Cane

[MD]

Here’s the irony: There is no branch of government with the authority to redefine marriage. Marriage is older than government. Its meaning is universal: It is the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman, establishing responsibilities between the couple and any children that ensue.

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

In fact, marriage in general is affected by this.

A vast number of unmarried men and women have such contempt for marriage that they share bed and home without asking for any formal recognition by society.

In an era when birth control and abortion make childbearing completely optional, the number of out-of-wedlock births shows the contempt that many women have for gay marriage.

Yet most of these single mothers still demand that the man they chose not to marry before having sex with him provide financial support for them and their children — while denying the man any of the rights and protections of marriage.

The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation. OK. It's just a fact. Give me ten ways that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals.

[WaveMaster]

oh u

[Alexandrius]

Oohhh I've got a reason that will surely be brought up.

"They are people too"

Hah. Don't make me laugh.

[MD]

Originally Posted by Alexandrius

Oohhh I've got a reason that will surely be brought up.

"They are people too"

Hah. Don't make me laugh.

Oh lawd.

That logic doesn't make me want to send money to third-world children, and it doesn't make me want to support gays.

[reKoil]

Man'g dis wuld be da best moovee,

ENDOMILIK WILL BE THE STAR!

[Arukas]

Cane will have a book written in response before the time you get back on.

You just shat on the fire that had almost went out..

[Ravi]

For once, I'm with Arie =p

[Arukas]

and for once.. you're not a faggot.

[Yoshitsune]

Originally Posted by Arukas

and for once.. you're not a faggot.

and for once.. you're the prestige XD

[SHADENINJA]

Dammit MD

You just plunged adrenaline into a dying Cane's heart

[Arukas]

Originally Posted by Yoshitsune

and for once.. you're the prestige XD

Bitch, Im always the prestige.... or The Turn at the very least.

[Ericgamer1]

Reverse roles and see how differnet it would be if heterosexuals couldn't marry. Ever think of it like that?

[Cane_The9lives]

Originally Posted by MD

Here’s the irony: There is no branch of government with the authority to redefine marriage.

Yet the aformentioned branch of government, is more than content to reineforce one paticular definition, or mandate that the traditional union of marriage is the only valid form of marriage.

So in essence the goverment is sanctioning one type of marriage as universal truth, while condemning all other forms as unlawful union.
The goverment is quite literally defining what marriage is.
Since the goverment feels it is its duty to define and enforce what marriage is, there is no reason it should be adverse to redefining it.

Originally Posted by MD

Marriage is older than government. Its meaning is universal: It is the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman, establishing responsibilities between the couple and any children that ensue.

You're appeal to tradition does not carry weight.
If tradition actually added validity to somthing, then slavery should have never been abolished, or adulterers should always be stoned(since both practices almost predate government) The idea that somthing should be respected becuase its a timely tradition is ridiculous.

If human beings hadnt given up their backwords traditions once they started to become more and more civilized, the world would be in a greater state of anarchy than it is today.

It used to be tradition(And in some cultures still is sadly) to slaughter animals as sacrifices to "Gods". Killing animals, for no logical reason other than to honor a tradition honestly makes no sense.

The thing about traditions is, they were meant to be discarded, changed, or created anew.

Originally Posted by MD

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

Lol oh please, WWIII is not going to be caused by disputes over same sex marriage, lord have mercy your mind wanders.

Originally Posted by MD

A vast number of unmarried men and women have such contempt for marriage that they share bed and home without asking for any formal recognition by society.

And exactly what is the relevance of this?
It does not matter in the least if some men and women choose to not exercise their civic social right to be joined in matrimony to the ones they love, for the simple fact that, that is their personal choice.

However their reluctance does not negate the right to those who wish to use it. Nor does it make the ones who do use it, look selfish for reveling in somthing another chooses not to.
The whole point of having rights, is the choice to use them or not.
That is the defining principle of rights, its the beauty of it..... having the ability not to excercise them. Whereas banning gay marriage not only renders homosexuals incapable of marrying, but also incapable of having a choice, since their rights are being pulled out from under them.

Originally Posted by MD

In an era when birth control and abortion make childbearing completely optional, the number of out-of-wedlock births shows the contempt that many women have for gay marriage.

Lol what?

How does out of wedlock birth, relate to female contempt of homsexual marriage?
Are you fucking kidding me?
They are completly unrelated.

You would think, the ones who are married...are the ones who hold strong contempt for the idea, because it challenges their preconceptions of what is right, and what they alone are entitled to.

And i reiterate, many people back then despised african americans.
Granted some still do, but i can easily induce that statistically speaking...it is nowhere near the amount that used to.

Most decided to change their way of thinking and outlook on life. They decided that you shouldnt judge soley due to skin color, but of the content of ones characte(Which doctor king put nicely so many years ago) Why did they do this you ask? Because it was wrong to discriminate then, just as its still wrong to discriminate now(in any fashion)

Exchange "Homosexual" for"African american" and the equation still works, its still discrimination, merely in a different form.

African americans were discriminated againts becuase of their skin color.
Homosexuals are discriminated againts becuase of their sexual preference.

Originally Posted by MD

The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation. OK. It's just a fact. Give me ten ways that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals.

1.They are human beings.
2.They are born in the same nations, as their fellow heterosexual citizens.
3.They have the right of freedom of expression.
4.They have the right to vote.
5.They have the right to apply to any job(where applicable) free of discrimination.
6.They have the right to join the army.
7.They have the right to protest(heh).
8.They have the right to carry arms.
9.They have the right to habeas corpus.
10.They have the right to deny againts illegal search and seizure.

Infact save gay marriage, every consitutional right allowed to(speaking of america, but in general everywhere else) hetereosexual citizens, is granted to homosexual citizens.

If you want more elaboration on how homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals, google all the countries you can think of that have bill of rights, and read them.

That would be your answer.


Edit=I also dont want to hear any of this bitching about how i wrote alot, and you dont want to read it becuase it makes your head hurt. Since you refuse to enter this debate with me, in the DEBATE section, your asswhooping will just have to be done here.

If you are unwilling to respond to everything i have written, then do not initiate a debate to begin with.

[MD]

whut r u talking about cane why wud u reply 2 dat OH I GET IT U THOUGHT I WUZ DEBATING WIT U LOL NO DATZ NOT MAI UPINIUN AT AWL

Sally Kern's anti-gay rant, the world is now listening | BlogHer
Blood & Rhetoric » Orson Scott Card’s anti-gay rant

SEE I WUZ JUST POSTING WHUT THOSE GUIZ SED SO EVERY1 CUD C IT
LUUKZ LIEK U ROTE ALL OF DAT 4 NOTHING. MAY B U SHUD EMAIL UR REPLY 2 DEM LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL