Why Is Gay Marriage Wrong?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
diamond said:
You've even tried to use Mormons as a correlation for your cause, when in fact you despise them.

No, diamond. I don't despise them, as a whole. The difference between you and I is that I've used my experiences as a "hated" Roman Catholic to understand the core American values of secularism and the separation of church and state as positive values that enrich religious freedom nationwide, as there are numerous minority religions nationwide. An advanced democracy balances the inalienable rights of the minority with the will of the majority. That was the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights to begin with.

But it's pretty clear that some Mormons are just assholes, like any other religion.
 
melon said:


You don't know how many times I'd like to tell you to go fuck yourself every day.

But no, the way the moderators rule around here, somehow that four letter word carries more weight than post after post after post of offensive homophobic bullshit.

Because it's a topic of national debate. We need to hear all sides. :|
 
martha said:


Because it's a topic of national debate. We need to hear all sides. :|



it's true. i wonder why gay marriage are so scared of talking about the possibility that men marrying men will lead to men marrying horses.

it's like they're scared to even want to talk about it. what do you think they're hiding? all i know is that i'm sick to death of the PC Left telling me what i can and cannot make wild, unfounded, irrational speculations on.
 
melon said:


There's a rather conservative book out there called, "The Closing of the American Mind," by the late Allan Bloom. It was written over 20 years ago at this point, but it's funny how most of its observations about the decay of America and American education are still very relevant.

One contention that I very much agree with is the absolute nonsense of moral and ethical relativity, inasmuch as it creates logical paradoxes. One of the most prominent, as Bloom writes, is the illogic of "tolerance." As defined by relativism, one is expected to "tolerate intolerance," or otherwise, they're not a very good liberal. But, if you are capable of reasoning (which I think is questionable, at this point), I'm pretty sure you can see that "tolerating intolerance" is reprehensibly inane.

As such, I do not tolerate religious organizations that hold positions of sheer homophobia and bigotry. And why should I? You've certainly proven yourself, as a Mormon, of being completely incapable of looking at homosexuals in a non-offensive light. And, not only that, but you seem to be proud of it! That, as a given then, how the hell do you have the gall to try and argue that you, instead, are the victim here?

So, go ahead, try and bullshit your way out of this one. But let's get one thing straight: if we strip out all the moral and ethical relativity here and remove the cloak of "religious freedom" that you so tightly wear to justify and excuse away your prejudices, that's when it becomes completely unavoidable that you're a bigot.

And I'm sorry. It is my moral and ethical imperative not to tolerate bigotry. Period.

Mr Melon-

I can see that you're a little upset, I struck a nerve apparently.

What I found in the 7 plus years of discussing issues here is that no matter how personal the issue is to someone's heart, the person that loses is the one who resorts to name calling.

I'm sorry your feelings were hurt.

If the truth were known you would realize that *you* know a lot less about me than you may think, and if you want to label me as a bigot and a troll, because I say that I'm against Gay Marriage, but for Gay Matramonial Unions,either Secular or Holy, that would be to your own consternation.


You also seem to have a subconscious dysfuntional emotional attachment with Catholism that rears its occassional ugly head for whatever reason, but that is not for me to speculate on nor judge you on.



<>
 
Last edited:
diamond said:

If the truth were known you would realize that *you* know a lot less about me than you may think, and if you want to label me as a bigot and a troll, because I say that I'm against Gay Marriage, but for Gay Matramonial Unions,either Secular or Holy, that would be to your own short sightedness.





honey, you were the one that brought horses into this thread.
 
diamond said:


only to think outside of the box...no pun.

:)



are you surprised that the comparison of homosexuality to bestiality engendered such strong responses?

do you think these strong responses were because you made an interesting insight that lead to an uncomfortable realization and people got reactionary and knee-jerk because it's uncomfortable to be challenged in such an intellectual, in-your-face way?

or do you think these strong responses were because it was as insulting as comparing a black person to a monkey?
 
Irvine511 said:




are you surprised that the comparison of homosexuality to bestiality engendered such strong responses?

do you think these strong responses were because you made an interesting insight that lead to an uncomfortable realization and people got reactionary and knee-jerk because it's uncomfortable to be challenged in such an intellectual, in-your-face way?

or do you think these strong responses were because it was as insulting as comparing a black person to a monkey?

only an idiot would compare a person to a monkey.

the horse picture was posted to add to the discussion on civil rights, not to equate male men nor mailmen as ponies.:angry:

:sexywink:
 
diamond said:


only an idiot would compare a person to a monkey.

the horse picture was posted to add to the discussion on civil rights, not to equate male men nor mailmen as ponies.:angry:

:sexywink:



only an idiot would compare homosexuality with bestiality.

a horse cannot give consent. a man has no more civil right to fuck a horse than he has to fuck a 3 year old or a sea turtle.
 
diamond said:


the horse picture was posted to add to the discussion on civil rights, not to equate male men nor mailmen as ponies.:angry:


David, come on :(

CONSENT. Consent between 2 adults who are capable of entering into a legally binding agreement.

Why does this scare you so much?
 
Irvine511 said:




only an idiot would compare homosexuality with bestiality.

.

I didn't.

i ask if men were allowed to be with beasts and was it within their civil rights to do so, that was the question, which would preclude us Irvine.:sexywink: I'm not saying who the beast is here either.

knee jerk reactions occured with some here due to fear based reasoning in their subconsciousness I suppose.

Only a bigot would think that civil rights has anything to do with men fucking horses.

Why's that, do animal right's supercede human rights?

Thank you for the term of endearment.


NOW I HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT:

I'm leaving FYM for a predetermined time on my own volition.
I've stimulated enough expansive thought for the time being, carry on I shall return in due course on my own recognizance.

Good bye friend and foes, I bid you adeau for a season.

;)

<>
 
diamond said:

What I found in the 7 plus years of discussing issues here is that no matter how personal the issue is to someone's heart, the person that loses is the one who resorts to name calling.

Then it would appear that you have lost. Or have you conveniently forgotten your immature little picture name calling post just one page back?

What an absolute hypocrite you are, diamond. :rolleyes:
 
melon said:
This entire "bisexual polygamy" argument ignores one factor:

It's incredibly insulting to bisexuals.

That is, they're often looked upon with great suspicion that they are incapable of being monogamous by both the gay and straight communities. To argue that bisexuals can only be served properly through polygamy is truly insulting to those who are bisexual and are very capable of being monogamous to whichever partner they choose to be with. I haven't seen any indication that even a sizable minority of bisexuals are interested in a polygamy.

Thank you!

I was reading all of the comments about bisexuals somehow wanting a polygamous relationship simply because they are bisexual and was trying to figure out what the poster was talking about. Being bisexual myself, I can vouch for the fact that I do not in any way, shape, or form want to be in a relationship with multiple people of both sexes. It just doesn't make sense to me. Yes, I am attracted to both women and men, but one at a time. And, honestly, I go back and forth in who I am finding more attractive at any given time. At the moment, it's men. Last summer, it was women. I just look at it like I have more choices, but certainly not having more people in the relationship. I don't see it as being less true to myself by choosing to be monogamous in a relationship. I'm not being less of myself any more than a heterosexual person, or even a homosexual person would be when choosing to enter into a monogamous relationship.
 
diamond said:
What I found in the 7 plus years of discussing issues here is that no matter how personal the issue is to someone's heart, the person that loses is the one who resorts to name calling.

No. You do not get to set the rules here. If you resort to ignoring facts, ignoring reality, and resorting to bigoted stereotypes, then you lose--every time.

If the truth were known you would realize that *you* know a lot less about me than you may think, and if you want to label me as a bigot and a troll, because I say that I'm against Gay Marriage, but for Gay Matramonial Unions,either Secular or Holy, that would be to your own consternation.

Ah yes...we're supposed to believe that the man who constantly depicts homosexuality as something "unnatural," more or less, is really secretly a good person.

Here's a thought:

How about constructing a coherent sentence that reflects that, rather than leaving us to just "trust" your word? Right now? I have zero reason to believe that you're nothing more than a misinformed, albeit good natured, bigot. And that's unfortunate, really, because there are certainly moments where you can post a thought-provoking thread, such as your contributions to threads regarding NDEs and even some of your comments in the "demon possession" thread. There's moments when I think that we are so faraway, yet so close when it comes to our respective approaches to religion.

Maybe some here will think that I'm being harsh on you. Consider it, instead, as my contribution to you "thinking outside the box."

You also seem to have a subconscious dysfuntional emotional attachment with Catholism that rears its occassional ugly head for whatever reason, but that is not for me to speculate on nor judge you on.

Again, to take a page from Allan Bloom and conservative political philosophy, it is noted that it is often the Marxist response to take a look at classical philosophy and automatically dismiss it as "patriarchal" or "autocratic." The thing is, these labels are not contested. Indeed, it is noted that all philosophy, prior to the late 18th century or so, will be one or the other, if not both, but that does not mean that certain truths cannot be derived from classical philosophy.

I take the same approach with Catholicism. Very few worldly entities are entirely good or entirely bad. It is up to reason, logic, and philosophy to determine what is of value and what is harmful. I can find numerous qualities in the Catholic Church--and any church or religious sect, for that matter--that has doctrines that are of positive value and negative harm.

Regardless, I do not see how your comment here has any relevance, short of you disliking my nuanced approach to religion.
 
Last edited:
diamond said:
Why's that, do animal right's supercede human rights?

If you are to argue that man and animal are capable of marriage, then it must be argued simultaneously that both are of equal rights, value, and culpability.

Since an animal cannot consent, by nature, such a proposition is always the equivalent of rape.

NOW I HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT:

I'm leaving FYM for a predetermined time on my own volition.
I've stimulated enough expansive thought for the time being, carry on I shall return in due course on my own recognizance.

It isn't fun anymore when you have to confront reality, I guess? Goodbye.
 
I think gay marriage should be limited to women only.

I also think a women can have a husband and wife at the same time. That way, a man and two women can...honeymoon...three...

OK...just having guy's dream.

Please don't hate me. Embrace. :wink:
 
Why is it when I leave threads the post averages take a tumble like a bad day on Wall Street?

That said on a scale of 1-10, 10 being the maddest, how mad are some of you at me?


Is it safe to have a coherent dialouge with you or are some of you still unfocused with your anger?

Should I take cover for a while longer until we all can come to the table and reason together?

<>

:reject:
 
tumbleweed_004.jpg
 
diamond said:

Should I take cover for a while longer until we all can come to the table and reason together?


You don't reason. You throw out offensive and homophobic statements and then run for cover when you piss people off.

You hide behind your church and your "humor" to deflect any criticism of your bigoted positions.
 
Instead of your glib comments and leave taking that really wasn't perhaps you should try to make amends to those you most definitely appear to have offended here, and think about what they said and what others said. And think about the "rationale" behind your arguments.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
Instead of your glib comments and leave taking that really wasn't perhaps you should try to make amends to those you most definitely appear to have offended here, and think about what they said and what others said. And think about the "rationale" behind your arguments.

I will thru sound reasoning at the right time when cooler heads prevail.

And the others should follow your heed likewise as well.

<>
 
I asked you guys to carry on in my absence and I since I've been away all I hear are crickets chirpping.

<>
 
Back
Top Bottom