Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

No human law is absolute and no law should be followed absolutely. You will find no justice in the black and white of the written law.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

There's no justice. There's just us. But that works more against censorship of thought and speech and prohibition of assembly than it does against the freedom for people to gather and be proud of who they are.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Justice is the even and fair distrubition of laws to the people by a higher power. It exist...

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

A higher power, such as God/Earth Mother/Buddha/Santa Claus/Easter Bunny?
Or our collective imaginations?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Do you recognize any of the above?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

As in their power, or their existance?

I believe our 'collective imaginations' exists. The others I'm not too sure. I've be told many conflicting things about all of them.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

What does this mean....Is justise that intangable to you?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

We choose to imagine certain things, and we choose to as a society. These imaginations are indoctrinated in from birth, and often enforced by force. It's nothing new. I've just given up believing in some of them.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

The parades step over the line once they become aggravating to to people who are just trying to mind their own business and don't want to see shit like giant inflatable penises. Seriously, go ahead and parad, but you don't need to be so fucking loud about it. All it does is distrupt the lives of people who really don't care. It isn't going to help you any.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Like math...Indoctrinated from birth, Induced by force, nothing new, completely imaginary... Does imaginary make useless...
I say no...Does imaginary have less tangible impact?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

No, the imaginations suit our needs, that's why they are there. And by "our needs", I mean the needs of the people who start the imaginations.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Therefore Imagination does not equate to irrelevant.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Not all gays celebrate "gay pride". And the ones who do, don't necessarily do it at the gay parade.
1. Who invented the "inflatable penises" argument?...
2. Imagine the following:

Now I come a long. I walk along the street and suddenly this weird dude called Afterburner comes along. I don't want to see you.

Now what to do?They should stop doing what they're doing because you say so?Apparently the "people who really don't care" do care.
Are we talking about a gay "parade" or a "demonstration"? If you mean the latter, politely asking for their rights surely won't help them.If you were not granted the rights of the first amendment, because someone thinks you shouldn't be granted those rights, I don't think you'd simply accept it.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Am I doing something that particularly sets you off? If so you can ask me to stop. If I'm not acually DOING anything, and I'm just walking down the street, then it is your problem.

Yes. I've got no problem's with gays. I have a few friends who are gays and I never feel uncomfortable about them. But it is annoying when a bunch of people participate in large parades that block traffic and just in general annoy the hell out of me, and all over "marriage". No, I mean they didn't care before hand if you were gay or not, they just wanted to get on with their lives. But now you run around outside shoving it in their face, blocking traffic, and waving banners in their face and you simply piss them off. My point is that it does more harm then good.
I also wouldn't do anything to bother people who arn't causing me and harm. It's the same as demonstrating at a soldier's funeral to protest the war. You are protesting in front of people who are doing nothing to you, and all you are doing is pissing them off some more. Go protest on the steps of the Lincoln memorial or in the park or something, not int he streets where you block Joe Average's trip to work and back.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Go to San Fransisco and watch the guys walking by in their inflatable penis costumes... its gross.

Then go to a college campus and see the Vagina Monologues and their giant inflatable vaginas.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

In this example, you annoy me. Particulary because you are walking down the street. So it's my problem? What if I found people who were also annoyed simply by your existence?

As I asked, demonstrations or parades?

Just like it did more harm then good when Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus?

The people need to be in the spotlight to be noticed.

People could protest in their own backyard, that won't get the message across though.And then you apply the argument to all gays out there? Which would you prefer "..." or ":rolleyes:" ?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

So I'm not actively doing something to annoy you? I am minding my own business and I still annoy you? Well, you sure are a shitty human being:D(j/k, of course) I'm saying that these parades are actively blocking people's paths, and are actively annoying people. And all of this over marriage?
I already said, parades.

Because many people back then hated blacks. How many people actually hate gays? Sure there are some but I would be willing to bet that atleast 75% of the people in America couldn't care less what your sexual preference is. Whatever floats your boat. But then you have parades that simply annoy the hell out of them, and you turn them against you. You rn't proving a point, you are merely pissing off people that weren't even working against you.



Just don't block the streets. Do it in the park or go to someplace like Washington D.C. and protest at one of the memorials or something. That way you don't ruin the day for the guy who doesn't care what you do, and is simply trying to live his own life.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

If you didn't want to know what we meant by inflatable penises, you shouldn't have asked.

Don't ask a question if you don't want an answer.

":rolleyes:"

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Yeah, pretty ridiculous, ain't it? Just give 'em the same rights that you have and everyone's happy, no one's blocking anyone's path...

But blocking a street for political means are demonstrations and not parades. :uhm:


You obviously are. If people accepted gay marriages in the first place, gays wouldn't need to do this. If you want one to blame, blame the people who hate gays / are against gay marriages.

:uhm:I'm afraid I didn't understand that statement correctly.

I wanted to know who "invented" the inflatable penis argument to find out afterwards why people keep saying "gay parade -> inflatable penis", because it's ridiculous.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

"Gay marriage" is an oxymoron, because marriage is the union of a man and a woman. And don't throw me that bullshit about how we can change the definition. If that is the case then from now on I shall extend the meaning of the word "tree" to include small children.

Create Civil Unions that both straights and gays and get to receive the benefits a married couple currently receive, and then let Churchs' deal with marriage.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Ok lets say I walk down the street with a sign that says F*CK or walk around shouting penis or swear and tell dirty jokes while old women and children walk past... If someone dosen't want to see me or hear me thats their problem right ??? Or if I arrest someone for the following ^ for being a public nuisance thats wrong right because they are not hurting anyone and are just expressing themselves?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Well the ones with the inflatable penises and vaginas are not making it any better for those who don't have them.

They have the same rights. Marrige is not a right, it is a privlage. The US constution says nothing about marriage. You don't need to be married to someone to stick your meat into their anus. You don't need to be married to leave your lover your poessions in your will.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary. All of the demonstrations of seen/read/heard about have these vulgar displays of sexuality.

And you're acting like that's not normal. But it is normal. Pagan fertility parades in ancient cities like Athens were exactly like this. A giant statue of a penis would be rolled through town and the virgins would throw flower petals on it.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Not entirely true. Don't married couple's receive tax breaks or some such thing? If so I am simply saying that either those tax breaks shouldn't exist at all, or if you want to keep them apply them to civil unions and then leave it up to the different Churches to decide whether they want to marry someone.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Well, I don't think that the vast majority of people marry for life just to get a tax break and a share of their partners possessions. But I suppose it does happen.
And why do they call it 'civil union'?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Tax breaks for marriage serve a useful purpose. Gay marriage doesn't.

Those tax breaks are even more important in Europe, where they are desperately trying to get the native birthrate back up to par.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Yeah, well a lot of things don't serve a purpose, but they're still here.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Examples?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Well, the first I can think of is useless questions like that one.
2) A one walkie talkie set
3) A two-legged stool
4) Debating a useless topic about uselessness.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Marriage is defined as the union of a MAN and a WOMAN.

Two men can not be "Married"

...Is nothing sacred?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Not any more these days with all the "open minded" people.
Sadly.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

There already were societies that accepted homosexuality as quite normal, things are only turning back to how they used to be before Christianity got such an influence over us.
If gay sex helps to decrease religious fundamentalism I'm all for it (as long as I don't have to participate).

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Another disclaimer? Do you think I didn't know this?

Tell you what, I'll strip down to a banana hammock and gyrate my crotch in your face for two hours and we'll see if my free expression isn't trappling over your right of viewing discrimination.

Public....It's public.
Public means it belongs to everyone.
Private means its yours to do what you will.

It should be censored. I don't know what you thinki censoring is but I think it's putting a pair of Levi's on.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Appeal to RidiculeI'm not sure how it works in the US, but in Germany marriage doesn't have anything to do with "the church(es)", unless of course the couple wants it.I never said so. Besides, there are straight people who act like that. 'nuff said.

I fail to see how this is an argument against gay marriage. I'm sure, if they were "given the right" (ridiculous that such rights must be request these days...) to marry (-> marriage, not civil union), I'm sure they would people would have no problem stopping the "inflatable penis" thing and the like.


I can't relate to the opinion. Gays aren't allowed to marry, they go onto the streets. You are annoyed by the gay people and blame them?

To me it seems that you don't want to see gays protesting (on the streets). Whether they carry an inflatable penis or not.I'm not saying that inflatable penises and vaginas are right. I fail to see why they should not be allowed to marry.Yay, insults... bring it on! :banana:

Neither does a straight couple. Why not remove "marriage" altogether?Europe > US.

The US is a joke when it comes to such things.

"We're superpower #1 in the world, but hey, gays aren't allowed to marry!" :n0e: :vikki:Gay marriages don't serve a useful purpose, because ...?Appeal to TraditionWe already discussed the whole God argument, didn't we?As I said. One gay person < all gay people.




Equal rights for everyone.. or not? Last time I checked Justice was blind.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

tHAT'S RIGHT and the rights being trampled on are the ones concerned. There is no "right to offend your neighbor clause...

There is no right to blow smoke in your neighbors space.

There is no right to piss in public water fountains

There is however laws against indecent exposure....

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

My reply to it being sacred has nothing to do with religion.
thanks

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Lets see if someday people can marry animals because animal lovers are considered a minority... < Yea, lets give into everything... Right?

Oh and by the way this Minority crap is Bullsh*t . I consider minority's about race not a bunch of queers running around slapping each other with dildos.

Lets say people who cheat on their spouses are minoritys. < Oh sh*t maybe someday that will be ok too!


Well to be honest... I don't. I think they need to keep their buisness to themselves.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Once again, Appeal to Ridicule

You even quoted the part containing the link.Slapping each other..? Sources?

Hasty Generalization
Composition
Spotlight

It's called "minority" for a reason. So your definition of "minority" is the following?

minority = racial minority

:n0e:


Yeah, go ahead, why not compare gays to pedophiles (again..), murderers and rapists?


Appeal to RidiculeI don't see the "inflatable" penis thing as justified, but I do think they should be able to marry.

Spotlight



Fallacies! :banana:

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

If two people want to live miserably, I say let them...

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

My definition of Minority is racial. In all political sense it is. Gay and Lesbian is Life Style...and their are all types of life style...
When we're dealing with such incredibly important issues such as race and genocide Gay and Lesbians are trying to make their own corner of politics for what?

Allimony? Spousal Support?

I don't get it... Women were underpaid for generations and all of a sudden becaise she's suffered wrong you desrve it too?

THAT is a fallacy!
Not to mention a perversion of justise to women and blacks and every other true minority.

All this for money? Unbelievable...

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Let them live together and keep their buisness to themselves. Leave others alone and quit b*tching. This entire thread is all about personal ethics really... I think if they wern't so flamboyant then people would not feel so disgusted about the whole subject. All the regular gay people ive met I usually have thought were cool. While the faggy steriotypical ones I have not. Im sorry if this offends but I have no respect for a man who runs around with a dildo, dances around in a thong and acts more inmature than a 16 year old girl...

Whiteshark the theory I was trying to get at was : Anyone can be use the Its freedom argument no matter who you are. And it comes to a point where it's just downright annoying and disrespectful to others. And by the way who cares how I debate? Im not trying to change oppinions. What are you trying to say? I don't think anything here needs to go personnal...



P.S. Saquist I agree.:)

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

A minority is a minority, whether it be racial or not.
So they are the bad ones in this game?Red Herring :cya: Please explain how a gay marriage differs from a straight marriage.

Oh.. right. A straight couple may "produce" kids? As I asked two times already, what about if one or both are infertile? Should they be denied marriage?Neither do I, there's alot more things/people I do not have respect for.

I never wanted to justify big dildos being shown at a demonstration. In my humble opinion every person should have the same rights. If a straight male is allowed to marry, so should a gay male be allowed. And if it's forbidden for a straight male to run around with a dildo, so should it be forbidden for gays.
I agree. In case you are accusing me of going personal, I didn't.

After all, someone did compare gays to pedophiles in this thread. And you must agree, you did ridicule my claim.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

In reply to the argument that "homosexual marriage destroys the sancity of marriage", I present research of Scandinavian nations permitting gay marriage by William Eskridge and Darren Spedale. Wall Street Journal cites them reporting that:So much for marriage going to Hell. Whoops. Er, what's that? There's more?

Yup:Of course, most of us already knew that there's no way making marriage more inclusive would somehow harm it, but either way, now it's been scientifically proven.

Source (I won't say it's a splendid post, 'cause then the fanatics won't read it, but it is).

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Well I apoligize fo any misunderstandings. I guess it's easier to hear a voice than read typing. You really can't hear the tone its meant in if you get what I mean. I really diddn't mean to ridicule you and I appoligize. And I already stated by using the word perverts I did not mean pedophiles.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

I apologize as well, my post had as always in such situations a slight aggressive taste. ;)

Although I must say, this post of yours could be interpreted to have a touch of sarcasm.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

No sarcasm intended.:)

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Post hoc fallacy. The Titanic was sunk two years before WWI, therefore the sinking of the Titanic caused WWI.

Good to know that these incidents have been "scientifically proven" to have never happened.;)

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...050339590.html


Riiiight.:uhoh:

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

What do you think? Is greed and oportunism what you think of when you think of Freedom and Fairness...all the things you purport to stand for?

No...It's the entire issue: You're just caught up in the "righteous fairness" the movement is publizing. You're not willing to look any deeper than "Speedo Deep"

Marriage is Man and Woman. It is fundamentally a religous institution.
And if you were trying to steer away from the minimalizing of REAL Minorities...Women are STILL underpaid and discriminated against.
With the Cost of living rising and the job market biased against women at least to a marginal degree in pay and opportunity.....The State Has morally sided with women...In most cases to a fault.

I'm so sick of that stupid argument... Honestly, this is the most retarded reasoning on the face of the blue green Earth. Marriage may be about a propper place to raise kids but it does NOT equate to compare a GAy Union to a Marriage.

And that's not to you Whiteshark that to everyone who uses the Productive family idea of why Gay Marriages are wrong.

A Gay family will Never Produce Children.
Any Children a Gay Union may have will be from previous encounters or Adopted.
While it's certainly a service to society to adopt children the damage (if any, and often is) is done. Adopted children are extremely difficult to mold.
A Marriage is the ideal place to begin a family, No not to just pic up where someone left off.

Quite Frankly since the instution of Marriage was dawned by God and continued through religious institution the definition is clear.

It does not preven Gay from creating their own form of Bonding...A justice of the Peace...A life time friendship ring...Make something up but chopping up the laws of another culture to suit your own purposes is pathetic...

It's not same...stop trying to be a woman...If you want Alimony go get a sex change...at least then we really get the idea of how far gone you are and maybe you really do need government endorsement.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Saquist, I love you! and in a manly way so don't get any ideas fool.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Blah blah blah. As I said, Red Herring.

And please, stop accusing me of this and that, just because I see it as totally irrelevant to this debate.
I'm not gay. If you are so willing to prove that argument, why don't you go have a sex change? :cya: