Foamy On Gay Marriage

[ilikeguns]

If it neither picks your pocket nor breaks your bones, who are you to judge?

I do not care what anyone does behind closed doors. I am not their judge nor do I wish to be. However the giant push that has came in the last fifteen or so years to keep homosexual behavior "in your face" so to speak and to paint those who believe it is wrong and shameful(which is a LARGE percentage of people) as monsters really does get to me. I believe it most definitely does "pick my pocket. When you can no longer watch a single television show that does not portray homosexual behavior in a positive light,or go out to a restaurant with out seeing a same sex couple in PDA's, but I can't haul a deer uncovered in the back of my truck without getting dirty looks there is a problem. 20 years ago this would not even have been a discussion. It is only through concentrated bombardment by media and television that we have come to this point. There is a difference in accepting that a behavior is around and condoning it by making it mainstream.

 

[buckwacker]

Fundamentally the issue is this: 1. either morallity is defined by religion, meaning society does not decide right and wrong, or 2. morality is defined by the whims of society, meaning that in reality there is no absolute right and wrong. If we wish to preclude a religious foundation for the definition of morality to justify sexual proclivities, than please do not be so disingenuous as to suggest that pedophelia is imoral. To take this a step further, what makes violating someone elses rights wrong? From whence is the moral authority to make that judgement derived?

 

[strahd71]

Who says their rights are being violated? Seems as if they have equal rights now. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like the rest of us. In this there is no discrimination. They choose to live a gay lifestyle (there is no science to back up a "gay gene" or born this way excuse) and we should make special concessions for them? We should redifine hundreds if not thousands of definition because they choose an alternative lifestyle seems absurd.

Jake

 

[repeter1977]

for the people saying that Pedophiles dont chose to be that way, well, most serial killers did not chose to be that way either, should we allow them all out. After all, it isn't their fault that they killed over and over. They could not help themselves?? Just my 2 cents.

I think that the post has really wandered away from a funny cartoon, about people that are a little too preoccupied with gay marriage. I would say, anyone arguing about the sanctity of marriage, has not apparently been around the real world and seen some of the quickie marriages.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

I really like "happy tree friends" much more....

State sanctioned marriage serves only two purposes and neither of them is accomplished in a same sex partnership. This is just another way for libtards to grab "free money". Personally, I don't give a rats petooty if it is legal or not, but if it is legal, then the entire contract needs to change as well as the tax code and everything else that is already established based upon the original intent behind state sanctioned marriage. Oh, and any religious organization that will recognize it is surely full of parishioners that will burn in hell. Anyone see what happened in Minneapolis a few years ago when the lutheran church had their convention and voted to allow gay ministers? It was a clear sunny day with no sign of any meteorological events, the vote came in and it was 66.6% yes, you read that right, 66.6% in favor, immediately after the vote was tallied a TORNADO pops up in the middle of downtown Minneapolis on a clear sunny day mind you, and destroyed the steeple of their church and just as suddenly as it appeared, it vanished without touching another thing. True story there people.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2320562/posts
http://fratres.wordpress.com/2009/0...theran-conference-on-gays-in-the-church-pics/

A bit of google foo will yield far more info for anyone actually interested in learning about an ACTUAL sign from God.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I really like "happy tree friends" much more....

Do I even want to know what you are talking about?

 

[rambone]

The fallacies that have beset this thread are astounding. If I were Rambone I would post a picture of that Muppet who threw fish into the crowd.

LOL I don't know what this means but I'll post it

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Do I even want to know what you are talking about?

It's a cartoon. http://www.youtube.com/show?p=9yvrmRkvaxg&tracker=show0

 

[strahd71]

I really like "happy tree friends" much more....

State sanctioned marriage serves only two purposes and neither of them is accomplished in a same sex partnership. This is just another way for libtards to grab "free money". Personally, I don't give a rats petooty if it is legal or not, but if it is legal, then the entire contract needs to change as well as the tax code and everything else that is already established based upon the original intent behind state sanctioned marriage. Oh, and any religious organization that will recognize it is surely full of parishioners that will burn in hell. Anyone see what happened in Minneapolis a few years ago when the lutheran church had their convention and voted to allow gay ministers? It was a clear sunny day with no sign of any meteorological events, the vote came in and it was 66.6% yes, you read that right, 66.6% in favor, immediately after the vote was tallied a TORNADO pops up in the middle of downtown Minneapolis on a clear sunny day mind you, and destroyed the steeple of their church and just as suddenly as it appeared, it vanished without touching another thing. True story there people.
Minneapolis tornado rips Lutheran conference on gays in the church (Pics)
Minneapolis tornado rips Lutheran conference on gays in the church (Pics) « The Orate Fratres

A bit of google foo will yield far more info for anyone actually interested in learning about an ACTUAL sign from God.

if you mean this i like it

jake

 

[Prometheus]

Civil rights are civil rights. Black, white, gay, straight, doesn't matter. Civil rights are being violated because people have failed to persuade, so they legislate.

Pretty much.

Slaves (yes I'm going back there) need permission to get married.

Prior to the War Between the States, white folks didn't need a license.

After the war, instead of freeing the slaves outright, white folks decided since they held all political offices why not pass a bunch of laws making everyone slaves.

That worked out for %^&*.

Repeal all marriage licenses.

If you believe in traditional marriage, then you know it is between a Man Woman and God. The state is a fourth wheel, it doesn't belong ANYWHERE in the equation!

 

[ThrottleJockey]

if you mean this i like it

jake

Oh, I mean it. I don't say things I don't mean. You should certainly know that about me by now...Oh, and I don't give a flying f*** who it offends either.

 

[strahd71]

Oh, I mean it. I don't say things I don't mean. You should certainly know that about me by now...Oh, and I don't give a flying f*** who it offends either.

jake

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

What would those fallacies be?

Jake

I may be well off base leveleleven...please expound on your contention.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Pretty much.

Slaves (yes I'm going back there) need permission to get married.

Prior to the War Between the States, white folks didn't need a license.

After the war, instead of freeing the slaves outright, white folks decided since they held all political offices why not pass a bunch of laws making everyone slaves.

That worked out for %^&*.

Repeal all marriage licenses.

If you believe in traditional marriage, then you know it is between a Man Woman and God. The state is a fourth wheel, it doesn't belong ANYWHERE in the equation!

Repeal marriage licenses? I'm ok with that. There are plenty of churches that already marry gay people. So what's the fuss all about, really? It's not about marriage. It's about changing the culture, isn't it?

 

[Lupin3rd]

I suspect a large number of people under the libertarian umbrella are represented here so I'm confused as to why no one has brought up the obvious: the Axioms of Self-Ownership and Non-Aggression. Read Self-ownership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Non-aggression principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for a full background for those unfamiliar but it basically boils down to this:

Axiom of Self Ownership:
All people are self-owning and are entitled to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. From this you have implied rights such as entering into contracts, self defense, free speech, right to associate, rights of belief, etc. etc.

Axiom of Non-Aggression:
Presuming that others have the same rights you do. Implies that certain activities are always crimes and therefore always wrong such as assault, coercion, fraud, involuntary servitude, murder, etc.

The gay marriage issue becomes simple logic problem. You have two people who wish to enter into a voluntary contract while the state, who has no stake in the matter, uses coercion to prevent such a contract. This is clearly wrong and it is an affront to liberty.

Is homosexuality a choice? That's a red herring because whether it is a choice or an inborn trait, people have the right to be gay. If your god tells you not to, that's your deal and your personal decision.

 

[PistolBob]

Couldn't possibly be more sick of listening to people try to convince the masses that what isn't, is.

Hate is love
War is peace
Red is blue
China is our friend

And my favorite...if you disagree with me, it's obviously because you a close minded bigot.

Teach your kids the difference between poop and shinola. It's the only place they are going to learn.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I suspect a large number of people under the libertarian umbrella are represented here so I'm confused as to why no one has brought up the obvious: the Axioms of Self-Ownership and Non-Aggression. Read Self-ownership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Non-aggression principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for a full background for those unfamiliar but it basically boils down to this:

Axiom of Self Ownership:
All people are self-owning and are entitled to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. From this you have implied rights such as entering into contracts, self defense, free speech, right to associate, rights of belief, etc. etc.

Axiom of Non-Aggression:
Presuming that others have the same rights you do. Implies that certain activities are always crimes and therefore always wrong such as assault, coercion, fraud, involuntary servitude, murder, etc.

The gay marriage issue becomes simple logic problem. You have two people who wish to enter into a voluntary contract while the state, who has no stake in the matter, uses coercion to prevent such a contract. This is clearly wrong and it is an affront to liberty.

Is homosexuality a choice? That's a red herring because whether it is a choice or an inborn trait, people have the right to be gay. If your god tells you not to, that's your deal and your personal decision.

Those are your beliefs.

I refer you to one of my earlier questions. What if I believe I have the right to give my daughter or son or other family member to another for marriage? It's not mutually consensual. But it may be my belief that this is normal. Why should those people be restricted by your belief system that contains a "2 consenting adults" caveat? That's the red herring.

 

[Lupin3rd]

Those are your beliefs.

I refer you to one of my earlier questions. What if I believe I have the right to give my daughter or son or other family member to another for marriage? It's not mutually consensual. But it may be my belief that this is normal. Why should those people be restricted by your belief system that contains a "2 consenting adults" caveat? That's the red herring.

The "Two Consenting Adults" caveat isn't the heart of my argument. The heart of my argument is that people are self-owning and can therefore enter into contracts at their own discretion. To assert that one has the right to "marry away" their son or daughter is to either make the argument that your children are your property or that might makes right.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The "Two Consenting Adults" caveat isn't the heart of my argument. The heart of my argument is that people are self-owning and can therefore enter into contracts at their own discretion. To assert that one has the right to "marry away" their son or daughter is to either make the argument that your children are your property or that might makes right.

I understand. My point is your contention is based on a belief system to which others may not adhere. This whole gay "rights" thing is based on challenging orthedox belief systems. If there is another way of viewing human relationships, there must be many, many more. Which one is correct and who is to say?

 

[jamil]

As I asked in post 36, what gives us the moral authority that requires the union to be consenting?

I see what you're saying, but the argument is still apples and oranges. It's not "moral authority" that requires the union to be consenting, it's simply a matter of protecting rights. Some people may have a proclivity to rape, or murder, or steal. But since they can't help it, should we let them practice their proclivity on the non-consenting?

Two males seem pretty f'd up to me, but what they do in their own privacy is their own business. I just wish they'd keep it more private than they do these days.

As for marriage, it is a religious idea with which government should never have involved itself. If I get a vote I vote against the government sanctifying or certifying gay marriage, interracial marriage, intraracial marriage, arranged marriage, or any marriage.

If two or ten consenting adults of varying sex or race want to join in matrimony in the Church of Pumped Up Kicks, knock yourselves out. Just don't ask the government for a certificate, or benefits, or penalties, because it has no right to involve itself. And, please keep it to yourselves what you do behind closed doors.