Boston Mayor Letter to Chick-Fil-A bashes them over their anti-gay stance

I will. In the meantime, if you have nothing of substance to add, I don't believe there is any reason why we should be discussing this issue.

Have a good day.

 

Do you guys that attempt to argue this point have holes in your brain??? The other argument that pisses me off is, "why can't a dog marry a man then?" Please tell me that you all are just trolling us.

Same-sex marriage is not in any way even comparable to the stupidity that you are suggesting. A young teenager or young child is in no way mature enough to be marrying at that age. They don't know all the complexities that come along with marriage. Not too mention, the psychological harm that a child or teenager might endure having a much older adult as their sexual partner. I mean this situation isn't comparable. A teenager or young child is generally too immature to be trusted to be making wise decisions.

An animal on the other hand, as responsible and compassionate human beings, we should not let another person marry an animal. Animals are innnocent creatures who do not have the capacity to make decisions such as marrying a woman or a man. Besides, whatever psycho would decide to marry their animal would likely want to practice sex with said animal, which would be ridiculous.

Same-sex partners on the other hand, are for the most part, two adults that can actually make decisions and can actually (maybe) comprehend what a relationship is about and the complexities of said relationship. Marriage just makes it even more complicated, but as they are two adults, we do not have any right to impede on their rights to wanting to be married.

Someone brought up marrying within families. A brother and a sister, a cousin and a cousin, etc. That to me is definitely strange, but if we were to make laws to stop them from pro-creating, then should we really care if two siblings want to marry? Any opinions on this?

 

Laws that forbid any adult from procreating are wrong.

Any definition of marriage is exclusionary (if you define what it is you also define what it isn't).

For some stupid reason we have decided that the definition must be agreed on by all in the form of state sanctioned marriage. And you get disagreements about that definition, leading to one side calling the other bigots for simply defining it differently (Obama of course was not a bigot when he had the same definition). This is evidence of their hatred of gays and homophobia.

 

What, that people are working towards redefining the definition of state marriage to be more inclusive of gays?

They should leave it to states and churches. America has never needed federal legislation to ensure that everyone has the same protection under the law. I can't think of anything...civil rights? Gender discrimination? 14th amendment? Nope. nope. nope.

 

If your opinion is that gays shouldn't be able to marry because "derp, Jesus," then you are a bigot attempting to impose your religious beliefs on others through government.

If there is a valid argument against gays being allowed to marry, I have yet to hear it. We redefine words all time time, and slippery slope arguments are just poor logic. They would have been used against interracial marriage, too.

 

No, Obama was a bigot when he was against same sex marriage. His policy is still wrong in wanting to allow states to maintain bigotry on a state by state basis.

Obama is miles ahead of any past President, or current candidate for president.

 

You logic has big enough holes to drive a bus through.

you seem to think it isn't bigoted if the activity is unhealthy. Gay sex between two men is pretty unhealthy.

You also dismiss the "no one is able to marry their own sex" argument then USE the "no one is able to marry their own cousin" argument for your own bigoted purposes.

Congrats bigot.

 

If you think attacking "marrying your own cousin" is bigoted, than am I to assume you could not give a s**t if two cousins married?

Because I personally don't. So it's good to see more people out there that recognize that as long as there is informed consent between two adults, it shouldn't matter. Taboos are mostly passe anyways.

(Also, the whole conundrum with bringing up gay sex being unhealthy is that sex is unhealthy in general. Just wear rubbers, and do whatever in the privacy of your home, and all will be alright.)

 

Morally I have no problem with what others want to do. I only brought up buttsecks being dangerous to counter the idiotic "argument" about health. Marriage isn't sex or kids.

Your definition also has a problem with only including couples. Any adults, including 3 or more is the non-bigot position here.

 

I don't mind at all expanding the definition. 50 consenting adults. etc. As long as there is reasoned and informed consent, I don't care if you want to marry a shoe or 50 shoes (as long as the shoe or shoe(s) can provide reasoned and informed consent).

 

Agree with regards to protecting the children, but in some cultures and religions...




In Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urges girls to marry at 16...there is also talk of lowering the age of consent to 9 there to fit in with the sharia.


From England

http://www.islingtontribune.com/news/2012/jan/islington-girls-forced-marriage-age-nine

It is also common in the sub-continent for cousins to marry.


In relation to the right to marry a dog
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7093422.stm

Man 'marries' dog to beat curse


The "bride" wore a sari and a garland.


An Indian man has "married" a female dog, hoping the move will help atone for stoning two other dogs to death.
P Selvakumar, 33, said he had been cursed since the killings, suffering paralysis and a loss of hearing.

The wedding took place at a Hindu temple in Tamil Nadu state. The "bride" wore an orange sari with a flower garland and was fed a bun to celebrate.

Superstitious people in rural India sometimes organise weddings to animals in the hope of warding off curses.

'Tried every cure'

Crowds cheered the newly-weds at the end of the ceremony in Sivaganga district, about 50km (30 miles) east of the city of Madurai.

The "bride", who is called Selvi, was led to the temple in Manamudurai wearing a sari before vows were exchanged in a traditional Hindu ceremony.

A relative of the groom who attended the wedding said he hoped Mr Selvakumar would now be cured.

"Fifteen years back Selvakumar was physically fit. But, once he attacked a pair of dogs and thereafter Kumar could not move his limbs freely," the relative, Ramu, told the BBC.

"He tried every cure for his ailment but could not be rid of his disability.

"On the advice of an astrologer and others, he decided to marry a b**** to get cured. Then we arranged Selvakumar's marriage with a b****." [/QUOTE]

Mr Selvakumar is not the first man to have hit the headlines for having romantic relations with animals.
Last year a Sudanese man was forced to marry a goat after village elders discovered him having sex with her. The goat died shortly afterwards.

Man marries Daughter
Ali married his eldest daughter, telling his wife Sakina that Allah had ordained him to do so.
Even though Marriage within the nuclear family is forbidden in Islam.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiat...95402_1_jurisdiction-daughter-divine-sanction

Whilst I agree that marriage to a child, a dog, a goat, your offspring or sibling is absurd, somewhat disgusting, weird and not socially acceptable to us, it is acceptable in some of the most populous countries as part of their religion, culture and law.

Are you stating that it is ok for same sex couples to have a legal right to marry, but would deny a Hindu man his legal right to marry a dog because your intolerant, bigoted views don't agree with it?

Or you would allow two men to marry, but deny an Iranian, Afghan or Saudi from wedded bliss with a 9 year old because you have prejudiced intolerant views in regards to their religious law and customs that have been carried out for thousands of years?

So you better watch out, Someone on this board could claim that you are narrow minded, intolerant of other cultures & beliefs or worse be called the dreaded B word.

A BIGOT!


(btw: not having a shot at you ElPigto, just showing how absurd this argument has become. People will always argue in favour of their positions and just brush of the so called beastiality / pedophilia card, even though it is prevelent in today's society. Why? Because they know that if gay marriage is approved it will open a can of worms.

(And not comparing homosexuality with beastiality or pedophilia, just saying it is out there in the world and a legal right in some countries to marry a child or dog or goat or snake or horse or ......)

But will the gay lobby come out and support the indian's and Muslim's religious & cultural right to arranged marriages to minors & polygamous marriage once they get what they want?

Would gays be happy with a recognised civil union that carries all the rights of marriage, without having to call it marriage?

IMO There are much bigger issues in the world that require more attention, such as poverty, lukiemia, cancer, HIV, world hunger, wars & finding cures for childhood diseases etc...the list goes on & on.

Sometimes we just have to accept that life isn't always fair, and we are not always going to get what we want.

Sometimes we think that we are right, when we a truly wrong..No matter how many people support your cause.

Instead of playing the blame game, name game and pointing fingers and hating one another, just get on with loving life, it is too short to waste.


God bless y'all and have a good day mates.




(written at 5 am...insomnia is terib... teri...zzz....zzzzzzzzz)

 

If the shoe fits wear it?










EDIT:
My religion, society and upbringing taught me that homosexuality is wrong. As an adult I wouldn't personally participate in homosexuality, and still find it a bit wierd, but the reality is who am I to tell two consenting adults how to feel, or what to do with their lives if it doesn't have a direct impact on my family or I?

I love Jesus as my Lord & saviour, and he told me to love my neighbour, especially the sinners...that's roughly 99.9% of the world and point them towards the righteous path.

I don't have to agree with, condone, encourage, like or participate in their activities, but I am instructed to show love, kindness and compassion.

I still don't support gay marriage as such, but if two people of the same sex want to live with each other, and seek the same rights, who am I to stop them in their pursuit of happiness.

I will try to make this my last post in this thread....so as not to offend the gay folk, but the D&D is like a drug!

You could say I'm a clutchfans addict.

That's all.

 

Wrong. Heterosexual couples engage in all the same practices that gay couples do. So it isn't a matter of genetic health reasons that keep same sex couples from marrying each other.

I don't care if cousins are allowed to marry. I'm not bigoted on that point. What I said is that it isn't a valid comparison to make regarding forbidding same sex couples and pointed out why.

What I did point out is that is that one group isn't allowed to marry the person they love.

There isn't a real movement out there to allow interfamily marriages. So it's irrelevant for you make that argument as to why same sex marriages shouldn't be allowed. But if you'd like to, then an opponent could point out the health risks that are involved in marriages within the family that don't exist with same sex marriages.

So your comparison is off on any number of ways that don't include bigotry.

Sorry.

 

Thread reminds me of my favorite Men at Work song: "Bigot."

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ImKPzEGCYZI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

You bringing that up is an idiotic argument since heterosexual partners engage in that as well.

Sex is definitely a part of marriage and kids often are as well.

I've said before I'm fine with polygamous marriages being legal, but within existing law they aren't. So I'm working with equal protection under what is currently legal.

 

It's because that's the last prominent instance of one group of people being denied their equality of rights due to who they are. It's called precedent.

 

Just because it is culturally acceptable elsewhere does not make it right. People always argue about what is ethical and moral. Many argue that our ethics and morals come from the Bible and from God all knowing, I definitely don't.

If another culture believes murder is okay, then should we be okay with it, even though our culture does not find this acceptable? Of course we should not be okay with it because this is morally and ethically wrong. When African Americans were being lynched in this country, just because the culture of the South at the time found this acceptable did that mean that we should have been okay with what was being done? Absolutely not. We know that as humans certain things should not be acceptable based on the observations we make around us. You shouldn't need a book or a higher power to let you know what is right from wrong. We are intelligent beings and I think we can figure that out ourselves.

I understand that you are a Christian and the Bible tells you that homosexuality is wrong, but this is the belief of the Bible. I don't believe our earth should base our morals and ethics on what the Bible says. The Bible has many good things in it, many good guides on life I suppose, but it is not needed to dictate on what our laws should say. We have common sense and reasoning for this.

A man being able to marry an animal, as living creatures of this earth we should know better than to let this happen. If an adult wishes to marry a young child, then we should also know better. This being culturally acceptable in other cultures does not make it right and we should fight to educate other cultures around us to stop this idiocy. A child does not know any better nor does an animal.

Same-sex partners on the other hand do know much better what they are getting into. They know how to make choices and decisions. If a same-sex couple wishes to enter into a legal union in this country, then they should have every right to do so. They should also be able to enjoy the exact same rights heterosexual couples have in this country. It is pretty stupid to make a homosexual couple feel any less. Their sexual preference should not stop them from being able to adopt a child, from getting several tax benefits based on our tax laws, from being able to have a say in a dying partner, etc etc. I find it really silly that anyone would argue otherwise.

As far as I know, there are religious gay people out there. So they should be able to call it whatever they want. There are plenty of heterosexual couples in this world that are not part of any religious sect, so are you telling me that their union should not be referred to as "marriage" since they may not believe in your God or any other God for that matter? How come you don't argue against that as well? Does religion have some sort of ownership on the word "marriage"?

I agree with you Izak. There are many issues in this world that we should pay more attention too. I am definitely guilty of not being proactive for many causes. However, just because I'm not proactive for many other issues in this world does not mean I should not argue for this. Unlike cancer, world hunger, HIV, etc, this issue is something that can be easily resolved. Homosexual couples should reap the benefits that we heterosexual couples enjoy. As far as I know, homosexual couples are not harming any innocent beings and if they love each other, they should be able to marry.

 

Uh, you're not married by law unless the government recognizes it. What the hell? You are HILARIOUS. So now you're advocating that gay people can get married without a license? The degree to which you clowns move the goal posts is just incredible. You can get married dude, oh wait, you want a license? Oh nah, we don't do that for you'z gay people.

 

The marriage the judge is referring to in your statement is simply a social/religious union between two people (this is all marriage should be). Gays/Lesbians are currently allowed to do this. They can confess their love or make commitments in front of whatever church/synagogue/god welcomes them. This is an unalienable right (understand the difference?). What the judge is not referring to is government-recognized marriage which is something different and comes with benefits at the expense of others (those not in government recognized marriages). The latter is what is being discussed in this thread and is what Gays/Lesbians are fighting for. Do you still not understand?

I'm not advocating anything in any of my comments to you. I am explaining basic English. Government recognized marriage is not a 'right'. Stop misusing the term.