How, exactly, does gay marriage threaten me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm saying it is offensive to religious people for the word "marriage" to be associated with a relationship built around sodomy, thats all.

You do not speak for "religious people.". You speak only for yourself. I, for one, do not share your beliefs, and I promise you that I am a religious person.

As a heterosexual married woman, would you define my relationship with my husband as built around vaginal sex? I must say, if asked to describe what my marriage is built around, I'd identify love, mutual support and consideration, kindness, and collaboration as the defining characteristics. Your fixation with sex as the defining element of a relationship is quite telling.

You could have "love, mutual support and consideration, kindness, and collaboration" with any number of people e.g. your brother, sister, father, mother, a friend. You don't have sex vaginal sex with them. If you think that vaginal sex wasn't a big draw for your husband, think again. Just ask him. Would he have married you if you were sworn to celibacy? You are his wife not his roommate.

You are so funny! Of all the characteristics listed above, vaginal sex is by far the easiest to come by, and there are no restrictions on with whom it can be had.

But if you're telling is that vaginal sex defines marriage, then I assume you'll work diligently to prohibit marriage for all men with erectile dysfunction, or mandate divorce once they're no longer able to engage in THE Act That Defines Marriage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You are so funny! Of all the characteristics listed above, vaginal sex is by far the easiest to come by, and there are no restrictions on with whom it can be had.

But if you're telling is that vaginal sex defines marriage, then I assume you'll work diligently to prohibit marriage for all men with erectile dysfunction, or mandate divorce once they're no longer able to engage in THE Act That Defines Marriage?

In that case, Gay marriage does threaten me!!

[Anonymous]

Civil union is fine. No sense in sanctifying sodomy with the word marriage. The majority would definitely agree with that and nobody needs to be offended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are so funny! Of all the characteristics listed above, vaginal sex is by far the easiest to come by, and there are no restrictions on with whom it can be had.

But if you're telling is that vaginal sex defines marriage, then I assume you'll work diligently to prohibit marriage for all men with erectile dysfunction, or mandate divorce once they're no longer able to engage in THE Act That Defines Marriage?

Our friend seems to be saying that marriage is not so much a religious institution as a euphemism for f**king.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Civil union is fine. No sense in sanctifying sodomy with the word marriage. The majority would definitely agree with that and nobody needs to be offended.

This overwhelming obsession with sodomy! You're beyond fixated on sodomy. Which, by the way, takes place between men and women, too. So...no marriage for the heterosexual sodomists?

And given your reasoning above - you're okay with two lesbians marrying one another, as long as there is no sodomy?

How many times a day do you think about sodomy? Really, it seems to be a topic you can't pull yourself away from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Civil union is fine. No sense in sanctifying sodomy with the word marriage. The majority would definitely agree with that and nobody needs to be offended.

What exactly is so sanctifying about the word marriage? The word marriage is ultimately derived from the Latin word for "lover" (maritus). It predates Christianity and certainly has little to do with holiness or opposite sex relationships. Whoops! Don't you just hate when facts bite you in the ass?

[Anonymous]

It really is like arguing with a child...

"Why is that wrong?"
"The magic man in the sky told me!"
"How did he tell you?"
"In a book written thousands of years ago about magic that has been translated back and forth across languages to the point of being almost meaningless."
"And you believe that?"
"Yes!"
"Why?"
"Because it's right!"
"Why?"
"Because of the magic man!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Civil union is fine. No sense in sanctifying sodomy with the word marriage. The majority would definitely agree with that and nobody needs to be offended.

Too late.

When gays were being beaten up, you ignored it.
When sodomy laws attacked the civil liberties of gay people, you ignored it.
When gay people wanted to adopt kids, you fought it.
When gay people wanted to be in the military, you fought it.
When gay people wanted civil unions, you fought that, too.

Now you are losing / have lost those battles. It's too late for you to sit on your ass one more time and expect civil unions to be the resolution. YOU made civil unions a "separate but unequal" class. It is your fault. Now we will fix things our way. Step aside, your views are on the way out. Time is on our side. You won't be the first person to be surprised by the change. And when you get to heaven, you will see what your hatred has earned you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Civil union is fine. No sense in sanctifying sodomy with the word marriage. The majority would definitely agree with that and nobody needs to be offended.

Too late.

When gays were being beaten up, you ignored it.
When sodomy laws attacked the civil liberties of gay people, you ignored it.
When gay people wanted to adopt kids, you fought it.
When gay people wanted to be in the military, you fought it.
When gay people wanted civil unions, you fought that, too.

Now you are losing / have lost those battles. It's too late for you to sit on your ass one more time and expect civil unions to be the resolution. YOU made civil unions a "separate but unequal" class. It is your fault. Now we will fix things our way. Step aside, your views are on the way out. Time is on our side. You won't be the first person to be surprised by the change. And when you get to heaven, you will see what your hatred has earned you.

Bravo. So perfectly said. Turn their own ignorance back upon them.

[Anonymous]

Listen, I'm totally in favor of gay marriage and have been vigorously defending it here. But I get really irritated with the posts like 22:02 that mock my religious beliefs. I am a believer in some form of higher power and would classify myself as a very liberal, rather loosely affiliated Christian. I think the sodomy obsessed poster is a freak with serious issues, and he does himself no favors presenting his opposition to at marriage as some sort of sodomy referendum. On the flip side, when 22:02 insults the beliefs of a whole lot of liberal minded believers, I don't think that's helping the gay marriage cause either.

I am all for civil discourse and reasonable debate. In the gay marriage arena, I don't see a reasonable, rational basis to deny gay marriage rights, and I think if the discussion stays civil without devolving to swipes at religion, it will be a whole lot easier to win that argument at the end of the day.

[Anonymous]

by all means lets become sodam and gamorrah. Go ahead and put gay marriage on the ballot. You lose every time....by wide margins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Civil union is fine. No sense in sanctifying sodomy with the word marriage. The majority would definitely agree with that and nobody needs to be offended.

What exactly is so sanctifying about the word marriage? The word marriage is ultimately derived from the Latin word for "lover" (maritus). It predates Christianity and certainly has little to do with holiness or opposite sex relationships. Whoops! Don't you just hate when facts bite you in the ass?

I suspect that for the sodomy fixated poster, the sanctifying element of marriage is that it means, in his mind, Not Gay. And he is married, so that means he's Not Gay, despite his inability to hold a thought in his head that doesn't revolve around sodomy.

I have such hope that my children's generation will view homosexuality as no more remarkable, shameful or deviant than left-handedness. Which, of course, used to be viewed as a sign of evil, and was beaten out of kids. Seems quite ridiculous in retrospect, doesn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:by all means lets become sodam and gamorrah. Go ahead and put gay marriage on the ballot. You lose every time....by wide margins.

Are you using the New Revised Stupid version of the Bible for those spellings? At least TRY to look like an educated bigot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Listen, I'm totally in favor of gay marriage and have been vigorously defending it here. But I get really irritated with the posts like 22:02 that mock my religious beliefs. I am a believer in some form of higher power and would classify myself as a very liberal, rather loosely affiliated Christian. I think the sodomy obsessed poster is a freak with serious issues, and he does himself no favors presenting his opposition to at marriage as some sort of sodomy referendum. On the flip side, when 22:02 insults the beliefs of a whole lot of liberal minded believers, I don't think that's helping the gay marriage cause either.

I am all for civil discourse and reasonable debate. In the gay marriage arena, I don't see a reasonable, rational basis to deny gay marriage rights, and I think if the discussion stays civil without devolving to swipes at religion, it will be a whole lot easier to win that argument at the end of the day.

In fairness to 22:02, they are mocking a literal and unquestioning version of bible reading. That leaves room for a contextual interpretation of the bible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:by all means lets become sodam and gamorrah. Go ahead and put gay marriage on the ballot. You lose every time....by wide margins.

Are you using the New Revised Stupid version of the Bible for those spellings? At least TRY to look like an educated bigot.

since when does being anti-sodomy qualify someone as a bigot? your love of butt sex has driven you to insanity. BLOOD LIBEL!