that atmosphere and upbringing. However this is not the issue at all as it seems to me that most people seem to turn it to when the issue of gay marraige is discussed. Why? Because we all know in our hearts that who the other man loves and what he does about it is none of your damn business and certainly not the governments and quite frankly Im ashamed that this is even considered a political issue at all. But Im not suprised. Because while your spending your energy imposing your will (when I say you I mean those who support this idea) on others who either dont know or dont give a damn what you think there are political entities trying to take away your country and lets get this straight because it is the most important thing on earth right now when it comes to politics. They are winning.


So to anyone who agrees that this is even a real issue my best advice to you is to get your head out of your ass, stop looking at that tree and lets fix the forrest.



IMHO

E.

I love when people say

Oh I don't mind if fags get together and become unions, and give them equal rights, just don't call it marriage, that'll destroy marriage!

That, by it's own admission, is a word game.

So by this logic, we shouldn't call dogs cats, or it'll destroy cats. We shouldn't call women cunts, or that'll destroy women's rights.

How exactly do you preserve or protect the sanctity or sanity of an institution when it's not naturally held up? (Not saying it's not, but if you fear using the wrong word can destroy an institution, it's a sign it can't hold up otherwise).

Are we such a society that cares more about semantics than practicality? Why are we so afraid to say "I just hate gays and I don't think they should be treated like people" if that's how we truly feel?

Why play word games when it's really a matter of superiority, pride and jealousy? Surely, straight couples worked really hard and paid taxes to get their marriage rights and it's not fair gays get them just by voting, right? I can understand, because that's how I was told we shouldn't allow wetbacks into our country to get the same rights we worked our lives for.



All I'm saying is, there's nothing wrong with hating gays just because you feel like it, but don't be such a pussy afraid to admit it. Don't rephrase your bias and hatred as if it's something greater you care about for some religious or moral reason you owe society.

You really want to protect marriage? Let's see you act and speak out against celebrity marriage, early marriage, divorce, serial monogamy, cohabitation.

 

[chwisch87]

a) Unless you get rid of all taxes, there is always going to be a reason to tax married couples raising children less. From my point of view, homosexual activists are some of the most self-serving, greedy sc*b*kets, and will always try to dip their hand into the children's jar. And yeah, that probably has two meanings

b) So much of homosexuality is based on rape. They will continue to look for ways to "do in" those they hate. This doesn't change the forced education of children into the gay lifestyle, hate laws to silence critics, discrimination rights to attack faith based organizations, etc etc. Marriage rights is an excuse to provoke, its not the real reason. I could be wrong about that. But I'm not. Look at the other things.

WHAT? As a gay man i can tell you i don't go around raping people and I as self serving as anyone else? Of course i am looking out for me; i am not a slave to the commune. There is no "hate laws" in the united states. You have the freedom of speech otherwise the KKK wouldn't exist and they would all be in jail dummy. WTF is the gay lifestyle anyway?

EDIT -

And many people who are gay were raped as kids; or as someone has put it, homosexuals aren't born, they are recruited. This is something that should be treated, not applauded.

You are more WAY off the mark there buddy. Homosexuals are not raped a children and recuited ... its pretty much hard science that being gay is something you are born with in peer reviewed studies. There is no way to change it. They (reparative therapy crowd) can teach you to hate yourself but they cannot change you. We live in a age of reason and peer reviewed research. All major medical and mental health organizations say homosexuality is a perfectly nature part of the being human.

 

[SeanEdwards]

The point is that the state is differentiating between the man and the woman and only allowing certain parties to make the contract. That is discrimination now matter how you look at it.

Yeah? And I can't marry my sibling, no matter how much I may want to. Which I don't, but IF I did I would be denied that option just as two same-sex people are denied the option. So quit waving the bullshit discrimination charge in my face. It's not discrimination because everyone is treated equally in regards to marriage. Marriage has certain standards that must be met to be called marriage, and one of those is a requirement that the parties be different genders.

The fact is that it's the gay marriage activists that are trying to change the status quo here. This is not a case of straight people seeking out gay people to punish them, this is gay marriage activists demanding that an institution that has existed for thousands of years be modified to suit some notion of fairness or to boost their self-esteem and make them feel accepted by society. That is not the purpose of marriage, and it is not the job of society to make gay people feel all warm and fuzzy and admired.

Gay relationships are not, and can not EVER be equal to traditional marriage, no matter what name they are given. An apple does not equal an orange, no matter how much the apple whines about it. A gay man can never be a mother, and a lesbian woman can never be a father. That's not bigotry, it's natural law. The gay marriage activists should be protesting their own DNA, not the institution of marriage.

 

[Truth Warrior]

What the hell different do you expect from a retarded government that ALWAYS has been?

 

[chwisch87]

Yeah? And I can't marry my sibling, no matter how much I may want to. Which I don't, but IF I did I would be denied that option just as two same-sex people are denied the option. So quit waving the bullshit discrimination charge in my face. It's not discrimination because everyone is treated equally in regards to marriage. Marriage has certain standards that must be met to be called marriage, and one of those is a requirement that the parties be different genders.

The fact is that it's the gay marriage activists that are trying to change the status quo here. This is not a case of straight people seeking out gay people to punish them, this is gay marriage activists demanding that an institution that has existed for thousands of years be modified to suit some notion of fairness or to boost their self-esteem and make them feel accepted by society. That is not the purpose of marriage, and it is not the job of society to make gay people feel all warm and fuzzy and admired.

Gay relationships are not, and can not EVER be equal to traditional marriage, no matter what name they are given. An apple does not equal an orange, no matter how much the apple whines about it. A gay man can never be a mother, and a lesbian woman can never be a father. That's not bigotry, it's natural law. The gay marriage activists should be protesting their own DNA, not the institution of marriage.

Marriage wasn't even the marriage we think of as today until recently. It used to be that you are married off as a family bond. Today we marry for love. In what way is a gay relationship not equal to a heterosexual one? (IE they can't have kids) ... so then we should only give marriage licenses to only people who can have kids? What exactly can a heterosexual couple do that a gay couple can't? There is no reason not to ... it doesn't affect the standing of a heterosexual sexual marriage for a gay one to exist. Bob and Sue are not going to get divorced for Dan and Bill (those blasted happy ass gays next door) got married? If you want to quote natural law (which you are wrong) homosexuality (couples) occurs throughout the animal kingdom.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

marriage wasn't even the marriage we think of as today until recently. It used to be that you are married off as a family bond. Today we marry for love. In what way is a gay relationship not equal to a heterosexual one? (ie they can't have kids) ... So then we should only give marriage licenses to only people who can have kids? What exactly can a heterosexual couple do that a gay couple can't? There is no reason not to ... It doesn't affect the standing of a heterosexual sexual marriage for a gay one to exist. Bob and sue are not going to get divorced for dan and bill (those blasted happy ass gays next door) got married? If you want to quote natural law (which you are wrong) homosexuality (couples) occurs throughout the animal kingdom.

qft!

 

[SeanEdwards]

In what way is a gay relationship not equal to a heterosexual one?

In what way is my fictional relationship with a sibling not equal? Society won't allow me to marry a sister, BECAUSE IT'S NOT A REPRODUCTIVELY VIABLE FAMILY STRUCTURE. See the connection yet?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

In what way is my fictional relationship with a sibling not equal? Society won't allow me to marry a sister, BECAUSE IT'S NOT A REPRODUCTIVELY VIABLE FAMILY STRUCTURE. See the connection yet?

No, that amorphous set of individuals called "society" really doesn't care if you marry your sister. (people used to intermarry in their families all the time, and noone cared-even in this country). It's only government that cares. If the government can create the fiction of a "normal family" in your psyche, then they can easily control other aspects of your life.

You should read up on European royalty. They inbred regularly to maintain the "purity" of the family bloodline.

 

[Josh_LA]

Gays hate Christians not the other way around. And they hate marriage because by natural law they can not reproduce, which is the nature of the sin.

All this is about is hating Christians, and like most bullies you see on playgrounds, then say its the other kids that really did it.

Christians in this country aren't going to take this much more. When real Christians are railed up, they are the most dangerous of people. They aren't afraid to die in defense of what is right, they have faith, and God is constantly at their side.

what's wrong with hating Christians? Hating nature? And hating normal people?

Who cares what fags hate? They don't pay your bills! Let them hate all they want, they can't harm you.

 

[Josh_LA]

Christians in this country aren't going to take this much more. When real Christians are railed up, they are the most dangerous of people. They aren't afraid to die in defense of what is right, they have faith, and God is constantly at their side.

I agree, religious nutjobs stop at nothing. No better than Zionist Jews and Muslim terrorists, people who put God and religion before humanity.

 

[Josh_LA]

Do you still doubt that its odd to see a bunch of people attack old ladies and worship services? Or that this is cowardly perverse behavior?
Here's some more.

School holds surprise 'Gay' Day for kindergartners
Parents outraged at public elementary's secretive 'coming out' event





Since the article above didn't provide pictures, and its hard to believe that something like this would go on in broad daylight without any of the media reporting it, I mean, this is about what you do in the privacy of your own home, right! I looked for pictures online.

Found some. It was worse than the article. I think what I found most disgusting about the sodomites was the area where someone was wearing a t-shirt that said "toliet pig", and eating/drinking excriment and urine while onlookers were in line.

It might have been this site. I'm not going to go through it again. It was sickening.

http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_1_full/

Pedophile Priests - most massive coverup of pedophiles by any organization in history just occured.
How could you get away with raping boys except decadance and again by not reporting the truth?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft:*&q=pedophile+priests

If you're saying gay people should be treated like animals and slaughtered like the way PETA wouldn't approve of, I have no problem. But just admit you have a problem with fags and you don't want them treated like normal people.

Don't be so PC to say "they just can't get married" as if that's going to protect your children's future.

You think all other things they teach in school is OK?
Such as black people are humans?
Evolution is a fact?
Condoms and abortion are acceptable when you have pre-marital sex?

 

[Josh_LA]

Wouldn't change anything at all. (FYI I don't believe in marriage licenses). Gays would still push for hate crime legislation against churches, forced teaching of elementary school kids about homosexuality (the last is probably what sent California over the edge on voting against gay marriage), anti-discrimination laws (for instance you are in a church that doesn't hire homosexaul preachers, you are part of the boyscouts) etc.

Although this argument has been framed one way, the intolerance is coming from one side - the one pushing for special laws from government. The same thing is what caused the rise of the brownshirts in Nazi germany. Homosexuals were alienated from society by the nature of their sin, so they wanted to force everyone to their way. But nature itself decries it.



Although it seems PC to accept that what you do in your own bedroom in the privacy of your home is your business, the more likely affect of the current tide is a new rise of homosexual brownshirt like intolerance, forced re-education of kids (already happening), and attacks against churches.

How about waiting until the hate crime agenda comes out, THEN GET DEFENSIVE? Your logic is basically, prevent hate crime laws by making them first.

 

[Josh_LA]

Similarly, you shouldn't be forced to change your definition of marriage, that it is between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreating - "and they become one flesh".

Who's being forced to accept the new legal definition of marriage?

NOT ME. I don't care what the law says.

You agree with the law on everything? F you (F yourself, seriously)!

I don't agree with the law on many things :
1. Statutory rape is not rape
2. Black people are not people even though the law says so
3. Adopted children are not real parent/children relationship
4. I am a human being, not a 'citizen'
5. Calling marijuana a 'drug' does not make it an exclusive right to pharmacists


The law's definitions NEVER force you to accept it. EVER.

 

[Josh_LA]

\

And many people who are gay were raped as kids; or as someone has put it, homosexuals aren't born, they are recruited. This is something that should be treated, not applauded.

Why not kill them so we don't have to worry about it at all?

 

[Josh_LA]

Nobody works for their rights. Human rights are something you're born with. Like Thomas Jefferson said, they're self-evident.

Homosexuals are born with the same exact rights as everyone else. We ignore that fact at our society's peril.

However: marriage is not a right. Marriage is two things: a religious institution, and a contract. Freedom of religion is a right. So the government has no place being involved in any religious institution. Property ownership and equal protection under the law are also rights, so the government has no place distinguisihing between any two individuals on any basis as far as enforcement of proerty rights are concerned. So from both religious and contractual perspectives, the government has no place saying one group of people can get married and another cannot.

Jefferson is not my God, I don't take everything he says as gospel truth.

You can say you have rights all you want, see if you say the same thing when I have a gun to your head (not a threat, just telling you rights mean nothing unless exercised and recognized).

 

[Josh_LA]

Our society does not allow individuals the freedom to hate.

Yes it DOES, and it should CONTINUE.

Making fags married legally does not take away your right to hate them or speak out against them. You have EVERY RIGHT AND EVERY OBLIGATION to teach your kids to hate fags, that's the right and natural thing to do (or if it's not, you're still free to anyway.

 

[Josh_LA]

There is a valid argument that children who grow up with same sex parents could have thier morality and ideologies run a little wonky from that atmosphere and upbringing.
E.

Yes, and there's an even better argument that children who don't have parents grow up even worse.

So your options are:

*biological parents that are good
*biological parents that are trailer drunk
*adopted straight parents who use you for tax cuts
*adopted single parent who uses you for company
*adopted gay parents who can be any of the above, but given the social stigma, probably are expected to act more upright with all the pressure.
*no parents.

Keep in mind it's NOBODY'S FAULT that a child has no parents, our society has no problem letting these children starve to death as we OWE THEM NOTHING. Giving them gay parents is an alternative to leaving them to rot and die, if they have a problem with that, they are more than free to choose. Until more straight parents step up to the plate, you can shut up about how lousy fags and dykes are at being parents. Let's see you do better.

 

[DamianTV]

So, if you were hurt in an accident, and a FAG saved your life, would you be pissed off at them for being a fag that saved your life?

And what is it with people that really believe that the paperwork of marriage has become more important than the people themselves? Sounds like the excuse of the military where the paperwork is more important of the person. We've changed the definitions of marriages so much that I think we have lost sight of what marriage is supposed to mean. Union of two people.

 

[dannno]

In what way is my fictional relationship with a sibling not equal? Society won't allow me to marry a sister, BECAUSE IT'S NOT A REPRODUCTIVELY VIABLE FAMILY STRUCTURE. See the connection yet?

No, because people who cannot reproduce due to medical problems are still allowed to get married.