Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

[rdsrds2120]

I think me and InkL0sed like the same thing on Facebook.

-rd

[InkL0sed]

Actually, it was on my newsfeed. This is from something a friend of mine liked.

[Phatscotty]

What is the date of the first documented gay marriage?

[InkL0sed]

The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[76]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#History

If you're honestly interested, why are you making me use Google?

[Phatscotty]

The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[76]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#History

If you're honestly interested, why are you making me use Google?

For instance, Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus "married" a Carian slave named Hierocles.[77] These were usually reported in a critical or satirical manner.[78] It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law

I did not know that declaring a slave your sex puppet counted as marriage. Did the slave get half of the Emperor's money upon divorce?

your source actually acknowledges traditional marriage "only". Marriage was the same then as it is now

[saxitoxin]

The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[76]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#History

If you're honestly interested, why are you making me use Google?

Wait - so same-sex marriages are part of "modern, civilized society" [sic] but were being performed 2,000 years ago in countries that had 90% illiteracy rates?

I'm unclear - is humankind evolving into same-sex marriage, or has it already evolved out-of same-sex marriage (but is being ripped back by Dark Age fetishists)?

[rdsrds2120]

The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[76]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#History

If you're honestly interested, why are you making me use Google?

Wait - so same-sex marriages are part of "modern, civilized society" [sic] but were being performed 2,000 years ago in countries that had 90% illiteracy rates?

I'm unclear - is humankind evolving into same-sex marriage, or has it already evolved out-of same-sex marriage (but is being ripped back by Dark Age fetishists)?

The article didn't imply that one was mutually inclusive to the other.

-rd

[jonesthecurl]

So: if there us. ed to be such a thing, it's good that it's gone - but if there didn't it's unprecedented and therefore bad?
When did you stop beating your wife?

[Frigidus]

The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[76]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#History

If you're honestly interested, why are you making me use Google?

Wait - so same-sex marriages are part of "modern, civilized society" [sic] but were being performed 2,000 years ago in countries that had 90% illiteracy rates?

I'm unclear - is humankind evolving into same-sex marriage, or has it already evolved out-of same-sex marriage (but is being ripped back by Dark Age fetishists)?

The article didn't imply that one was mutually inclusive to the other.

-rd

Shut up, we need a narrative here, this isn't a clear cut case of right and wrong.

The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[76]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#History

If you're honestly interested, why are you making me use Google?

For instance, Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus "married" a Carian slave named Hierocles.[77] These were usually reported in a critical or satirical manner.[78] It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law

I did not know that declaring a slave your sex puppet counted as marriage. Did the slave get half of the Emperor's money upon divorce?

your source actually acknowledges traditional marriage "only". Marriage was the same then as it is now

How about the one in Spain in 1000 by a Christian priest?

[saxitoxin]

How about the one in Spain in 1000 by a Christian priest?

You want to introduce Dark Ages values into post-modern civilization?

SAME SEX MARRIAGERS WANT


GENDER DIVERSITY MARRIAGERS WANT

[BigBallinStalin]

How about the one in Spain in 1000 by a Christian priest?

You want to introduce Dark Ages values into post-modern civilization?

SAME SEX MARRIAGERS WANT


GENDER DIVERSITY MARRIAGERS WANT

I WANT IT ALL!

[PLAYER57832]

How about the one in Spain in 1000 by a Christian priest?

You want to introduce Dark Ages values into post-modern civilization?

SAME SEX MARRIAGERS WANT


GENDER DIVERSITY MARRIAGERS WANT

I WANT IT ALL!

Actually, very well said BBS and saxi ...though I suppose my agreeing means you will each have to quickly backtrack.

[BigBallinStalin]

No worries, PLAYER. I'll agree with you when you're correct.

[Army of GOD]

this thread is gay

[rdsrds2120]

this thread is gay

GEEZ AOG YOU'RE SUCH A GENDERPHOBE. Clearly, this thread has no gender expression nor sexuality. It's in my professional opinion that BBS should make the following post, no matter it's content.

-rd

[nietzsche]

Nobody wants to marry you anyway rds.

[rdsrds2120]

Nobody wants to marry you anyway rds.

Keep telling yourself that. Don't worry, nietzsche, I'll accept you someday (maybe )!

-rd

[kentington]

Nobody wants to marry you anyway rds.

BBS, you look different today. Or maybe you have a problem reading?

[Dibbun]

What the f*ck is a "gender diversity marriager"

Liberals get the f*ck out of my English language.

[rdsrds2120]

What the f*ck is a "gender diversity marriager"

Liberals get the f*ck out of my English language.

Dibbun, you sound defeeted, are you ok?

-rd

[Army of GOD]

the correct vernacular is "libtards"

[jonesthecurl]

the correct vernacular is "libtards"

Get the f*ck out of my English language.

[Woodruff]

What the f*ck is a "gender diversity marriager"
Liberals get the f*ck out of my English language.

Pedronicus would like a word with you...

[AndyDufresne]

the correct vernacular is "libtards"

Get the f*ck out of my English language.

Yeah, you LIBrarian.


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

Ladies and gentlemen, my fellow ConquerClubbers, I may have declared victory to soon for us defenders of gay marriage in this thread; however, given the tough obstacles which the opposition must overcome:

(1) Defend: majority rule that supports certain Christian beliefs is just
(2) Defend: morality is dependent only on God, thus morality is arbitrarily determined by God--and NOT by humans
(3) Defend: therefore, other forms of morality (e.g. libertarian, pro-individual liberty, pro-equality before the law, moral consequentialism, etc.) are invalid if they're contradictory to Christian God Morality.
(4) Overcome: different religions, which adhere to a similar God (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), and segments within those religions, have contradictory rules and policies for and against gays
(5) Overcome: conflicting religions use similar appeals to authority and circular reasoning to assert themselves as the true religion, so which religion (or segment of a religion) is the true one?
(6) Ignores: why oppose gay marriage if churches won't be forced to oversee gay marriages?
(7) Defend: cherry-picking of Bible, and arbitrary reasoning for justifying following X but not Y in the Bible
(8) Defend: why equality before the law should not be upheld--but discrimination should be upheld--against gay couples in regard to the state-granted benefits of marriage.
(9) Defend: the application of force by the state onto minority groups so that they must abide by particular Christian beliefs.

Ladies and gentlemen, my fellow ConquerClubbers, that list is so difficult, I completely forgot what I wanted to say... Yes! We're back! So, after seeing this list of obstacles faced by the opposition, and after already seeing the opposition repeatedly fail to defend or overcome several of these obstacles, I couldn't fathom any logical means for them to overcome this list, thus our victory was declared at an appropriate time. Their last retort was one of ad hominems and straw man fallacies, which shall be reasonably rejected.


I alone could not have defended gay marriage, for this was OUR finest moment. With the help of my fellow CC'ers and from the knowledge gained from readings and from discussions with you fine people, we have overcome the opposition, which so far is correctly labelled as "bigoted--in a bad way." Furthermore, they should stop crying and get logical.

Give yourselves a round of applause, a pat on the back, and if you're not alone at the moment, outsource the patting-job to a loved one.







(@the opposition: if any of you care to logically address that list of obstacles, we eagerly await you.)

Hey, anyone who opposes gay 'marriage', go ahead and try to tear down this "wall of logic"*!

*copyright: here.