• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Is "GAY MARRIAGE" valid because such may have existed in the past?

Some gay agenda-ists say "gay marriage" is valid because such was
allowed in the past. Supposedly, there were some cases where the
Church or some pagan community allowed gays to 'marry'.  Is that
reason for allowing "gay marriage" today?
Well, let's examine the logic of this argument. It implies that
something is valid today because it had been allowed in some rare
occasions in the past.
If that's the case, why should we not allow adult-child marriage?
Surely there were more examples of adult-child marriage than 'gay
marriage' in the past.  So, if 'gay marriage' should be valid because
it had been allowed in some occasions in the past, might we not argue
that adult-child marriages should also be valid today?  "What was good
enough for them (in the past) should be good for us now", or that is
the logic of the gay agenda-ists.
Of course, some would argue that child-adult marriage would lead to
adults abusing or molesting children, but liberals have demonstrated
over and over that reality is a matter of terminology.  Why call it
'molestation' or 'abuse'?  Why not call it 'adoration' or
'tenderness'--especially since we dress up our little kids like pimps
and hookers these days?
If fecal penetration between two gays is 'sharing love', why not call
the acts of pedophiles 'kindness toward children'?  If finding
homosexuality putrid is 'homophobia', why not argue that those who
loathe pedophilia are 'pedophobes'?
This is what happens when terminology is abused to push stupid
agendas. What the gay agenda has done, the pedophile agenda can do
also.  Pedos can ask, in the spirit of nitwit Anna Quindlan, 'In a
world so filled with violence and mistreatment of children, what's
wrong with showing them affection, love, and tenderness'?  Ewwww.

Also, for all I know, there may have been man-beast marriages in the
past too. Certainly some primitive cultures have myths were humans and
animal-gods have mated.
Of course, 'bestiaphobes' could argue that a marriage between man and
animal cannot be a marriage since (1) animal cannot agree to it and
(2) animal cannot understand the concept of marriage.  But, if
marriage is anything we choose to make it, who says marriage has to
defined in the 'traditional' Western way? Who says both sides have to
consent? After all, most marriages in history were not consensual but
cases of children being married off by their parents. The concept of
romantic love and finding the mate of your choice is a relatively
recent idea. Most people--especially women--had to marry whom they
were ordered to marry. So, there goes the idea that marriage MUST be
consensual.
Also, why not change the rules of marriage so that ONLY one side need
to understand what it is AS LONG AS the other side shows no objection.
Surely, an animal, which cannot understand the concept cannot agree to
it, but neither can it oppose it. So, where's the harm?
Also, isn't it true that some marriages happen between people who
don't really understand it either. Suppose some guy wants to marry a
severely retarded woman with an IQ of a dog.   Suppose the guy
proposes to her and she doesn't understand anything but just nods her
head and mutters, 'yah, yah, yah'.  I'll bet the state would let the
two marry even though the retardo's understanding of marriage is no
better than that of a dog.

So, we could argue that if there had been instances of man-animal
marriages in the past, such should be allowed today as well. After
all, 'what was good enough for them should be good enough for us'. So
is the logic of  gay agenda-ists who call for 'gay marriage' since
there had been such perversions of the law and morality in the past.

What really puzzles me about liberals is that, on the one hand, they
always talk about progress and the future. They generally say the past
sucks, was all bad, blah blah. But, on this 'gay marriage' issue,
they've decided to drag out some idiot social perversion from
centuries past to uphold as proof validating 'gay marriage' for all
time.   What a bunch of asses.

Antworten