Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a sickness of the mind and spirit to think that the institution of marriage should be perverted to include same sex marriage. I'm not religious but this issue is a social disaster and any honest person not afraid to get called names by the crazed left and their adoring homosexuals understands how wrong this is on so many levels. That the current administration has blocked this while supporting it is, humorous.
If two consenting adults want a legal relationship outside of marriage (one man, one woman) let them write a legal contract.
Hating bigots makes me a fascist? In case you have conveniently forgotten, you and Hitler both oppose gay marriage. You really think Nazi Germany was a haven for gay people? I imagine you'd be far more at home there
Besides you, who decided people who disagree with you are bigots?
FTR...Mother Theresa also opposed same-sex marriage.
Does that make her a Nazi or you incapable of defending your views?
It's a sickness of the mind and spirit to think that the institution of marriage should be perverted to include same sex marriage. I'm not religious but this issue is a social disaster and any honest person not afraid to get called names by the crazed left and their adoring homosexuals understands how wrong this is on so many levels. That the current administration has blocked this while supporting it is, humorous.
If two consenting adults want a legal relationship outside of marriage (one man, one woman) let them write a legal contract.
The government shouldn't be involved in marriage contracts at all: straight, gay, asexual, up, down, left or right.
Biblical marriage is not just between one man and one woman.
If you really want to put forward that two consenting adults, no matter their gender, marrying is less moral then a rapist forcibly married to their victim...wow.
Common law marriages, and even civil unions (in the rare states that have them), do not have the same rights as marriage under the law.
Marriage should be between two PEOPLE who love each other and want to marry.
See how simple that is?
As for your "facts", too one-sided.
Obviously, you haven't really given this much thought.
Using your standard brother and sisters could marry along with parents and children, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews.
And why do they have to love each other?
Will couples be tested to verify their love for one another?
You placed a limit of two persons who may marry but made no effort to explain why two was the correct number, assuming a limit were needed.
Two people are needed for sexual reproduction.
The two-person limit has nothing to do with homosexuals who cannot sexually reproduce.
If you are going to model homosexual unions after heterosexual ones, please don't insult our intelligence by imposing a limit of two persons as though reasoning applied (e.g., two people are needed for sexual reproduction).
Now, you question the value of SSM and gays in general. My question to you is, what makes YOU any more valuable? What makes your marriage any more valuable?
Please don't fall back on the "I can procreate" bandwagon. Our world is overpopulated as it is.
So, tell us, what makes you so darn special.
Quote:
In the Social Security system, the money you pay into the system gets immediately paid back out to the people who are currently getting Social Security checks. This arrangement came into being because of the way the system started. In 1935, when Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law, there were a lot of people who needed benefits (because of the Great Depression), but there was no money to pay those benefits with. The idea at the time was that people currently working would pay into the system, and their money would immediately go back out in the form of benefit checks. Each generation of retiring workers would get paid by the people currently working, and therefore the system would fund itself forever despite the fact that the system had no money to start with. This clever idea worked great in 1935 (and for many years after that), but it is going to have a problem in the future for two reasons:
In 1935, there were many more people paying into the system than those receiving benefits. The ratio of workers to retirees meant that workers did not have to pay much into the system in 1935 to support the retirees (this table shows that up through 1950, only 2% of income (1% employee, 1% employer) was withheld for Social Security, compared to 15.30% (7.65% employee, 7.65% employer) today). In the future, the retirement of millions of baby boomers will hurt the ratio -- there will be so many retired people that the working people will not be able to support them. If the population had grown steadily this would not have been a problem, but there is no good way for the design of the Social Security System to handle a population spike like the baby boomers.
There are people who deserve to be on disability, they have legitimate medical conditions which warrant it. Besides, they paid into the system and should be able to utilize it when needed.
Welfare, food stamps and Medicaid are also there to help people thru difficult times. I will agree that the system is greatly abused though.
Now do you see how silly it is to try and claim "I can procreate" as a bad phrase?
Ohh gee, look at that. The ******* agenda has led to a breakdown in marriages and now the ******* agenda wants us to believe their agenda, this time, is genuine, pure and moral.
Besides I had a mother and a father for a very short period of time. I was raised by a single mother. Many relationships don't work out. I think kids would be better adjusted just having a loving and caring environment. I know I would rather have a gay couple raising me who loved and cared about each other and me rather then the typical male/female relationship who fight all the time. It's a no brainer for me.
Not sure how you end up being raised by a gay couple if your parents divorce.
Do you think heterosexual mothers are going to hook up with other women when their marriage fails?
FTR....do you think homosexual couples are less prone to argue or are you simply projecting your parent's failed relationship on the rest of the heterosexual world?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
