PDA

View Full Version : What, no Armageddon?



LogansPapa
06-17-2008, 10:44 AM
At 17:01 yesterday I expected the sea to rise and envelop the entire L.A. Basin - but I was disappointed. Gay couples began their marriage commitments and my grandson, Logan, didnít sprout horns out of his skull. The sky didnít grow dark, the torrential rains didnít come, the winds didnít howl and the ground didnít shake beneath our feet.

How come? I watched the news yesterday and there was an old woman crying on the pages of the Holy Book and begging the Lord to forgive the abomination happening across the street at the Beverly Hills court house. She said she was there to uphold Godís Law. I felt so sorry for her.

So whatís up people - the total disruption of our Christian based society? When will it actually begin and what should I - an uneducated heathen - look for: What will be the signs of our doom?

:confused:

linda22003
06-17-2008, 10:47 AM
Who knows? God is pretty busy smiting the Heartland right now.

Vepr
06-17-2008, 10:58 AM
I just talked to Pat Robertson and he said New York is totally screwed right now. Only a matter of time.

dixierat
06-17-2008, 11:01 AM
What will be the signs of our doom?

Irrelevant posts on the internet, such as this.

:cool:

patriot45
06-17-2008, 11:08 AM
Just some more of eroding of societies morals. I cant wait for a human to be able to marry a panther or a fish!

Vepr
06-17-2008, 11:14 AM
Just some more of eroding of societies morals. I cant wait for a human to be able to marry a panther or a fish!

The fish might work out but the panther would be a handful and things would turn ugly quick. Then again that is pretty much marriage anyways if you are guy. ;)

linda22003
06-17-2008, 11:15 AM
I would think Patriot's interest in either of those creatures would be gastronomic, not romantic, in nature.

patriot45
06-17-2008, 11:24 AM
I would think Patriot's interest in either of those creatures would be gastronomic, not romantic, in nature.


I can see myself walking down the aisle with a 2.5 lb. porterhouse, but alas, the marriage would only last 12 minutes!:

You may now eat the bride! :eek::D

asdf2231
06-17-2008, 11:43 AM
I can see myself walking down the aisle with a 2.5 lb. porterhouse, but alas, the marriage would only last 12 minutes!:

You may now eat the bride! :eek::D


See!

It's a slippery slope! :p

Molon Labe
06-17-2008, 11:49 AM
The fish might work out but the panther would be a handful and things would turn ugly quick. Then again that is pretty much marriage anyways if you are guy. ;)

No. the next step will inevitably be someone who wants to have 2 wives. I mean...there's already TV shows about this type thing.
Or maybe it will be the NAMBLA bunch who argue that 15 year old boys are able to have relationships with adult males. That's what is next IMO.

dixierat
06-17-2008, 11:51 AM
No. the next step will inevitably be someone who wants to have 2 wives. I mean...there's already TV shows about this type thing.
Or maybe it will be the NAMBLA bunch who argue that 15 year old boys are able to have relationships with adult males. That's what is next IMO.


Sounds reasonable. I can't for the life of me figure out why a man would want 2 or more wives.

:cool:

linda22003
06-17-2008, 11:58 AM
Sounds reasonable. I can't for the life of me figure out why a man would want 2 or more wives.

:cool:

My husband says the laws against multiple wives seem as though they are for the protection of women, but they are really intended to protect men. :D

LogansPapa
06-17-2008, 11:59 AM
Sounds reasonable. I can't for the life of me figure out why a man would want 2 or more wives.

:cool:


What happened to this?:confused:



Irrelevant posts on the internet, such as this.

:cool:

wilbur
06-17-2008, 12:02 PM
Sounds reasonable. I can't for the life of me figure out why a man would want 2 or more wives.

:cool:

Variety ;)

But anyhow... polygamy is a different issue all together.

It has been acceptable at some point in time in most societies, even considered necessary. In our culture today, we generally maintain that women have the same rights as a man, in most cases, and are able to provide for themselves. This generally isnt the case in societies where polygamy is common place (ala, Islamic countries). What is a woman to do in places like those, if she becomes a widow, etc etc?

I think there is a very strong argument against polygamy in today's society from the position of women's rights. It seems most polygamists in the west generally ensnare the ladies when they are underage and keep them uneducated and brainwashed... basically slaves on a baby farm.

Gay marriage does not make the argument against polygamy any weaker.

dixierat
06-17-2008, 12:04 PM
At 17:01 yesterday I expected the sea to rise and envelop the entire L.A. Basin - but I was disappointed. Gay couples began their marriage commitments and my grandson, Logan, didnít sprout horns out of his skull. The sky didnít grow dark, the torrential rains didnít come, the winds didnít howl and the ground didnít shake beneath our feet.
How come? I watched the news yesterday and there was an old woman crying on the pages of the Holy Book and begging the Lord to forgive the abomination happening across the street at the Beverly Hills court house. She said she was there to uphold Godís Law. I felt so sorry for her.

So whatís up people - the total disruption of our Christian based society? When will it actually begin and what should I - an uneducated heathen - look for: What will be the signs of our doom?
:confused:


What happened to this?:confused:

That part's irrelevant. My response to the otehr poster was relevant to his post. Try to keep up.

:cool:

patriot45
06-17-2008, 12:05 PM
A gay community with all gay marriages will die out in 1 generation.

LogansPapa
06-17-2008, 12:06 PM
That part's irrelevant. My response to the otehr poster was relevant to his post. Try to keep up.

:cool:

"otehr"? Shit - no wonder I can't keep up.;)

LogansPapa
06-17-2008, 12:08 PM
A gay community with all gay marriages will die out in 1 generation.

So gay couples arenít able, some how, to adopt - have a surrogate - or artificially inseminate? Is there a law Iím not up to speed on?:confused:

asdf2231
06-17-2008, 12:12 PM
At 17:01 yesterday I expected the sea to rise and envelop the entire L.A. Basin - but I was disappointed. Gay couples began their marriage commitments and my grandson, Logan, didnít sprout horns out of his skull. The sky didnít grow dark, the torrential rains didnít come, the winds didnít howl and the ground didnít shake beneath our feet.

How come? I watched the news yesterday and there was an old woman crying on the pages of the Holy Book and begging the Lord to forgive the abomination happening across the street at the Beverly Hills court house. She said she was there to uphold Godís Law. I felt so sorry for her.

So whatís up people - the total disruption of our Christian based society? When will it actually begin and what should I - an uneducated heathen - look for: What will be the signs of our doom?

:confused:

It's quite possible that you didn't notice anything because it would be almost impossible for one single event to make California more fucked up and hell bound than it usually is. :D ;)

LogansPapa
06-17-2008, 12:17 PM
It's quite possible that you didn't notice anything because it would be almost impossible for one single event to make California more fucked up and hell bound than it usually is. :D ;)

HEY!

That's just...........um........(nevermind).:o

patriot45
06-17-2008, 12:17 PM
So gay couples arenít able, some how, to adopt - have a surrogate - or artificially inseminate? Is there a law Iím not up to speed on?:confused:

Quote by others-


These are the considerations that make many sincere people balk at the notion of same-sex marriage. Such a "marriage" can certainly be based on love, and even entail the adoption and raising of children, but it cannot, by definition, eventuate in children generated by the couple in question.

LogansPapa
06-17-2008, 12:19 PM
Quote by others-

So, by that statement - it would be better not to adopt the child?

linda22003
06-17-2008, 12:21 PM
"it cannot, by definition, eventuate in children generated by the couple in question."

This argument makes no sense to me. My husband and I married with no intention of having children, and our marriage is valid. Elderly people marry each other all the time, with no intention or ability of having children, and their marriages are valid.

megimoo
06-17-2008, 12:21 PM
"otehr"? Shit - no wonder I can't keep up.;)learn to interpolate FGS !

LogansPapa
06-17-2008, 12:24 PM
learn to interpolate FGS !

:D(okay - funny shit right there. Don't care where you're from.):p

Vepr
06-17-2008, 12:33 PM
No. the next step will inevitably be someone who wants to have 2 wives. I mean...there's already TV shows about this type thing.
Or maybe it will be the NAMBLA bunch who argue that 15 year old boys are able to have relationships with adult males. That's what is next IMO.

As long as I do not have to pay for their kids or support them in any other way and they are not treading on someoneís constitutional rights I donít care how many wives or husbands someone has. If a guy is a glutton for punishment and wants to have more than one then have at it.

As far as underage marrying goes I do not consider it any better when a 30 some year old male marries a 15 year old female which happens way more often than what you mentioned. But that is not a gay marriage issue that is a state law issue on underage marriage.

patriot45
06-17-2008, 12:36 PM
"it cannot, by definition, eventuate in children generated by the couple in question."

This argument makes no sense to me. My husband and I married with no intention of having children, and our marriage is valid. Elderly people marry each other all the time, with no intention or ability of having children, and their marriages are valid.


It certainly makes sense to me. You are not gay, by definition, a gay couple cannot generate thier own children.
Unless they mutate even more.

linda22003
06-17-2008, 12:39 PM
I'm not aware that any institution apart from the Catholic Church demands the intention or possibility of procreation as a qualifier for marriage. The state certainly does not demand it, nor has it any business doing so.

wilbur
06-17-2008, 12:45 PM
It certainly makes sense to me. You are not gay, by definition, a gay couple cannot generate thier own children.
Unless they mutate even more.

So then we should only allow marriage for fertile couples in child rearing age groups who intend to have children? No old couples, no sterile people, and especially not those crazies that just don't want kids.

lacarnut
06-17-2008, 12:45 PM
Who knows? God is pretty busy smiting the Heartland right now.

Right: He got N.O. and CA could be next.

patriot45
06-17-2008, 12:45 PM
I'm not aware that any institution apart from the Catholic Church demands the intention or possibility of procreation as a qualifier for marriage. The state certainly does not demand it, nor has it any business doing so.


You are in left field, My point is that a gay marriage cannot produce children without artificial means. That means they would die out in 1 generation.
I did not mean that having children was a prerequisite for marriage.

linda22003
06-17-2008, 12:48 PM
It's still odd, to me. If gay couples die out, there are many other people in the world - gay and straight - to take their place. The world is not suddenly going to depopulate. My parents couldn't have children without "artificial means" either (I was adopted), and they were happily married for 53 years.

patriot45
06-17-2008, 12:51 PM
So then we should only allow marriage for fertile couples in child rearing age groups who intend to have children? No old couples, no sterile people, and especially not those crazies that just don't want kids.

All valid, I am old fashioned, marriage betwen man and woman, wether old, non fertile or just dont want kids, is fine. Any thing that hastens societies downfall, I am against.

linda22003
06-17-2008, 12:52 PM
I think that really is what it boils down to, all smokescreens about children notwithstanding; many straight people just don't want gays to get married, because they think it's icky.

YupItsMe
06-17-2008, 01:29 PM
Sounds reasonable. I can't for the life of me figure out why a man would want 2 or more wives.

:cool:


You know what the punishment is for polygamy?


Multiple wives. ;)

asdf2231
06-17-2008, 01:41 PM
http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l307/asdf2231/Motivational/52e39f51.jpg

Cold Warrior
06-17-2008, 02:27 PM
Sounds reasonable. I can't for the life of me figure out why a man would want 2 or more wives.

:cool:

That's always amazed me as well and I, having worked in Saudi for a number of years, have known lots of men with more than one. But, on the other hand, I can't figure out why a man would want even one! :eek: :D

Cold Warrior
06-17-2008, 02:36 PM
Variety ;)
...

That's the myth at least. However, zero wives offer the potential for much more variety than simply 2 - 4.

ReaganForRus
06-17-2008, 03:24 PM
The fish might work out but the panther would be a handful and things would turn ugly quick. Then again that is pretty much marriage anyways if you are guy. ;)

would that panther be the underground panther?:D

LogansPapa
06-17-2008, 03:30 PM
So - again, what effect, exactly, will these marriages have on you and yours?

Personally (at the risk of looking like Iím playing both sides of the coin), as long as I donít have to witness two 70ish ladies tongue-kissing, it all means nothing to me. Now two 20ish yumsters is another issue. ;)

Teetop
06-17-2008, 03:39 PM
So - again, what effect, exactly, will these marriages have on you and yours?

Personally (at the risk of looking like Iím playing both sides of the coin), as long as I donít have to witness two 70ish ladies tongue-kissing, it all means nothing to me. Now two 20ish yumsters is another issue. ;)

Nothing like a good ole fashioned sexist remark to make friends.

:rolleyes:

Lager
06-17-2008, 03:43 PM
I think that really is what it boils down to, all smokescreens about children notwithstanding; many straight people just don't want gays to get married, because they think it's icky.

In other words, you think anyone who has objections, hasn't really thought out their opinion and is just reacting emotionally. Because no sane person would have any reason to object, unless they were a bible thumper or something, right?

Teetop
06-17-2008, 03:47 PM
Personally, I do have a problem with gays being married. Civil unions, I am ok with. But marriage should be between a male and female.

Molon Labe
06-17-2008, 03:56 PM
Personally, I do have a problem with gays being married. Civil unions, I am ok with. But marriage should be between a male and female.

I used to be not so long ago that the Church was the entity that untited couples in marriage.
Then, as in all societal functions, city, state and now the fed got involved. This would never be the issue it is today if it was left up to the community.

Cold Warrior
06-17-2008, 05:29 PM
In other words, you think anyone who has objections, hasn't really thought out their opinion and is just reacting emotionally. Because no sane person would have any reason to object, unless they were a bible thumper or something, right?

That view is very well supported by this thread, if one assumes that thinking involves rationality. Thus far, the arguments put forward herein seem to be of three types:

1. It's morally wrong, reflecting the erosion of society's morals
2. Same sex marriages can't produce children without artificial means
3. It will lead to polygamy, beastiality, and legal pedophilia

Note that none of these are rational arguments. (1) relies upon morality, not logic, and morality almost certainly derived from religion; (2) is not a condition for opposite sex marriages and, therefore, cannot be made for same sex ones; (3) is the slippery slope fallacy that represents opinion, not fact.

Lager
06-17-2008, 07:08 PM
That view is very well supported by this thread, if one assumes that thinking involves rationality. Thus far, the arguments put forward herein seem to be of three types:

1. It's morally wrong, reflecting the erosion of society's morals
2. Same sex marriages can't produce children without artificial means
3. It will lead to polygamy, beastiality, and legal pedophilia

Note that none of these are rational arguments. (1) relies upon morality, not logic, and morality almost certainly derived from religion; (2) is not a condition for opposite sex marriages and, therefore, cannot be made for same sex ones; (3) is the slippery slope fallacy that represents opinion, not fact.

I don't believe religion is the exclusive antecedent for morality, but that's for another discussion. When the State sanctions same sex marriage, it is elevating the practice on a par with traditional marriage. It could be argured, rather easily I believe, that society has an interest in encouraging and promoting stable family units, and that traditional marriage has best facilitated that goal up til now. So one might rationally believe that the State's actions weaken the role of traditional marriage by acting as if it has no inherent importance or significance that distinguishes it from any other type of union.

Of course traditional marriage as it has become today has enough problems on its own that question its "sanctity", but that needn't affect the current debate.

Now, how about the other side. If civil unions offer the exact same benefits and legal protections as marriage, then how is the desire to have your union sanctified as a "marriage" anything more than an emotional need for acceptance or affirmation of "normalcy"?

patriot45
06-17-2008, 09:39 PM
That view is very well supported by this thread, if one assumes that thinking involves rationality. Thus far, the arguments put forward herein seem to be of three types:

1. It's morally wrong, reflecting the erosion of society's morals
2. Same sex marriages can't produce children without artificial means
3. It will lead to polygamy, beastiality, and legal pedophilia

Note that none of these are rational arguments. (1) relies upon morality, not logic, and morality almost certainly derived from religion; (2) is not a condition for opposite sex marriages and, therefore, cannot be made for same sex ones; (3) is the slippery slope fallacy that represents opinion, not fact.

CW, I like the way your rebuttal is framed so nice, numbered and everything! I am rational while I am making these statements.
Two of your bullet points are aimed at me.

#1. I actually think the way this is going morals will decline, this is not emotional but practical. Todays youth do not display the respect of my youths youth ;) . I dont know about you, but if when I was in school(government school) and they made us read and study books like the Prince and the Prince, like they are doing now, I would have grown up stupid! And quite possibley thinking that it was the right thing to try being gay. My era new better.


#2. I stand behind this one, it is proven that a man and a man or a woman and woman cannot procreate, so it follows that gay marriages will not further humanity. But it will lead to anarchy.

#3. When you open the door a crack for the liibs , they will advocate anything. Think NAMBLA, and I dont know the acronym for the beast lovers.

linda22003
06-18-2008, 08:31 AM
In other words, you think anyone who has objections, hasn't really thought out their opinion and is just reacting emotionally. Because no sane person would have any reason to object, unless they were a bible thumper or something, right?

I don't think they have to be "Bible thumpers", but I think it probably is primarily emotional. I'm hearing all the same arguments that were used against interracial marriage, years ago ("unnatural", "damages society").

biccat
06-18-2008, 09:14 AM
1. It's morally wrong, reflecting the erosion of society's morals
2. Same sex marriages can't produce children without artificial means
3. It will lead to polygamy, beastiality, and legal pedophilia
Hmm..how about this one:
4. Lawmaking is a function held entirely by the legislature.

Gays should not have the right to marry because a majority of Californians say so.

LogansPapa
06-18-2008, 10:02 AM
Nothing like a good ole fashioned sexist remark to make friends.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, guess they don't have too many twenty-something sweeties on the beach, in thong bikinis, in most tumble weed-hick Texas shit-kicker towns.:rolleyes:

LogansPapa
06-18-2008, 11:05 AM
9,948,081 people in Los Angeles County.

649 Gay marriage licenses issued yesterday (.000348%). Wow. The End is near. :rolleyes:

biccat
06-18-2008, 11:09 AM
Yeah, guess they don't have too many twenty-something sweeties on the beach, in thong bikinis, in most tumble weed-hick Texas shit-kicker towns.:rolleyes:
Fortunately those "tumble weed-hick Texas shit-kicker towns" have no "twenty-something sweeties ... in thong bikinis" that are men.

Vepr
06-18-2008, 11:16 AM
The law of unintended consequences is an unfortunate thing. Here in the south as soon as everyone found out that gay marriage is legal in California cousins, brothers and sisters, uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews etc started having relations with each other and getting married.... wait never mind, that was happening before the whole gay marriage thing. :p

LogansPapa
06-18-2008, 11:17 AM
Fortunately those "tumble weed-hick Texas shit-kicker towns" have no "twenty-something sweeties ... in thong bikinis" that are men.

:D:D:D Okay.....Funny Shit Right There!!!

LogansPapa
06-18-2008, 11:18 AM
.... wait never mind, that was happening before the whole gay marriage thing. :p

:eek:You didn't actually say that.....? :D

Cold Warrior
06-18-2008, 11:40 AM
Hmm..how about this one:
4. Lawmaking is a function held entirely by the legislature.

Gays should not have the right to marry because a majority of Californians say so.

While I will defer to you as an attorney, my understanding (and my experience) is that the connection between laws and the will of the majority is indirect, excepting in cases wherein laws are passed via referendum (a seeingly common occurence in California, but less so elsewhere). I would wager there are numerous laws on the books which, if placed to popular vote, would be rescinded.

Further, my understanding of one of the roles of the state Supreme Courts is to ensure that no law violates the state constitution. I think the ruling here was that by allowing the privledge of "marriage" to one group of individuals while denying it to others based upon what the court ruled was an arbitrary distinction violated the equal protection clause (?). Therefore, the court was not in the business of "lawmaking," but rather in the business of "law unmaking."

wilbur
06-18-2008, 12:00 PM
Fortunately those "tumble weed-hick Texas shit-kicker towns" have no "twenty-something sweeties ... in thong bikinis" that are men.

Nah, in Texas they prefer their gay men to have the stoic ruggedness of a rancher, ala brokeback mountain style. If they act flamboyant, then their wives will find out. No one does false bravado better than Texas, after all.

LogansPapa
06-18-2008, 12:03 PM
Gays should not have the right to marry because a majority of Californians say so.

You really need to come to grips with the fact that Californians set the mark for the entire nation and despite some freaky fringes - weíre the most likely State to survive any secession from the Union. :p

biccat
06-18-2008, 12:04 PM
While I will defer to you as an attorney, my understanding (and my experience) is that the connection between laws and the will of the majority is indirect, excepting in cases wherein laws are passed via referendum (a seeingly common occurence in California, but less so elsewhere). I would wager there are numerous laws on the books which, if placed to popular vote, would be rescinded.

Further, my understanding of one of the roles of the state Supreme Courts is to ensure that no law violates the state constitution. I think the ruling here was that by allowing the privledge of "marriage" to one group of individuals while denying it to others based upon what the court ruled was an arbitrary distinction violated the equal protection clause (?). Therefore, the court was not in the business of "lawmaking," but rather in the business of "law unmaking."
Prior to the 2003(?) referendum, California law did not explicitly require that marriage be between a man and a woman. The definition of marriage was sufficient to infer this fact.

The referendum amended the law to require a man and a woman, quite obviously an attempt to prevent a Massachusettes-type ruling, whereby the court would redefine marriage from the man-woman standard. (note that the man-woman is inherent in the definition of marriage, while, even during the Jim Crow era, the ban on interracial marriages was explicit in statutory definitions). The California Supreme Court not only struck down the referendum, but it also circumvented years of precident wherein the definition of marriage had remained unchanged.

So in fact, the California Supreme Court made two rulings on the marriage issue. First, marriage was to be redefined as not implicitly requiring a man and a woman. Second, the state legislature lacked authority, under the California Constitution, to explicitly define marriage as such.

Of course, the California Supreme Court made other findings which are equally worrying. Such as that marriages, either homosexual or heterosexual, should not be treated differently. Which means that, for example, private adoption agencies cannot prefer heterosexual homes over inherently less healthy homosexual homes. It is also likely that churches will not be able to deny services to couples wishing to marry based on their sexual orientation, even if such a coupling violates that church's religious views.

This is a worrying decision, but hopefully the people of California will act to revert this in November.

noonwitch
06-18-2008, 01:52 PM
Nah, in Texas they prefer their gay men to have the stoic ruggedness of a rancher, ala brokeback mountain style. If they act flamboyant, then their wives will find out. No one does false bravado better than Texas, after all.


According to the old show Soap, "We don't have homos in Texas".

I can't believe my parents let me watch that show when I was 12.

Teetop
06-18-2008, 04:32 PM
Yeah, guess they don't have too many twenty-something sweeties on the beach, in thong bikinis, in most tumble weed-hick Texas shit-kicker towns.:rolleyes:

God blessed Texas, BOY.

:cool:

LogansPapa
06-18-2008, 04:48 PM
God blessed Texas, BOY.

:cool:

Yep - He did: with all the roaches of New Orleans. ;)