Gay pride is like Spring Break or Carnival in Rio or New Orleans? Are those 'disgusting displays of sexuality'? No, they're PARTIES and what people do at them is NOT how they act when they are going about their daily lives.
That guy in assless chaps, like the woman in the string bikini, is the person who will sell you your insurance, or teach your kids: a NORMAL PERSON having a day off.
They should stop calling it gay marriage, because a lot of people do not recognize that gays can be married. Even with the passing of the law, people still won't recognize that union. Call it civil unions, which gives gays the same rights as any married couples. That's what they're after, not for the sake of calling them married.
I see a cataclysmic catastophy coming to NY (perhaps in the form of an earthquake, comet, tusnami, or something man made). NY and NV are the new Sodom and Gormorrahs. What's next on NY's list of immoralities and perversions? Legalized prostitution? At this stage in the game, it wouldn't suprise me if they came up with a civil union between a human and an animal or the marrying of minors with adults.
Thank God that the Rapture is quickly approching. I think that God has had enough.
All They Was Missing Was The Pope Mobile from Rome Rolling Right Behind Them To Make It Their Perfectly Gay Day in New York. New York Can Thank Italian born American Govenor Coumo from Roman Decent. The Same People Who Nailed Jesus Christ To a Cross & Practice It on The World. Hell In A Basket & What Is Next The Priest Are Gonna Get Married To, Because They Are One And The Same. Mine Ya Children Ya Hear
At least America is a country that has grown up and is now starting to allow same sex marriage unlike Australia which is a backwards bigoted prejudice intolerent country, Australia still does not allow same sex marriage and wont untill a long time to come, Australia is stuck in the dark ages
The Republicans lost the last election. Not only that, but the last time they were in control of everything, we started two unwinnable wars. It's the Republicans who should leave the country. Talk about the blind leading anything at all...
Let's get Obamination the hell out. 3 weeks in office & 3 TRILLION dollars in debt & it's just getting worse. Costing us more in 3 weeks than Bush ever spent in Iraq & Afghanistan combined. Can't wait til November when the Dem's are out on their shit-stained asses!
I love how Ihave been attacked,as this is the proven point of being the most fowl and seriously DISGUSTING thing a human can do and keep on going trying to justify and shove this pile of horse shit down America's throat, in the end you will see a back lash like you have never seen politically against the DEMOTERDFUCKS.
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.
1 Corinthians 6:9- Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers will inherit the kingdom of God.
It's so interesting to me that so many of these "christians" are all in knots of a "sin" that doesn't even make the Top 10. Why aren't there millions being spent to stop adultery?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
GUALLACOL I completely 110% agree with you on that! And I commend David Paterson for respecting NY's state laws on homosexuality especially and not willing to do anything to stipulate to that! I hope and pray that NY or none of the other states in the US passes a law to support gay rights. Marriage is a union that God created to be between 1 man and 1 woman nonnegotiable. I hope and pray God turn the hearts around in California because that was absolutely dispicable!
Even though I am straight, I can hardly express how happy this makes me. The fact that tons of simple-minded nitwits are upset over the High Court's decision is icing on the proverbial wedding cake. It's pure schadenfreude for me: I literally take joy in seeing all these "sanctity of marriage" conservatives so broken-up... YOUR DAY IS OVER! As goes goes California, so goes the nation. And not soon enough.
Im sorry that I dont understand your God. You see my God does not tell me to condem and persacute those who do not believe my faith. I accept all for who they are (as long as it does not harm others)and still believe a higher being or force. I dont tell people that they are sinners.
Mark Steyn is basically a right-wing wingnut loon like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh who has found that the more outrageous things he says, the more press he gets and the more income he earns.
So surprise, surprise, he writes a book saying that in 40 years all of Europe will be conquered by Islam and America will be alone.
It doesn't matter how ridiculous a claim is, if you've got a rabidly faithful segment of the population to which to market it they'll eat it up with a spoon.
In Europe the native Europeans are halving their population with each generation. We have Mexico immigrating here but in Europe they get their "cheap labor" from Islamic nations. Islam does not assimilate they assimilate you. They are having on average 6 children per generation, Europeans are halving their population per generation. The math puts Islam DEMOCRATICALLY in control of Europe no later than mid-century. So it simply won't matter how Europeans feel about Islam they won't even be there.
So we can call Mark Steyn all the names we want. However, unless you can prove his math is flawed such name calling is just a pointless Ad hominem fallacy. Western Culture is in fact in imminent danger of falling. Will gay marriage cause the fall? No, it's merely one piece of the puzzle and perhaps a symptom rather than a cause. Nevertheless, I oppose it because it's going in the wrong direction.
Well thank you I will, seeing as how Steyn has no problem using baseless racial slurs. What's good for the goose and all.
Refuting Steyn's simplistic, fearmongering thesis with reason and data requires more than a 500-character forum, but if you want to read a good one go here:
rfmcdpei.livejournal (.com/408410.html) (added to avoid censor)
Steyn is just preying on Chicken Little conservatives' irrational fears and post-911 Islamophobia to make money, is all.
"Perhaps more important than exact numbers is the spectacular rate of growth since World War II. Muslims in France in 1945 numbered some 100,000 souls; fifty years later, the population has increased by thirty or forty times" Michel Gurfinkiel Published in 1997 before 911 or Mark Steyn's book. meforum (.org/article/337)
That same rate of growth of the estimated 4.1 million French Muslims is more than 123 million Muslims in fifty years. That's greater than the entire population today.
Yeah, that stat is just great for scare tactics. It doesn't bother to mention things like, oh, how much of the increase was due to immigration rather than fertility rates (a huge factor), especially in light of the French withdrawal from North Africa in the 60's.
Or the fact that the majority of the French Muslims are Maghrebi Muslims, who are culturally quite different and historically more Europhilic than Middle East Muslims.
Look, I'm a social conservative. So when the Mullah's take over I'll grow out my beard, pay my tax for being a "person of the book" and keep my head down. However, if you want advance gay rights something tells me the tax won't do it for you. So why you are less worried about this than me is something of a mystery. Perhaps you really didn't know.
If you're not gonna do anything about it other than conform, what the hell are you bitching about Islam for anyway? :D
Seems to me if you'll have no problem adapting to Islamic culture which WILL affect your daily life, you should have absolutely no problem at all adapting to gay marriage taking place because that won't affect your daily life one iota.
Do I sound like the type that will conform to whatever shows up? Jugg, My point was I'll be much better off than you in what Europe is fast becoming. All this so-called "progressive thinking" is going to in fact drive us back to the middle ages if we don't knock it off. Europe is doomed, it really is over for them unless a miracle happens. America will follow suit if we abandon our traditional social values. Therefore I speak out against gay marriage and other entropic social trends.
Given that you've stated that you'll just keep your head down, pay your taxes and grow a beard, in all honesty yeah you do.
If I'm not scared of Islam, why should you be scared for me? Who's exhibiting more faith here? Me, the atheist gay rights guy, or you, the "strong Christian faith and values" guy?
Besides, if the Islamic threat to Western civilization is as dire as you say, you're going to need gays' help. If you give them the rights they want they'll fight even harder because you're on their side and they've got even MORE to lose.
But in all honesty, what it really sounds like is you don't WANT to be saved from such a fate. You just want an excuse to bitch.
Went to the site and the author of the blog didn't do their homework. The Europeans are halving their populations per generation, the law of reverse compounding will get them. And that doesn't account for immigration. Why are Europeans halving their population? The lost traditional family values and can't be bothered with having children. Gay marriage cannot help with this problem in that gays don't reproduce they only recruit. Thus the practice is actually parasitic on the host population.
And as far as health risks, I don't know what "people" said about interracial marriage back then. However, I am citing scientifically backed studies from well established medical authorities to back my statements regarding homosexuality and health risks.
Oh Duff, I think you have a persecution complex. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they hate you. However, you are correct I might BURN BURN BURN in hell. But not because I hate anyone, I don't silly boy. I even admire your stubbornness and denial, in the face of overwhelming evidence against your cause.
You take a blind man to lead another man, they both will fall in a pit. OMG what the hell are we coming to? Marriage is defined between a MAN AND A WOMAN. If homosexuals want some legalized unity call it something else.. but the WORD Marriage is between a
Duff, if you disagree with someone's lifestyle that isn't "Nazi light." Interracial marriage is not an abnormal behavior fraught with health risks. As far as hell goes I imagine a merciful God can extend mercy to anyone, maybe even you. Ostridges like yourself are the biggest threat to Western Civilization not gays. Read "America Alone" by Mark Steyn. Demographics alone shows ALL of Europe will be Islamic by mid-century, a mathematical certainty. America the new Byzantine Empire.
LOL, right, a religion which historically has had NO success recruiting among any non-Semitic or non-Afro-Asiatic cultures throughout history is going to suddenly have huge success within 40 years' time among the very Aryan cultures that still harbor a great deal of antipathy for the culture of Islam.
I'm sorry dude, but that's just paranoid delusion. You've been reading far too much Christian apocalyptic propaganda.
It's also rather illuminative that you would cite a right-wing author who unabashedly refers to Chinese as "chinks", Vietnamese as "gooks" and citizens of India as "wogs".
He's basically another male Neocon version of Ann Coulter. The funny thing is that the Neocon philosophy is now on its last legs, having been thoroughly repudiated by the reality of events.
You guys Don't know what the Hell your getting your self in to. The day when Gays are aloud to marry and adopt children. Is the Day God will hit us with all kinds of natural disasters. You can count on it. And don't give me that shit about there is no God Life is very short!Not cause God is did us unjust but cause Gog wants us to return to our reel home and to enjoy eternal life and pleasure.This life is just a test and you guys are failing the test miserably.
I'm assuming you believe in God and that you're going to go to heaven when the time comes, so if gays are helping to speed things along to the day when God returns, why aren't you happy they're helping you get closer to the ultimate destination?
If you're saved and going to heaven anyway, what have you got to worry about? Or is it really that you're not sure you're going to heaven, and you're trying to slow down the process in any way possible?
Well if I'm not worried about myself, why should you? Does God also damn YOU eternally for MY sins, or does he just hold you accountable for the sins you accumulated yourself?
Look, if God created hell then SOMEBODY has to end up there. Everybody can't be saved so why are you worried about me? If I know about the hell thing, and I obviously do, isn't that enough? Can't I make up my own mind about the risk?
If you worry and save everyone from hell, aren't you making a liar out of God?
Besides, doesn't the Lord already know the day and manner in which you'll die anyway? So is there anything the gays can do to change that? The gays can't change God's timetable can they, so does it really matter what they do?
And even if you're injured in the great natural disasters, wasn't that God's plan for you all along? Since he already knew you were going to be injured, doesn't he have some plan for you that way that gays can't change no matter what they do?
Would you please read the Tibetan Book or the Dead, the Sayings of Buddha, Dianetics, The Book of Mormon, thr Koran, the Talmud and the Very Hungry Caterpillar.
@steerpike66 There is nothing irrelevent nor trivial about the Bible, my friend. In fact, everything in the Bible has either came to pass or is lingering in balance. Judgment day is just around corner. Are you ready? Get smart, get saved. Time has all but ran out.
@fanbutton I am not, nor ever will be, a Christian and the therefore the Bible is BY DEFINITION irrelevent to me. As irrelevent as Dianetics and as holy as 'Goodnight Moon' NOTHING that has been predicted in the Bible has come to pass: the MEN who wrote the Bible were unaware that the Earth rotated aroudn the sun and Jesus couldn't even predict electricity, or the motor car.
Um, I'm really having a hard time squaring two of your statements. If you truly believe acceptance of gays constitutes such a dire threat as to imperil the entire existence of Western civilization within a century, why are you in favor of treating it so benignly?
If a rational person truly believed the risk posed by a behavior was that dire and that imminent, he would advocate more extreme measures of suppressing it.
So which of the 2 things you profess do you not truly believe?
The reality is that gays will not stop seeking equal rights. And given that they've gained a huge foothold in Cali, it's a virtual certainty that gay marriage will become the law of the land if the amendment effort loses in November. There's a reason for the adage, "As Cali goes, so goes the nation."
Since you believe the consequences of accepting homosexuality are so severe, given the above why are you not advocating more extreme preventative measures, like quarantining or killing them?
Like you said before ENTROPY. "Gay Marriage" is one step in cultural entropy, all civilization go through it. This not advancement, the common acceptance of homosexuality as "normal" has been done before by many extinct civilizations as you know. Entropy may be inevitable. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't work against it. Give me a hand will you?
Yes, it will rapidly encourage and advance the acceptance of homosexuality. It will kick open the door to inflicting it as a "normal alternative" on children in schools. The courts will insist. It will then result in the massive demoralization of our culture followed by the complete collapse of Western Civilization within one century. Islam will move in and fill the vacuum and the light of freedom with be forever extinguished. That's really bad.
Acceptance of homosexuality is a good thing. Tolerance of differing practices that don't affect you personally is better than intolerance.
LOL, you really think that millions of Christians will abandon their belief in Jesus Christ and convert to Islam just because homosexuality is accepted? Boy, that really doesn't say much for Jesus, does it?
If our society collapses, it won't be due to gays. Energy and resource shortages will have far more to do with it than gays OR heterosexuals.
Btw, I don't care whether you weigh 190 or 490, I still don't want to think about you having sex. I prefer my pornographic fantasies to be filled with largely anonymous actors.
Sorry if that disappoints you, LOL.
But the overall point is, the healthy psyche is easily able to discard thoughts that if finds aesthetically distasteful. The inability to do so suggests some kind of obsessive behavior.
So really, the objection that it disgusts you is not much of an objection.
Well thank you I appreciate that. And it is disgusting, I didn't say we should outlaw homosexuality. Honestly, before the gay community appeared on my TV news in parades wearing underwear and angel wings, wiggling their butts at the camera I didn't think about it at all. And then after those disgusting displays come out and demand my government create something called "gay marriage" too! You know it wouldn't even be on my radar screen, the rainbow rings and nasal voices were all just whatever.
Do you understand why gays have their ostentatious Pride parades? What are they acting out against? They're acting out in public fashion specifically BECAUSE OF the public stigma itself.
If you remove the stigma and its effects, then you lessen the incentive for gays to act out publicly. Fewer gays will march, and they'll draw less media coverage.
Blacks marched and demonstrated often at the height of their civil rights movement. Do you see them demonstrating often today?
The distinction in your fake ID analogy is that states don't issue "certificates of non-marriage", so there's no way to "fake" being single via state documentation.
As far as the fat comment, yeah the thought of really fat people having sex disgusts me. Are you really fat? That's fine if you are, I certainly wouldn't begrudge you the right to have sex or get married.
I just wouldn't think about it. For that matter, I don't think of any of my friends having sex either.
"Life expectancy at age 20 years for gay men is reduced 8 to 20 years.(International Journal of Epidemiology). "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices." "Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer ...." (Medical Institute of Sexual Health Executive Summary 1999)
Sure, they have the same individual rights as everyone. As I stated before, I am against the government being involved with marriage at all. Thus, encouraging something called "gay marriage" is really a government stamp on a lifestyle that by every measure is not healthy. Argue with the health professionals all you want but the fact remains. And if you don't think I've given you negative things then you didn't pay attention or prefer to completely ignore the information provided.
A study done in england showed that %30 of gay men actually don't engage in anal sex, and %10 of straight couples (including women penetrating men) in the U.S. do. That's larger than the percentage of gay men in this country...
Chaos theory also explains why it's eminently reasonable to assume that the most viciously homophobic people are probably gay themselves. The butterfly effect of the stigma often produces results which are the utter opposite of either the intended or expected result.
That's why it was no surprise that Ted Haggard, one of the most vocal religious homophobes, turned out to be a screaming queen.
Fred Phelps of Westboro Church fame? That man is gay as hell, there's no doubt in my mind.
A phobia (from Greek: φόβος, phobos, "fear"), is an irrational, intense, persistent fear of certain situations, activities, things, or persons. The main symptom of this disorder is the excessive, unreasonable desire to AVOID the feared subject.
Therefore, "viciously homophobic" contradicts the definition of a phobia. Someone that is "homophobic" would avoid the feared subject thus couldn't be "vicious." Those of us that are opposing you don't have any such fears.
Sure Mike, you don't have any fears of homosexuality.
You've only mentioned numerous times that you think recognizing the rights of homosexuals will lead to the decline and ruin of Western civilization, but I guess that's not a fear...is it? :D
I see everyone as individual human beings. I may not agree with you but I'll never change my view of a person's intrinsic worth, need for friendship and love. I honestly don't see homosexuality as a positive life-style, I know it's not, and therefore government endorsement of such life styles cannot be positive either.
I have witnessed many positive homosexual partnerships, and many horrible hetro-sexual relationships. On the other hand, non-positive relationships of all sorts happen. That is the nature of being human. How about we let people decide how they wish to live their lives, and accept them as they wish to be. It would be a happier world for all of us.
You KNOW it's not positive? If you're not gay, how do you know?
Alan Turing was gay and he solved the Nazi Enigma code, greatly assisting the Allies in defeating the Nazis. And yet he killed himself rather than be imprisoned just for being gay. Some thanks, huh?
Martina Navratilova, Elton John and Michelangelo are/were all gay, and contributed immensely to their fields (the list goes on of course). Are their lives not positive?
So isn't it simply the case that you can't generalize?
Alan Turing is known as "the father of the computer". Imagine what more he might have contributed had he not been persecuted and the full flower of his genius had been allowed to bloom. We might have been several decades ahead of where we are now.
I mentioned chaos theory before...do you understand the butterfly effect? If you don't, Turing's life is a good example. Had the stigma not been in place, we might have seen vast advances in computer theory much earlier. (cont)
But instead, the "butterfly effect" of the stigma against gays produced a wholly different outcome, one most definitely more negative than if the natural equilibrium state had been unaltered. Turing was a proven genius, so it's a virtual certainty that he would have contributed more to the cause of mankind.
But no, the stigma against gays went to work, and he killed himself rather than go to jail or be sterilized.
It's just unfathomable to me that you call yourself a libertarian, and yet you can't grasp how stigmatizing an otherwise victimless behavior produces more positive results than not stigmatizing it.
We have the lesson of alcohol prohibition. That only fostered organized crime. It certainly didn't cause a drop in drinking.
We have the lesson of the drug war, which you've admitted you oppose. The obvious truth is staring you in the face. If you lift the stigma, many things will improve.
It should read "...how you can't grasp that not stigmatizing an otherwise victimless behavior will produce more positive results than stigmatizing it".
I edited what I had originally typed before posting it, and thereby produced a wholly different and utterly opposite result than the one I had intended.
See? Another instance of chaos theory and the butterfly effect at work.
"Life expectancy at age 20 years for gay men is reduced 8 to 20 years.(International Journal of Epidemiology). "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices." "Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer ...." (Medical Institute of Sexual Health Executive Summary 1999)
Homophobia/heterosexism causes a lot of people in the LGBT community a lot of emotional/psychological stress which can shorten your life span. If this is what you really cared about, you should maybe stop spreading your prejudice and discrimination... It also has no effect on your life, so I don't know why you care so much about it.
Anal sex is what increases risk of cancer, not homosexuality, and lesbians are less likely to get AIDS than you. If you really cared about health concerns, you'd be promoting safe sex, not homophobia/heterosexism...
Well by that logic Mike, the state should outlaw ANY sexual activity other than for strictly procreative purposes, because ANY sex drastically increases health risks as compared to celibacy.
And yet we don't see the state prosecuting fornication and setting up reproduction centers, do we? They must be endorsing and promoting STDs by allowing sexual activity!
The point is, ALL human activity carries some inherent risk. There is NO human activity which carries zero risk. (cont)
Shouldn't the state outlaw skydiving and hanggliding, since those activities serve no actual purpose other than the individual's happiness, and such an individual is infinitely more likely to die in a fall or crash than a non-skydiver/hangglider? Is the state endorsing and promoting death by air since it refuses to outlaw these activities?
The state would only INCREASE the already sizable inherent risk in skydiving by outlawing it because it would drive those intent on doing it underground.
As far as health concerns I'm merely quoting medical professionals that used words like "significant" to describe the health threats. Your argument is with them not me. I don't suggest we outlaw being gay. However, promoting this activity with government benefits is irresponsible and a disservice to the American tax payer.
I have no argument with them because I don't disagree with them. There IS a risk to engaging in those behaviors, just like there is risk in ANY human activity.
The difference is, I recognize that homosexual activity is going to go on irrespective of these risks, because a number of individuals will have decided that the reward to them justifies the risk.
Thus the choice to me is this: we can enact measures that mitigate the risk, or we can amplify it, but we can't eliminate the risk.
Again, we can look to alcohol prohibition for guidance. The temperance folks wished to eliminate risks involved with drinking, e.g., alcoholism, cirrhosis, lost productivity.
Did prohibition make those who chose to drink anyway safer? No, it only increased the risk of death from adulterated bootleg alcohol.
Did it make the public at large safer? No, it only fostered organized crime and reduced effective safeguards against overconsumption.
So given that a number of people will engage in homosexual activity despite any stigma, and further given that a number of people will also engage in it in less safe fashion because they wish to avoid the effects of the stigma, does stimatizing the activity reduce the activity's inherent risk?
No, it increases the overall risk to society because of the segment of the population that will attempt to evade the effects of the stigma and thus act recklessly, i.e., anonymous promiscuous sex.
So obviously prohibition is absurd, as you have agreed.
I'd assume you're in favor of civil unions as a "meet halfway" means of mitigating risk but still preserving marriage as you'd like it. But are civil unions any more tenable? No, because it's well-settled that "separate but equal" institutions don't fly.
So you're left with the options of either giving gays full marriage recognition or wiping marriage away altogether for both groups. Good luck getting heteros on board with that.
No I don't favor civil unions or any other government stamp on homosexuality or even normal marriage. I don't think marriage is the government's business. And if the government wasn't involved I doubt gays would be renting wedding chapels in any significant numbers. Why? The truth is this isn't about marriage it's about using the government to advance a lifestyle that is unhealthily and frankly disgusting. I don't want prohibition or promotion but compete neutrality.
Well, the reality is that it IS the state's business, and moreover there's a strong rationale for it. Minimizing the risk of bigamous and inheritance frauds justifies the regulation.
For a nominal fee people entering unions can reasonably assure themselves that their prospective partner is not a bigamous fraud, which they couldn't do without great expense if the registering were left to churches.
And it's self-funding, as the registry can be combined with other necessary recording.
People can enter into contracts to protect themselves, make wills and so-forth without a government filing cabinet. And if you marry someone that is already married you really don't even know that person. It's rare enough to make the evening news. I'm certain recording at church or your attorney will suffice for that as well. And how many common law marriages, not recorded at all, do the courts enforce all time?
If you don't record your property title, you run a much greater risk of having it clouded or usurped totally. So why on earth would you consciously choose to be less efficient and more reckless?
The same reasoning applies with respect to marriage. Yes, you COULD choose to record it privately, but why on earth would you choose a less efficient, riskier form of recording that would end up costing you MORE if something DID go wrong?
Property is another issue unrelated to religious institutions like marriage. With your thinking every agreement ever made should be checked, approved and recorded by the government. To make things easier? When does the government ever makes things easier? Do we really need marriage to be like the Motor Vehicle Department. I don't see it.
The point about publicly recording property claims is to show that it's a harm reduction measure just like publicly recording marriages.
Of course not all contracts have to be recorded. There's no need to record most business contracts, as those contracts usually contain some internal dispute resolution method.
But if we didn't record property titles it would be far easier to present fraudulent claims and there's no easy way to resolve those without court intervention and expense.
I'll bet yahoo! and Google could do a better job recording marriages if needed. And gays could record "gay marriage" as well. However, that gets to the heart of it. Without government sanction there is no gay marriage. Without government sanctioning it just becomes a silly notion people would giggle at, even gays themselves. But if they did want to have a big party and call it marriage I wouldn't oppose them. See how much better that works? BTW I'm 6.0/190 and married... to a female lol
Perhaps they could, but the cost of the state doing it is so nominal anyway that it doesn't make economic sense, given that states long ago satisfied the initial startup costs of their recording systems.
And recording it privately online discriminates against those who don't own computers, making it more costly for them. Moreover, Yahoo or Google could very easily decide later such a system wasn't profitable and simply terminate it at any point, thereby screwing over millions of people.
Ok, Wikipedia. And if you can afford to get married I'm sure the pastor, priest or one of the witnesses at the party will type it in for you. These days it likely costs more to drive down to the county recorders office anyway.
Oh okay, so you'd advocate entrusting it to an open source recording system. That's a great way to minimize the risk of bigamous/inheritance frauds, LOL.
A recording system is not all that complicated. The present state systems address the risks just fine at nominal cost, and they've already satisfied any initial startup costs.
If private recording is such a better idea why isn't anyone advocating it now, irrespective of the SS issue? Because it just ain't a better idea, that's why.
Do you understand why it's necessary to obviate the risk of bigamous/inheritance frauds with a central state register?
It's because that by the time such fraudulent attempts are likely to surface, most of the time it's been YEARS since the marriage event(s) supposedly took place. In that time, private witnesses die, private registers get merged/transferred, memories fade.
A centralized state public register obviates all of those tangential risks inherent in minimizing the primary risk.
And just who would you entrust the necessity of bigamy/inheritance harm reduction to, churches? Churches can't even agree on doctrine, let alone share a common registry.
Or I suppose you would rather a person get rooked or have to spend a small fortune on a PI background search than pay a nominal fee to the state, eh?
Ya know what? The idea of two really fat people having sex disgusts me. I see fat couples all the time, but I just don't think about it and voila, it doesn't bother me.
With the internet today, I'll bet most could agree on a common private registry. If nothing else the newspapers could link it all up, plus other sources of information such as home purchases and so on and so forth, it's all there. Someone changing their identity doesn't show up in government registries either. What's a fake ID cost these days, 20 bucks? Oh and thanks for the fat people comment, did you have to do that?
LOL, suuure they could all agree with their differing doctrines. And who's going to manage it? That's a separate argument right there.
And who's going to register the Wiccans, atheists, Zoroastrians, etc., who get married? Not the churches, so right there we need another registry. Duplication of effort, waste of resources.
Regardless of how rarely bigamous frauds occur, the point is that the risk can be minimized to effectively zero with a central registry at nominal additional cost.
How is gay marriage a disservice to the American taxpayer? I'd like you to explain that one.
For one thing, until recently 42% of US married couples filing jointly paid MORE taxes than two single people, so I'm at a loss to see how encouraging gays to marry and thus pay MORE taxes than if they were single is harming married taxpayers.
Also, it's pretty despicable to argue that married people are entitled to the benefit of single gays paying more taxes than them just because they're gay.
Again, it returns to what I've stated previously about chaos theory and "the butterfly effect". By artificially manipulating the natural equilibrium of an activity, you're only AMPLIFYING the inherent risks in that activity.
People are going to engage in homosexual activity whether it's stigmatized or not, just like avid skydivers are going to skydive whether it's illegal or not.
So given that's it's going to occur ANYWAY, why on earth would you want to AMPLIFY the associated risks?
To clarify my position I don't want the government endorsing or promoting homosexuality by creating new institutions that never existed before like "gay marriage" a parody of marriage. If the government was attempting to take away your right to be gay I would be defending you. I do not espouse discrimination against anyone, I believe all rights are individual and group rights are fiction.
I see, but allowing "Britney Spears" 55-hour marriages and "Bachelor" and "Marry a Millionaire" shows is not parodying marriage? Are gays behind that too?
Recognizing the right of gays to marry is not creating a new institution. It's still marriage, just marriage between a new class.
And as we know, it's happened before. Interracial marriage became the law of the land in 1967, when interracial couples had had no such right before.
Jugg, it is a new institution unprecedented in the history of the world. Even the Romans didn't "gay marry" anyone although homosexuality was fully embraced by that culture. They didn't need to advance their homosexual agenda so I expect the gays back then couldn't have cared less about being "married". They likely would laugh at the notion and wonder what you are talking about. And yes, Britney Spears is a nut case trying to get headlines so what? Is "gay marriage" is about headlines too?
Actually, there is evidence that Romans DID allow SS marriage, at least for a while until the Christian church gained ascendancy. The writers Suetonius and Martial mention it.
In fact, it wasn't illegal in Rome until the emperor Constantius outlawed it in the mid-300's.
And lest you argue "ah, so that's why Rome fell", remember that Rome didn't fall until AFTER gay marriage was outlawed. So by that line of reasoning causation for Rome's demise would appear to lie with Christians.
I'm sure they allowed it but it likely wasn't an issue. I would like to see the evidence because while I'm sure it was no problem it was also likely not something that was sought after. Likely due to the neutrality surrounding it. Men didn't give their daughters (yes women were treated as property back then) to other daughters in marriage customs back then. Just didn't exist.
You made the point that same-sex marriage was totally unprecedented in the annals of human history.
I simply offered evidence that it wasn't. There is evidence that the emperor Nero married someone of the same sex. Martial, a Roman poet who lived in late 1st century AD, makes reference to two men marrying.
So you've gone from arguing that SS marriage is totally unprecedented in history to arguing that even if it did occur, such instances are trivial. What's next?
Well, I'm sure if their was a first for such a thing Nero would be a good candidate. However, Nero was legally bound to nobody, not even all the women in his harem. All were his property including the men and boys he had sex with. So perhaps existed in concept, but practiced in any appreciable way no.
Duff, I don't HATE anyone. And FYI, a very close friend of mine in high school was openly gay. I had no problem openly associating with him EVERYDAY even though it meant I received the exact same hatred he did. I was called all the associated names I know how it hurts. I had rocks thrown at me and even had a group of kids try to take me behind the school and beat the hell out of me. I never backed away from my friendship. Don't say I hate you it's simply not even close to true. Peace, Mike
I'll be shocked if we see any appreciable increase in monogamy in the homosexual community due gay marriage. I suspect, gays will insist we promote homosexuality in public schools now that "gay marriage" is real according to the government. And in the long run we will have MUCH more homosexuality of the non-monogamous sort. Leading to the rapid decline and destruction of Western civilization with Islam filling the vacuum. Not hysteria, just a rational assessment of the direction we are taking.
how many societies have fallen that didn't treat gay people equitably?
maybe businesses should only hire gay people, that way they wouldn't have to pay as much in benefits, as they wouldn't have to cover spouses of employees, and most families (but not all) don't have children either...
is sexual orientation was used to fire heterosexuals... it would probably be illegal at the federal level...
maybe married couples should be taxed on inheriting anything a dying spouse leaves them...
i'm sure that people who oppose gay marriage, if a penniless gay man owed them lots of money, and they couldn't collect... had a judgment on him, but if he had no money... that's all they had...
then that man marries an extremely wealthy man, i'm sure they'd want the relationship legalized, if only to help them pursue collection of their judgment... i don't believe for a second they would not do so... due to their disapproval of gay relationships anyway...
The issue of miscegenation wasn't about changing the definition of marriage. It was about keeping people from different races apart. The new concept of "gay marriage" is about getting tax credits and government goodies for having a homosexual relationship.
Gays are saying we want the government to create something called "gay marriage." Something that never even existed in Roman Empire that fully embraced homosexuality. You're an attorney, you can write up an agreement to split all the property evenly if you and your "monogamous relationship" breaks up. Likely a better arraignment than marriage anyway. As an attorney you'll likely end up paying spousal support to your lower income partner.
So if churches choose to recognize gay marriage, well fine... However, no government rubber stamp and benefits on gay marriage or even marriage at all is my position. It just wouldn't be an issue if we leave the government out of the whole thing.
Well I'll cite STDs as one problem rampant with homosexuality. Perhaps that is now being diminished with condoms. And government sanctioning of gay marriage is really promoting homosexuality. Homosexuality is by and large not a monogamous activity. Gay marriage kicks open the door to other things like society embracing polygamy. Again my opinion but I can't see that is beneficial to promote either. Schools will have teach homosexuality as something ok and normal, it is not. Again out of space.
I didn't say that Duff. I said that gays and blacks are nothing even close when it comes to the issue of rights. I think you need to concede that point.
Negative consequences. 1.) Homosexuality is not a natural or normal behavior and therefore doesn't promote the good of society as a whole. 2.) Gay marriage aside, homosexuality is by and large not a monogamous activity and therefore harmful for reasons I don't need to mention. Government sanctioning of gay marriage will..outofspace
Same sex marriage is only disguesting in opinion, like mine. I think it's wrong because it is not God's way. If all people were gay or lesbian we wouldn't be here. It would make sense if you were athiest but I'm guessing most gays and lesbeins do believe in God. In God's way it takes a man, and a woman to reproduce. Not two men or women. Same sex marriage is wrong in God's eyes. And stop using to many big words, please.
Stop using big words? I hate to be blunt about it, but the proper resolution of this issue involves using and understanding big words.
If you don't understand them you should probably either pull up your online dictionary and educate yourself, extricate yourself from the debate or remain and look the fool. I'd recommend the first option as the best course of action.
Look Duff, blacks were not even recognized as being HUMAN BEINGS! They were sold like live stock, worked until they bled and were beaten within an inch of their life for having an opinion. You can go and rent a nice facility, invite all your friends and family and marry your gay partner. You won't even get ticket as long as you don't speed going there. So no, I don't see blacks and gays as anything even close. Gay are essentially crying about tax deductions. End the IRS and go to a flat tax.
Well let's be clear here. In a "true" polygamy situation, all parties to the contract presumably have given requisite consideration for forming it.
In a "false" polygamy situation, say where one partner has two marriages while his partners believe he only has one, there isn't requisite consideration between all parties.
The former I would be okay with, the latter I wouldn't. I would argue that either of the two unknowing parties would have automatic grounds for divorce on fraud grounds.
As long as prophylactic measures addressing the coercion of minors and limiting the total amount of government benefits available to ALL family units (so as not to trigger equal protection concerns) are emplaced, as a libertarian I see no reason for disallowing it.
That doesn't mean I would support pedophilia or bestiality. I'm staunchly against those and will always be so. Pedophilia violates the strong legal presumption against undue influence of minors.
If you think it's that easy changing a law judicially, I challenge you to try it. With the principle of stare decisis firmly embedded in our country's judicial foundations, there has to be a damn good reason for changing a law.
And there is in this case. I have a pretty good basis for saying that, as I have a law degree.
Gay pride is like Spring Break or Carnival in Rio or New Orleans? Are those 'disgusting displays of sexuality'? No, they're PARTIES and what people do at them is NOT how they act when they are going about their daily lives.
That guy in assless chaps, like the woman in the string bikini, is the person who will sell you your insurance, or teach your kids: a NORMAL PERSON having a day off.
steerpike66 8 months ago
They should stop calling it gay marriage, because a lot of people do not recognize that gays can be married. Even with the passing of the law, people still won't recognize that union. Call it civil unions, which gives gays the same rights as any married couples. That's what they're after, not for the sake of calling them married.
livewithsin 8 months ago
I see a cataclysmic catastophy coming to NY (perhaps in the form of an earthquake, comet, tusnami, or something man made). NY and NV are the new Sodom and Gormorrahs. What's next on NY's list of immoralities and perversions? Legalized prostitution? At this stage in the game, it wouldn't suprise me if they came up with a civil union between a human and an animal or the marrying of minors with adults.
Thank God that the Rapture is quickly approching. I think that God has had enough.
fanbutton 8 months ago
@fanbutton Slippery slope argument. An animal cannot produce a legally valid signature. Neither can a minor without the parents.
nekorur 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All They Was Missing Was The Pope Mobile from Rome Rolling Right Behind Them To Make It Their Perfectly Gay Day in New York. New York Can Thank Italian born American Govenor Coumo from Roman Decent. The Same People Who Nailed Jesus Christ To a Cross & Practice It on The World. Hell In A Basket & What Is Next The Priest Are Gonna Get Married To, Because They Are One And The Same. Mine Ya Children Ya Hear
pourouge12 8 months ago
At least America is a country that has grown up and is now starting to allow same sex marriage unlike Australia which is a backwards bigoted prejudice intolerent country, Australia still does not allow same sex marriage and wont untill a long time to come, Australia is stuck in the dark ages
MrJohnboy1984 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you need Beauty girl ** rockmycity.info **
MsJonajack 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you recognize Latin Beauty? ** rockmycity.info **
swandiamiira 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Think about your marriage and get a trusted women rockmycity.info
kchrstnsn 1 year ago
Someday New York will catch up to Iowa.
Someday NYC will catch up to Mexico City.
Someday the USA will have a Black President, son of a Muslim and born in Hawaii...oh wait that's easier!
muellerican 2 years ago
Oh really. I dont think so !
rich107s 2 years ago
i don't see what the big deal is? why can't gay people be happy too? it's very unfair gay marriage should be legal everywhere
YoungWildAmber 2 years ago 9
Two weeks to go, left and it won't happen!
Republicans took control back!!
chasmcrown 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The BLIND leading the BLIND. The gays should just leave the country
capon33 2 years ago
They're Americans too. They have the rights and responsibilities due to them and you can't do a damn thing about that.
What? You want to expel 7% of the US population. That sounds DAMN unAmerican to me.
steerpike66 2 years ago
The Republicans lost the last election. Not only that, but the last time they were in control of everything, we started two unwinnable wars. It's the Republicans who should leave the country. Talk about the blind leading anything at all...
TimCubUAkbar 2 years ago
Let's get Obamination the hell out. 3 weeks in office & 3 TRILLION dollars in debt & it's just getting worse. Costing us more in 3 weeks than Bush ever spent in Iraq & Afghanistan combined. Can't wait til November when the Dem's are out on their shit-stained asses!
capon33 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hello youtubers,
I'm from the Middle East, where I've seen women FORCED into marriage, USED, ABUSED, BEATEN and SILENCED.
This is something GRAVE we've forgotten about here in the U.S.: TRADITIONNAL MARRIAGE.
Please go to my profile to hear this new appraoch to Gay Marriage, based on understanding the REALITY of traditionnal marriage.
THIS IS HOW WE WILL WIN!
(ps: HELP! i have haters there!)
LoveOnlyLoveOrg 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's not a human rights it's sexual only.
Homosexuality ≠ Heterosexuality. It never bears children.
Yet they want to drain the state of resource.
AVTPro 2 years ago
I'm Glad Gay Marriage is being Legalized
nbehan24 2 years ago 8
I'm a straight New Yorker, and I say GAY MARRIAGE FOR THE WIN.
dahwang12 2 years ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
I love how Ihave been attacked,as this is the proven point of being the most fowl and seriously DISGUSTING thing a human can do and keep on going trying to justify and shove this pile of horse shit down America's throat, in the end you will see a back lash like you have never seen politically against the DEMOTERDFUCKS.
russrjn 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
_FREESEXYPORNSTARS((.))net.
your vids r so helpfull :)
Ronan414rx 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
historically same sex marriage does not work.
what happened to the greek civilization?
what happened to the roman civiliation?
can same sex marriages produce children?
who will pay for my social security now?
so, which is more important civil liberties or the children, the future? in california, voting on proposition 8, means stop to same sex marriage.
BALANCE94015 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Leviticus 18:22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.
1 Corinthians 6:9- Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers will inherit the kingdom of God.
arthurrobins 3 years ago
It's so interesting to me that so many of these "christians" are all in knots of a "sin" that doesn't even make the Top 10. Why aren't there millions being spent to stop adultery?
sammyseattle 3 years ago
Comment removed
rickybrk 2 years ago
Maybe your story, I don't subscribe to your fairytales.
sammyseattle 2 years ago 2
No it's "BEARS" silly, not "Dogs"
kjenser 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
GUALLACOL I completely 110% agree with you on that! And I commend David Paterson for respecting NY's state laws on homosexuality especially and not willing to do anything to stipulate to that! I hope and pray that NY or none of the other states in the US passes a law to support gay rights. Marriage is a union that God created to be between 1 man and 1 woman nonnegotiable. I hope and pray God turn the hearts around in California because that was absolutely dispicable!
rockdrummer2408 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
GUALACOL, you said it, unfortunately there's too many faggots on youtube to agree with you, But i do, THIS IS AN ABOMINATION!!!!!!!
ghandilord98 3 years ago
Even though I am straight, I can hardly express how happy this makes me. The fact that tons of simple-minded nitwits are upset over the High Court's decision is icing on the proverbial wedding cake. It's pure schadenfreude for me: I literally take joy in seeing all these "sanctity of marriage" conservatives so broken-up... YOUR DAY IS OVER! As goes goes California, so goes the nation. And not soon enough.
grantobean 3 years ago 4
A little more than an hour remaining now before California begins issuing gay marriage licenses.
OMG CHICKEN LITTLE, THE SKY IS FALLING! LOL!
jugganaut35 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The bible says that homosexuality is an abomination to God! Enough said!
GUALLACOL 3 years ago
The bible was made 2000 years ago!
anyone could have wrote it!
Forrest569 3 years ago 3
Unfortunately, You are very narrow-minded hence, you will never understand anything, Time is nothing to God.
ghandilord98 3 years ago
Im sorry that I dont understand your God. You see my God does not tell me to condem and persacute those who do not believe my faith. I accept all for who they are (as long as it does not harm others)and still believe a higher being or force. I dont tell people that they are sinners.
Forrest569 3 years ago
Do whatever you feel like!! It is your problem. I'm just the messenger and you have been warned!!
GUALLACOL 3 years ago
even earlyer then that. the bible was writen a while after jesus died
WordsYouForget 2 years ago
You're wrong the bible does not say that.
sXeXryanX 3 years ago
That was really intelligent. No, just kidding.
kjenser 3 years ago
re:rockdrummer
kjenser 3 years ago
look... albany did something right for a change!
just2w4tch 3 years ago
GAYS HAVE NOT RIGHTS
stainsofshit 3 years ago
you are gay
just2w4tch 3 years ago
Mark Steyn is basically a right-wing wingnut loon like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh who has found that the more outrageous things he says, the more press he gets and the more income he earns.
So surprise, surprise, he writes a book saying that in 40 years all of Europe will be conquered by Islam and America will be alone.
It doesn't matter how ridiculous a claim is, if you've got a rabidly faithful segment of the population to which to market it they'll eat it up with a spoon.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
In Europe the native Europeans are halving their population with each generation. We have Mexico immigrating here but in Europe they get their "cheap labor" from Islamic nations. Islam does not assimilate they assimilate you. They are having on average 6 children per generation, Europeans are halving their population per generation. The math puts Islam DEMOCRATICALLY in control of Europe no later than mid-century. So it simply won't matter how Europeans feel about Islam they won't even be there.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
So we can call Mark Steyn all the names we want. However, unless you can prove his math is flawed such name calling is just a pointless Ad hominem fallacy. Western Culture is in fact in imminent danger of falling. Will gay marriage cause the fall? No, it's merely one piece of the puzzle and perhaps a symptom rather than a cause. Nevertheless, I oppose it because it's going in the wrong direction.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
Well thank you I will, seeing as how Steyn has no problem using baseless racial slurs. What's good for the goose and all.
Refuting Steyn's simplistic, fearmongering thesis with reason and data requires more than a 500-character forum, but if you want to read a good one go here:
rfmcdpei.livejournal (.com/408410.html) (added to avoid censor)
Steyn is just preying on Chicken Little conservatives' irrational fears and post-911 Islamophobia to make money, is all.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
"Perhaps more important than exact numbers is the spectacular rate of growth since World War II. Muslims in France in 1945 numbered some 100,000 souls; fifty years later, the population has increased by thirty or forty times" Michel Gurfinkiel Published in 1997 before 911 or Mark Steyn's book. meforum (.org/article/337)
That same rate of growth of the estimated 4.1 million French Muslims is more than 123 million Muslims in fifty years. That's greater than the entire population today.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
Yeah, that stat is just great for scare tactics. It doesn't bother to mention things like, oh, how much of the increase was due to immigration rather than fertility rates (a huge factor), especially in light of the French withdrawal from North Africa in the 60's.
Or the fact that the majority of the French Muslims are Maghrebi Muslims, who are culturally quite different and historically more Europhilic than Middle East Muslims.
But you be scared of that if you want.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
Look, I'm a social conservative. So when the Mullah's take over I'll grow out my beard, pay my tax for being a "person of the book" and keep my head down. However, if you want advance gay rights something tells me the tax won't do it for you. So why you are less worried about this than me is something of a mystery. Perhaps you really didn't know.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
If you're not gonna do anything about it other than conform, what the hell are you bitching about Islam for anyway? :D
Seems to me if you'll have no problem adapting to Islamic culture which WILL affect your daily life, you should have absolutely no problem at all adapting to gay marriage taking place because that won't affect your daily life one iota.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
Do I sound like the type that will conform to whatever shows up? Jugg, My point was I'll be much better off than you in what Europe is fast becoming. All this so-called "progressive thinking" is going to in fact drive us back to the middle ages if we don't knock it off. Europe is doomed, it really is over for them unless a miracle happens. America will follow suit if we abandon our traditional social values. Therefore I speak out against gay marriage and other entropic social trends.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
Given that you've stated that you'll just keep your head down, pay your taxes and grow a beard, in all honesty yeah you do.
If I'm not scared of Islam, why should you be scared for me? Who's exhibiting more faith here? Me, the atheist gay rights guy, or you, the "strong Christian faith and values" guy?
jugganaut35 3 years ago
Besides, if the Islamic threat to Western civilization is as dire as you say, you're going to need gays' help. If you give them the rights they want they'll fight even harder because you're on their side and they've got even MORE to lose.
But in all honesty, what it really sounds like is you don't WANT to be saved from such a fate. You just want an excuse to bitch.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
Went to the site and the author of the blog didn't do their homework. The Europeans are halving their populations per generation, the law of reverse compounding will get them. And that doesn't account for immigration. Why are Europeans halving their population? The lost traditional family values and can't be bothered with having children. Gay marriage cannot help with this problem in that gays don't reproduce they only recruit. Thus the practice is actually parasitic on the host population.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
And as far as health risks, I don't know what "people" said about interracial marriage back then. However, I am citing scientifically backed studies from well established medical authorities to back my statements regarding homosexuality and health risks.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
Oh Duff, I think you have a persecution complex. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they hate you. However, you are correct I might BURN BURN BURN in hell. But not because I hate anyone, I don't silly boy. I even admire your stubbornness and denial, in the face of overwhelming evidence against your cause.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
You take a blind man to lead another man, they both will fall in a pit. OMG what the hell are we coming to? Marriage is defined between a MAN AND A WOMAN. If homosexuals want some legalized unity call it something else.. but the WORD Marriage is between a
MAN AND A WOMAN.
davidABB 3 years ago
Duff, if you disagree with someone's lifestyle that isn't "Nazi light." Interracial marriage is not an abnormal behavior fraught with health risks. As far as hell goes I imagine a merciful God can extend mercy to anyone, maybe even you. Ostridges like yourself are the biggest threat to Western Civilization not gays. Read "America Alone" by Mark Steyn. Demographics alone shows ALL of Europe will be Islamic by mid-century, a mathematical certainty. America the new Byzantine Empire.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
LOL, right, a religion which historically has had NO success recruiting among any non-Semitic or non-Afro-Asiatic cultures throughout history is going to suddenly have huge success within 40 years' time among the very Aryan cultures that still harbor a great deal of antipathy for the culture of Islam.
I'm sorry dude, but that's just paranoid delusion. You've been reading far too much Christian apocalyptic propaganda.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
It's also rather illuminative that you would cite a right-wing author who unabashedly refers to Chinese as "chinks", Vietnamese as "gooks" and citizens of India as "wogs".
He's basically another male Neocon version of Ann Coulter. The funny thing is that the Neocon philosophy is now on its last legs, having been thoroughly repudiated by the reality of events.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
I don't take sides with no race .
davidLEErockxy 3 years ago
You guys Don't know what the Hell your getting your self in to. The day when Gays are aloud to marry and adopt children. Is the Day God will hit us with all kinds of natural disasters. You can count on it. And don't give me that shit about there is no God Life is very short!Not cause God is did us unjust but cause Gog wants us to return to our reel home and to enjoy eternal life and pleasure.This life is just a test and you guys are failing the test miserably.
davidLEErockxy 3 years ago
I'm assuming you believe in God and that you're going to go to heaven when the time comes, so if gays are helping to speed things along to the day when God returns, why aren't you happy they're helping you get closer to the ultimate destination?
If you're saved and going to heaven anyway, what have you got to worry about? Or is it really that you're not sure you're going to heaven, and you're trying to slow down the process in any way possible?
jugganaut35 3 years ago
I'm worried about you stupid I dot want to see anyone go to hell.
davidLEErockxy 3 years ago
Well if I'm not worried about myself, why should you? Does God also damn YOU eternally for MY sins, or does he just hold you accountable for the sins you accumulated yourself?
Look, if God created hell then SOMEBODY has to end up there. Everybody can't be saved so why are you worried about me? If I know about the hell thing, and I obviously do, isn't that enough? Can't I make up my own mind about the risk?
If you worry and save everyone from hell, aren't you making a liar out of God?
jugganaut35 3 years ago
I can tell that your a good person and I hope the best for you.
davidLEErockxy 3 years ago
Besides, doesn't the Lord already know the day and manner in which you'll die anyway? So is there anything the gays can do to change that? The gays can't change God's timetable can they, so does it really matter what they do?
And even if you're injured in the great natural disasters, wasn't that God's plan for you all along? Since he already knew you were going to be injured, doesn't he have some plan for you that way that gays can't change no matter what they do?
jugganaut35 3 years ago
Comment removed
rickybrk 2 years ago
Ah I see, I don't know, but you DO know how God works? YOU presume to know "the mind of God"?
If God actually exists and is even 1/10th of the "all everything" he's purported to be, then nobody knows how God works for certain.
But if he's a perfect being, then it's at least safe to assume he's a perfectly logical being, since illogic is imperfect.
jugganaut35 2 years ago
Would you please read the Tibetan Book or the Dead, the Sayings of Buddha, Dianetics, The Book of Mormon, thr Koran, the Talmud and the Very Hungry Caterpillar.
All irrelevent.
steerpike66 2 years ago
@steerpike66 There is nothing irrelevent nor trivial about the Bible, my friend. In fact, everything in the Bible has either came to pass or is lingering in balance. Judgment day is just around corner. Are you ready? Get smart, get saved. Time has all but ran out.
fanbutton 8 months ago
@fanbutton I am not, nor ever will be, a Christian and the therefore the Bible is BY DEFINITION irrelevent to me. As irrelevent as Dianetics and as holy as 'Goodnight Moon' NOTHING that has been predicted in the Bible has come to pass: the MEN who wrote the Bible were unaware that the Earth rotated aroudn the sun and Jesus couldn't even predict electricity, or the motor car.
steerpike66 8 months ago
your a retard
religion should have no part in making laws since evryone has different religions,not everyone follows your "god"
and i dont understand how america says they were wrong to do this to blacks 100 years ago but now your doing the same thing to gays
ssuperr1515 3 years ago
I know right, Duff.
If homosexuality is such a threat to the health of Western civilization, why is Mike okay with non-discrimination against gays?
I mean really, if Mike is right and it truly IS a threat shouldn't he be all for quarantining them, nay, exterminating them?
jugganaut35 3 years ago
I just don't see it as harmless as you do. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Take care, Mike
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
Um, I'm really having a hard time squaring two of your statements. If you truly believe acceptance of gays constitutes such a dire threat as to imperil the entire existence of Western civilization within a century, why are you in favor of treating it so benignly?
If a rational person truly believed the risk posed by a behavior was that dire and that imminent, he would advocate more extreme measures of suppressing it.
So which of the 2 things you profess do you not truly believe?
jugganaut35 3 years ago
The reality is that gays will not stop seeking equal rights. And given that they've gained a huge foothold in Cali, it's a virtual certainty that gay marriage will become the law of the land if the amendment effort loses in November. There's a reason for the adage, "As Cali goes, so goes the nation."
Since you believe the consequences of accepting homosexuality are so severe, given the above why are you not advocating more extreme preventative measures, like quarantining or killing them?
jugganaut35 3 years ago
Like you said before ENTROPY. "Gay Marriage" is one step in cultural entropy, all civilization go through it. This not advancement, the common acceptance of homosexuality as "normal" has been done before by many extinct civilizations as you know. Entropy may be inevitable. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't work against it. Give me a hand will you?
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
Yes, it will rapidly encourage and advance the acceptance of homosexuality. It will kick open the door to inflicting it as a "normal alternative" on children in schools. The courts will insist. It will then result in the massive demoralization of our culture followed by the complete collapse of Western Civilization within one century. Islam will move in and fill the vacuum and the light of freedom with be forever extinguished. That's really bad.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
Acceptance of homosexuality is a good thing. Tolerance of differing practices that don't affect you personally is better than intolerance.
LOL, you really think that millions of Christians will abandon their belief in Jesus Christ and convert to Islam just because homosexuality is accepted? Boy, that really doesn't say much for Jesus, does it?
If our society collapses, it won't be due to gays. Energy and resource shortages will have far more to do with it than gays OR heterosexuals.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
Btw, I don't care whether you weigh 190 or 490, I still don't want to think about you having sex. I prefer my pornographic fantasies to be filled with largely anonymous actors.
Sorry if that disappoints you, LOL.
But the overall point is, the healthy psyche is easily able to discard thoughts that if finds aesthetically distasteful. The inability to do so suggests some kind of obsessive behavior.
So really, the objection that it disgusts you is not much of an objection.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
Well thank you I appreciate that. And it is disgusting, I didn't say we should outlaw homosexuality. Honestly, before the gay community appeared on my TV news in parades wearing underwear and angel wings, wiggling their butts at the camera I didn't think about it at all. And then after those disgusting displays come out and demand my government create something called "gay marriage" too! You know it wouldn't even be on my radar screen, the rainbow rings and nasal voices were all just whatever.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
Do you understand why gays have their ostentatious Pride parades? What are they acting out against? They're acting out in public fashion specifically BECAUSE OF the public stigma itself.
If you remove the stigma and its effects, then you lessen the incentive for gays to act out publicly. Fewer gays will march, and they'll draw less media coverage.
Blacks marched and demonstrated often at the height of their civil rights movement. Do you see them demonstrating often today?
jugganaut35 3 years ago
Back to equating black oppression to gays again? Ok, we have come full circle.
Signing off for the night, have a good one. Peace, Mike
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
Just because you refuse to recognize similarities between the two doesn't mean there aren't any.
Did blacks endure a stigma? Yes they did. Do gays endure a stigma? Yes they do.
Did blacks seek equality under the law? Yes they did. Are gays seeking equality under the law? Yes they are.
Did blacks march/demonstrate? Yes they did. Do gays march/demonstrate? Yes they do.
Did blacks endure "separate but equal" treatment? Yes they did. Are gays enduring SBE treatment? Yes they are.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
The blacks had the right to do so. Gays do not!
davidLEErockxy 3 years ago
The distinction in your fake ID analogy is that states don't issue "certificates of non-marriage", so there's no way to "fake" being single via state documentation.
As far as the fat comment, yeah the thought of really fat people having sex disgusts me. Are you really fat? That's fine if you are, I certainly wouldn't begrudge you the right to have sex or get married.
I just wouldn't think about it. For that matter, I don't think of any of my friends having sex either.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
"Life expectancy at age 20 years for gay men is reduced 8 to 20 years.(International Journal of Epidemiology). "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices." "Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer ...." (Medical Institute of Sexual Health Executive Summary 1999)
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
Sure, they have the same individual rights as everyone. As I stated before, I am against the government being involved with marriage at all. Thus, encouraging something called "gay marriage" is really a government stamp on a lifestyle that by every measure is not healthy. Argue with the health professionals all you want but the fact remains. And if you don't think I've given you negative things then you didn't pay attention or prefer to completely ignore the information provided.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
A study done in england showed that %30 of gay men actually don't engage in anal sex, and %10 of straight couples (including women penetrating men) in the U.S. do. That's larger than the percentage of gay men in this country...
annpetasupporter 3 years ago
Gays will burn in hell for eternity nuf said.
davidLEErockxy 3 years ago
Chaos theory also explains why it's eminently reasonable to assume that the most viciously homophobic people are probably gay themselves. The butterfly effect of the stigma often produces results which are the utter opposite of either the intended or expected result.
That's why it was no surprise that Ted Haggard, one of the most vocal religious homophobes, turned out to be a screaming queen.
Fred Phelps of Westboro Church fame? That man is gay as hell, there's no doubt in my mind.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
A phobia (from Greek: φόβος, phobos, "fear"), is an irrational, intense, persistent fear of certain situations, activities, things, or persons. The main symptom of this disorder is the excessive, unreasonable desire to AVOID the feared subject.
Therefore, "viciously homophobic" contradicts the definition of a phobia. Someone that is "homophobic" would avoid the feared subject thus couldn't be "vicious." Those of us that are opposing you don't have any such fears.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
We all know what a phobia is. We don't need you to define it for us. You obviously don't know the definition of homophobia, however...
Webster's definition of homophobia:
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
I actually prefer the term heterosexism...
Webster's defintion of heterosexism:
discrimination or prejudice by heterosexuals against homosexuals
annpetasupporter 3 years ago
Sure Mike, you don't have any fears of homosexuality.
You've only mentioned numerous times that you think recognizing the rights of homosexuals will lead to the decline and ruin of Western civilization, but I guess that's not a fear...is it? :D
A bit disingenuous there, aren't we?
jugganaut35 3 years ago
Goodnight Duff, you but put up a strong debate. Peace, Mike
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
I see everyone as individual human beings. I may not agree with you but I'll never change my view of a person's intrinsic worth, need for friendship and love. I honestly don't see homosexuality as a positive life-style, I know it's not, and therefore government endorsement of such life styles cannot be positive either.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
I have witnessed many positive homosexual partnerships, and many horrible hetro-sexual relationships. On the other hand, non-positive relationships of all sorts happen. That is the nature of being human. How about we let people decide how they wish to live their lives, and accept them as they wish to be. It would be a happier world for all of us.
Flowerchild4love 3 years ago
You KNOW it's not positive? If you're not gay, how do you know?
Alan Turing was gay and he solved the Nazi Enigma code, greatly assisting the Allies in defeating the Nazis. And yet he killed himself rather than be imprisoned just for being gay. Some thanks, huh?
Martina Navratilova, Elton John and Michelangelo are/were all gay, and contributed immensely to their fields (the list goes on of course). Are their lives not positive?
So isn't it simply the case that you can't generalize?
jugganaut35 3 years ago
Alan Turing is known as "the father of the computer". Imagine what more he might have contributed had he not been persecuted and the full flower of his genius had been allowed to bloom. We might have been several decades ahead of where we are now.
I mentioned chaos theory before...do you understand the butterfly effect? If you don't, Turing's life is a good example. Had the stigma not been in place, we might have seen vast advances in computer theory much earlier. (cont)
jugganaut35 3 years ago
But instead, the "butterfly effect" of the stigma against gays produced a wholly different outcome, one most definitely more negative than if the natural equilibrium state had been unaltered. Turing was a proven genius, so it's a virtual certainty that he would have contributed more to the cause of mankind.
But no, the stigma against gays went to work, and he killed himself rather than go to jail or be sterilized.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
It's just unfathomable to me that you call yourself a libertarian, and yet you can't grasp how stigmatizing an otherwise victimless behavior produces more positive results than not stigmatizing it.
We have the lesson of alcohol prohibition. That only fostered organized crime. It certainly didn't cause a drop in drinking.
We have the lesson of the drug war, which you've admitted you oppose. The obvious truth is staring you in the face. If you lift the stigma, many things will improve.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
Oops, allow me to amend the last post.
It should read "...how you can't grasp that not stigmatizing an otherwise victimless behavior will produce more positive results than stigmatizing it".
I edited what I had originally typed before posting it, and thereby produced a wholly different and utterly opposite result than the one I had intended.
See? Another instance of chaos theory and the butterfly effect at work.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
"Life expectancy at age 20 years for gay men is reduced 8 to 20 years.(International Journal of Epidemiology). "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices." "Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer ...." (Medical Institute of Sexual Health Executive Summary 1999)
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
Homophobia/heterosexism causes a lot of people in the LGBT community a lot of emotional/psychological stress which can shorten your life span. If this is what you really cared about, you should maybe stop spreading your prejudice and discrimination... It also has no effect on your life, so I don't know why you care so much about it.
annpetasupporter 3 years ago
Why should the government endorse and promote homosexuality at all knowing the drastically increased health risks related to the behavior?
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
Anal sex is what increases risk of cancer, not homosexuality, and lesbians are less likely to get AIDS than you. If you really cared about health concerns, you'd be promoting safe sex, not homophobia/heterosexism...
annpetasupporter 3 years ago
Well by that logic Mike, the state should outlaw ANY sexual activity other than for strictly procreative purposes, because ANY sex drastically increases health risks as compared to celibacy.
And yet we don't see the state prosecuting fornication and setting up reproduction centers, do we? They must be endorsing and promoting STDs by allowing sexual activity!
The point is, ALL human activity carries some inherent risk. There is NO human activity which carries zero risk. (cont)
jugganaut35 3 years ago
Shouldn't the state outlaw skydiving and hanggliding, since those activities serve no actual purpose other than the individual's happiness, and such an individual is infinitely more likely to die in a fall or crash than a non-skydiver/hangglider? Is the state endorsing and promoting death by air since it refuses to outlaw these activities?
The state would only INCREASE the already sizable inherent risk in skydiving by outlawing it because it would drive those intent on doing it underground.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
As far as health concerns I'm merely quoting medical professionals that used words like "significant" to describe the health threats. Your argument is with them not me. I don't suggest we outlaw being gay. However, promoting this activity with government benefits is irresponsible and a disservice to the American tax payer.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
I have no argument with them because I don't disagree with them. There IS a risk to engaging in those behaviors, just like there is risk in ANY human activity.
The difference is, I recognize that homosexual activity is going to go on irrespective of these risks, because a number of individuals will have decided that the reward to them justifies the risk.
Thus the choice to me is this: we can enact measures that mitigate the risk, or we can amplify it, but we can't eliminate the risk.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
Again, we can look to alcohol prohibition for guidance. The temperance folks wished to eliminate risks involved with drinking, e.g., alcoholism, cirrhosis, lost productivity.
Did prohibition make those who chose to drink anyway safer? No, it only increased the risk of death from adulterated bootleg alcohol.
Did it make the public at large safer? No, it only fostered organized crime and reduced effective safeguards against overconsumption.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
So given that a number of people will engage in homosexual activity despite any stigma, and further given that a number of people will also engage in it in less safe fashion because they wish to avoid the effects of the stigma, does stimatizing the activity reduce the activity's inherent risk?
No, it increases the overall risk to society because of the segment of the population that will attempt to evade the effects of the stigma and thus act recklessly, i.e., anonymous promiscuous sex.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
So obviously prohibition is absurd, as you have agreed.
I'd assume you're in favor of civil unions as a "meet halfway" means of mitigating risk but still preserving marriage as you'd like it. But are civil unions any more tenable? No, because it's well-settled that "separate but equal" institutions don't fly.
So you're left with the options of either giving gays full marriage recognition or wiping marriage away altogether for both groups. Good luck getting heteros on board with that.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
No I don't favor civil unions or any other government stamp on homosexuality or even normal marriage. I don't think marriage is the government's business. And if the government wasn't involved I doubt gays would be renting wedding chapels in any significant numbers. Why? The truth is this isn't about marriage it's about using the government to advance a lifestyle that is unhealthily and frankly disgusting. I don't want prohibition or promotion but compete neutrality.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
Well, the reality is that it IS the state's business, and moreover there's a strong rationale for it. Minimizing the risk of bigamous and inheritance frauds justifies the regulation.
For a nominal fee people entering unions can reasonably assure themselves that their prospective partner is not a bigamous fraud, which they couldn't do without great expense if the registering were left to churches.
And it's self-funding, as the registry can be combined with other necessary recording.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
People can enter into contracts to protect themselves, make wills and so-forth without a government filing cabinet. And if you marry someone that is already married you really don't even know that person. It's rare enough to make the evening news. I'm certain recording at church or your attorney will suffice for that as well. And how many common law marriages, not recorded at all, do the courts enforce all time?
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
Sure they CAN, but at greater potential expense.
If you don't record your property title, you run a much greater risk of having it clouded or usurped totally. So why on earth would you consciously choose to be less efficient and more reckless?
The same reasoning applies with respect to marriage. Yes, you COULD choose to record it privately, but why on earth would you choose a less efficient, riskier form of recording that would end up costing you MORE if something DID go wrong?
jugganaut35 3 years ago
Property is another issue unrelated to religious institutions like marriage. With your thinking every agreement ever made should be checked, approved and recorded by the government. To make things easier? When does the government ever makes things easier? Do we really need marriage to be like the Motor Vehicle Department. I don't see it.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
The point about publicly recording property claims is to show that it's a harm reduction measure just like publicly recording marriages.
Of course not all contracts have to be recorded. There's no need to record most business contracts, as those contracts usually contain some internal dispute resolution method.
But if we didn't record property titles it would be far easier to present fraudulent claims and there's no easy way to resolve those without court intervention and expense.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
I'll bet yahoo! and Google could do a better job recording marriages if needed. And gays could record "gay marriage" as well. However, that gets to the heart of it. Without government sanction there is no gay marriage. Without government sanctioning it just becomes a silly notion people would giggle at, even gays themselves. But if they did want to have a big party and call it marriage I wouldn't oppose them. See how much better that works? BTW I'm 6.0/190 and married... to a female lol
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
Perhaps they could, but the cost of the state doing it is so nominal anyway that it doesn't make economic sense, given that states long ago satisfied the initial startup costs of their recording systems.
And recording it privately online discriminates against those who don't own computers, making it more costly for them. Moreover, Yahoo or Google could very easily decide later such a system wasn't profitable and simply terminate it at any point, thereby screwing over millions of people.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
Ok, Wikipedia. And if you can afford to get married I'm sure the pastor, priest or one of the witnesses at the party will type it in for you. These days it likely costs more to drive down to the county recorders office anyway.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
Oh okay, so you'd advocate entrusting it to an open source recording system. That's a great way to minimize the risk of bigamous/inheritance frauds, LOL.
A recording system is not all that complicated. The present state systems address the risks just fine at nominal cost, and they've already satisfied any initial startup costs.
If private recording is such a better idea why isn't anyone advocating it now, irrespective of the SS issue? Because it just ain't a better idea, that's why.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
Do you understand why it's necessary to obviate the risk of bigamous/inheritance frauds with a central state register?
It's because that by the time such fraudulent attempts are likely to surface, most of the time it's been YEARS since the marriage event(s) supposedly took place. In that time, private witnesses die, private registers get merged/transferred, memories fade.
A centralized state public register obviates all of those tangential risks inherent in minimizing the primary risk.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
And just who would you entrust the necessity of bigamy/inheritance harm reduction to, churches? Churches can't even agree on doctrine, let alone share a common registry.
Or I suppose you would rather a person get rooked or have to spend a small fortune on a PI background search than pay a nominal fee to the state, eh?
Ya know what? The idea of two really fat people having sex disgusts me. I see fat couples all the time, but I just don't think about it and voila, it doesn't bother me.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
With the internet today, I'll bet most could agree on a common private registry. If nothing else the newspapers could link it all up, plus other sources of information such as home purchases and so on and so forth, it's all there. Someone changing their identity doesn't show up in government registries either. What's a fake ID cost these days, 20 bucks? Oh and thanks for the fat people comment, did you have to do that?
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
LOL, suuure they could all agree with their differing doctrines. And who's going to manage it? That's a separate argument right there.
And who's going to register the Wiccans, atheists, Zoroastrians, etc., who get married? Not the churches, so right there we need another registry. Duplication of effort, waste of resources.
Regardless of how rarely bigamous frauds occur, the point is that the risk can be minimized to effectively zero with a central registry at nominal additional cost.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
How is gay marriage a disservice to the American taxpayer? I'd like you to explain that one.
For one thing, until recently 42% of US married couples filing jointly paid MORE taxes than two single people, so I'm at a loss to see how encouraging gays to marry and thus pay MORE taxes than if they were single is harming married taxpayers.
Also, it's pretty despicable to argue that married people are entitled to the benefit of single gays paying more taxes than them just because they're gay.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
Again, it returns to what I've stated previously about chaos theory and "the butterfly effect". By artificially manipulating the natural equilibrium of an activity, you're only AMPLIFYING the inherent risks in that activity.
People are going to engage in homosexual activity whether it's stigmatized or not, just like avid skydivers are going to skydive whether it's illegal or not.
So given that's it's going to occur ANYWAY, why on earth would you want to AMPLIFY the associated risks?
jugganaut35 3 years ago
To clarify my position I don't want the government endorsing or promoting homosexuality by creating new institutions that never existed before like "gay marriage" a parody of marriage. If the government was attempting to take away your right to be gay I would be defending you. I do not espouse discrimination against anyone, I believe all rights are individual and group rights are fiction.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
I see, but allowing "Britney Spears" 55-hour marriages and "Bachelor" and "Marry a Millionaire" shows is not parodying marriage? Are gays behind that too?
Recognizing the right of gays to marry is not creating a new institution. It's still marriage, just marriage between a new class.
And as we know, it's happened before. Interracial marriage became the law of the land in 1967, when interracial couples had had no such right before.
Has that parodied marriage? Has it harmed it?
jugganaut35 3 years ago
Jugg, it is a new institution unprecedented in the history of the world. Even the Romans didn't "gay marry" anyone although homosexuality was fully embraced by that culture. They didn't need to advance their homosexual agenda so I expect the gays back then couldn't have cared less about being "married". They likely would laugh at the notion and wonder what you are talking about. And yes, Britney Spears is a nut case trying to get headlines so what? Is "gay marriage" is about headlines too?
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
Actually, there is evidence that Romans DID allow SS marriage, at least for a while until the Christian church gained ascendancy. The writers Suetonius and Martial mention it.
In fact, it wasn't illegal in Rome until the emperor Constantius outlawed it in the mid-300's.
And lest you argue "ah, so that's why Rome fell", remember that Rome didn't fall until AFTER gay marriage was outlawed. So by that line of reasoning causation for Rome's demise would appear to lie with Christians.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
I'm sure they allowed it but it likely wasn't an issue. I would like to see the evidence because while I'm sure it was no problem it was also likely not something that was sought after. Likely due to the neutrality surrounding it. Men didn't give their daughters (yes women were treated as property back then) to other daughters in marriage customs back then. Just didn't exist.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
You made the point that same-sex marriage was totally unprecedented in the annals of human history.
I simply offered evidence that it wasn't. There is evidence that the emperor Nero married someone of the same sex. Martial, a Roman poet who lived in late 1st century AD, makes reference to two men marrying.
So you've gone from arguing that SS marriage is totally unprecedented in history to arguing that even if it did occur, such instances are trivial. What's next?
jugganaut35 3 years ago
Well, I'm sure if their was a first for such a thing Nero would be a good candidate. However, Nero was legally bound to nobody, not even all the women in his harem. All were his property including the men and boys he had sex with. So perhaps existed in concept, but practiced in any appreciable way no.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
Duff, I don't HATE anyone. And FYI, a very close friend of mine in high school was openly gay. I had no problem openly associating with him EVERYDAY even though it meant I received the exact same hatred he did. I was called all the associated names I know how it hurts. I had rocks thrown at me and even had a group of kids try to take me behind the school and beat the hell out of me. I never backed away from my friendship. Don't say I hate you it's simply not even close to true. Peace, Mike
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
I don't think government goodies should exist at all. I'm the libertarian here you're the socialist remember?
Hey Duff, I need to call it a night. Good talking to you all the best. Peace, Mike
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
I'll be shocked if we see any appreciable increase in monogamy in the homosexual community due gay marriage. I suspect, gays will insist we promote homosexuality in public schools now that "gay marriage" is real according to the government. And in the long run we will have MUCH more homosexuality of the non-monogamous sort. Leading to the rapid decline and destruction of Western civilization with Islam filling the vacuum. Not hysteria, just a rational assessment of the direction we are taking.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
how many societies have fallen that didn't treat gay people equitably?
maybe businesses should only hire gay people, that way they wouldn't have to pay as much in benefits, as they wouldn't have to cover spouses of employees, and most families (but not all) don't have children either...
is sexual orientation was used to fire heterosexuals... it would probably be illegal at the federal level...
maybe married couples should be taxed on inheriting anything a dying spouse leaves them...
markofthebeasts 3 years ago
i'm sure that people who oppose gay marriage, if a penniless gay man owed them lots of money, and they couldn't collect... had a judgment on him, but if he had no money... that's all they had...
then that man marries an extremely wealthy man, i'm sure they'd want the relationship legalized, if only to help them pursue collection of their judgment... i don't believe for a second they would not do so... due to their disapproval of gay relationships anyway...
markofthebeasts 3 years ago
The issue of miscegenation wasn't about changing the definition of marriage. It was about keeping people from different races apart. The new concept of "gay marriage" is about getting tax credits and government goodies for having a homosexual relationship.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
Gays are saying we want the government to create something called "gay marriage." Something that never even existed in Roman Empire that fully embraced homosexuality. You're an attorney, you can write up an agreement to split all the property evenly if you and your "monogamous relationship" breaks up. Likely a better arraignment than marriage anyway. As an attorney you'll likely end up paying spousal support to your lower income partner.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
No, gays simply want to be entitled to call it "marriage". It's a new class being entitled to claim the SAME right of marriage.
Just like interracial couples were a new class of people allowed to marry in 1967...we call those unions marriages, don't we?
That "tradition" argument is a logical fallacy known as "the appeal to tradition", btw.
And yes I could do so, but why should the state countenance such an inefficient waste of labor when all it has to do is call the gay union marriage?
jugganaut35 3 years ago
So if churches choose to recognize gay marriage, well fine... However, no government rubber stamp and benefits on gay marriage or even marriage at all is my position. It just wouldn't be an issue if we leave the government out of the whole thing.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
Well I'll cite STDs as one problem rampant with homosexuality. Perhaps that is now being diminished with condoms. And government sanctioning of gay marriage is really promoting homosexuality. Homosexuality is by and large not a monogamous activity. Gay marriage kicks open the door to other things like society embracing polygamy. Again my opinion but I can't see that is beneficial to promote either. Schools will have teach homosexuality as something ok and normal, it is not. Again out of space.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
I didn't say that Duff. I said that gays and blacks are nothing even close when it comes to the issue of rights. I think you need to concede that point.
Negative consequences. 1.) Homosexuality is not a natural or normal behavior and therefore doesn't promote the good of society as a whole. 2.) Gay marriage aside, homosexuality is by and large not a monogamous activity and therefore harmful for reasons I don't need to mention. Government sanctioning of gay marriage will..outofspace
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
Same sex marriage is only disguesting in opinion, like mine. I think it's wrong because it is not God's way. If all people were gay or lesbian we wouldn't be here. It would make sense if you were athiest but I'm guessing most gays and lesbeins do believe in God. In God's way it takes a man, and a woman to reproduce. Not two men or women. Same sex marriage is wrong in God's eyes. And stop using to many big words, please.
Shmiggle2000 3 years ago
Stop using big words? I hate to be blunt about it, but the proper resolution of this issue involves using and understanding big words.
If you don't understand them you should probably either pull up your online dictionary and educate yourself, extricate yourself from the debate or remain and look the fool. I'd recommend the first option as the best course of action.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
Look Duff, blacks were not even recognized as being HUMAN BEINGS! They were sold like live stock, worked until they bled and were beaten within an inch of their life for having an opinion. You can go and rent a nice facility, invite all your friends and family and marry your gay partner. You won't even get ticket as long as you don't speed going there. So no, I don't see blacks and gays as anything even close. Gay are essentially crying about tax deductions. End the IRS and go to a flat tax.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
Well let's be clear here. In a "true" polygamy situation, all parties to the contract presumably have given requisite consideration for forming it.
In a "false" polygamy situation, say where one partner has two marriages while his partners believe he only has one, there isn't requisite consideration between all parties.
The former I would be okay with, the latter I wouldn't. I would argue that either of the two unknowing parties would have automatic grounds for divorce on fraud grounds.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
Anti-miscegenation laws were about racism and again gays are not a race.
Gays have all the same rights I have and everyone has. Gays want "special rights" and laws written just for them.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
Ok one marriage contract with three or more people on it. Why not? You're the attorney.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
I've already stated my view.
As long as prophylactic measures addressing the coercion of minors and limiting the total amount of government benefits available to ALL family units (so as not to trigger equal protection concerns) are emplaced, as a libertarian I see no reason for disallowing it.
That doesn't mean I would support pedophilia or bestiality. I'm staunchly against those and will always be so. Pedophilia violates the strong legal presumption against undue influence of minors.
jugganaut35 3 years ago
Ok you are staunchly against pedophilia or bestiality I don't doubt that for a second. I'm not so trusting of your successors in this battle.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
I don't like the government involved with marriage at all. However, such a decision would be more healthy for the future of this nation, my opinion.
imikewillrockyou 3 years ago
If you think it's that easy changing a law judicially, I challenge you to try it. With the principle of stare decisis firmly embedded in our country's judicial foundations, there has to be a damn good reason for changing a law.
And there is in this case. I have a pretty good basis for saying that, as I have a law degree.
jugganaut35 3 years ago