So because 2 sexual deviants want to marry we must change social policy that is over 4000 years old to suit them? It is an attempt to legitimize their deviancy. And to force 98%-99% of the citizens of this country to accept their definition of what marriage should be. BS. They have the same rights I do - to marry a person of the opposite sex. Anything else is contrary to the laws of God & nature.
61 comments
They have the same rights I do - to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Well,
"You are only allowed to marry a person from the opposite sex in which you´re totally sexually not interested.
With these restrictions in place, your rights of marriage would de facto be more or less equal to the rights of homosexuals ;)
Let's go back to the traditional definition of marriage, which included polygyny, concubinage, and forcing a child into marriage, but not interfaith or interracial marriage. As for equal rights, the Lovings had the same rights I do - to marry a person of the same race.
As time goes by, humans have begun to leave behind archaic, unfair, unjust prejudices to walk along a path towards acceptance of all souls regardless of their sexuality, skin colour, or beliefs. Its called maturity. Gay people don't have the same rights you do, i.e. to marry someone we love. If you have married just because your partner is a woman and not because you love her then your life is sad and meaningless. This would probably lead to bitterness leaking out over society, hence your hatred of gay people.
Yes, they have the same rights as you do, on a certain understanding.
On a certain understanding, you should have the right to marry Cyclopse too, Wolverine.
From a slightly more rational point of view, you have the right to marry someone you love, and they don't. That isn't right, it isn't fair, and it isn't natural - it's socially imposed.
'social policy that is over 4000 years old'
Citation needed.
On a more cosmopolitan note...
My point is that societies which ate pork, shellfish and goat boiled in its mother's milk, wore mixed fibres, did not practice circumcision, worshipped more than one deity and permitted homosexuality clearly existed for these totems and taboos to function as defining characteristics of the Jewish/Hebrew society at the time.
we must change social policy that is over 4000 years old to suit them?
Why not? Slavery was the in thing for thousands of years, yet we changed social policy to suit abolitionists. Theocracies/dictatorships were the in thing for thousands of years, and we changed things to suit believers in democracy. Hell, polytheism was the in thing for thousands of years before your bible was even conceived of, and your lot slaughtered people to ensure that particular policy was changed.
Just because a belief is old doesn't make it right. Just because a belief is in your bible doesn't make it right. Even if you don't accept it, you already reject ideas that are in the bible, because you subconsciously know they aren't right.
Remember, the older something is, the more correct something is!
BULLSHIT!
I can't marry the woman I love because it goes against the laws of you Wholly Babble?That isn't right or fair,but still socially forced upon us by the religious right.Man,and people wonder why I'm ready to relocate to The Netherlands.
Nature has nothing to do with marriage at all. If we were to follow nature we should have a kid with someone, nuture that kid to about 4 years of age and then switch partners, have another kid, nurture that one for about 4 years, and so on and so forth. This is the best way for our genes to be prosperous, having them mixed with the genes of different partners.
I'm fairly certain that we have had legal polygamy at several periods during those 4000 years. And if you look at the social policies for the latest 4000 years, in that land you are inhabiting*, I think you will find very different policies during the first 3500 years...
* I mean America, of course. It just occured to me that maybe he isn't American.
A. 48% of bthis counjtry supprts gay marriage VS 43% against.
B. 4000 years old? bullshit, marriage is older than that, marriage in the US has only been in its current state since we beat bigots using the exact same arguments and legalized interracialo marriage.
C. 5 bucks says this asshole says he doesnt hate gays, just like all the prop-8 supporting pricks. Nope, they just think were 'deviants'
US law bans the practice of descrimination based one one's sex. A woman is permitted to marry a man, however, based on sexual discrimination, a man is not allowed to mary a man. That means the woman has been given an extra, discriminatory right than what a man has. This violates US law.
"So because 2 people of a different race want to marry we must change social policy that is over 4000 years old to suit them? It is an attempt to legitimize their deviancy. And to force 98%-99% of the citizens of this country to accept their definition of what marriage should be. BS. They have the same rights I do - to marry a person of the same race. Anything else is contrary to the laws of God & nature."
Wolverine's Grandpa, circa 1950
So because 2 racial deviants want to marry we must change social policy that is over 4000 years old to suit them? It is an attempt to legitimize their deviancy. And to force 98%-99% of the citizens of this country to accept their definition of what marriage should be. BS. They have the same rights I do - to marry a person of their same race. Anything else is contrary to the laws of God & nature.
Whoops. I see the poster above me already beat me to it. Oh well.
This "change in social policy" isn't going to affect your marriage one whit. Why are you so desperate to prevent it? Your marriage isn't less of a marriage because another group can partake of it. The only people who are affected by the change are the people who benefit from it. It's rare to find a policy change that, from a cost-benefit standpoint, has pretty much all benefit and no cost. Rational people are embracing it because they have finally realized this; the only reason you and other raving fundies don't is because you've manufactured a cost just so you can justify your bigotry. It's a shame anyone on this planet still listens to you.
You need to go back and read your Bible again. Then go read about ALL people groups and their marriage customs and practice of homosexuality for the last 4000 years (I'll ignore for the moment that human history is many multiples of that longer). Social policy depends on the culture we're in. Very few customs, practices or beliefs are universal among humans. It can also be changed, and should be, when it becomes apparent that something is wrong with how we're treating certain groups of people.
They have the same rights I do - to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Ehh no!
To have the same rights, you, a straight man, would only be allowed to marry another man. That would be the same rights!
Hey, Wolverine, Christianity has just been outlawed. I hope you don't complain about it though, because you have the same rights as I do! To not believe in anything.
I'm guessing you wouldn't like that too much, though, would ya?
"So because 2 sexual deviants want to marry we must change social policy that is over 4000 years old to suit them?"
"Anything else is contrary to the laws of God & nature."
Just because something may be allowed in the Bible, doesn't mean to say it's RIGHT. And if slavery is wrong, then everything in Leviticus is WRONG too. And therefore the whole Bible is WRONG.
You're the worst there is at what you do.
They have the same rights I do - to marry a person of the opposite sex. love . See why it's unacceptable?
OK, there are a shitload of things I could say about this, but instead I'm just gonna focus on one thing.
Wolverine, what does the the scouter say about the social policy?
Seems to me from your argument that marriage can only be het or gay, but not both.
I'm confused here. Why can't the concept encompass all possible pairings?
Allright Mr.Fundie... Lets actually run with your idea that there's a God who created the world and nature and then obsoive what that tells us about God's stance on homosexuality.
Nature you see is full of same sex activity. It's been observed in everything from birds to bison to even flies. And it's not just dominance either. I've seen one male lion mount another and after he was done, he rolled over, and gave the other lion a kick to get his attention then assumed the position himself and allowed the other lion to mount him. And you got everything with or without a spine doing stuff like that! And not just the males either. Anything from goats to big cats to apes... the ladies of those species don't mind a little oral on eachother from time to time!
Some species are in fact are exclusively same sex, because they only have one sex. Like snails, which are all hermaphrodites. Same sex mating? Snails can't even do anything else! And some species might have two genders but bighorn rams? They largely PREFER same sex activity!
So if they where the creation of a God, then between that and all the homosexual behaviour in animals, I'm not buying God doesn't like it. Seems to me more like such a hypothetical God likes a bit of variation and spice in sexuality, if it was indeed all deity created.
In fact seems to me that if a God created this all, it's a pro-omnisexual God pretty much!
Please. Marriage has been changing almost non-stop over the last few centuries. You might as well be bitching about marriage being made into a partnership contract rather than a sale of a woman from father to husband. You might as well complain about marriage being remade to allow for the "deviancy" of interracial sexual relations, breaking oh so many esteemed traditions. But then you would be showing a bit of intellectual honesty. You don't care for that. You want to pretend that marriage has never changed in order to make your argument that an old social policy being old justifies not changing it, and that calling something "deviant" makes it objectively so. Sadly, both fail to have impact for anyone who doesn't worship tradition and their own baseless, gut-level bigotry as much as they do "God".
"Please. Marriage has been changing almost non-stop over the last few centuries. You [Wolverine] might as well be bitching about marriage being made into a partnership contract rather than a sale of a woman from father to husband."
After reading, it seems to me that marriage was always a partnership contract. It's just that now in the West, the woman is actually the other full partner in the contract herself, entering into it willingly and bringing her own assets. It's no longer a matter of her father scheming to gain benefits for himself by setting up a partnership contract with another man and "investing" (marrying) his daughter in him to secure it.
The change in attitudes would probably reflect the growing rights granted to women over the last 200 years and the growing role that they have come to play in general business over the same period.
Oh please, marriage has been changing (evolving, one might say) since it's inception. Hell monogamy contravenes some laws of nature.
I mean this change suits everybody technically, gays get what they want and your rights do not change or become limited in any way shape or form aside from a longer queue at the Church for marriage ceremonies.
Boo, frickety hoo.
NO wolfy, you can get married to someone you love. Gay people, depending where they live in the great USA, cant.
we must change social policy that is over 4000 years old
No, it's not. You idiots keep saying that and it never stops being wrong.
They have the same rights I do - to marry a person of the opposite sex
If that worked, we could just shut down all the churches since you'd still have the freedom to be Jewish.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
