Why does it have to be gay "marriage?" (page 4)

Phantom Stranger

I'm sorry, shamus, were you involving yourself in a discussion? I thought you were doing your imitation of a gibbering drunken passerby that no one can understand.

Of course you're welcome in any discussion, you dope... but what the hell are you talking about?

The only reason I participate in these discussion is to give XJW's who are casting about for what they believe something to examine. You think I'm trying to change Yeru's mind? No - I'm trying to give those leaving the WTS a different outlook on these topics... and you're welcome to help, if you can do so intelligibly.

Big Tex

What's so wrong with discussing gay marriage? Should we sweep the topic under the rug just because there are people who don't agree with it? That's as bad as Ruby Tuesday's attitude about child abuse.

A discussion board is an interchange of thoughts and ideas. I see nothing offensive on this thread and I don't understand why some feel it should be locked down.

shamus

Tell you what, Big Tex.

If you want me to stay out of homosexual threads, then please do state so. If people here want to make thinly veiled stupid remarks on a Jehovahs Witness discussion board about comparisons of homosexuals to incest, then so be it.

The only thing that you have to do is ask me to not comment on them is all. Do it and I will never, ever comment again on these threads, scouts honor.

You all can have nice little discussions on these threads all that you want, and say what you want from then on.

I am awaiting your comment.

Oh wait! Real life calls me! Jeez, off I go!

Valis

I agree with shamus and perhaps those people who think incest is akin to homosexuality, or that either has the same effect on society respectfully keep that to themselves as it is insulting to some of our members and entirely false. That is BS and only discourages real debate about the topic at hand.

Sincerely,

District Overbeer

shamus

Hey, and I never said to lock it, LOL!

Keep on going! Have fun, everyone.

It's nice that you all can have these "discussions" that are sensible and nice; allowing posters to compare us, thinly veiled, as complete and utter weirdo's.

Hmm... I wonder why so many people like SF Jim, Monkey, Ray, and a host of others have gotten tired of all this debating on a forum that deals with leaving a destructive cult. BOING! Wonder why?

Yes, it is better if hot-headed [deleted] just leave these threads alone, and you can say annyyyythhhing you want about us, and debate and debate and debate, LOL!

If you don't like what I have to say, then tell me that I'm not allowed to comment on these threads, and it's over with. Until then, I will do as I dammed well please.

So say it. Just say that threads like these are not open to homosexuals.

You guys have NO IDEA do you? NO IDEA.

Sara Annie

Honestly, I'm with Yeru on this one. I don't think we need to redefine marriage and allow same sex couples to enter into them. I don't think we need a unique, separate title for homosexual unions either.

Since marriage is, at it's root, a religious institution (it's been around far longer than the paperwork that made it 'legal') I think they should legalize a civil union of some sort (call it a civil union, call it a partnership, call it a dancing banana for all I care) that affords the same legal protections that marriage does. Then same sex couples, as well as heterosexual couples could enter into these unions free of any religious trappings marriage includes. Those forming these unions must be law-abiding, consenting adults who wish to have the legal protections marriage provides applied to their partnerships. Since it isn't truly separate, no one gets to cry inequality. Problem solved.

The parties and circumstances surrounding the actual ceremony can be as elaborate as they want, the protections would be the same, but the name wouldn't be. Big deal.

Phantom Stranger

At the risk of sounding pedantic...

I agree with the above statement if you are referring to pedophilia - there's no reason for comparing them.

Incestuous marriage of closely-related adults (what Yeru was referring to at one point) is a valid topic for the discussion of the institution of marriage and state regulation thereof.

Valis

shamus...dude chill out man. AND yeah some of us have a clue. If it bothers you that much then don't post on these threads. No one in thier right mind would tell you otherwise.

Sincerely,

District Overbeer

Big Tex

Shamus you are welcome to participate in any thread you want. Whether you choose to post on a thread that happens to be about homosexuality is irrelevent to me. Do what you want.

But you said:

HELLLLOOOOO MODERATORS...... HEEELLLLOOOO.... er. um... we're just having a "discussion" here, right? One that only bothers queers, so who cares?

I was responding to your inference that the moderators on this board were allowing this thread to continue because we don't care if it "bothers" homosexuals. Think what you like. Contrary to what some people are saying about me now, I don't play favourites. To my knowledge I've never done or said anything offensive to you before, so I am at a loss to understand your attitude toward me.

I am what I am. I'm not afraid to stand up for anyone, just as I'm not afraid to stand up against anyone. Believe what you want. Do what you want. Matters not to me.

Peace,

Chris

Valis

is a valid topic for the discussion of the institution of marriage and state regulation thereof.

PS, if it were the case we were talking about what grown adults should be allowed to do then I agree, but this particular thread was pointed towards the subject of gay marriage. In general, I also think that to predict what societal impact there would be because of gay marriage is absurd. When society starts losing taboos the social ethic changes right along with it. If and when taboos like polygamy and incestual marriage are no longer a part of our society then we can talk about how gay marriage would possibly affect that. AND even after we are long gone and dead if our social ethic changed to accept such things then there is little if anything we could do about it anyway. Detractors of gay marriage don't bother to look at many of the benefits it would bring about becuase they want all the happiness all to themselves. Which IMO qualifies as being socially bigoted.

Sincerely,

District Overbeer

Why does it have to be gay "marriage?"

Share this