anti gay marriage ad

The xtians have always tried convince everyone else that they're persecuted. Of course history books will clear that fog in a heartbeat. Take the Puritans... persecuted and forced to live in the New World. First thing they do when they get here? Make beer. Oh, wait... fast forward. They PERSECUTE. Witch trials, trial by ordeal, all that fun stuff.

This is their tactic. Make no mistake about it.

As for gays marrying... Who the f*ck cares? Why? What difference does it make if the guys across the street get hitched? Somehow, I am supposed to believe that THIS will destroy the sanctity of marriage... I thought 24 hour chapels run by Elvis did that. I thought changing wives at the same rate as one's underwear did that.

Two things.

First: I have more important things to do than worry about who's marrying who... like paying my bills and doing my job.

Second: Who the f*ck are you to tell anybody who they can and cannot marry? If you told me that I couldn't marry my wife, you'd walk away with your teeth in your hand. Keep your collective purtan noses out of other peoples' business.

I am in favour of recognizing these unions as a contractual partnership that gives the partners equal rights in civil matters such as property, benefits etc. But to call them a marriage just does not meet the definition in my view.

YouTube - "No Offense"

The anti gay marriage organization "National Organization for Marriage" recently put out this ad featuring the Miss America contestant Carrie Prejean, who in the Miss America contest was asked her opinion on gay marriage. Her answer may have cost her the title.

My thoughts on this-

First, i thought it was a pretty effective ad strategy. It's probably the best one they'll be able to come up with. But to me personally, it's unconvincing and even pretty funny. The ppl who are trying to prevent others from marrying are trying to cast themselves as the persecuted victims. :dunno: Whatever.

As to the gay marriage question itself, it shouldn't have been asked at a Miss America contest. It's a loaded question- asking her opinion on a cultural wedge issue at a competition where the goal is to be as uncontroversial and as similar to a barbie doll as humanly possible. I bet her competition was glad they didn't get that question.

Third; regardless of whether you agree with her on gay marriage or not, her answer sucked. I can't blame her, since i can't do better when put on the spot with a loaded question. But even so, it wasn't a very good answer. She should have just said, "Well, i personally don't believe in gay marriage, but i'm glad we live in a country where controversial issues like that can be resolved Democratically and ppl with different opinions show respect to one another, blah, blah, blah."

What if we call them "gay marriages"? Do you think it would meet the definition of gay marriage?


Arguing against gay marriage on the grounds of definition is ridiculous.

The entire body of law is based on definitions. Without them the law is meaningless. I don't care what they call it but it's not a marriage as we have always defined marriage under English common law. Look at the case of people living in common law relationships. Do we say they are married? No, we do not even though they can by law recieve most of the same benefits as a married couple. For many years gays have called their relationship a partnership. I'm OK with that and I think those partnerships should have equal rights to any other arraingement. However I will argue till I am red in the face it's not a marriage,

The entire body of law is based on definitions. Without them the law is meaningless. I don't care what they call it but it's not a marriage as we have always defined marriage under English common law. Look at the case of people living in common law relationships. Do we say they are married? No, we do not even though they can by law recieve most of the same benefits as a married couple. For many years gays have called their relationship a partnership. I'm OK with that and I think those partnerships should have equal rights to any other arraingement. However I will argue till I am red in the face it's not a marriage,

Are you aware that throughout most of human history marriage has meant "ideological recognition of a sexual relationship between among one man and two or more women"? If you think the definition of marriage hasn't already changed several times you are sadly mistaken. Partnership is not equivalent to marriage, and unless gays are allowed to marry then there will not be equality. And even if same sex unions are used this would give liguistic grounds to exlude gays from certain rights.

What if I told you ," you can't marry your sister,brother or Mother. Is that any of my business.

In Cambodia many women have multiple husbands,often brothers will share a wife. This is a legal marriage in Cambodia but do we want these type of arraingements to be legal here? I don't think so.What about poligamy? What right do we have to tell a man he can't have 2 or 20 wives? I don't think that we have the right to tell him he can't but we certainly have the right to refuse to recognize these marriages in the legal sense.

I don't care if same sex couples get married But in my view it does not meet my religion's definition of what a marriage is in our society and I am opposed to granting a permit legalizing such arraingements. I am in favour of recognizing these unions as a contractual partnership that gives the partners equal rights in civil matters such as property, benefits etc. But to call them a marriage just does not meet the definition in my religion's view.

The entire debate is based on a faulty argument. "Rights", If you want to argue that gays should to marry because of their right to by equality under the law then any other person that desires an unconvential marriage should be allowed to also. Poligamists should have the same rights to marry multiple partners because they have just as much right to as gays have to marry. There are many other arraingments throughout the world that do not meet our historic definition of what a legal marriage is in our society. Why should we change the definition so that all these people could also demand their rights to whatever they believe to be a valid marriage. Will we have to break down marriage licences into different classes like driving permits. I'll have one poligomy licence please. I'll have one homosexual licence please. My brother and I want to marry this woman, a licence please.

And blacks might marry whites one day. Your arguments are the EXACT SAME used over forty years ago. Imagine that.

That is not the same thing at all. Legal marriage is one man one woman. Race has absolutely nothing to do with it.

How old are you?

Not too long ago, I guess we could call it the mid to late 20th century, race had EVERYTHING to do with it. Same issue... who can marry who because somebody's deity says so. Same arguments... inbreeding, marriage to animals/objects/etc. Same people... the religious who think everyone should follow their book.

I'd suggest a history text. Hit the index for "Loving v. Virginia" and read from there.

The fact remains: Someone's religion is telling someone else how to live. The problem is, the INSTANT that someone ties it to religion, the keystone is ripped out and the entire thing falls apart.

There's that pesky Constitution again.

First of all I am not An American. Secondly I am not opposed to same sex marriage from any kind of religious stance.
You cite the constitution of the USA to back up your position. Can you give me a reference from it that does so. This same document allowed slavery to exist in the country and was affirmed by the supreme court on numerous occasions including the infamous "Dred Scott" decision. I am very familiar with the US constition, in fact I have a copy of it right here on my desk.In many respects it is a very hazy document and it's only as good as those justices of the supreme court whose job it is to interpret it.

The Constitution prevents the prohibition of an act for religious purposes. Look at the first amendment and more specifically its establishment clause.

If not for religious purposes, why exactly do you not want certain people marrying? How does it affect your life and your day-to-day doings? What purpose do *YOU* have for not wanting them to marry?

Here in America, there's only one true reason why gay marriage is on the block: religion. Leviticus 18:22. Other than that... nil. Well, there's sheer bigotry and hatred, however those particular views are not limited to the US of A.

So the question remains, why do you want gay marriage to remain illegal?

I consider homosexuality to be a perversion of our natural function and so therefore I feel that gay marriage is a perversion of the natural function of marriage.

I do not have one single thing against gays. In fact I like all of the gay people that I have met. I wish them nothing but the best in their lives and success in all they do. I have stated already in other posts why I am opposed to gay marriage and I see no reason to repeat myself.

I see no practical application of the first ammendent to the entire question.

Would I want any of my children to be gay? No I would not. Would I love them if they were? yes I would.

The entire debate is based on a faulty argument. "Rights", If you want to argue that gays should to marry because of their right to by equality under the law then any other person that desires an unconvential marriage should be allowed to also.

Poligamists should have the same rights to marry multiple partners because they have just as much right to as gays have to marry.

There are many other arraingments throughout the world that do not meet our historic definition of what a legal marriage is in our society. Why should we change the definition so that all these people could also demand their rights to whatever they believe to be a valid marriage. Will we have to break down marriage licences into different classes like driving permits. I'll have one poligomy licence please. I'll have one homosexual licence please. My brother and I want to marry this woman, a licence please.

I consider homosexuality to be a perversion of our natural function and so therefore I feel that gay marriage is a perversion of the natural function of marriage.

I do not have one single thing against gays. In fact I like all of the gay people that I have met. I wish them nothing but the best in their lives and success in all they do.

Would I want any of my children to be gay? No I would not. Would I love them if they were? yes I would.