tonorator Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 (edited) tonormandog, you are the one who loves animals, not me. You explained very logically how man on dog would result if gay marriage was legalized and I assumed you were speaking about yer personal choices and situation. it did make for interesting discussion, but did not reflect my personal choices and situation. sorry to disappoint you. it was more about and was quite effective. i got no issues with some sort of civil union/legal arrangement that would allow two people of the same sex to receive whatever tax and health care benefits they can get and also to allow them to adopt kids if they want. i will never think of it as marriage ... agrees. Edited July 12, 2006 by tonorator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 (edited) I'll never understand why some people so adamantly insist on denying gays the ability to be just as miserable as the rest of us married folk. (Okay, I ripped that idea off from Kinky Friedman. But it's still funny). Edited July 12, 2006 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantherDave Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 fantasy jesus' avatar ... or any of the quimby classics. Are you kidding, well those are good as well, but if I could be single for say...48 hours and have no memory to feel guilty about and I could freeze time so Mrs. PD would not know I was gone for two days...give me Six Kings avy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Are you kidding, well those are good as well, but if I could be single for say...48 hours and have no memory to feel guilty about and I could freeze time so Mrs. PD would not know I was gone for two days...give me Six Kings avy just checked that out .... you can add it to the list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeeman Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 If we're not going to deport them all to their own Gay Fantasy Island, and they will continue to live among us, I don't see the big deal in letting them get married. Liberty, freedom, pursuit of happiness, and all that good stuff... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 it did make for interesting discussion, but did not reflect my personal choices and situation. sorry to disappoint you. it was more about and was quite effective. i got no issues with some sort of civil union/legal arrangement that would allow two people of the same sex to receive whatever tax and health care benefits they can get and also to allow them to adopt kids if they want. i will never think of it as marriage ... agrees. Only a complete newbie tool proclaims his so called fishing "quite effective". Or someone who got owned and is trying to backpedal faster than Deion. I guess by effective you mean it gave you a new huddle name: tonormanondog. This super long asz thread where you got repeatedly owned must bring back fond memories of yer skillls, pescador. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Are you kidding, well those are good as well, but if I could be single for say...48 hours and have no memory to feel guilty about and I could freeze time so Mrs. PD would not know I was gone for two days...give me Six Kings avy My ALLTIME FAVORITE............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Only a complete newbie tool proclaims his so called fishing "quite effective". Or someone who got owned and is trying to backpedal faster than Deion. I guess by effective you mean it gave you a new huddle name: tonormanondog. This super long asz thread where you got repeatedly owned must bring back fond memories of yer skillls, pescador. i thought only newbie's claimed to "own" someone ... my comments were spectacular, as usual. marriage should not be redefined to support any particular sexual preference that happens to rear it's head in our society. rather than the beastiality focus you were transfixed on, the argument is the same for tri-unions, communes, relatives, etc. just because two men or three men or five people come forward and demand the right to be married, that doesn't make it so. the right is for a man to marry a woman or a woman to marry a man, and we all share that right ... equally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 the right is for a man to marry a woman or a woman to marry a man, and we all share that right ... equally. So are you proudly fishing, or just being a Crazy Little Thing Called Love? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 So are you proudly fishing, or just being a Crazy Little Thing Called Love? a little of both ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 (edited) the comments i made in that other thread about all the different types of marriages were not reflecting what i thought should/would happen, they were just to make a point. skins jumped on them literally and thought he was owning me by showing that men and dogs should not get married. ok, i'll give him that. the point is that we can take this notion of "consenting adults" in many, many different directions and use it to redefine many of our institutions if we choose to. i'm not in favor of redefining the institution of marriage and the right to marry to include people of the same sex. set up some other kind of legal arrangements, let the states manage them, that address the situation of taxes and health care if you like ... but leave out of the discussion all this talk about "rights" and "equality." we do not have to be sure that as a society we are treating all forms of sexual preference equally, and sexual preference, in my opinion, is not on par with things like race, gender, etc. Edited July 13, 2006 by tonorator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted July 13, 2006 Author Share Posted July 13, 2006 Still trying to rationalize your enjoyment of Brokeback Mountain, eh billay? Touche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 (edited) the comments i made in that other thread about all the different types of marriages were not reflecting what i thought should/would happen, they were just to make a point. skins jumped on them literally and thought he was owning me by showing that men and dogs should not get married. ok, i'll give him that. You dumasz, the man on dog stuff is yer Huddle persona and you created it. I never took yer silly slippery slope argument seriously and if you still dont understand what happened in that thread--where numerous Huddlers of all stripes condemned you for being exclusionary, rhetorically hostile (thats still good ) to gays, and pushing yer own personal religious agenda into law--yer a fool. Trying to claim you were just fishing and that it was just a little misinterpretation by me is truly hilarious. Yer so myopically dense it boggles the mind. Edited July 13, 2006 by skins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 You dumasz, the man on dog stuff is yer Huddle persona and you created it. I never took yer silly slippery slope argument seriously and if you still dont understand what happened in that thread--where numerous Huddlers of all stripes condemned you for being exclusionary, rhetorically hostile (thats still good ) to gays, and pushing yer own personal religious agenda into law--yer a fool. Trying to claim you were just fishing and that it was just a little misinterpretation by me is truly hilarious. Yer so myopically dense it boggles the mind. typical. i would say you created it, because you are the only person to use it. correct? i don't quite understand the fascination ... i also didn't see any condemning ... perhaps you could help me there. people felt like they had to explain why marrying family members or animals was wrong, which was nice of them to do, but not really the point. so while some people tooks things too literally, the point i made in the last post here is the one i stand by and is the one i was making. it comes down to redefining a wonderful human institution based on claims of "rights" and "equality" that are not valid claims. it is not just about taxes or health care or adoption, but about acceptance. homosexuals want their behavior to on par with heterosexuality in every way, and support redefining whatever institutions we have created to make that so. i'm of the opinion that this should not be done to cater to any vocal group following any alternative lifestyle. if you do that, the institutions pretty much lose their meaning and significance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 typical. i would say you created it, because you are the only person to use it. correct? i don't quite understand the fascination ... i also didn't see any condemning ... perhaps you could help me there. people felt like they had to explain why marrying family members or animals was wrong, which was nice of them to do, but not really the point. so while some people tooks things too literally, the point i made in the last post here is the one i stand by and is the one i was making. it comes down to redefining a wonderful human institution based on claims of "rights" and "equality" that are not valid claims. it is not just about taxes or health care or adoption, but about acceptance. homosexuals want their behavior to on par with heterosexuality in every way, and support redefining whatever institutions we have created to make that so. i'm of the opinion that this should not be done to cater to any vocal group following any alternative lifestyle. if you do that, the institutions pretty much lose their meaning and significance. Yeah, sure. You werent hammered repeatedly like H8 bent over an old hemi out back at the Okie rodeo. Based upon yer warped religiosity and self righteaousness, you think Americans should be discriminated against under the law based upon their gender and sexual preferences. Good luck with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Yeah, sure. You werent hammered repeatedly like H8 bent over an old hemi out back at the Okie rodeo. Based upon yer warped religiosity and self righteaousness, you think Americans should be discriminated against under the law based upon their gender and sexual preferences. Good luck with that. you like to make up things and go inflammatory instead of focusing on the point. absolutely no discrimination based on gender was talked about by me. you jump to some name calling and diversion instead of debate. then when you realize you are out of steam, you are tired and yawn. there is no discrimination present when we don't change what marriage stands for to accomodate alternative lifestyles. setup whatever legal kinds of arragements you like to provide tax relief or more affordable health care, but don't claim that the right to marry is fundamental to whatever combination of humans you see fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 there is no discrimination present when we don't change what marriage stands for to accomodate alternative lifestyles. setup whatever legal kinds of arragements you like to provide tax relief or more affordable health care, but don't claim that the right to marry is fundamental to whatever combination of humans you see fit. You trying to have it both ways here: do you think homosexual couples should be given all the legal status that heterosexual couples have in this country or not? This question COMPLETELY excludes any 'church blessing' or whatever you'd like to call it. Do you think a heterosexual couple that gets married in city hall has an equivelent marriage that a homosexual one has in that same city hall or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 (edited) there is no discrimination present when we don't change what marriage stands for to accomodate alternative lifestyles. Using yer returd logic, there would have been no discimination under miscegenation laws pre-Loving. I wish you were fishing because it is sad to think yer this idiotic. Edited July 13, 2006 by skins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 I'll never understand why some people so adamantly insist on denying gays the ability to be just as miserable as the rest of us married folk. (Okay, I ripped that idea off from Kinky Friedman. But it's still funny). yeah, serves em right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 You trying to have it both ways here: do you think homosexual couples should be given all the legal status that heterosexual couples have in this country or not? This question COMPLETELY excludes any 'church blessing' or whatever you'd like to call it. Do you think a heterosexual couple that gets married in city hall has an equivelent marriage that a homosexual one has in that same city hall or not? good question. i don't have major issue with the creation of some form of civil union that would enable a homosexual couple to get the same benefits related to taxes, health care, child care, etc. that heterosexual couples receive. but this is not a marriage and, to me, would be separate from the institution of marriage. it wouldn't carry the "status" of married in my mind and would not cause me to treat that union like a traditional marriage. it would have a legal status, but it would be a new status all on its own. having this type of an arrangement is not a fundamental right but an economical arrangement. the need for this if the homosexual couple is not going to adopt/conceive a child drops down for me. in reality, the economic advantages are not that great anyway in this case to justify going through all of the work to establish the new laws. just expand our health care policies to allow covering a significant other, which many already do, and there you have it. when a child comes into the picture, then my interests are primarily with that child and if any couple commits to raising a child, we should give them all of the economic help that a married couple receives. this is far different from changing all of our thinking about the institution of marriage and creating a culture where a homosexual union should be on par and equal to a heterosexual marriage. we don't just take the right to marry and everything that stands for and say, "ok, you have it too." this is WAY too big of an issue because it is more about one group of people wanting recognition. they would not be satisified with some legislation that gives them a legal status which provides some economical benefit. that's not why they march down central ave. this is not a situation on par with race and gender discussions. i have no problem with my company having diversity targets for hiring different races and genders. i would not be ok with my company having diversity targets to be sure we had a fair representation of sexual preference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10g_DBA Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Using yer returd logic, there would have been no discimination under miscegenation laws pre-Loving. I wish you were fishing because it is sad to think yer this idiotic. Shut up and get back in your Skinseasy quarantine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 (edited) here are some quotes i found that probably say it better than i do ... "Marriage is the privileging of committed relationships that can reliably lead to children and are uniquely well-suited for their upbringing. It has never, anywhere, been about two androgynous souls helping one another in times of ill health. Why in God's name would every society in the history of the human race, by some cosmic coincidence, collectively fail to notice that two women can care for each other as well as a man and a woman? The better explanation, obviously, is that marriage has never meant what you say it means. It's up to you to show why the change is in order." and ... "Incidentally, "society benefits" when children and parents care for one another too. "Helping each other is nice and benefits lots of people cuz helping people is all about l-u-v" is a stupid foundation for an argument against preserving the traditional idea of marriage, unless we are to begin thinking of mothers and children as legitimate marriage partners simply because they help and love each other. He's right to say that marriage creates kin, but not out of thin freaking air it doesn't. We think of married couples as "family" ONLY because of the connection between sex and children. It's what distinguishes the love I have for my best friend, for whom I would lay down my life and against whom I have never had any grudge, from the love I have for my wife, who on many days drives me completely nuts. In the absence of sexual procreation marriage would be a completely pointless and unintelligible concept, and anyone who suggested it would be thought crazy. Trying to divorce marriage from sex is about like trying to divorce government from competing interests. Can we really say that either institution would have developed in the absence of the complications to which it attends?" Edited July 13, 2006 by tonorator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 (edited) here are some quotes i found that probably say it better than i do ... "Marriage is the privileging of committed relationships that can reliably lead to children and are uniquely well-suited for their upbringing. It has never, anywhere, been about two androgynous souls helping one another in times of ill health. Why in God's name would every society in the history of the human race, by some cosmic coincidence, collectively fail to notice that two women can care for each other as well as a man and a woman? The better explanation, obviously, is that marriage has never meant what you say it means. It's up to you to show why the change is in order." and ... "Incidentally, "society benefits" when children and parents care for one another too. "Helping each other is nice and benefits lots of people cuz helping people is all about l-u-v" is a stupid foundation for an argument against preserving the traditional idea of marriage, unless we are to begin thinking of mothers and children as legitimate marriage partners simply because they help and love each other. He's right to say that marriage creates kin, but not out of thin freaking air it doesn't. We think of married couples as "family" ONLY because of the connection between sex and children. It's what distinguishes the love I have for my best friend, for whom I would lay down my life and against whom I have never had any grudge, from the love I have for my wife, who on many days drives me completely nuts. In the absence of sexual procreation marriage would be a completely pointless and unintelligible concept, and anyone who suggested it would be thought crazy. Trying to divorce marriage from sex is about like trying to divorce government from competing interests. Can we really say that either institution would have developed in the absence of the complications to which it attends?" That is ridiculous and these types of argument were eviscerated the last time you made them. So you think sterile people, women past menopause, people who dont want kids, etc., should not be allowed to marry either? My god you are getting daft. Stop before you hurt yerself. You do realize, tonormandog, that for the vast vast vast majority of human history marriage was a property based transaction between two families and that for most cultures throughout human history patriarchal polygamy was the norm, dont you (though interestingly, there have been matriarchal polygamous cultures)? Do you really think this one man one woman stuff is some sort of hoary ancient tradition? This is like arguing with a six year old. Just admit you dont like gay people and get it over with. All the wriggling around as you come up with more and more screwy and creative ways to illustrate yer fear of homosexuals is awful to observe. Edited July 13, 2006 by skins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyalboyd Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 I'll never understand why some people so adamantly insist on denying gays the ability to be just as miserable as the rest of us married folk. (Okay, I ripped that idea off from Kinky Friedman. But it's still funny). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 That is ridiculous and these types of argument were eviscerated the last time you made them. So you think sterile people, women past menopause, people who dont want kids, etc., should not be allowed to marry either? My god you are getting daft. Stop before you hurt yerself. here is where it requires talking to you like you are a 6 year old ... little skins, here is why we have marriage. marriage exists for the purpose of stable families raising children. to do this, you need a man and a woman or else you cannot have children. for this reason, we let the man and the woman marry. now, along the way, there will be people who do get married, but don't have children! in that case, they do not receive all the benefits that couples with kids receive. now, in the case of a man and a man or a woman and a woman, well, they can't have children together. << draws skins a picture showing how things don't fit>> so since they can't make babies, there really is no need for them to get married. in fact, if a man and a woman couldn't have children, there really would not be much of a need for them to get married either. in that case, we would all just die out. isn't marriage wonderful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.