Turn the other cheek? Don't see much of that. Neither do we see much destruction of infidels.

Another one from the list of ignorance....how telling.:yeah:


its the racial hygiene that makes the nazi link, if Aramike can take skybirds ideas and match then to any ideology apart from the fruitcake nazis or fundys he is free to try.
but Skys civilisation saving ideas have only one path...which is why he is always backing away from the "how?" as he knows the answer was given before and was sicker than a plague ridden hovel.

BTW Aramike in case you can read it now....have you learnt the meaning of the word context yet?:rotfl2:

Okay, now you're just obviously trolling. Come on, did you mean a word of that? Are you going to make a "got'cha" post further down the road telling us how stupid we were for buying into this, kind like what I did with my "OMG Norwegian school forces non-Muslim girls to wear hijabs!11" thread:06:?

Geez, come on, Skybird, you're smarter than this:nope:. Dare I read the rest of the thread? Page 1 is your usual "teh ghey is coming!" drivel (with all the stock arguments present and debunked), and Page 5 was all about an unrelated subject altogether. I think I'll pass.

Then you clearly have little understanding of either religion's texts and therefore should exit the debate gracefully rather than continuiing to make a fool of yourself with blanket statements referencing absolutetly nothing other than an ignorant belief that what you WANT to believe is true.

:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:
So a simple reference to prove his first point would be the number of crazy wars christian nations have had over silly issues about real or imagined slights and to prove the second point a reference to the amazing number of infidels in the world.

The biggest laugh I've got out of the entire issue is that the religious groups were pushing for Prop. 8 on the basis of "promoting responsible procreation."

Ummm... If a gay couple is incapable of conceiving a child via natural means, doesn't that mean they -are- procreating responsibly? I mean, they're not conceiving a child they may or may not have the means to care for, nor are they exacerbating our human-to-resources ratio problems.

Okay, I'll bite - if they have no benefit to society via raising strong families for the future, why should society extend them any benefits whatsoever?

They are not going to procreate either way, right?

Then go ahead and take the first step. Start telling people who are unable to have kids for one reason or another that their marriage has been declared null and void.

So that means they wouldn't have to pay any taxes whatsoever, say goodbye to the pink dollar or is that the dink dollar

I dunno, maybe for the same reason we extend the benefits of legal marriage to heterosexual couples who lack either the ability or the desire and intention to procreate?

The inability and/or unwillingness to procreate and raise a family can't be cited as a legally valid reason to deny two individuals the right to be legally married, unless the ability and willingness to do so is a legal requirement for marriage in the first place. It isn't.

the only sollution to this is to outlaw ALL marriage.

we will now only have legal unions which is and has been legal all along but "some" want the special notation of the word marriage as though it is any more legitimate or powerfull.

if equality were the real goal then the arguement would be that legal unions would have all the benefits and protections as marriage (but AFAIK they already do) and this would be very easy to get accross the board support for.

marriage was a religeous thing started in church, supposedly blessed by god, and conducted by preists so isnt goverment supposed to be seperate from religeon?

so i say marriage should no longer exist in law and all we have is legal unions, then anyone can "call" themselves married but it has no legal merit.

that would solve the whole problem but then there would be no drama and where would be the fun in that?

I have no problem with this, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the religious groups who have made a point of opposing same-sex marriage (and/or any kind of legally recognized "unions") will not agree to it. They want legal recognition of "marriage" as condoned and accepted within their own belief system, and no legal recognition for anything else.

im sure that some do but i think the vast majority are just opposed to the idea of a symbol of their reigion "the blessing of a marital union" be in some way cheapened by turning it into something like getting a driving license.

most of the people that i know who oppose it are just opposed to the use of the word marriage and not the act itself.

If this were really true I would expect them to be just as upset by the possibility of a heterosexual couple going to city hall, getting a license, hauling in a couple of strangers from nearby offices as witnesses, and having the appropriate gubmint official do what's needed to sign the paperwork that makes them married in the eyes of the law.

And I would expect to see them refuse to acknowledge the marriages of straight couples who fulfilled all the legal requirements but did not seek the approval of the clergy when doing so, and opted out of a church wedding.

But I don't see that.

It is perfectly possible for a straight couple to be married in the eyes of the law, without the benefit or endorsement of any clergy whatsoever, without the "blessing" of anything or anyone other than the law, and I have yet to see any anti-gay marriage group complain that this "cheapens" the idea of marriage. I have yet to see them lobby and spend wads of money trying to pass laws so that such things aren't allowed to happen. It seems obvious that it has less to do with who performs the wedding, who signs the paperwork, and who deems the couple "married" than it does with which two people got hitched and what mix of private parts are involved.

It's the same thing as with the "marriage is about procreation" argument. If one examines the argument and then carries it to its logical conclusion, one finds that it doesn't hold up. The thing that is supposed to be so "offensive" or "necessary" when it comes to marriage is only seen to be that way if the marriage involves a same-sex couple. The exact same thing, in the case of a straight couple, is either perfectly acceptable or (apparently) not worth making a fuss about.

well IMO if they were called same sex "unions" instead of marriages then IMO 60% of those who protest would stay home since they wouldnt find that term to be offensive.

yes there is a "gayism" or whatever "ism" fits to it but sometimes a word can mean more then you think and the way to get to the finish line is in stages. gay unions IMO are much more likely to gain wide acceptance, then once established in all 50 states it can be debated if the name actually matters which by that time i doubt it will