| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Mon, Aug 15 2011, 6:02 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Bert and Ernie arent gay and wont get married |
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44111195/ns/today-entertainment/ |
Damn that Elmo! He's such a homewrecker! |
watch your language - there are many upstanding Christian straight people reading this |
Bert & Ernie are not gay.
They just pretend to be a couple so that they can keep their rent controlled apartment on Sesame Street that they got together in 1970! |
|
 |
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon, Aug 15 2011, 6:00 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | What if I want to marry my sister? |
Thats not gay.
Marrying your Brother.........................NOW THATS GAY! |
I assumed it was a woman marrying her sister, silly me. |
That was sexist of me. |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat, Aug 13 2011, 11:50 am EDT Post subject: Re: Bert and Ernie arent gay and wont get married |
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44111195/ns/today-entertainment/ |
Damn that Elmo! He's such a homewrecker! |
watch your language - there are many upstanding Christian straight people reading this |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri, Aug 12 2011, 10:35 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Bert and Ernie arent gay and wont get married |
|
| Guest wrote: | | http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44111195/ns/today-entertainment/ |
Damn that Elmo! He's such a homewrecker! |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu, Aug 11 2011, 10:42 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
| Bert and Ernie are icky. |
|
|
| Guest |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed, Aug 10 2011, 6:10 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
| Guest wrote: | | Again you are confused. We find you icky. |
Yeah! You're icky! |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed, Aug 10 2011, 8:06 am EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
| Again you are confused. We find you icky. |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed, Aug 10 2011, 12:04 am EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Your question was already answered in the novel-length reply so why re-ask? |
Because he thinks he is being provacative, instead of merely dim. |
Actually, the question I asked wasn't answered. I did hope the question would be provocative, as in "thought provoking". If you argue that any two consenting adults in a loving committed relationship should be allowed to marry, what would preclude me from marrying my sister? |
No one argued that "any two consenting adults in a loving committed relationship should be allowed to marry" except you. That had nothing to do with the basis for why the state should not prevent gay marriage which is about discrimination. Family members are not a recognized class that can be discriminated against so if the state wishes to prevent incest marriages it can without contradicting its laws. In fact, since most states outlaw incest entirely it would be a contradiction for it to allow incest marriages.
If you're trying to start a new topic about whether incest should be legal, go for it, but marriage between family members is completely unrelated to gay marriage which is what this topic was about. |
I think you're missing the difference between the moral argument vs. the legal justification. I'm not debating your legal justification, but I think it ignores the larger moral debate; which is important because laws tend to change as morality changes (See Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). Regarding the moral debate...
Opponents of gay marriage have argued that the purpose of marriage is to foster a stable family unit for the purposes of procreation and child rearing and that is why marriage should be limited to one man and one woman.
Proponents of gay marriage have argued that marriage is not necessarily about procreation and child rearing (both of which are essentially available to homosexuals anyway); rather marriage is a loving, committed relationship between two consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation.
What I find interesting is that many of the social liberals who are so quick to dismiss the morality of social conservatives on issue of gay marriage as over-reaching and imposing, have no problem imposing their own morality on someone who wants to marry their sister, or brother, or father, or mother.
What is it to you? Why should you get to decide who can and can't be in a loving committed relationship? Why is your morality superior to those with differing points of view? If you support gay marriage, on what moral grounds can you oppose intra-familial marriage? |
No one is arguing with you. We find your argument essentially trivial. I don't think liberals are arguing with you. I don't think anyone is arguing with you. |
Yeah! Who cares about the rights of such a small group of people. Besides, they're icky! |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue, Aug 9 2011, 12:03 am EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Your question was already answered in the novel-length reply so why re-ask? |
Because he thinks he is being provacative, instead of merely dim. |
Actually, the question I asked wasn't answered. I did hope the question would be provocative, as in "thought provoking". If you argue that any two consenting adults in a loving committed relationship should be allowed to marry, what would preclude me from marrying my sister? |
No one argued that "any two consenting adults in a loving committed relationship should be allowed to marry" except you. That had nothing to do with the basis for why the state should not prevent gay marriage which is about discrimination. Family members are not a recognized class that can be discriminated against so if the state wishes to prevent incest marriages it can without contradicting its laws. In fact, since most states outlaw incest entirely it would be a contradiction for it to allow incest marriages.
If you're trying to start a new topic about whether incest should be legal, go for it, but marriage between family members is completely unrelated to gay marriage which is what this topic was about. |
I think you're missing the difference between the moral argument vs. the legal justification. I'm not debating your legal justification, but I think it ignores the larger moral debate; which is important because laws tend to change as morality changes (See Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). Regarding the moral debate...
Opponents of gay marriage have argued that the purpose of marriage is to foster a stable family unit for the purposes of procreation and child rearing and that is why marriage should be limited to one man and one woman.
Proponents of gay marriage have argued that marriage is not necessarily about procreation and child rearing (both of which are essentially available to homosexuals anyway); rather marriage is a loving, committed relationship between two consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation.
What I find interesting is that many of the social liberals who are so quick to dismiss the morality of social conservatives on issue of gay marriage as over-reaching and imposing, have no problem imposing their own morality on someone who wants to marry their sister, or brother, or father, or mother.
What is it to you? Why should you get to decide who can and can't be in a loving committed relationship? Why is your morality superior to those with differing points of view? If you support gay marriage, on what moral grounds can you oppose intra-familial marriage? |
No one is arguing with you. We find your argument essentially trivial. I don't think liberals are arguing with you. I don't think anyone is arguing with you. |
|
|
| Almost Heaven |
| Posted: Mon, Aug 8 2011, 10:54 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
| I'm getting an idea for a new reality show- Almost Heaven - featuring a West Virginia family that's just a little too close. |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon, Aug 8 2011, 9:28 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Your question was already answered in the novel-length reply so why re-ask? |
Because he thinks he is being provacative, instead of merely dim. |
Actually, the question I asked wasn't answered. I did hope the question would be provocative, as in "thought provoking". If you argue that any two consenting adults in a loving committed relationship should be allowed to marry, what would preclude me from marrying my sister? |
No one argued that "any two consenting adults in a loving committed relationship should be allowed to marry" except you. That had nothing to do with the basis for why the state should not prevent gay marriage which is about discrimination. Family members are not a recognized class that can be discriminated against so if the state wishes to prevent incest marriages it can without contradicting its laws. In fact, since most states outlaw incest entirely it would be a contradiction for it to allow incest marriages.
If you're trying to start a new topic about whether incest should be legal, go for it, but marriage between family members is completely unrelated to gay marriage which is what this topic was about. |
I think you're missing the difference between the moral argument vs. the legal justification. I'm not debating your legal justification, but I think it ignores the larger moral debate; which is important because laws tend to change as morality changes (See Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). Regarding the moral debate...
Opponents of gay marriage have argued that the purpose of marriage is to foster a stable family unit for the purposes of procreation and child rearing and that is why marriage should be limited to one man and one woman.
Proponents of gay marriage have argued that marriage is not necessarily about procreation and child rearing (both of which are essentially available to homosexuals anyway); rather marriage is a loving, committed relationship between two consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation.
What I find interesting is that many of the social liberals who are so quick to dismiss the morality of social conservatives on issue of gay marriage as over-reaching and imposing, have no problem imposing their own morality on someone who wants to marry their sister, or brother, or father, or mother.
What is it to you? Why should you get to decide who can and can't be in a loving committed relationship? Why is your morality superior to those with differing points of view? If you support gay marriage, on what moral grounds can you oppose intra-familial marriage? |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon, Aug 8 2011, 6:27 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | What if I want to marry my sister? |
Thats not gay.
Marrying your Brother.........................NOW THATS GAY! |
I assumed it was a woman marrying her sister, silly me. |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon, Aug 8 2011, 5:20 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
| Guest wrote: | | What if I want to marry my sister? |
Thats not gay.
Marrying your Brother.........................NOW THATS GAY! |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun, Aug 7 2011, 11:26 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Your question was already answered in the novel-length reply so why re-ask? |
Because he thinks he is being provacative, instead of merely dim. |
Actually, the question I asked wasn't answered. I did hope the question would be provocative, as in "thought provoking". If you argue that any two consenting adults in a loving committed relationship should be allowed to marry, what would preclude me from marrying my sister? |
No one argued that "any two consenting adults in a loving committed relationship should be allowed to marry" except you. That had nothing to do with the basis for why the state should not prevent gay marriage which is about discrimination. Family members are not a recognized class that can be discriminated against so if the state wishes to prevent incest marriages it can without contradicting its laws. In fact, since most states outlaw incest entirely it would be a contradiction for it to allow incest marriages.
If you're trying to start a new topic about whether incest should be legal, go for it, but marriage between family members is completely unrelated to gay marriage which is what this topic was about. |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun, Aug 7 2011, 7:50 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Your question was already answered in the novel-length reply so why re-ask? |
Because he thinks he is being provacative, instead of merely dim. |
Actually, the question I asked wasn't answered. I did hope the question would be provocative, as in "thought provoking". If you argue that any two consenting adults in a loving committed relationship should be allowed to marry, what would preclude me from marrying my sister? |
Nothing, I suppose; if that's what you're in to. You might as well sleep with her while you're at it; as long as you're both consenting adults. |
... And that's the story of how West Virginia came to support gay marriage. The End. |
|
|