Gurk_MacGuintey said:
I did. Did you? Because I do not think it means what you think it means...
And this is the pat question that homo activist types always ask - how will it effect ME - but the question they never answer is: How will it effect the institution as a whole over the course of time. Something you conveniently ignore. And tossing out the very real imperatives that drive the ideological left - and the stated reason for the existence of those imperatives makes your own agenda quite clear.
And yet you haven't answered either question. You yourself said you didn't care how homosexuals lived, but that you didn't want them fucking with your culture. How does legal homosexual union fuck with your culture? Simple question, Gurk, answer it. My answer is this: Homosexual legalized marriage will NOT affect the institution in any discernable sense. Straight people will not suddenly STOP getting married because gays are allowed to do it, and people who are straight will not suddenly become gay because it's okay to marry another gay person. The only people who will be adversely affected will be assholes like yourself who are so obsessed with telling other people what's right and wrong they'll have apoplectic fits and maybe die.
Which is in itself another reason to approve gay marriage.
The prevalence and acceptance of homosexuality in ancient Roman and Greek culture is debateable. Nor did same-sex "marriage" exist in either of those cultures - unless you take Nero's "marriage" to the slave boy Sporus or Caligula's "marriage" to his race horse Incitatus to be evidence that pervert "marriage" was common in ancient Rome.
No it's not, it was a matter of historical record. Older men were frequently called upon to establish and maintain homosexual relationships with younger men as rites of passage into adulthood, relationships which continued often even after the men married wives in the straight sense and began to raise families.
Who's putting up smokescreens of verbosity? There is no valid comparison between interracial or interfaith marriage and the concept of same-sex "marriage". The former were only sporadically banned in various places and eras and the latter never existed anywhere ever in the entire history of civilization until quite recently.
Incorrect. Barring "social caste marriages" such as between slaves and freemen, etc has existed as long as the idea of marriage itself, and is still punishable by death in some cultures. Slaves have ALWAYS been barred from marriage in order to prevent emotional ties that encouraged feelings of empowerment and liberty, etc. to others that were considered "property". That practice also has gone on for thousands of years. They occured still, but were punishable offenses if discovered and were illegal in the eyes of the law. Intra-faith marriages were also considered immoral in the eyes of the church, and even to this day are unrecognized by some faiths as true marriages. Meanwhile, homosexuality and lifelong homosexual relationships have existed as long as any of the others even if they weren't widely publicized. Hell, Jesus hung out with twelve guys and according to the church never married. How do you reconcile THAT, fuckstick?
It is about the preservation of culture. If you cannot see that redefining such a fundamental cultural institution would amount to a massive cultural paradigm shift then you are either ignorant or willfully denying what is patently obvious.
I ask again: what part of YOUR culture is in danger of being destroyed by allowing gays to marry? The part where it's okay to spit on gays and scream at them how they're going to hell? The part where it's okay for your school aged kids to torment them until they drop out or commit suicide?
Save your contrived indignation for someone who would fall for it. Homo activist have made the issue everyone's business by trying to force their social agenda upon society through the courts. They seek to use judicial fiat because EVERYWHERE the issue goes on a ballot the perverts lose by an average margin of 70+% against.
Actually, you're right. By legally fighting what they see as an unfair practice, gays are making it everybody's business. And yes, unfortunately that means blowhards like you are allowed to weigh in with your bullshit take on things. But that's why this country is what it is, and why gay marriage will eventually pass into law. Because despite what you wish, ignorant people are generally finally overwhelmed by saner heads. And the fact is, allowing gays to marry harms no one, not even people in your insular little world. Hell, gays have been marrying for years: just not to other gays.
For the record, the only quotes I used were "pillars of bourgeois society" and "swept away", and I put them in quotes. All the rest WERE my words, fuckstick.
You attempted to use Karl Marx' ideas of socialism and culture-building as a backhanded way to support your irrational fear of allowing gays to mainstream into society on a more consistent basis. Those were Marx' ideas; I asked for YOUR thoughts, of which you apparently have none. When you do present your own ideas, they are cliche-riddled platitudes which sound like they came straight from right-wing radio and Bill O Reilly's Talking Points segment. I'm not impressed.
And what separates guys like me from guys like Marx is: I'm not evil and I don't believe in fairy tales.
Irrelevant. I'm not questioning your moral center, I want to know how you think a gay agenda is being forced on my child, and how allowing gays legal rights as married couples will destroy your civilization? Surely you have some sort of concrete hypotheses, proof or other evidence to support such a hardline stance? You can't be simply talking from your own ass, can you?
Can you?
