• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Same-sex marriage and Vermont

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Looks like another state is added to the list:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gay_marriage_vermont

Those of us who care about our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters (in the universal sense) should hope it is the start of a trend.
 

Clarencen

Well-known member
Our upside-down society. And the idiots who support it. It is alright for two people of different sexes to live together outside of marriage, with absolutly no commitment to each other. Then two people of the same sex want to be premited to marry so we ordinary people will accept their life style.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Looks like another state is added to the list:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gay_marriage_vermont

Those of us who care about our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters (in the universal sense) should hope it is the start of a trend.

And next....will be approve the "multiple wife" marraiges once again? Can't offend them you know. And then a man and a dog or a woman and a dog?? Everyone has their "rights".
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
badaxemoo said:
Looks like another state is added to the list:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gay_marriage_vermont

Those of us who care about our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters (in the universal sense) should hope it is the start of a trend.

And next....will be approve the "multiple wife" marraiges once again? Can't offend them you know. And then a man and a dog or a woman and a dog?? Everyone has their "rights".

Similar, specious arguments were made when states were striking down their miscegenation laws in previous decades.

I don't believe that polygamy has ever been legal.

Your dog example is too absurd to even comment on.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Clarencen said:
Our upside-down society. And the idiots who support it. It is alright for two people of different sexes to live together outside of marriage, with absolutly no commitment to each other. Then two people of the same sex want to be premited to marry so we ordinary people will accept their life style.

Just because it is the law doesn't mean you have to accept it in your heart. You have the right to your own moral beliefs. If you don't like same-sex marriage, I have a simple solution for you:

Don't marry someone of the same sex.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Sandhusker said:
So, badaxe, do you have any problem with your "brother" marrying a couple of his sisters?

Got any problems with this, badaxe? Is this legislation that you would support?

That's not something I'm going to waste time thinking about. I don't really have an opinion on it, and I highly doubt there are many people who want to marry more than one person.

What possible reasons are there to not allow gays and lesbians the same rights as straight people?

I'll say it again, if you don't like same-sex marriage, then don't go out and marry a person of the same sex.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
I am happy for them! I wish California and New York would follow suit. Maybe then all the gays will move farther away from me and find their haven in their modern day Sodom and Gomorrah's!
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
I am happy for them! I wish California and New York would follow suit. Maybe then all the gays will move farther away from me and find their haven in their modern day Sodom and Gomorrah's!

Iowa is a modern-day "Sodom and Gomorrah"?

You need to get out of Kansas once in a while!
 

Mike

Well-known member
Now that the Moonbats here have agreed there has to be a line drawn SOMEWHERE.......... :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

burnt

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
I'm gonna say what I said a long time ago. Unfortunately many people never find love. And some lose the one they love. If two people love each other and give each other joy, I'm all for it. I would not condemn someone to live without love because their sexual inclination is for their own gender.

And no, that does not include incest which we actually have a biological taboo against although Sandhusker and a couple of others seem to be obsessed with it, nor does it include sex with animals although Mike is obsessed with that.

So, reader, what if some 49 yr.old man would have felt and reciprocated a deep love for your son when he was 15 or 20 or even now? And now don't go putting your own personal feelings and value system into your reply. I expect a good, scientific response, not one that is just politically correct.

And why is a "biological taboo" an acceptable response for incest, but not for men screwing other men? Or the same for women doing whatever women do with other women?

And, to use Tina Turner's famous line - "What's love got to do, got to do with it . . ."? Do you not think that a brother could love his sister in the same (sick) way that a homosexual "loves" his or her same-gender partner? If you have a problem with incest, maybe you should be taking aversion therapy, enslaved, repressed puritan that you are.

Deviation is deviation. So who let the dogs out? ;-)

You see, when you start down the path of moral compromise, there is no convenient stopping place.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Badaxe, "That's not something I'm going to waste time thinking about. I don't really have an opinion on it, and I highly doubt there are many people who want to marry more than one person."

That is a copout. Not for one second do I believe that you have no opinion on incest/bigamy. You just don't want to get in that conversation because you know full well that it will lead to you getting exposed as a hypocrite. You don't want to be on the record stating that you're against incest and/or bigamy because every damn arguement you gay militants use to justify changing marriage laws for gays can be applied equally to incest/bigamy.

What possible reasons are there to not allow gays and lesbians the same rights as straight people?

Burnt put it well, "You see, when you start down the path of moral compromise, there is no convenient stopping place."
 

burnt

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Adults screwing children is both a taboo and a crime so why would you ask this question? Also, it's boorish to start talking about someone else's child or grandchild.

Even when one person is of age but much much younger, I consider it exploitation and it doesn't matter whether it's homosexual or heterosexual.

Just because you cannot understand or your religious beliefs prohibit love between people of the same gender, does not make you qualified to pontificate about it.

Good people can be born this way. I pity you that your views are so intolerant as to not be able to understand this.

O.K., so I won't bring your children or those of anyone else into this scenario.

But you are unable to give a sound basis for your "values", right? They are relative, pardon me, subjective.

Neither did you address the question about what qualifies "love" between same sex couples but not same family couples. Why should incestuous relationships be denied the same rights as homo's? Are you not just being a little prudish? And intolerant?? Hmmmm? I can see the need for a session or two of aversion therapy for reader.

And you cannot go to the Bible to qualify or disqualify it, can you. Because we all know that Biblical prohibitions do not count anymore, right?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Reader, "Adults screwing children is both a taboo and a crime so why would you ask this question?"

Until recently (and still so in many places) so was gay marriage.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Just because you cannot understand or your religious beliefs prohibit love between people of the same gender, does not make you qualified to pontificate about it.

Love does not necessarily include sex! And like wise, sexual acts to not necessarily include love.

I'm not sure of any religion that prohibit love between people of the same gender.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Badaxe, "That's not something I'm going to waste time thinking about. I don't really have an opinion on it, and I highly doubt there are many people who want to marry more than one person."

That is a copout. Not for one second do I believe that you have no opinion on incest/bigamy. You just don't want to get in that conversation because you know full well that it will lead to you getting exposed as a hypocrite. You don't want to be on the record stating that you're against incest and/or bigamy because every damn arguement you gay militants use to justify changing marriage laws for gays can be applied equally to incest/bigamy.

What possible reasons are there to not allow gays and lesbians the same rights as straight people?

Burnt put it well, "You see, when you start down the path of moral compromise, there is no convenient stopping place."

Comparing homosexual behavior between two consenting adults to either incest or bigamy is ludicrous.

I'm not going to waste my typing on it.

But I hope you can admit that a few decades ago, intolerant, conservative bigots like you were using nearly identical arguments about racially-mixed marriages.

And you know what?

A few decades from now, people are going to be looking back at militantly homophobic people like you with the same disdain as most civilized people today look back on those racists.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Badaxe, "Comparing homosexual behavior between two consenting adults to either incest or bigamy is ludicrous. "

How so? The arguement that you moonbats make is that nobody has the right to say that people in love can't marry. Taking your own arguement, how do you have the right to say that Bill, Susan, and Jill can't marry if they are consenting adults in love? Who are you to say that a father and a daughter can't marry if they claim to be in love and are both consenting adults? Isn't it their right? What the hell is the difference, Badaxe?
 

burnt

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Comparing homosexual behavior between two consenting adults to either incest or bigamy is ludicrous.

I'm not going to waste my typing on it.

But I hope you can admit that a few decades ago, intolerant, conservative bigots like you were using nearly identical arguments about racially-mixed marriages.

And you know what?

A few decades from now, people are going to be looking back at militantly homophobic people like you with the same disdain as most civilized people today look back on those racists.

You are correct. Typing about it would be a waste of time because you could provide nothing that would show a substantial difference between incest and homosexuality (or bigamy). Or else you would start typing since I have never seen you back down from an argument of this nature. I guess that is your covert way of conceding this discussion.

Immorality is immorality regardless of how it is packaged.

And there has never been a Biblical argument against racially mixed marriages (for the sake of race alone) while the Bible is clear about the impropriety of homosexuality.

Why is it that you feel the need to become judgmental and label as "homophobic" those who do not support homosexuality? Are we all to call you and reader "familialsexophobic" (or something like that) because you are so prudish and bigoted as to disapprove of a loving, sexual relationship between a brother and sister or a mother and son?

Pardon me while I gag after typing that, but there likely are those sexual deviants who would like to put a label on you for your beliefs that disparage them.

Surely you should be able to move forward and get in tune with the times if that is what it takes to be liberal and enlightened!!! Why stumble at incest if you have no difficulty with homosexuality? Who are you to judge the feelings or actions of someone else?

You see, badaxemoo, I don't have to decide what sexual behavior is right or wrong because I accept that the Bible has set the standard for me. That would be the same Bible that tells me that Jesus loved everyone equally regardless of who they were or what their sin was, but he did not leave them in their sin. He forgives all of those who accept it and then gives them the power to move on into a life that he intended for them.

And when I look at the enormity of my own sin and helplessness to do anything about it (outside of clinging to Jesus' offer of salvation) I see that I am no better than the homosexual, murderer, thief or wife beater because God views all sin as the one and same thing. None of us stands a chance outside of Jesus!!

And I don't think anyone would call Jesus or his father homophobic, so be careful with your labels.
 
Top