Why "protecting marriage" is retarded

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.

But you shouldn't be denied that option.
Nobody has business telling you who you can't sleep with, who you can't live with, who you can't have children with and who you can't file joint tax returns with.

We don't ask any married couple if they intend to have children, have sex every month or use condoms to prevent AIDS, so why are fags automatically guilty of it all? (or why is allowing fags to marry legally suddenly seen as advocating all of it?)

YES, I am saying anybody should have the right to marry a slice of pie of their child or their dog. Marrying does not mean having sex, it just means living together and filing taxes together as far as the government can ask. If we're so upset that fags will be encouraged to stay flaming, we ought to discourage marriage too, or we'd be encouraging sex without reproduction, or.....SEX, tell your children that!
 
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?

By this logic, no couple who intends to reproduce can be married, and any couple who has stopped reproducing within their potential (which are most of them), cannot stay married.

Elderly couples who no longer reproduce or create family structures cannot be considered viable either.
 
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.



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

Exactly, and somehow letting the state define marriage is protecting marriage or protecting freedom

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.

And yes, we SHOULD treat people equally regardless of relationship status, broadening the definition of marriage, and reducing the significance of the term is EXACTLY THAT. We are MORE equal when words mean LESS. Thats why we stopped using words like "Negro" "African American" and now just call all people "people".
 
By this logic, no couple who intends to reproduce can be married, and any couple who has stopped reproducing within their potential (which are most of them), cannot stay married.

Elderly couples who no longer reproduce or create family structures cannot be considered viable either.

No, even though the elderly couple may be too old to breed, their dual gender family structure still represents the reproductively viable and natural family unit, even if their specific family is not capable of reproduction.
 

But you shouldn't be denied that option.
Nobody has business telling you who you can't sleep with, who you can't live with, who you can't have children with and who you can't file joint tax returns with.

But most of that stuff you list does not require a marriage license. Denying me the right to marry a sister, doesn't mean I can't do all the stuff you listed, except for the tax filing bit. And the tax filing bit which goes with a marriage license is a reflection of society placing a stamp of approval upon my choice of relationship, and to some degree underwriting it. Society doesn't have to bow to my wishes to underwrite my weird fictional incestuous family. If society deems that an incestuous family (or a gay one) is not the family model that deserves community approval or underwriting then society doesn't need to support such families.

It's not a matter of equal rights. Civil marriage is a society endorsed license, with specific requirements for issuance that apply to everyone equally. Just like a drivers license. Or a pilot's license. Or a license to practice medicine. Plenty of people are denied the right to prescribe drugs, and it doesn't matter if the denied person feels they should be allowed to prescribe drugs. Nor does it matter if that person thinks their brand of home-school medicine is equally as good as the traditional medical education. If they don't meet the license requirements, then they don't get the license.

Society can't really stop people from committing incest, if that's what they want to do. But society sure as hell can refuse to endorse and legitimize such behavior.
 
EDIT - 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.

A) This is one example of why the gay agenda has to be fought. This isn't science, and anyone that loves the truth has to fight what is wrong.

B) If you didn't have to recruit, you wouldn't be forcing kids in kindergarten to study homosexaulity. This is appaling, and I am going to start advocating that the sodomy laws are enforced again because of it. I see few have talked about any of these issues of FORCED hiring of gays in religious groups and FORCED subjecting of little kids to gay ininitiatives. And all the while, they have the gall while pushing these laws to claim that the other side is intolorent. You've provoked people for the last time. This isn't about the privacy of your bedroom, and the buck stops here.

C) I'm not off the mark. A large % of gay men are raped as kids. Homosexuality is a perversion that should be treated as it used to be. Even if it is legal, like a drug addiction, that doesn't mean it is good or doesn't need to be treated.

D) The tax credits are intended to be used to have children. If you want to narrow their use so it is only for those who are raising a family, that is fine. But this is just another example of gay people raping kids and taking what belongs to the kids, and that includes forcing children in kindergarten to learn about their behavior, or forcing their way into boyscout clubs. Leave the kids alone.

E) Homosexuality is a perverse behavior, not a physical characteristic. Although some have asked when it will end, and if bestaility will be the next protected right, I don't think it is necessary. I think you just need to actually post the facts for once, without framing the questions, and without baiting people as a religious test vs if you will accept my perverse behavior.

The below is an example of what gay activists have been pushing for - the freedom to drink urine from people pissing in public. Yes, there is a reason this behavior has traditionally been illegal, condemned, and treated. Why don't some of you supporting this tell me how the below fits into your scheme of things? Looks to me like a complete breakdown in whatever political scheme you are following:

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.

More gay activistism - up your alley
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=71616
Typical San Fransico Fair - Being forced on your school kids soon
http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_1_full/
 
Last edited:
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?

QFT.

The gay activists are pushing this to provoke, as a means of hate, and to steal tax credits that are suppose to be used to encourage and help in the raising of families, something which is in the interest of the country.

And what they want protected is perversity, as seen in the link I posted above of an example of a san fransico fair - or a noisome gay bar.
 
Last edited:
I agree, religious nutjobs stop at nothing. No better than Zionist Jews and Muslim terrorists, people who put God and religion before humanity.

"Who mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

This is why I will encourage everyone to leave and only deal with fellow Christians. It is impossible for you to mutually pledge your sacred honor to someone that has none.

The foundation has to be strong if you want to build on it. God doesn't care about the number, he will give the victory regardless. Like I was saying to someone else today, all we are doing is wasting our time arguing with a bunch of people who are attacking the basic faith of America and hurling insults - I can get that from the left anytime.

Those who are fellow Christians - Hear me out: There are enough problems out there that we need to stop being lured back into places like this that is diluting our speech. Darkness can't walk with light, and we have more important things to do.
 
Last edited:
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.

Maybe I'm better read on foreign news then you are. It has already happened in england, and the NWO is global in nature.

Also, I read history as well. The nazi brownshirts were likewise composed of homosexual 'activists'. There is a reason that they are being recruited for that side of the agenda, and why the attacks on the church and the old woman with the cross just occured.
 
Last edited:

But you shouldn't be denied that option.
!

In a completely unrelated thread, which has nothing to do with this issue, I noticed you are given to sophism and not looking at the real world and how things actually work. If you are being truely objective, you'd have an objective you were trying to accomplish... and a measure for what works and what doesn't.

Case in point, there is a good reason in law that siblings are restricted from marrying is their children are much more likely to suffer from genetic problems. Thats the real world reason, and again its about protecting children.

I despise the people on this thread who have hated the children and been pc. You've got two choices here, a strong america or a weak america of diseases like aids, the most putrid sort of sex in public, few children, decadence, and death.
 
Last edited:
Are you suggesting that you want to stop homosexuals' "assault" on culture by "assaulting" them in return? Don't you see that you are just perpetuating a vicious cycle of repression? It's fair enough to oppose militant homosexuals (because they often impose on others), but there's no justification for stepping on others' right to exist and do what they please (assuming they don't harm others).

2 of my best friends in music school were gay, but they didn't threaten my life/liberty/property. I don't see anything to be gained by using physical/government force against them.

I've never seen a story of gay parents harming their adopted children. Could you cite an example for me? There are numerous examples of hetero couples who abuse their children (and others' children). This is one reason the Amber Alert was invented. Are their crimes more acceptable?

I'm in agreement with you in some of the things you mentioned (the gay agenda being forced into schools, boy scouts, etc.). However, these militant gays are in the minority-just like the catholic priests who have a reputation for molesting boys (they settled a large lawsuit only a few years ago).

If you want to live in a free country, you have to accept people you don't like. I don't like rap, for example, but I respect others' right to enjoy it. (please don't twist this and make it sound like I'm justifying pedophilia or any other harmful activity, btw-I'm not.)

Just my 2 cents.
~heavenlyboy34~

A) This is one example of why the gay agenda has to be fought. This isn't science, and anyone that loves the truth has to fight what is wrong.

B) If you didn't have to recruit, you wouldn't be forcing kids in kindergarten to study homosexaulity. This is appaling, and I am going to start advocating that the sodomy laws are enforced again because of it. I see few have talked about any of these issues of FORCED hiring of gays in religious groups and FORCED subjecting of little kids to gay ininitiatives. And all the while, they have the gall while pushing these laws to claim that the other side is intolorent. You've provoked people for the last time. This isn't about the privacy of your bedroom, and the buck stops here.

C) I'm not off the mark. A large % of gay men are raped as kids. Homosexuality is a perversion that should be treated as it used to be. Even if it is legal, like a drug addiction, that doesn't mean it is good or doesn't need to be treated.

D) The tax credits are intended to be used to have children. If you want to narrow their use so it is only for those who are raising a family, that is fine. But this is just another example of gay people raping kids and taking what belongs to the kids, and that includes forcing children in kindergarten to learn about their behavior, or forcing their way into boyscout clubs. Leave the kids alone.

E) Homosexuality is a perverse behavior, not a physical characteristic. Although some have asked when it will end, and if bestaility will be the next protected right, I don't think it is necessary. I think you just need to actually post the facts for once, without framing the questions, and without baiting people as a religious test vs if you will accept my perverse behavior.

The below is an example of what gay activists have been pushing for - the freedom to drink urine from people pissing in public. Yes, there is a reason this behavior has traditionally been illegal, condemned, and treated. Why don't some of you supporting this tell me how the below fits into your scheme of things? Looks to me like a complete breakdown in whatever political scheme you are following:
 
Case in point, there is a good reason in law that siblings are restricted from marrying is their children are much more likely to suffer from genetic problems. Thats the real world reason, and again its about protecting children.

I strongly disagree with this. There is no logical reason the state should be involved in this. Marriage rights/contracts/agreements should settled only be between individuals and religious institutions. The state can only be reasonably involved if a crime occurs. And even then, private law enforcement is more effective and acceptable/palatable to the principles of liberty.
 
Are you suggesting that you want to stop homosexuals' "assault" on culture by "assaulting" them in return? Don't you see that you are just perpetuating a vicious cycle of repression? It's fair enough to oppose militant homosexuals (because they often impose on others), but there's no justification for stepping on others' right to exist and do what they please (assuming they don't harm others).

2 of my best friends in music school were gay, but they didn't threaten my life/liberty/property. I don't see anything to be gained by using physical/government force against them.

I've never seen a story of gay parents harming their adopted children. Could you cite an example for me? There are numerous examples of hetero couples who abuse their children (and others' children). This is one reason the Amber Alert was invented. Are their crimes more acceptable?

I'm in agreement with you in some of the things you mentioned (the gay agenda being forced into schools, boy scouts, etc.). However, these militant gays are in the minority-just like the catholic priests who have a reputation for molesting boys (they settled a large lawsuit only a few years ago).

If you want to live in a free country, you have to accept people you don't like. I don't like rap, for example, but I respect others' right to enjoy it. (please don't twist this and make it sound like I'm justifying pedophilia or any other harmful activity, btw-I'm not.)

Just my 2 cents.
~heavenlyboy34~

How can forced schooling of kindergarten kids be something "a minority" of gay activists support when it is being introduced into the state school systems everywhere? That isn't a minority of gays, that is a major agenda push. If you agree that that is wrong, you should start protesting now.

On a forum like this, how vices are dealt with have differing opinions. Some will advocate that everything like prostitution, pornography, drug use, homosexuality should be completely legal, and others may argue for decrimininalizing them - for instance, they are associated with fines, are illegal for those under the age of consent, or you can be sued in court by those you adversely affect - for instance street walkers in front of your place of business.

I'm of the latter group. I am not entirely persaded we should put the sodomy laws back on the books, however, I don't find things like rapes, school indoctrinition, diseases, and public sex kosher. They badly effect the public.

I believe the drug war should be finished. I mean people shouldn't be imprisoned for drugs; however I still believe that drugs shouldn't be sold in stores, and there should be fines and rehabitation programs for addicts. Since we have a drug war, this would be a lot better. I also believe that sodomy should be regulated, there shouldn't be gay bars or glory holes, and there should be treatment programs just like there use to be. However, since there isn't a sodomy war, and the brownshirts are riding our country, this seems to provide less to some people EVEN though I believe in the exact same solutions for both sets of vices.

I've had gay friends too. That doesn't mean I didn't think it was a perverse sin that was harming them. The entire society is being harmed by its own sins. You are as friendly as you can be with people despite their sins. And some of these people aren't being very friendly.. They just attacked a church. They just pushed a little old lady down at a protest. They just passed legislation to force kids to learn the gay way. They just tried to ram forced marriage re-definition down our throats. That despite the public perversity they have enganged in, including the sodomy in the parks, diseases like aids, things which also directly lead to all the gay rapes of boys we've had recently.


And, mentioning militant homosexuals, reminds me of information on the pink swastika.

Like it or not, no matter how much we want equal rights and peace for all, a large portion of the homosexual activists are on the far left, and opposed in general to most of what we believe. You're going to be fighting them regardless of whether it is on this issue or not.

You should look at history for what happened. I found the below site interesting, because it talks about how to Nazi party used the homosexual movement to get its start. What I found from the site is mainly that its probably a good place to recruit people that already feel alienated from society, and who want to 'start a new world order' and who are also willing to lash out at traditional institutions. This particular paragraph caught my eye:

One of the keys to understanding both the rise of Nazism and the later persecution of some homosexuals by the Nazis is found in this early history of the German "gay rights" movement. For it was the CS which created and shaped what would become the Nazi persona, and it was the loathing which these "Butches" held for effeminate homosexuals ("Femmes") which led to the internment of some of the latter in slave labor camps in the Third Reich.

I think this tends to show that homosexuals may split up into the "rapers" and the "raped", which is one way to deal with being raped as a child. Regardless if that supports what I said earlier in this thread, this site is one of many that shows how the Nazi party got started from the homosexual movement in germany, and we ought to learn something from it.

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html
 
Last edited:
I strongly disagree with this. There is no logical reason the state should be involved in this. Marriage rights/contracts/agreements should settled only be between individuals and religious institutions. The state can only be reasonably involved if a crime occurs. And even then, private law enforcement is more effective and acceptable/palatable to the principles of liberty.

There is every reason to forbid having children from a couple that is closely related who may cause birth defects in their children. And religious institutes have traditionally forbidden this type of marriage.

And genetic defects is IMHO the reason that is has existed that way for thousands of years. Also, if you do cause a birth defect, you are guilty of a crime against that child now because there was reasonable suspicion that it might occur and you didn't take due care. And it isn't true that a government can only be involved after a crime occurs. If there is reasonable belief that a crime is about to occur, there is reason to send the posse on its way over. If you think someone is *about* to shoot you, you can defend yourself.

This is what I was saying about arguing from a limited set of principles without taking into account real world considerations. It tends to lead to sophistry and throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Historical examples are better.
 
Last edited:
Rising spontaneously in the 1890s as an informal hiking and camping society, the Wandervogel became an official organization at the turn of the century, similar to the Boy Scouts. From early on, however, the Wandervogel was dominated and controlled by the pederasts of the CS. CS co-founder Wilhelm Janzen was its chief benefactor, and its leadership was rife with homosexuality. In 1912, CS theorist Hans Blueher wrote The German Wandervogel Movement as an Erotic Phenomenon which told how the organization was used to recruit young boys into homosexuality.

This was a boyscout like organization that the gay activists took over in germany.
 
How can forced schooling of kindergarten kids be something "a minority" of gay activists support when it is being introduced into the state school systems everywhere? That isn't a minority of gays, that is a major agenda push. If you agree that that is wrong, you should start protesting now.

You say that as if you agree with forced schooling on everything else except gay education. As if no parents disagree with what their children are taught, as if it's illegal to teach your kids racism while 99.99% of schools officially teach racism as a crime.

And yes, I AM protesting, by not playing their game, by keeping my children out of school, by teaching my children that ignorance & hatred is good, knowledge & tolerance is evil.
 
The "grandfather of gay rights" was a homosexual German lawyer named Karl Heinrich Ulrichs. Ulrichs had been molested at age 14 by his male riding instructor. Instead of attributing his adult homosexuality to the molestation, however, Ulrich devised in the 1860s what became known as the "third sex" theory of homosexuality. Ulrichs' model holds that male homosexuals are actually female souls trapped within male bodies. The reverse phenomenon supposedly explains lesbianism. Since homosexuality was an innate condition, reasoned Ulrichs, homosexual behavior should be decriminalized. An early follower of Ulrichs coined the term "homosexual" in an open letter to the Prussian Minister of Justice in 1869.

Umm, sounds just like this thread.
 
No, even though the elderly couple may be too old to breed, their dual gender family structure still represents the reproductively viable and natural family unit, even if their specific family is not capable of reproduction.

why isn't it more natural to have polygamy?
 
You say that as if you agree with forced schooling on everything else except gay education. As if no parents disagree with what their children are taught, as if it's illegal to teach your kids racism while 99.99% of schools officially teach racism as a crime.

And yes, I AM protesting, by not playing their game, by keeping my children out of school, by teaching my children that ignorance & hatred is good, knowledge & tolerance is evil.

No, I didn't say that, or as if.
 
But most of that stuff you list does not require a marriage license. Denying me the right to marry a sister, doesn't mean I can't do all the stuff you listed, except for the tax filing bit. And the tax filing bit which goes with a marriage license is a reflection of society placing a stamp of approval upon my choice of relationship, and to some degree underwriting it.

No, all it means when you are given a license is you agree you will act like you're in a relationship, you can lie for all we care, so this "approval" is meaningless. Society CAN and SHOULD give any two people who can enjoy the convenience or incentives of filing joint taxes (or not filing at all) to do so. So legally, that's all the marriage license IS, a stamp of approval you can file your taxes jointly and visit in a hospital, even if you hate each other!

Just like T-Mobile allows "couple plans" for any two people who know each other and agree to pay the plan.

Why SHOULDN'T any two people be allowed a marriage/couple/paired up license? Why should only straight, reproducing, non-anal heterosexual couples be given a privelege?
 
Back
Top