Why Are Marriage Advocates Labeled Ha...

Why Are Marriage Advocates Labeled Hateful? That’s Because They Are.

There are 72 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Feb 19, 2013, titled Why Are Marriage Advocates Labeled Hateful? That’s Because They Are. . In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

The National Organization for Marriage has a new video that they’re busy shilling from someone named Anna Maria who, apparently, feels that “it’s ridiculous that people should be labeled with words like ‘hateful’, ‘homophobic’, ‘heteronormative’ and ‘bigot’ for wanting to restore a culture of marriage to society.”

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Cool Hand Luke

Bangkok, Thailand

#103 Feb 21, 2013
Dissecting the 'gay' marriage charade

Published: 03/07/2012 at 7:51 PM

Anyone in the United States can participate in the institution of marriage – if they choose to do so.

Homosexuals don’t usually choose to do so because they usually don’t want to be married to members of the opposite sex. But it’s their choice.

So why do homosexual activists make this claim? And how do they get away with making a patently false charge against a 6,000-year-old religious institution and the civil laws that it inspired?

Same-sex marriage advocates no more care about the legality of same-sex marriage than Hamas cares about the creation of a Palestinian state.

Neither is interested in creating something new – something that has never been before. Instead, what same-sex marriage advocates and the terrorists of the Gaza Strip have in common is their desire to destroy something they find repulsive. In Gaza, it’s the Jewish state of Israel. Among homosexual activists, it’s the institution of marriage.

By making the bogus claim that marriage, as it has been known through the eons, is inherently unfair because some people don’t want to participate in it as it has always been defined, homosexual activists are able to establish for themselves what appears to be the political high ground of the victim. In exactly the same way, Arab terrorists are able to portray themselves as the victim by claiming they have been denied a state.

But scratch beneath the surface of these two movements and you will soon learn that their objectives go far beyond same-sex marriage and a Palestinian state.

For instance, let’s examine the logic of the victimization homosexuals claim as the basis for pushing same-sex marriage. If it is true that limiting the definition of marriage to a union between one man and one woman is inherently a violation of civil rights, wouldn’t it also be true that defining marriage as a union between just two people is equally discriminatory?

The advocates of same-sex marriage hate this challenge, because they have no intelligent response to it. By default, a capitulation to the same-sex marriage advocates represents future capitulation to the logic they use. That means support of same-sex marriage, to be consistent, must translate into support of polygamy and group marriages of any combination.

Recently, a columnist for the Huffington Post tried to make the case that, unlike same-sex marriage, which has never existed in the history of the world anywhere at any time, polygamy represents a clear and present danger to society. That’s the distinction, he claimed. He cites one infamous polygamist leader charged with sexual assaults and incest-related felony counts as examples of how this works. Of course, he ignores a virtual epidemic of violence and molestation in the homosexual community in favor of one isolated case in the polygamy community.

Eliyahu Federman also states:“There isn’t a shred of modern sociological evidence to support the claim that gay marriage is harmful to society, whereas there is a plethora of historical and contemporary evidence to illustrate the dangers associated with polygamy.”

Ten years ago, the notion of same-sex marriage was scarcely even discussed, let alone performed. So the absence of a body of evidence is a red herring. In the case of polygamy, however, we have thousands of years of history to examine.

It is amazing how quickly the same-sex marriage advocates have been able to rally support from the media, the cultural establishment, the government elite and the judiciary for a radical social experiment that challenges the fundamental building block of human civilization.

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#104 Feb 21, 2013
Cool Hand Luke wrote:
... how do they get away with making a patently false charge against a 6,000-year-old religious institution and the civil laws that it inspired?
Okay, let's look at that "6,000 year-old religious institution", shall we? And let's get specific and cite Chapter and Verse:

The Bible defines marriage as a union between a Man and a Woman (Genesis 2:24).

And a Man and a Woman and the Woman's Slave (Genesis 16).

And a Man and his Brother's Widow (Genesis 38:6-10).

And a Male Slave and a Female Slave if so ordered by their Owner (Exodus 21:4).

And a Male Soldier and a Prisoner of War (Numbers 31:1-18 and Deuteronomy 21:11-14).

And a Rapist and his Victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

And a Man and His Women and His Concubine(s)(Caleb had 2; Abraham had 2; Samuel had 300).

And a Man and a Woman and a Woman and a Woman and a Woman …(Esau had 3; Jacob had 2; Gideon had "many"; Abijah had 14; Solomon had 700).

And a Man and a Man (1 Samuel 18:1-5).

And a Woman and a Woman (Ruth 1:15-17).

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#106 Feb 21, 2013
Otter in the Ozarks wrote:
Okay, let's look at that "6,000 year-old religious institution", shall we? And let's get specific and cite Chapter and Verse:
The Bible defines marriage as a union between a Man and a Woman (Genesis 2:24).
And a Man and a Woman and the Woman's Slave (Genesis 16).
And a Man and his Brother's Widow (Genesis 38:6-10).
And a Male Slave and a Female Slave if so ordered by their Owner (Exodus 21:4).
And a Male Soldier and a Prisoner of War (Numbers 31:1-18 and Deuteronomy 21:11-14).
And a Rapist and his Victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).
And a Man and His Women and His Concubine(s)(Caleb had 2; Abraham had 2; Samuel had 300).
And a Man and a Woman and a Woman and a Woman and a Woman …(Esau had 3; Jacob had 2; Gideon had "many"; Abijah had 14; Solomon had 700).
And a Man and a Man (1 Samuel 18:1-5).
And a Woman and a Woman (Ruth 1:15-17).
Excellent! Don't forget a man and his sister (Genesis 20:12).

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#107 Feb 21, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent! Don't forget a man and his sister (Genesis 20:12).
Oh, that's right! Thank you for the heads up!

That means that Queen Cleopatra was just following the Old Testament law when she married her brother, Ptolemy XIII. And again later, when she married her other brother, Ptolemy XIV.

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110 Feb 21, 2013
Ralph wrote:
<quoted text>
You @#$*ing $%##&s should be marrying chimpanzees, you would look better together.
But darling, if I married your mother, you'd be my own dear little stepson. Is that what you want?

Look, never mind the rest of us. Do yourself a favor and grow up. Using curse words and slurs doesn't make you sound tough or even interesting; it makes you sound like a snot-nosed toddler who is sitting in a puddle of his own piddle and is screaming because he needs to be changed.

When you post, I just envision a lunatic screaming out of the window of an asylum, or an ape rattling the bars of his cage. I wouldn't be bothered by them, and I'm not bothered by you.

Enjoy your evening.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#113 Feb 22, 2013
Ralph wrote:
<quoted text>
What's wrong queer, don't like seeing what you freaks are in writing??#>~*+~**. Stupid fking queers
Have you ever been kissed?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#114 Feb 22, 2013
Cool Hand Luke wrote:
Dissecting the 'gay' marriage charade
Published: 03/07/2012 at 7:51 PM
Anyone in the United States can participate in the institution of marriage – if they choose to do so.
Homosexuals don’t usually choose to do so because they usually don’t want to be married to members of the opposite sex. But it’s their choice.
.......
That same argument was used against interracial marriage, and it didn't hold up. Why?

Because most folks only want to marry people they can be attracted to and love romantically, and society recognized that as the ideal, even if that ideal is not required by law.

If your argument failed miserable before, why do you think it smells any better now?

Is it really the best you have?

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116 Feb 22, 2013
Ralph wrote:
<quoted text>
What's wrong, don't like seeing my obscene babbling in writing?
Oh, it doesn't bother me in the least, baby boy. I just don't quote it exactly. Then when all your posts are removed, there's no record left of what you actually said.

You have a super-duper afternoon, Ralphie, and be careful not to shoot your eye out.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#118 Feb 22, 2013
Ralph wrote:
<quoted text>
Have a super doper shiteating day queer.
Register, you cowardly little liar. Pick a name and stick with it, liar.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#119 Feb 22, 2013
Ralph wrote:
<quoted text>
Not by a filthy queer.
Is anything more filthy than a name changing little liar? Not that I can think of.
Big Boob Babe

Alpharetta, GA

#122 Feb 22, 2013
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, if it ain't the [email protected] in Kansas using another name once again. You're still a piece of SHlT no matter what name you post under. Get back to what we both know you're good at, you fking pervert.
Has anyone ever blown gently into your ear?
NoQ

Chesapeake, OH

#123 Feb 22, 2013
Big Boob Babe wrote:
<quoted text>Has anyone ever blown gently into your ear?
Heard about you, you're as wide as you are tall. Stay away.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 7 min Freedomofexpression 13,230
News Supreme Court To Hear Arguments In Case Of Bake... 12 min Proud Ass Confede... 391
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 31 min Wondering 57,605
News MassResistance Warns America Against Homosexual... 46 min Jonas 3
News Kentucky official campaigns against gay marriag... 1 hr Proud Ass Confede... 20
News College to offer sensitivity training after ant... 2 hr DonaldMcDumpfHeil... 10
News The gaydar machine: a backlash 2 hr Wondering 11
Adventures of Jaaadene 2 hr Snort 1
More from around the web