Posted on 03/27/2013 12:49:17 PM PDT by RochesterNYconservative
I have discovered the one question gay rights proponents explode at when I ask them a question.
You see, whenever the Bible or religion is bought up, gay rights advocates already have "ready made" retorts that they will hurl at you, as well as the prerequisite "bigot," "homophobe" and "hater."
Then use logic to defeat them.
How?
Thanks for asking.
Merely pose this question to them:
Is marriage a "right" or a "privilege"?
How can a "right" be entirely dependent on the consent of another human being?
I want to marry Kate Upton, the model.
If she says NO to me, is my "right" being denied?
If there are millions of unmarried people, and unmarried not by choice, but by bad luck or other circumstances (illness, accident) are their "rights" being denied by being straight and single?
Life is not about "fair." Equality is almost a communistic term. Life will never be equal. There are people in terrible poverty, and people living in gleaming mansions.
Gays cannot marry? Guess what...many straight people who want a spouse are not so lucky either.
So, is marriage truly a right? Is it a right like voting? NO. You don't need another person to vote. Or to drive. Or to own a home.
Life is not fair. Get it through your thick skulls, liberals.
But you’re dodging the issue that, regardless of the consent with another person, the opportunity is still legally there for the heterosexual, whereas it is not there for the homosexual. That is the issue they will keep pressing you on. They aren’t saying that there’s a fish in the sea for everyone, but they are insisting that for those homosexuals who DO have a consenting partner, their legal “right” to “marry” is being denied.
How can a "right" be entirely dependent on the consent of another human being?
You have the right to hire me, but only if I consent to be hired - and I have the right to work for you, but only if you consent to hire me.
And to that I might add. Liberals like to say that someone is “born homosexual”. I said homosexual because I refuse to use the word the homosexual activists have stolen from the english language that means happy; they are anything but happy.
Now to the main point. If homosexuality is innate and you are either born straight or inclined to same sex attraction, why don’t you see two male wolves completely ignoring the females and having anal sex with each other? The same can go for any animal. It’s called nature and the way nature works. In homosexuality there is no survival of the species, and man is nothing more than than a highly intelligent animal. No animal is born homosexual. That includes man. It is an acquired trait, normally caused by not having a strong father or mother presence in the home. This is true for all the animal species. The male teaches the young male how to be an adult male. The female teaches the young female how to be an adult female. This is true in all animals. But braindead liberals think that men are only sperm donors and think they are born born homosexual or lesbian and if they want to have children just find a sperm donor. Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.
Here's a portion of a letter I just sent to a local radio dude on that very topic (sorry so long):
"Let's say that my Alma Mater, the University of Central Florida, decided that it didn't want to be known as a 'directional' school any more, and opted to drop the 'Central' bit from its name. Immediately, there would be a backlash from the students and graduates of that (smaller) school up in Gainsville. "Hey, that's OUR name - we already had it, and it's OURS." The newly dubbed University of Florida would retort that it's just a name, and that they were entitled to it since they operated an institution of higher learning - in Florida - in the same manner as the folks from Gainsville... and it's not fair that the smaller school should have more name recognition.
"My point here is that UCF should not have the same name, because what they have, what they do, and how they go about their business is simply DIFFERENT. It is not the same, and therefore should not be called the same. It's a silly example, but I think I can show that Gay marriage is even further away from the definition traditional marriage than UCF is from the UofFla.
"Marriage - yes, as defined in the Bible and other religious circles - is (1) the union of a man and a woman for (2) a religious familial union. Frankly, I would also oppose calling man/woman unions performed by a justice-of-the-peace 'marriage', for exactly the same reason: it avoids the religious portion of the definition. [ But it does at least work for the needs of The State, as I'll outline later. So if you want to call that a civil union or whatever...I don't care. ]
"But isn't a gay marriage "close enough" to call it 'marriage'? No! And it's like a bullying exercise to demand otherwise, for those holding to the Biblical definition also would point out that same sex behavior - let alone 'marriage' - is banned via the scriptures in the most direct of terms. It is literally the equivalent of telling Catholics to roll over and allow Obamacare to force insurance coverage for contraceptives and abortion.
"I can understand The State needing to have marriages registered, for that helps out for tracking people, tracking births, planning for schools, infra-structure, etc... but I have never been crazy about the idea of The State being involved in establishing marriages because - immediately - one of the two parts of the marriage definition were changed: the religious aspect was removed. So when people complain about the violation of religious liberties, that's the argument: the very definitions are being changed and people with deeply held religious beliefs are being told to take it and shut up. Please note that neither part of my two-part definition of traditional marriage is being upheld when gays opt to 'marry'."
I know a couple of couples like this. They are married under the law but have their ‘gay’ partner outside the legal marriage. I think this may be more common than people realize.
But if a person never marries, is that person’s life lesser than a married person’s? The opportunity to make a million dollars is also there, but most people miss that mark by a mile as well.
“But then you still have to have a gay couple who meet the actual definition of marriage. And they can.
There was Andrea Dworkin and John Stoltenberg, right? Gay couple. Real marriage. It just has to be a gay woman and a gay man.”
Don’t forget Barack and Michele Obama either. Another great example.
TO ALL: They (the “gays”) already have GAY Marriage....it’s just that EVERY priest is NOT required to perform the ceremony, and it does not come with STATE conferred benefits. So, what they really want is a NEW STATE/FEDERAL benefit for 3% of the population.
I want to divide by zero. It’s not fair stuffy mathmeticians tell me I can’t. You can divide by every other number. It’s just not fair to descriminate against zero.
Pretty sure they are saying they have the right to make the choice who they marry (same sex or not), not the right to have a spouse.
They already have the right to ‘incorporate’ under the laws of their state.
As for marriage, that’s a religious tenant, not a legal one. The state got lazy because never in a million billion years did anyone ever think that ‘sane’ people would be arguing this question.
Courts should readily see this, but the wattage of SCOTUS has been historically pretty low.
Cohabitational incorporation is what it ought to be called. What goes on in a church is sacramental, and as such, defined by the tenants of that religion.
Lutherans and episcopalians are trying to make that point moot, but I don’t think they’ll succeed.
North Korea is at their highest state of military readiness, Cyprus is having a run on their banks (with Italy to follow), Syria and Egypt are near collapse, and Iran’s about 5 minutes away from having an A-bomb.
But we are talking about this. The mendacity of liberals is boundless.
“But if a person never marries, is that person’s life lesser than a married person’s? The opportunity to make a million dollars is also there, but most people miss that mark by a mile as well.”
I understand what you’re getting at here, but ultimately that opinion is subjective in nature, and when arguing against homosexual “marriage”, you need to stick to objective things, not rhetorical questions intended to stump your opponent. The debate does not revolve around questions of happiness, or pointing out that some heterosexual guys can’t get a girlfriend and marry, but of the very design of human sexuality and the intended meaning of marriage. If you want to have fun with rhetorical questions, ask them to define what marriage is, then poke holes in it. Take them down the slippery slope of polygamy, bestiality, etc. and either force them to agree that such things are okay, or watch them squirm as they try to argue against that.
Liberty over equality.
I don’t know, sounds too logical.
Someone posted a graphic that compared arguing with a leftist with playing chess with a pigeon.
You make a move. The pigeon then proceeds to strut around like he knows everything, knocks the pieces over, and craps on the board, convinced that he's won the match.
Funny!
I like it.
Bang! Right on target. It’s about the money, and it always was.
The contractual aspect of it can be taken care of no problem by making a standard contract that has all the elements of the marriage contract and allowing homos to sign such a contract as between themselves. The courts can, and I think they do, recognize such contracts as valid and enforceable. (In the past, such contracts might have been unenforceable as against public policy.)
The legal aspect can also be handled by simple changes to the laws as well. A state can create a civil union type of relationship, that carries the same tax, inheritance, etc. consequences as if the people were married. I am not for such laws, but I don't think that the Constitution bars a state from enacting such a law.
But a civil union is not a "marriage", at least not in the English usage. Thus, what is most disturbing to many people is the idea that homos want to take what we do, something holy, just, ordained, sanctified, good for the country and humanity, and turn it into another word for the ugly, disgusting, vile and hedonistic things that they do. They want to be change us by changing the words we use for ourselves. And we don't want to recognize them or what they do. How to resolve that?
Well, no matter what they claim, a marriage will still be a union between a man and a woman. Even if they try to claim that night is day, it will still be too dark to see. What we need are new words that convey the legal and contractual status that they want, but not using the word marriage, which theirs will never be. I propose the following:
1. Faggage--the union of two men, who will henceforth be known under the law as "ver-men", married not to their husband but to their "buttbro".
2. Lickage--the union of two women, henceforth known as wymmin, married to their Y-wife.
3. Trannage--any union in which one of the involved is a transvestite. The parties are trannies and wymmin or ver-men, and their spouses will be known as Trangles, in the case of a male tranny, or Donuts, in the case of a female one. 4. Baggage--a union of more than two people, which can consist of Trangles, Donuts, Buttbros, and Y-wives.
Let each state debate and decide whether they wish to establish the institutions of Faggage, Lickage, Trannage and/or Baggage (even the Wise Latina seemed to have problems with Baggage.) Those that do, like Massachusetts, great, you can go there to get your Faggage certificate. You can leave your estate to your Buttbro, and have everything you want. After all, the goal is not to destroy marriage and religion, but just to have what we have. Right?
You can divide by zero. The answer you receive is so large that it cannot be expressed so that our mealy little minds understand it - and because it’s so special it get’s it’s very own moebius strip looking symbol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.