Liberty Counsel and Judges fight perverted redefinition of real, natural Marriage

[LogicIsForSquares]

Bologna salad is also a perversion of real salad.

[LogicIsForSquares]

In all honesty, things I don't like are evil and should be banned. #bothpoliticalparties

[Westside Steve]

But I find peanut butter icky. Thus I deemed it unnatural and a perversion to all other types of spread.

And I realize you were just playing the woody card but I think you understand the difference between not liking peanut butter and not liking the flavor of feces.

 

WSS

[LogicIsForSquares]

And I realize you were just playing the woody card but I think you understand the difference between not liking peanut butter and not liking the flavor of feces.

 

WSS

I have had some pretty shitty peanut butter.

[Westside Steve]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagia

[Westside Steve]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-sense/201109/little-known-eating-disorder-is-the-rise

[gftChris]

I didn't address that point because I don't think it's valid especially compared with your list.

And I didn't, unless I've missed someone's comment, think it was the main thrust of the original post.

 

But if I were pressed I would say probably the ideal family unit is a caring mother and father.

 

WSS

Ideal? Sure. Only? Not by a long shot.

[LogicIsForSquares]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagia

I get where you are going. This thread is just ridiculous so I was fucking around. Magnets and peanut butter are not analogs for humans.

[Westside Steve]

Ideal? Sure. Only? Not by a long shot.

I think I've been relatively clear on that.

 

Also I commented on what I think is a lack of morality when people don't consider the child when making whatever life plans they make.

 

WSS

[MLD Woody]

So does peanut butter. Get that unnatural shit away from me.

I prefer traditional, natural ground peanut paste. Just like it says in the new testament.

 

How am I supposed to explain peanut butter to my kids? That liberal, socialist public school is indoctrinating them that peanut butter is a normal thing.

[Westside Steve]

Make some peanut butter out of sawdust mineral oil guar gum and artificial peanut flavoring and try to get it past the FDA with a label that calls it peanut butter.

 

Damn those FDA bible thumpers.

 

(ain't the irony game fun)

 

WSS

[bbedward]

You can't get rid of gay people unless get rid of all the humans.

 

You can't get rid of peanut butter unless you get rid of all the peanuts.

 

So I guess we have to deal with gays and peanut butter for the foreseeable future.

[Westside Steve]

You can't get rid of gay people unless get rid of all the humans.

 

You can't get rid of peanut butter unless you get rid of all the peanuts.

 

So I guess we have to deal with gays and peanut butter for the foreseeable future.

Woody might be able to tell you if it is an acceptable anal lubricant.

 

Not free chunky kind I'm guessing...

 

 

WSS

[Clevfan4life]

gays and peanut butter? this thread certainly went down a strange road only found on the internet.

[bbedward]

gays and peanut butter? this thread certainly went down a strange road only found on the internet.

 

Just wait until we get to cookie dough and nutella.

[Clevfan4life]

how bout not?

[LogicIsForSquares]

 

Just wait until we get to cookie dough and nutella.

I like nutella. Not the human analogy but just regular nutella.

[MLD Woody]

Nutella is polygamy

 

Cookie Dough is legalized weed

[calfoxwc]

LOL LOL LOL

 

Dammit, I have farm work to do, you guys need to stop being funny

so fast, I don't want to miss anything...

 

(except for woody, who is never funny)

 

Obviously, we're talking morality here, and yes, alcoholic parents would be devastating

to children.

 

However, we are also talking about sexual/emotional development of children - the self-actualization

based on a proper environment.

 

The idea to validate redefining an entire social institution - real marriage - and morph into something

that cannot legitimately exist morally...

 

by rhetorically putting forth a question like:

 

"well, would you rather a kid have gay parents.. or have vicious insect aliens from a distant planet parents?"

 

I say, neither. There is no forced choice. "Would you rather be killed by a giant with a white pine, or an

australian pine? Well, gee, the white pine has much softer needles... so....."

 

It's also nonsense about "well, some married couples can't have children...". really?

There is no moral perversion there - and situation is not a common basis upon which to

redefine marriage, which has always, and always will BE...a man and woman.

 

It takes both sexes as parents for the most beneficial self-actualization/healthy adjustment into adulthood

to take place. Single parent families? There are plenty of other people in the extended family that

are of the other sex.

 

But, that is hardly generally true with the situation of a gay couple who "adopt". There are no maternal/paternal

grandparents. Never any biological siblings. NEVER. That right there shows a huge problem. Because

with a husband and wife who can't have children for whatever reason - it's a medical situation,

not a sex/biology one. They may have already had a few children. But if they adopt, there are still

grandparents on both sides...generally.

 

And the dumb thing about divorce. There are still both sexes as parents in their lives, still grandparents,

still...often, siblings. There is no redefinition of the legitimate instititution of marriage.

 

And, organic peanut butter is pretty good for you, and when you go to a Texas Roadhouse, you can

chomp on peanuts while waiting for a booth, and while waiting for your dinner. AND,

you can throw the shells on the floor. Very cool.

 

And, you can take a bunch of those shelled peanuts, use a knife and make shavings (hammer works faster),

and mix some root beer in em, squoosh it around with the salt shaker...and THAT is freakin PEANUT BUTTER.

[MLD Woody]

Wow, where to even start with that...

[gftChris]

Just so I'm clear, I *think* this is what you're thinking, cal:

 

1) Marriage is primarily for the purpose of procreation

2) Gay people cannot procreate

3) Gay people make worse parents

4) Gay people should not be able to adopt

5) Therefore, gay people getting married completely undermines the point of marriage

6) Other people who also cannot have kids or explicitly don't want to have kids - no problem getting married

7) People who will be demonstrably bad parents (alcoholics for example) should be allowed to get married (again in the context of marriage = procreation) if they are straight

 

I'm not going to jump in and criticise things you're not saying, so I just wanted to get clarity.

 

Something I'm certain you've said (because it's here):

 

The idea to validate redefining an entire social institution - real marriage - and morph into something

that cannot legitimately exist morally...

I'm assuming that finishes with an 'is bad' or similar. Is it immoral for gay people to adopt? We've already been over how basically everyone here would rather have a kid raised by a gay couple than an alcoholic/abusive parent. Is forcing that child to stay with that family immoral?

 

I'm sticking with the main point here, which is that if you want to call for gay people to not be able to get married, on the basis that they're worse parents than optimal/average (not sure which), then where is the call for other people who also come from groups that, in general terms, are demonstrably worse as parents?

[Westside Steve]

 

1) Marriage is primarily for the purpose of procreation

 

Marriage more probably rose out of the need to merge families and clans to provide for a bloodline for patriarchy and/or royalty.

 

2) Gay people cannot procreate

 

No they can not.

 

3) Gay people make worse parents

 

Not particularly. So what?

 

4) Gay people should not be able to adopt

 

No reason they can't. Still that does not change the bloodline. The child will still have the surname of Snow in the north.

 

5) Therefore, gay people getting married completely undermines the point of marriage

 

If you are using the bloodline criteria, yes

 

6) Other people who also cannot have kids or explicitly don't want to have kids - no problem getting married

 

That is true. And it does not affect the bloodline.

 

7) People who will be demonstrably bad parents (alcoholics for example) should be allowed to get married (again in the context of ,,,,

 

True enough. And social services will take children away from couples who have demonstrated they are detrimental to the child's well being.

 

 

 

Still at the end of the day even though I have no problem with gay people calling it whatever they like if it makes them happy, there are certain perks and privileges given to married people.

 

All those could be easily incorporated in a social contract, and the couple could find a sympathetic church and call their relationship whenever they like. I have not heard a good argument for or against that idea from the hard left or the hard right.

 

Here's a related question. Why should an American citizen not born in the United States be forbidden from being president?

 

WSS

[MLD Woody]

I think most on here have been fine with the govt calling everything a civil union, and then letting other institutions call it a marriage

[gftChris]

Still at the end of the day even though I have no problem with gay people calling it whatever they like if it makes them happy, there are certain perks and privileges given to married people.

 

All those could be easily incorporated in a social contract, and the couple could find a sympathetic church and call their relationship whenever they like. I have not heard a good argument for or against that idea from the hard left or the hard right.

 

Here's a related question. Why should an American citizen not born in the United States be forbidden from being president?

 

WSS

No reason why someone born in mexico, came to america as a 2 year old and spent their life there shouldn't be president, where someone born in the US, moved to mexico aged 2 and spent their life there should have the chance.

 

As for the contract business, that's what people are after, not (generally) the church part - I don't know too many gay people who would want to get married in an establishment that keeps telling them they're going to hell. I know some do, and many churches are welcoming, but by and large, gay couples are just after the same rights as straight - things like extended healthcare for the family (which doesn't apply unless you're married or whatever).

[Westside Steve]

You could extrapolate that to someone born in London or Toronto who came to the United States went to college ran for office and has been here for 20 years.

 

And if all you say about the social contract is in agreement with most, then what is the problem?

 

WSS