"It’s not about their ‘right’ to marry and it never has been. It's about condoning their lifestyle and removing the sacredness of traditional marriage," says Tammy Mosher, Massachusetts State Director of Concerned Women for America:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MattBarber/2007/07/08/%e2%80%9cgays%e2%80%9d_don%e2%80%99t_want_%e2%80%9cmarriage%e2%80%9d_after_all
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWhen you have an article that uses the term "tying the queer little knot", I think it is safe to assume that we're dealing with a homophobe writer.
"It’s not about their ‘right’ to marry and it never has been. It's about condoning their lifestyle and removing the sacredness of traditional marriage," says Tammy Mosher, Massachusetts State Director of Concerned Women for America:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MattBarber/2007/07/08/%e2%80%9cgays%e2%80%9d_don%e2%80%99t_want_%e2%80%9cmarriage%e2%80%9d_after_all
I'm still at a loss as to how giving gays the right to marry removes the sacredness of traditional marriage. It's kind of like saying "if my neighbor plants a tree in his yard, it removes the appeal of my yard."
Originally posted by kirksey957You can obfuscate the argument all you want but the numbers tell the real story: after the newness of gay "marriage" wore off, fewer and fewer gays are getting "married" in Canada and Massachusetts.
When you have an article that uses the term "tying the queer little knot", I think it is safe to assume that we're dealing with a homophobe writer.
I'm still at a loss as to how giving gays the right to marry removes the sacredness of traditional marriage. It's kind of like saying "if my neighbor plants a tree in his yard, it removes the appeal of my yard."
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterSo? Who cares other than the insecure homophobes? What are you? 112 years old. Jesus, get over it.
You can obfuscate the argument all you want but the numbers tell the real story: after the newness of gay "marriage" wore off, fewer and fewer gays are getting "married" in Canada and Massachusetts.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterSo what? It's funny, first people complain that homosexual couples want to get married, then they complain that many homosexual couples don't want to get married. Also, it's not surprising that the numbers of marriages were a lot higher when it first became possible for homosexual couples to get married. Many of them had been waiting for many years.
You can obfuscate the argument all you want but the numbers tell the real story: after the newness of gay "marriage" wore off, fewer and fewer gays are getting "married" in Canada and Massachusetts.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI'm not sure what difference that makes. If fewer blacks voted in elections, would you be in favor of taking away the right to vote for blacks?
You can obfuscate the argument all you want but the numbers tell the real story: after the newness of gay "marriage" wore off, fewer and fewer gays are getting "married" in Canada and Massachusetts.
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt took a while. A lot of suffering. A lot of lynchings and cross burnings. It just breaks my heart to see that the road to justice often entails suffering not just in the body, but also in the spirit. To all my gay brothers and sisters, stand tall. Be not discouraged by the those who negate who you are. I stand with you. We have a dream that one day.....one day......we will all be judged by the integrity of our hearts.
Blacks can vote? Seriously?!? Quick, Nargaguna, Dsr et al, spring into inaction to remidy this justice!
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
1 edit
Originally posted by NordlysYeah, I agree, a good analogy for this would be a damn bursting, lots of water (marriages) broke through initially, and now there is smaller and steady stream now flowing, since nothing can build up.
So what? It's funny, first people complain that homosexual couples want to get married, then they complain that many homosexual couples don't want to get married. Also, it's not surprising that the numbers of marriages were a lot higher when it first became possible for homosexual couples to get married. Many of them had been waiting for many years.
Originally posted by kirksey957You evidently mean a writer with normal masculine sexual instincts. Not a pervert, in other words.
[b]When you have an article that uses the term "tying the queer little knot", I think it is safe to assume that we're dealing with a homophobe writer.
Originally posted by NordlysSo you're saying the rest just waned to fool around like ordinary folk? That sounds shocking! You'd think that they would have a better standard than us common heterosexuals.
Also, it's not surprising that the numbers of marriages were a lot higher when it first became possible for homosexual couples to get married. Many of them had been waiting for many years.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWhat a load of BS that article is! The "militants" of any group don't speak for the majority, only themselves. The gay people I've known are not into reshaping anything; they just want to live family lives like anyone heterosexual may. The militant gays are no more representative of gays than the vocal conservative evangelicals represent Christianity or the minority who want to repeal Vatican II represent Catholicism, or ...
"It’s not about their ‘right’ to marry and it never has been. It's about condoning their lifestyle and removing the sacredness of traditional marriage," says Tammy Mosher, Massachusetts State Director of Concerned Women for America:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MattBarber/2007/07/08/%e2%80%9cgays%e2%80%9d_don%e2%80%99t_want_%e2%80%9cmarriage%e2%80%9d_after_all
Do non-religious people see their marriages as "sacred" because it seems that some people divide the groups into "gays" and "those who believe marriage is sacred."
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterif no line is to be drawn, that guy who loves his pony should be allowed to marry it right?
"It’s not about their ‘right’ to marry and it never has been. It's about condoning their lifestyle and removing the sacredness of traditional marriage," says Tammy Mosher, Massachusetts State Director of Concerned Women for America:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MattBarber/2007/07/08/%e2%80%9cgays%e2%80%9d_don%e2%80%99t_want_%e2%80%9cmarriage%e2%80%9d_after_all
Originally posted by eamon oThe pony can't give informed consent. Why is it anyone's business what consenting adults who aren't married to other people do? If one's marriage only has value based on who is and isn't allowed to marry, then does it really have any value at all?
if no line is to be drawn, that guy who loves his pony should be allowed to marry it right?