'gay marriage' issue is blatant out of control PC FASCISM!

I am all for giving homosexuals the same legal rights as heterosexuals. But there is one really big problem with the whole 'gay marriage' issue. It is basically a blatant attempt to REDEFINE the word 'marriage' which has ALWAYS been defined as a relationship between opposite sexes. I repeat the word MARRIAGE has ALWAYS been defined as a relationship between opposite sexes. Now read that last sentence 10 times quietly to yourself until you realize it is true. Then once you have admitted to yourself that what I said is truth then ask yourself the following question:

I say the answer isn't a simple 'no' but should be a resounding HELL F*CKING NO! The government should not be in the business of REDIFINING WORDS to pacify political agendas PERIOD! And that is why capitulating to the PC FASCISTS by changing the definition of the word 'marriage' is a terrible idea bc MARRIAGE has NEVER decribed any relationship between same sexes!

cya

Ben

by BenMarbleMD (23 articles, 0 quicklinks, 224 diaries, 329 comments) on Sunday, October 26, 2008 at 9:31:40 AM
 

Definition? Which language?

Marriage has long been used to represent a close union.  If you marry a cherry to apple stock, you can produce a drawf variety of fruit tree.  If you marry financial and industrial policies, you get an economic approach.  If you marry two cultures together, you get diversity.  If you marry a culture to itself, you get isolation. 

There are many examples of marry that have nothing to do with sexual/domestic unions.  So what is the derivative of the word that you are using?  Which language and how far back are you going? plural marriage?  What about the British option of consummation of a union by the serfs' lord?

More importantly, the purpose of "marriage" for the government should be an economic/legal one -- for taxation, health, protection of offsprings, etc.  If "marriage" is the problem, then the government should be concerned with "union" instead.

Why do we need to make other people's personal lives our own???

by sometimes blinded (2 articles, 81 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 308 comments) on Sunday, October 26, 2008 at 10:23:32 AM
 

Nothing could be further from the truth.

No one "redefined" anything in this case.  The California Courts determined that the current definition of marriage, under the law, must be applied equally to same gender individuals.

 Proposition 8 seeks to remove that right.

What could be wrong with same-sex couples marrying? 

That's the question.

What is fascist is denying human rights, as found in the courts, to a segment of the population.

Perhaps you ought to read the article referenced in the post, as it brings up the difficulty of what you see as simple, how are we to determine, and at what cost financially or legally, who is a man and a woman?

by Frish (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 18 comments) on Sunday, October 26, 2008 at 10:45:49 AM
 

well....

There are many examples of marry that have nothing to do with sexual/domestic unions.

Well this topic is in reference to 'gay marriage' with has everything to do with sexual/domestic unions.

these things have nothing to do with the simple fact that the PC FASCISTS want to redefine the word 'marriage'

I agree 100% but that doesn't change the fact that some people want the government to redefine the word 'marriage'

Now that is what I like! Here we have a person who can think logically and come to the same conclusion that I came to quite a while back. The only problem is that neither the busheep nor the PC FASCISTS want a compromise i.e. both sides demand and 'all or none' solution and that is just wrong!

I could care less what people want to do with their 'personal lives' but when they are trying to force the government to redefine words the slippery slope has begun. Who will later prevent the PC FASCISTS from deciding that the terms 'male' and 'female' are really sexist and should be changed to something else, etc. etc. ad nauseum????

UM HELLO THAT IS REDEFINING THE WORD 'MARRIAGE'

demanding the government redefine words is NOT a 'right'

What could be wrong with opposite sex couples calling themselves HOMOSEXUALS??? HINT-the word HOMOSEXUAL is defined as a relationship between same sexes thus for opposite sexes to seek the right to call themselves HOMOSEXUALS they would have to force the government to REDEFINE THE WORD HOMOSEXUAL????? GOT IT???? I know it is a really complex argument and all but try being open minded and you will understand my point as it is the ONLY valid argument against 'gay marriage' IMHO but I do think it is a very important argument to make.

by BenMarbleMD (23 articles, 0 quicklinks, 224 diaries, 329 comments) on Sunday, October 26, 2008 at 4:16:56 PM
 

Words change meaning, your premise is false.

I know it is a really complex argument and all but try being open minded and you will understand my point as it is the ONLY valid argument against 'gay marriage' IMHO but I do think it is a very important argument to make.

There are no valid arguments against same-sex marriage.

And, therefore your contention is false.

by Frish (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 18 comments) on Monday, October 27, 2008 at 2:11:02 PM
 

nope....

     You can deny it all day long but that won't change the fact that historically "Marriage" has always been a HETEROSEXUAL word in that it has always defined a relationship between opposite sexes! Now I am all for the govt. giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples and so that is why the compromise of having legal 'civil unions' for all couples makes the most sense. For one, the holy rollers have zero argument against legal 'civil unions' and it would grant homosexual couples the legal rights they claim they desire. But, of course, the pc fascists aren't happy with that compromise but really have no good argument as to why that compromise is a bad idea (please do tell?). They basically demand the 'all or none' solution of throwing the historical definition of the word 'marriage' out the window by having the government redefine the word 'marriage' changing it from a heterosexual word to an ambiguous word. So if they could have their legal rights via civil unions without the use of the controversial word 'marriage' that leads one to wonder what is the psychology behind their real motivation???? Of course, the holy rollers also want an 'all or none' solution as they desire that Congress waste it's time with a constitutional amendment to define 'marriage' based on the known historical definition. And so this is a classic example of the problem with THE DUOPOLY as the repukes and dummicraps sit on their high horses each side convinced of the virtuousity of their opinion while mocking the opposition thus proving that THE DUOPOLY is a world of black and white with no grey's allowed!

     So why is having the government change the definitions of words a bad idea? Well imagine 'gay marriage' becomes legal and then we have a heterosexual couple named Max and Sue. Max is in the Army and he honestly doesn't want to go kill Iraqis because he believes the war is illegitimate. Based on the pc fascist logic used with the 'gay marriage' issue Max could sue the Army to force them to change the historical definition of homosexual to include heterosexual couples because what could be wrong with opposite sex couples having the same right as homosexuals to get kicked out of the Army???? People will sue to have the historical definition of boy changed to include girl, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum....

cya

Ben

PS I AM RIGHT YOU ARE WRONG...lol

by BenMarbleMD (23 articles, 0 quicklinks, 224 diaries, 329 comments) on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 at 5:06:43 AM
 

Too many People

Too many people are too concerned with what is going on within adult bedrooms. Adults, within marriage are supposed to be male and female. So OK, what is the case when outwardly looking males are drawn to each other?? I make this observation::::person #1 is a masculine::::::::# 2 is feminine, where then do we draw the line? Why are we so sure it is the business of the world anyway? I for one could not give a "sh*t", as I am not a voyeuristic person who is concerned with others do in their bedroom. I AM concerned that all people follow the 10 Commandments, and sex life is not within those 10 rules. Therefore it was the scribes who wrote their own rules that YOU allow to run your piddling lives. So I say again SEX is NOT in the 10 Commandments!!!!!

Churchgoers, Religeous Leaders, they are the worst voyeurs, they get off on their obsession with sex, because that fills the collection plates!!!

So when it comes down to the nitty gritty just like the theologists, and the polititions walk hand in hand, first one takes % your earnings on Sunday, and the polititions take the rest for 6 months a year and you are left with ????????

So you have an Election approaching and the Candidates will rant and rave how you must vote for them, trouble is no matter who "wins" you will still have their hands in your wallet. From there it[$$] goes to those elitists who just sit on the CEO chairs and Thrones. Goes also to the Evangical Elitists who take 99% of the collection and the children of the world get so much less than what you figured on. I could go on forever but noone listens. You will do what you will.

by Blacktiger (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 49 comments) on Sunday, October 26, 2008 at 4:51:33 PM
 

?

"I AM concerned that all people follow the 10 Commandments, and sex life is not within those 10 rules"

um all people don't have to be Jews and if "don't covet thy neighbors wife" ain't about sex then what is?

The botton line is this argument has absolutely NOTHING to do with RELIGION!  Any religion based argument on this subject is 100% pure CRAP and everyone knows it.  I do believe, however, that many people should realize that it is bad policy to let the government change the definitions of words based on short term political dogma. 

by BenMarbleMD (23 articles, 0 quicklinks, 224 diaries, 329 comments) on Monday, October 27, 2008 at 11:01:20 AM