Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Gay Marriage Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Gay Marriage

    Andy that was a great post. I used to say the government or we the people have no business defining what constitutes acceptable sexual behavior, but then there are pedophiles to consider. I hate to speak of gays in the same sentence as pedophiles because there is a world of difference between the two. Just wanted to put that out there, the thought of boundaries or limits.

    I agree that christians have a right to their opinions and vote, and the laws of the land along with the majority vote should ultimately determine the course of things. I am seriously concerned with the growing number of muslims in our country and there future impact on our government and society. Are "All" religions protected under our laws, even if they include a mission to either convert or destroy?

    Regarding the sexual behavior of gays, I'm sure they are equally repulsed by our behavior. I agree that we should not waste precious time with a group of people who do not pose a threat to us or our children. Prioritize! Secure our borders, bring back jobs, hold wallstreet and big business accountable, build America, unite as a people. "One nation, under God, indivisible".

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Gay Marriage

      Is it legal for a lesbian to marry a gay dude?

      J.C.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Gay Marriage

        Pedophiles (and rapists for that matter) are not protected, since their actions infringe on the safety and rights of others. I think we should be talking about activities between consenting adults.

        Yes Muslims are and must be protected. We cannot single out ANY single religion. Who would get to choose which religions constitute a "threat"? Very many followers of Isalm are peace-loving, hard working people just like you and me. There are many Muslims in my line of work and many of them are here, totally legally, becasue they love the US just like you do and see exactly the same problems that you do.

        If their mission is to convert others to their religion, I have no problem with that. They are no different than evangelists or missionaries such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian missionaries, etc., are they?

        However if their intent is to destroy our government, circumvent US or state laws, etc,, and they even so much as discuss it between as few as 2 of them, then that is defined as "conspiracy" (whether they act or not) and it is against the law.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Gay Marriage

          Originally posted by JCsPlumbing View Post
          Is it legal for a lesbian to marry a gay dude?

          J.C.
          One man, one woman. Yes, but what would they do?

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Gay Marriage

            Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
            One man, one woman. Yes, but what would they do?
            The dude would be sewing curtains while the lesbian would be watching SportsCenter.

            Yeah, I went there.

            J.C.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Gay Marriage

              Mark has it completely right with his toaster/sub-machine gun analogy.
              Gays have had the right for years to have civil unions. They are recognized by most insurance companies. Hospitals treat them just like a married couple.
              How are their rights being trampled on at all?

              But, the state/government has an extremely compelling interest in marriage between a man and a woman and it's call "children".
              That is the whole purpose for recognizing marriage as between opposite sexes.
              That is also the reason the government tries to (or used to try to) make life a little financially easier for married couples.
              Every statistic I have ever seen says children raised by a married man & woman are better adjusted and ultimately produce a better society.

              It's not a religious thing. It's a survival thing.
              "Man will do many things to get himself loved, he will do all things to get himself envied." Mark Twain

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Gay Marriage

                Originally posted by SlimTim View Post
                Mark has it completely right with his toaster/sub-machine gun analogy.
                Gays have had the right for years to have civil unions. They are recognized by most insurance companies. Hospitals treat them just like a married couple.
                How are their rights being trampled on at all?
                It sounds great that you say those things until it turns out to be untrue for a gay couple who's partner is not covered or is denied access.

                But, the state/government has an extremely compelling interest in marriage between a man and a woman and it's call "children".
                That is the whole purpose for recognizing marriage as between opposite sexes.
                That is also the reason the government tries to (or used to try to) make life a little financially easier for married couples.
                Which is why we deny marriage licenses to infertile couples or those who do not intend to raise children right?
                Every statistic I have ever seen says children raised by a married man & woman are better adjusted and ultimately produce a better society.
                You mind showing some of those statistics? I linked the court decision on prop 8 earlier in this thread where the court determined the defense presented no credible evidence of that claim.

                It's not a religious thing. It's a survival thing.
                Sure keep telling yourself that if it makes your bigotry easier on you.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Gay Marriage

                  Ok.....I'm not sure why you are attacking me personally. But, back to your points......I'm sorry, I'm having trouble finding your points.

                  The purpose of prop 8 as I read it, is to define what is and is not marriage. A decent majority (except for white voters and women, both were about evenly split) of Californians made their voice known and one single Judge making sweeping generalities nullified it.

                  My point is that the state has a compelling interest in promoting "childbearing". Marriage produces MORE children than domestic partnerships. And with the way Social Security looks now, not to mention California's Public Pensions, the bigger the next generation the better.

                  The opponents want their civil unions to be called marriage because of status.
                  Marriage is revered because of its long experience with moral, religious and cultural norms. They define it. Same sex relationships, though traced through antiquity, have never been a part of that norm. But now they want the name so they won't feel socially inferior.

                  I think the judge was wrong and I predict he'll be overturned.
                  "Man will do many things to get himself loved, he will do all things to get himself envied." Mark Twain

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Gay Marriage

                    I could honestly care less about Gay marriages and what rights they feel they should have.

                    When I do have kids, they will be taught that a Marriage is between a Man & Woman...Period!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Gay Marriage

                      Originally posted by SlimTim View Post
                      Ok.....I'm not sure why you are attacking me personally. But, back to your points......I'm sorry, I'm having trouble finding your points.

                      The purpose of prop 8 as I read it, is to define what is and is not marriage. A decent majority (except for white voters and women, both were about evenly split) of Californians made their voice known and one single Judge making sweeping generalities nullified it.

                      My point is that the state has a compelling interest in promoting "childbearing". Marriage produces MORE children than domestic partnerships. And with the way Social Security looks now, not to mention California's Public Pensions, the bigger the next generation the better.

                      The opponents want their civil unions to be called marriage because of status.
                      Marriage is revered because of its long experience with moral, religious and cultural norms. They define it. Same sex relationships, though traced through antiquity, have never been a part of that norm. But now they want the name so they won't feel socially inferior.

                      I think the judge was wrong and I predict he'll be overturned.
                      There's no arguing that heterosexual couples both unmarried and married are going to produce more children than gay couples, but if the government is looking to "Grow" our popluation abortion would be a better place to start. Maybe gay couples would be better prepared to care for the unwanted babies that are aborted, the babies born with HIV, or addicted to drugs!
                      I think we need to have better birth control until we can have better people getting pregnant and raising children, the hell with social security!

                      IF you really think marriage is revered beyond your personal experience or circle of friends, spend a day in family or divorce court. Spend a day at a women's shelter. Mankind is not in danger of extinction due to the inability to reproduce our society and traditional marriage are not threatened by gay marriage or gays raising children. We fight wars we cannot pay for and do not try to win. We enrich our enemies by consuming their goods and supporting our wastefulness through loans we cannot repay. We do not protect our borders and reward those who enter illegally and burden our economy. We take turns electing two different political parties that do nothing to correct the many problems they either allowed to take place or were instrumental in causing. Do you really think the gay marriage issue is deserving of this time, expense and attention given the dire problems facing our country? We can discuss it here, where there is no gain or loss but nationally we need to prioritize. We are under attack and on fire, do we stare at a candle while we are consummed by the flames, or move to put out the serious fires?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Gay Marriage

                        Originally posted by Flux View Post
                        I could honestly care less about Gay marriages and what rights they feel they should have.

                        When I do have kids, they will be taught that a Marriage is between a Man & Woman...Period!
                        What happens if you have a child that is gay?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Gay Marriage

                          I have no-none-nada allegiance to gays but I've yet to hear any sort of compelling or even mildly convincing argument regarding exactly what it is about gays being able to get married that poses any sort of threat to society. The children argument, with due respect, makes no sense at all. So what if a few gay couples raise children? Does their gayness make them less suited to provide a loving and supportive household? When I read that there are statistics, well, I have to laugh. What kind of viable statistics could there possibly be to determine that?

                          But moreover, I doubt if gayness in and of itself could be nearly as tough on children as current dysfunctional families resulting from societal stress, alcohol and drug abuse, and especially the fact that most American families require BOTH parents to work just to make ends meet... and the average work week is getting longer. You want to see screwed up kids? Just give them parents (any sexual orientation) that are never there because they both need to be working 60 hour weeks to put beans on the table, and when they do get home they're wound up tighter than a clock. As if that wasn't enough, the divorce rate really is 50% and has been for quite a while. Probably for all the reasons above - it's just as hard on adults as it is on kids. Again, not a great family environment.

                          All these problems affect to some degree the vast majority of hetersexual marriages/families. Are we seriously arguing that the relatively tiny number of gays that want to marry and the even fewer that want to raise children represent a significant threat to future generations? Compared to the Ozzie & Harriet lifestyle of tens of millions of traditional marriages/families? If you are living the Ozzie& Harriet life, kudos to you but it's the exception not the rule here in 2010. The "survival of future generations" argument just sounds like a way to rationalize a prejudice to me.

                          In contrast, the government, federal reserve, wall street and the rest of the financial industry pose a real threat to future and current generations. I take that back... it's not a threat. They're hard at work destroying us and our progeny and have been doing so for quite a while.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Gay Marriage

                            No matter which way you put it Gays and Gay marriages are an abomination and the first signs of a civalization in termoil and without the moral courage to stand up and say so and not go along with the croud is no excuss I am a Cathalic and cannot and will never accept your arguments in favour of Gays or Lisbians marriages or whoever you just know what is right and what is wrong and I cannot change and if that makes a praia then so be it.

                            Tony

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Gay Marriage

                              Originally posted by SlimTim View Post
                              Ok.....I'm not sure why you are attacking me personally. But, back to your points......I'm sorry, I'm having trouble finding your points.
                              Spade is a spade. You are showing bias towards a specific group of people and implying statements towards them that have no basis in fact.

                              The purpose of prop 8 as I read it, is to define what is and is not marriage. A decent majority (except for white voters and women, both were about evenly split) of Californians made their voice known and one single Judge making sweeping generalities nullified it.
                              Have you read the decision yet? The courts are a bit more limited then personal opinion. The plaintiffs successfully argued prop 8 limited their rights and the state could show no compelling reason to do so.

                              My point is that the state has a compelling interest in promoting "childbearing". Marriage produces MORE children than domestic partnerships. And with the way Social Security looks now, not to mention California's Public Pensions, the bigger the next generation the better.
                              I can not wrap my head around this logic. How does gay marriage effect heterosexual marriage? Is gay sex somehow better then heterosexual sex? I mean why would allowing homosexuals stop getting married and having children? I think with or without gay marriage heterosexuals can go on producing children just fine.

                              Are you arguing that gays should not be allowed to marry because right now without marriage they must fine single and thus pay taxes disproportionate to heterosexuals(however slightly). Could we at least be honest about it then and just enforce a tax for being gay?

                              The opponents want their civil unions to be called marriage because of status.
                              Marriage is revered because of its long experience with moral, religious and cultural norms. They define it. Same sex relationships, though traced through antiquity, have never been a part of that norm. But now they want the name so they won't feel socially inferior.
                              Who cares what the reason is. People want to be treated equally within the law. Other then personal or religious reasons what compelling reason is their to discriminate?

                              I think the judge was wrong and I predict he'll be overturned.
                              Not very likely without a Supreme Court decision and I'm predicting the Supreme Court will avoid hearing it. That would leave the judges decision as final.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Gay Marriage

                                Originally posted by AFM View Post
                                No matter which way you put it Gays and Gay marriages are an abomination and the first signs of a civalization in termoil and without the moral courage to stand up and say so and not go along with the croud is no excuss I am a Cathalic and cannot and will never accept your arguments in favour of Gays or Lisbians marriages or whoever you just know what is right and what is wrong and I cannot change and if that makes a praia then so be it.

                                Tony
                                In America you'd never have to accept gay marriage as a personal concept you can be completely abhorrent to the notion even publicly but if you want to limit the rights of other citizens you need to present a non-belief based argument.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X