Well finely the "KING" of the land is doing something useful. The two points that I agree with are.....
1. This Amendment will once and for all define for the fringe element the true meaning of marriage.
2. The amendment will allow for the people to truly have a voice and not have our wishes over run by some judge who probably is gay himself or herself, and stop this using of the court system to by pass the wishes of the majority of the people.
If you are of the perverse nature and want to diddle in your closet, that's between you and your God, if you have one, but don't try to throw it in the face of my children and try to convince them that it is normal and excepted behavior. Don't try to pervert the purpose of marriage with your twisted outlook of life. You need one of two things.....serious psychological help or a sex change. You pick one!
And as for the mealy mouthed wormy politicians that try to play the fence, more worried about loosing a few votes than standing up for justice.....get real or get gone!
IT'S YOUR DIME.....
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Let's Talk About Our Town!
About Me
Links
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(75)
-
▼
June
(11)
- " SOME FUN FOR SUNDAY "
- " JUST ANOTHER PR STUNT "
- "THE TEMPERATURE IN NORTH ADAMS HAS BEEN RISING FO...
- " TO WIT, HATH THOU BEKNOWN THE PREPONDERANCE "
- " SOMETHING IS MISSING! "
- "THIS GLOBAL WARMING THING"
- " I'M GETTING DIZZY! "
- "WHERE TO TURN?"
- "SHAME ON YOU, YOU SHOULD HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME"
- "GO GEORGIE!"
- "THE UN-STEADY STATE OF THE UNION"
-
▼
June
(11)
Link - http
- http://berkshiresense.blogspot.com/
- http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/
- http://eric.buddington.net/
- http://mortarbend.blogspot.com/
- http://northwestcorner.wordpress.com/
- http://wesflinn.com/wfmusic/walkinbrain/blog/
- http://woodedpaths.blogspot.com
- http://www.amystevensonline.com/blog/
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
- http://www.lastvisibledog.org/blog/
14 comments:
Southview, fascinating position on gay marriage, as you might have guessed by now I totally disagree with you. So let me ask a couple questions, perhaps you can “straighten” me out.
1)Where does one get the "true meaning of marriage" from?
2)How do you equate "If you are of the perverse nature and want to diddle in your closet" with the union of two people of the same gender?
3)What is the "purpose of marriage"?
4)Please define "normal and excepted behavior"
5)Do you feel it was wrong to use "the court system to by pass the wishes of the majority of the people" and allow women and minorities to vote, interracial marriage, and civil rights?
6)Why is it that you feel threatened by the gay and lesbian population and allowing gay and lesbian marriage?
What is this Donovan's Blog - no reply to comments left on your blog?
Sorry there da snoop. The answers"
1. Adam and Eve not Adam and Brucie.
2. You seem to think that Friends that diddle are some how magicly transformed into some sort of UNION where normal people are just called friends.
3. Lets see this is a hard one... right...maybe to regenerate the species and pass on knoweledge of life's experience from both male and female in raising the child, male and female working in unison within the confines of marrage to better the species.
4. Normal and excepted behavior is that which isn't contrary to established and historically excepted actions, not going beyond natural laws of nature and the established laws of man.
5. The courts were asked to judge at the behest of the MAJORITY not the minority as you seem to beleave.
6. I don't feel threatened but I do feel used. You are asking me to except and tolerate something that is perverse and call it normal. You are asking me to except something that will make a mockery of the very institution of Marrage.
I hope I have answered to your satisfaction. Why do YOU think it is normal and proper?
First Southview I don’t profess to know what is normal and proper. There are many issues that at one point wereconsidered "unnatural", "immoral", and "unproper". I guess normal and proper are what people say are normal and proper at the time, but people are fallible and prone to mistakes so I don’t think you can base a position on "normal and proper".
But to stick to the talking points
1)Adam and Eve were not married either in the religious sense or our governments sense. If judged by certain standards through out history they would be considered living in sin. In fact, can you even prove that they existed? And if they did exist, did not their offspring commit incest?
2) Perhaps I don’t understand the phrase "Friends that diddle", it is you that used this term when referring to gays and lesbians. But whatever you like to call a gay or lesbian is no reflection on the character they posses.
3)This is a tough one for you, because if you truly believed this, you would have to be as vocal and adamant about abolishing divorce. And what proof do you have that a male and female union are more successful at "bettering the species"?
Certainly you have heard of many ways in which a couple can bring a child into this world without having both a male and female present at conception. Are you also stating that heterosexual couples that cannot conceive should not be allowed to marry?
4)I don’t think you really want to use this as your argument. You better think this one through and remember that history has been recorded farther back than 1776.
5)You would have to show me where there was a majority in favor of anyone of the three examples I gave at the time they were voted into law.
6)Perverse (as is normal) is a concept, and much like beauty - it is in the eyes of the beholder. But again, a mockery of marriage is made by 50% of those that get married now, what is it that gays and lesbians can do that is worse?
I understand that each group has its representative worst case scenarios, but I fail to see how preventing the gays and lesbians from marrying will have any effect on the "institution of marriage". If they are that dreaded of a population, wouldn't society be the mess that those against gay marriage profess will happen to marriage?
da snoop.....We could banter back and forth for eternity and I will never change your mind set and you will be unable to sway mine. God married Adam and Eve and as far as incest is concerned, that's an interesting item that I have pondered myself. "The Angles found man desireable and laied down with them" Hmmm Must have been more people around than they are telling us? Maybe Cain and Able were queer? Maybe it was Cain and Abagale? Maybe monkey sex was ok back then, who the hell knows? We can't deal in intangable idologies because we really don't know.....we wern't there. We can only base our judgments on logical standards set up by mankind through out man's known history. We have an inharent ability to know what is proper and what isn't, it is part of the software that comes pre packaged at birth. You know in your gut what is right and what isn't. You can deny and use all sorts of semantics to justify even the most perverse of actions of man, but there is no denying true right from wrong. We truely do know but more often than not choose to ignore it for our own personal reasons. Diddling has been with us and tolerated through out man's history but Marrage is something special, set aside and different, a bonding of a MAN and a WOMAN, A joining of opposets for the betterment of the one. Why were't we all created as morfadites? Would have made it easier! Man has this inate ability to twist just about anything to soute his needs at the moment and make it all sound..... so right!
Any you do it well.
HMmmmmm I'm not the one doing the twisting. But I must have made my point. In the words of the "OLD PROFESSOR" Slam, Dunk,....SCORE!
What point did you make? You said I could never change your mind and you didn't think you could ever change my mind so why bother. Honestly I don't see that you have made any point, you base your argument on what you say is "normal" and "historical" but what is normal for one society is not normal for another. As for historical, you certainly wouldn't think that the laws in effect 1000's of years of ago should pertain to modern times? You admit that perhaps if Adam and Eve did exist, there must have been some incestuous relationships. You offer no proof or evidence of how one man and one woman do any better of a job of raising kids than two men or two women. And you haven't addressed my questions about divorce or couples who cannot conceive. So what exactly have you slammed dunked?
Da snoop.....You remind me of the guy that drills a hole in the bottom of the boat to net out the water from a hole in the other end of the boat! All your questions have been answered to the best of my ability. I am not GOD nor am I a Bibilical Anthropoligest. I am only a human living in the 21st. century that knows right from perverse, normal from queer, semantics from truth. Da snoop you should be a lawyer, you sure do know how to beat a dead horse. Good ploy though...trying to make the victum appear to be the perpertrator. I'll hire you!
I could never defend someone that I believe to be guilty. You have not answered any questions, you have offered relative definitions as fact.
And since it is my dime I would like to know how you are the victim, how the species is bettered by the union between a man and woman and not two men or two women, and why you are not equally adament about baning divorce and marriage of hetrosexual couples not capable of conceiving?
da snoop.....Good God man, you don't quit! I beleve that I have answered all your questions with as much fact that is possible from a moral, historical and logical perspective. To further answer your last question.....I am not the victim, modern society as a whole is the victim. Moral and ethical judgment are the victims. The perseption of right and wrong are the victims.....
As for the species being enhanced by a heterosexual union, that has already been shown but you seem to have chosen not to see it.....
Your last question is a desperate, bottom of the bag, last man standing attempt to further justify the unjust. To draw out the argument at any cost. And that has also been answered if you cared to read the substance as well as the words. I'll give you an extra $0.25 so the meter won't run out on you!
Southview I guess I was mistaken, I thought it was you that had chastised Donovan's blog for not engaging with its readers on topics that were posted to the blog.
I guess I am also dense because I don't see where you have provided any answers other than "because I said so". But I'll drop the matter.
I have been looking for sites like this for a long time. Thank you! buy levitra online isuzu trooper xs au quebec http://www.buy-topamax.info/Gmc-truck-graphics.html nike mp3 players 128mb http://www.msn-broadband-internet.info/elkridge-web-site-marketing.html Best+compactflash+for+digital+camera
Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!
Post a Comment