Mister Mustard says:

#184 – Dallas

>>I believe “marriage” is one of those religious
>>and ceremonial artifacts created by reliion to
>>make money.

No doubt money-making is a large part of it (although there are a lot of organizations that make more money off of weddings than churches do).

If there were no such thing as “marriage” (for heteros or homos), I’d be in favor of that too.

The key here is equality.

And that’s just what GodHatesFags doesn’t want to see happen. They don’t really give a shit if it’s called “marriage” or not; it’s just a way to stick it to those they consider unnatural and abhorrent, now that it’s harder to fire them and use the traditional forms of discrimination.

Mister Mustard says:

#185 – LL

>>Why force the majority of the population to
>>change their definition when it is easier to
>>remove the reason for the definition?

Pretty skimpy “majority”, based on the CA voting.

Nobody’s forcing them to change THEIR definition; they can consider marriage to be only between a white, young virgin Protestant woman and a white, young, virgin Protestant man if they please. Just leave other people out of it.

And if you think it’s going to be “easier” to get the goverenment out of the marriage business, you’re more of a moonbat than I am. I’ve never even seen anyone suggest that in a political context. Who’s going to be the driving force behind THAT? You?

damontsar says:

No to gay marriage. But than I do not think the state should be in the business of marriage period gay or not. I think the state should be given out Civil union to all.

LibertyLover says:

then how would my winter solstice partner be assured of legal rights that are guaranteed by marriage right now?

Civil Union.

Pretty skimpy “majority”, based on the CA voting.

48% of the people who voted, not 48% of the people in CA.

Who’s going to be the driving force behind THAT?

Everybody who stood something to gain from it. They would probably stand a better chance of acceptance than trying to change 97% of the country’s population’s definition.

Maybe LibertyLover is a lawyer specializing in family law, and sees this as a goldmine.

No, but I bet a bunch of lawyers on this board just saw the light. See what a free market will do if the government would just get out of the business of running people’s lives?

brian says:

it seems strange to me that most homosexuals are liberals, and most liberals are raging Darwinists. the reason is that Darwinian theory dictates that nature abhors any genetic variation which does not perpetuate the species through natural means. this leads to the elimination of species with such detrimental variation. homosexuality, if considered a “natural” occurrence, would be one such variation, because by the very nature of it, those affected would not reproduce. throughout history, one could only argue that (if a genetic condition), homosexuality only lingered due to natural procreation occurring either because of social pressures (to get married, and live respectable lives) or because of reverse aberrant behavior on the part of the homosexual. either way, as a genetic condition, it only survived historically by natural means. only in recent years have procedural (medical) methods been made available to provide a third venue for propagation of the gene puddle. legitimization of the behavior would eliminate the social pressure aspect, and would leave only the aberrant behavior and procedural means for procreation.

But the Darwinist should not support procedural procreation, because it necessarily dictates a weakening of the gene pool, as well as summarily forging a path for lower total population growth in the future.

furthermore, for those who might claims that liberals are in favor of preserving all life, consider the fact that liberals overwhelmingly favor pervasive abortion policies which would eliminate the categorically unwanted or outcast members of society (with no genetic necessity for elimination). if they’re in favor of eliminating the unwanted, what’s to stop them from prohibiting the survival of the unhealthy or unfit?

really, the liberal agenda is a mix of opposing philosophies. I think the only thing that binds liberals together is a common enemy: religion.

Mister Mustard says:

#191 – LL

>>48% of the people who voted, not 48% of the
>>people in CA.

Well, I hate to point out the obvious, but people who don’t vote aren’t people, when it comes to the ballot box.

And I imagine, if anything, the presence of Question 8 on the ballot had an ENERGIZING effect on the GodHatesFags contingent, and made it more likely that they’d hit the ballot box just to prevent those terrible homosexuals from calling their unholy alliances “marriage”.

>>They would probably stand a better chance of
>>acceptance than trying to change 97% of the
>>country’s population’s definition.

Again with the “ninety-seven percent”. Where do you get this from? Certainly among my circle of friends (and yes, I have right-wingnuts as friends), it’s not 97% against providing same-sex partners with the same rights and privileges as opposite-sex partners.

>>Civil Union.

Are ye daft, boy? Civil unions are NOT THE SAME THING as marriages. I realize you think there should be no laws pertaining to marriage, but there are, and I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that there will ALWAYS be. I haven’t seen any groundswell of support sweeping the nation (not even isolate pockets; in fact, you’re the only one I’ve ever seen mention it) supporting the de-legalization of all forms of marriage (hetero and homo). That’s just NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Nobody gives a shit. Except people who are being unfairly discriminated against, people are fine with “marriage” just the way it is. Just like most people (excluding the victims) were just fine with slavery, anti-miscegenation laws, women not being allowed to vote, etc.

One of the few legitimate roles the government can play is to protect the rights of those who cannot do so for themselves. That includes slaves, women, passengers on the tarmac, and homos who can’t visit their “partner” in the hospital or make medical decisions or get their Social Security benefits because they’re not “married”.

I fail to understand why you’re so hell-bent on insisting that it will be easier to dismantle the entire “institution” of marriage (ie get government out of it) than it will be to simply extend benefits already granted to most of the population, to the rest of the population.

GodHatesFags, perhaps? dot org.

ls says:

If you are willing to vote for a ban on gay marriage, you are a closet case.

Looks to me like Dvorak should reach out to some “gay friendly” sponsors cause this place is crawling with repressed homosexual desire.

Mister Mustard says:

#199 – Bri

I’m not angry. And sorry if my “profanity” offends you. Fortunately for you, it’s a free country (for you, anyway), and you need not read my messages.

As to your thesis that “normalizing” the “aberrant” behavior would lead to a reduction in procreation, so much the better. Too many people here already.

web says:

# 35 Rhymenoceros “They’re not asking for an endorsement of their lifestyle…….”

Crap, that is exactly what this is about otherwise they would not go around advertising their sexual preference all the time!

And don’t forget It is not just Gaaaaays it is gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals and every other weird jerk that can not get a “stright” partner. I think they even have a club, NAMBLA or somethng like that.

Mr. Fusion says:

#173, Cow-Paddy, Ignorant Shit Talking Sociopath,

Elderly Woman Attacked by Gay Marriage Supporters, May Press Charges

I watched the video. It sure looked like she attacked some of the protesters first.

But, you know what? It must suck to be you. To have such a shallow life. No friends. No love. Living in your elderly mother’s basement. Your only link to the outside world is through your computer. Yup, it must really suck to be you. You are a sad little man.

Mister Mustard says:

#201 – Chaucer

>>The truth is, even though you keep ignoring it, that
>>the public would easily give homosexuals full legal
>>status as partners that everyone else may have.

Well, so far they haven’t done it. They’ve tossed them the gristle-bone of “civil unions”, which are really just MARRIAGES without all the privileges that go along with being married.

>>People just don’t want to change the definition of
>>the TERM marriage

Awww. Gosh. That sounds like a really good reason to oppress and discriminate against a group of people. Those dictionary publishers are going to have to spend all that money revising the definition.

Pffft. You may squawk and deny all you want; the basic underlying motivation in this anti-gay marriage is not semantics, it’s GodHatesFags. dot org.

At least be honest about it. Nobody bitched when “windows” started being the name for an OS. Nobody moaned when “gay” started meaning homosexual. People even laughed when “nuclear” became “nucular” (at least in pronunciation, complete with its own entry in the dictionary).

But calling “marriage” a union between two people, rather than a union between a man and a woman…GASP!!! THE HORROR! THE HORROR!!!

Mister Mustard says:

#202 – WebFingers

>>Crap, that is exactly what this is about otherwise
>>they would not go around advertising their sexual
>>preference all the time!

Oh no! Haven’t you heard? It’s just about semantics! Them darned homos want to go changing the meaning of a word, and the linguistic purists are putting up a fuss.

It has nothing to do with wanting to discriminate against “gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals and every other weird jerk that can not get a “stright” partner.”.

As far as the club NAMBLA, that’s not for any of the above. It’s for pedophiles, like you.

dcseward says:

Marriage is good for society. Married people live longer, are happier, and are less likely to commit crimes.

Why would you want to deny that to 10% of the population?

Because of a 2000 year old definition? It is good we don’t apply that logic elsewhere as then we’d have to sacrifice virgins before the harvest.

Because it isn’t natural? I guess you don’t understand that homosexuality is natural. It isn’t just practiced by humans.

Because it will somehow damage “normal” marriage? I’ve lived in a state with gay marriage for 5 years. Nothing bad has happened to my marriage.

Because you have some poorly constructed preconception and can’t justify it logically so you have to say “because it is!”? Third graders are more sophisticated than that.

The fact is that gay marriage is good for society. We are better off with it.

why can't we all just get along? says:

That should read
Like we open-minded folks have ever been organized enough to have a unified agenda

I need a proofreader

Phydeau says:

Well, I asked the question at #39… can ANYONE offer ANY solid evidence of ANY heterosexual person adversely affected by gays having the right to marry. Nothing, nada, bupkis, zip. No one can come up with anything. Just a bunch of handwaving and vague pronouncements.

I think that pretty much says it all.

I’m talking to you, Paddy-O’Troll.