And you saying that words dont stop becomming redefined is proof that gay marriage is not going to become static that marriage will continue to be re-defined over and over again. Polygamy, incest, so on and so forth.

Which is exactly why we need to take a stance NOW on Gay marriages and even on frivilous heterosexual marriages and keep them from redefining the traditional meaning of marriage which is and always way the union between 1 man and 1 woman.

actually, it IS possible for marriage to be redefined that way... but that doesn't mean it will.

marriage used to be a BINDING legal contract in which a man gained ownership of a woman... and, as society changed, it evolved into an equal partnership between the sexes... now it is evolving into something else (or here's hoping, because i see nothing wrong with two adults who love each other getting hitched).

marriage also evolved OUT of (at least in america) being a binding legal contract between a man and a women regardless of age... you forget that in the history of civilization, laws have allowed for children to marry...

thankfully, in these enlightened times, we try and recognise that children cannot (and probably should not) consent to this sort of legal and social contract.

IN some cases it was ownership of a man over a woman. But the CORE of marriage had always been A man and a woman in a union to make children or a suitible home for children to be reared in.

Men not owning women came about in our general culture not through reefining of marriage. Marriage had always had a core to it. 1 man, 1 woman. And in some cases usually amoung the super rich and powerful 1 man and 10 women. But even then they werent really wives, they were concubines.

The laws may refine over the years molding marriage but again its core had a single purpose a man and a woman comming together.

And again you keep saying that you dont mind if it redefines to mean lovers in a union. But you want to pretend illogically that it will END there. It wont. Why would it? It would keep going. And once you have LEGALLY redefined the law out of its traditional contexts meaning 1 mand and 1 woman. You are now forced to leave it open on purpose and then anyone can claim they want to be married to whomever. And we have NO BASIS in law to stop that from happening. And it WILL happen. Just as it HAS happend in this country with the polygamy thing now. I am sure all the people fighting for gay marriages said the same shit, it will stop there, stop being a nazi blah blah blah. And now look at them.

It is really irresponsible of people to think they can open that pandoras box and hope the harm stays in while they pick the pleasures they want from it.

so, again, you are argueing for the sanctity of tradition... and, again, i say that tradition is only as valid as it's benefit to humanity and the world at large... and, conversely, is only as invalid as it's detriment to humanity and the world at large.

you may not see the benefit of gay marriage... but plenty of people do. and pointing a finger at us and crying "you pervs, you wanna let people marry kids and dogs too" is a fallacy and you know it.

Well thats a straw man, I dont know why you need to invent things that you wished I had said so you could soundly defeat it. My point has always been that we shouldnt be re-defining MARRIAGE to suit some people's political needs specifically since it willl cause more harm than good. As proven by A small number of European nations.

Again you seemingly indicate over and over again that this redefining will somehow END at gay marriage when we know for a fact as again proven by the original artical that it will not. So playing dumb and acting like it hasnt already happend elsewhere only make you look silly in this discussion.

A.the article is talking about a civil union...
B.there's nothing that i saw in the article that led credence to your "OH NOES!!11! HERE COME DA PEDOS AND FURRIES"

now, i'm not up on netherlander law, but if there's nothing to prevent these people from getting a civil union, why stop them? they are consenting adults who at least appear to love each other and wanted to support each other and recieve the benefits of a civil union.

i'm sure this will introduce some interesting issues concerning said benefits, such as taxation, insurance, child custody, etc. i look forward to seeing how this turns out.

but, billy, this isn't the end of the world... nor is it a blank endorsement (or even a miniscule endorsement) of pedophilia or beastiality or whathave you.

and, oddly enough, it's not all that relavent to our gay marriage discussion as it's NOT marriage, but civil union... and it's NOT in america. unless you are arguing that a netherlander civil union, as well as an american civil union and an american marriage are the same thing...

if that is the case, then we already have precedent... gays have been married for years now and all this bluff and bluster is sound and fury on our mouths and ears.

Umm they use civil union as a blanket term. It will be entitled a marriage tommorrow. Which is the problem.

Comming back to our gay marriage discussion, I have said time and time again on Darkforum that I do not oppose civil unions, so long as they are literally titled civil unions. They can have the same rights too without a difference. So long as it isnt titled a marriage. If you'd read my stuff Ive said over and over again that I worry about the reprecussions of re-defining marriage.

Again comming back to our own country. What gays are fighting for are not civil unions. They are fighting for marriages. And so will the pedos (NAMBLA) and the polygamists because we live in a culture that says "i get what I want and I dont settle".

Our gay movement domstically is a little more militant than thiers. But its still relevant. Because again all the libbys want to say that gay marriage will end the debate and that will be that, and as we have seen its NOT the case. It snowballs and polygamists and pedos get in on the action. If you want to snuff it off and pretend that its not so you can, but youre wrong. Gays havent been married for that long in the US, especially what with the referendum still on the floor in the Mass legislature. Hopefully like the San Fransisco gay marriages and all that crap that happend they will be voided and and all that.We will see though. Depends on the will of the people of Mass.

Which dont look good.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=46431

A subtle discussion re-direct as it were.

More militant homosexual agenda, go after the kids.

and if pedos and beasties want in, i'll fight them with my vote and with calls to my congressman and senator... children and animals cannot consent. polygamy, i'd have to look at, because its idea generally concerns consenting adults, but the practices of it in our history have been religiously based and most visibily have involved male domination of a harem (which is NOT equal partnership) and even cases of incest and pedo... other cases include the two (or more) family story where the wives or husbands involved were not informed of their co-wives and husbands.


details are lacking, but this sounds alot like the "Postcards from" whatever deal PBS had to mess with a few months back...

so what is your arguement here? children's books that put gays in a good light are bad? good? neutral? parents and their tactics to challenge OPTIONAL reading material on book lists?

So you wont have any problems with full aware and happy people who want to be in those situations? all possible crap marriages aside, you would deny people who willingly enter into such a relationship and union thier "right" to marry?

If you would do that to them, what makes you so differnt from people like me who are doing that now with gays? its pretty much the same thing except on differing levels. I can easily say most homosexual relationships require a butch and a bitch and the bitch isnt consenting properly because he/she is being dominated, but facts are that there are a lot of people in that exact position because they truly want to be.

As much as I would like to keep this discussion going, I cannot for the time being. Got to head down to the haunted house thingy and start slapping makeup and prosthetics on people for tonight. But I will be back like on monday so we can continue this then.

My point there was that gays are targeting children and finding ways to force thier lifestyles onto the public. And they dont want to just be left alone and have equal rights as thier alwyers suggest.

This man was banned from the school when he asked to be informed if more of this stuff was going to be given to his 5 year old. When they did that he refused to leave and so they had him arrested for tresspassing. Look this situation up on google for more info, they have more details and more articles but I really cannot stay to talk about it.

Can you at LEAST admit thatschools have no business giving alternative lifestyle literature/picture books to 5 year old kids who should be learning how to count passed 10 and thier ABC's? and who have no concept of what "partner" means in the sexual sense.

you have been reading my posts, yes... you did read what i said concerning those netherlanders who had their civil union? or perhaps you didn't see what i typed in my last post...

don't imply i'm a hypocrite for saying i'd have to consider something that has had negative cases in the past, but has the possibilty for positive cases if brought up between consenting adults.



no... i cannot admit that, because i've seen just as many, if not more picture books talking about other family types... such as single parent or step parent and the like.

kids have a concept of parents... of moms and dads... and there are books out there to help them understand why "Janes Mommy Went Away" or "Jimmy had a NEW Daddy"... so why get bent out of shape about books like "Suzie has Two Mommies"

*Note: I made all those titles up on the spot as examples, but i have seen actual instances of all of them, i'm just too lazy at the moment to go searching for them on Amazon.com

sexual sense? these books aren't pr0n... or at least the article didn't give the impression that they were.

pfft, it wont get legalized but it will keep happeneing regardless wont it? like incest and murder and spouse abuse.

but we're not discussing legitimizing pedo or beast... we're talking about gay marriage and the possibility of polygamy... well... i think.

billy seems to be indicating that legitimizing gay marriage "opened the door" to all deviant lifestyles.

but people are gonna do it regardless of wether its legal or not.

gay marriage will be legalized in some states and not in others because theres too many religious types or homophobes. so gays will move to other states or fucking canada.

besides all those deviant lifestylers have been trying to get it recongized as a real love sort of situation. same as my friend is trying to get vampirism regognized as an actual religion. *snorts*

As Bill Maher (legendary freedom hater) said: Giving women the right to vote didn't give Dogs the right to vote, nor will giving gays the right to marry give dogs the right to marry.

Before this whole thing about making gay marriage legal, the definition of marriage was understood by everyone to be between one man and one woman, when the liberals threw the definition of marriage on the negotiating table, that opened it up for everyone who wanted it to change. It's the law of unintended consequences.