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.
California? really anyone there?
Obama is Not changing anything you deaf people. He said the exact same as Bush did It is up to the state, He is not involved lol lol lol lol!!
It wasn't good enough, activism was out of control - those are facts.
Again, you can't equate race with "sexuality". The arguement brings to light at a "homosexual marriage" has way different dynamics then a hertosexual marriage. Who's the "mom"? Do you switch? Who's the wife? Doesn't wife indicate "female"? Are you going to try and tell me two guys can sit down with their "daughter" and understand her sexuality issues, PMS, puberty, emotional issues as a woman can? Nope. Not possible. No more than two woman can have a "dad" in the mix.
It's different, so don't try and make it fit into something that was designed for heterosexual couples.
Exactly my point. It's not natural. Your penis does not belong in a colon, it wasn't designed for that. (Hetero OR Homo)
It doesn't matter which you use, the point is - two nuts/bolts trying to act as a nut and bolt does not work! It wasn't a statement about sex, but about being male and female. I don't care how much you chop off, tuck under and how many hormones you flood your body with. You were born a male, you are a male. Males were not designed to have a sexual i.e. marriage relationship nor can a man experience or be a woman any more than a woman can be a man. WE ARE NOT THE SAME.
Okay so then answer me this: How does "gay marriage" contribute to our society. What does it do, as opposed to being "not married" that makes it better for our society?
Excuse me? "unaturally"? Maybe you think their is a baby tree somewhere, but the institution of marriage was designed for stable sexual relationships and yes even children. Not like today where 98% of the people who get married after shacking up for 5 years and already had a wild sex life 10 years before meeting each other.
There was a time, where such things were kept sacred UNTIL marriage...that was the point of being married. Security, devotion and yes, even "children". Shocker.
Explaining the English language to someone is telling them how to think?
1. I'm a gen Xer, and I know of plenty my age or younger who DO care.
2. Overpopulation? Progressive myth.
3. Global warming is a hoax. The planet has not warmed AT ALL in the last 10 years and many are now backpeddling on what was once "settled" science.
WAKE UP.
I'll give you a real major issue facing America: The destruction of our morals and family structure - gay marriage is part of that IMO. Crime, sexual abuse/imorrality, drug use, greed etc etc is all on the rise and out of control - I don't think that it has anything to do with global warming. Sorry.
Yikes....so sorry I even clicked on this thread title as for whatever reason this is the post that showed up first! A little vulgar don't you think...can't believe this hasn't been moderated considered some of the things I've had posts deleted for.
BTW Jviello you sound like such warm and kind person!
And nobody is trying to take that religious element away from you, but you must agree that athiests can get legally married and that their marriage is just as legally sound as yours--so the legal rights that come with the civil contract of marriage are separate from the religious aspect. Gay couples have been having religious commitment ceremonies in churches for many years now, with no legal weight. Similarly heterosexual couples had been having civil marriage with no religious aspect. It really is apples and oranges. But, it's the civil/legal rights of coupled commitment that same-sex couples are hoping to eventually gain; religious institutions will still be able to have their own religious ceremonies as they see fit (even now, there are religious restrictions regarding marriage for some religions).
Very Well Said Francois...
VERY WELL SAID!!!
My wife and I are athiests, and we were legally married in a church???
You know, do any of you think that any child out there
(that needs adoption)
would give a sh*t if his/her parents are of the same sex???
H*LL NO!!!
Why are there so many ppl out there who really care if two ppl of the same sex get married??? There NOT bothering you are they??? Did they take something away from your religious beliefs, or did I since I'm athiests??? Are they the ones getting ALL of those divorces, or would they if allowed to marry??? Are they going around cheating on their spouses (boyfriend/girlfriend)???
The sanctity of marriage is too over rated...
Get over it ppl...
Time to move on......
Be Happy.......
California? really anyone there?
Obama is Not changing anything you deaf people. He said the exact same as Bush did It is up to the state, He is not involved lol lol lol lol!!
Clarification: Bush pushed for a federal marriage amendment. Obama hasn't. That's a pretty huge difference if you ask me. So, no, they are not the same.
Gee I actually forgot about this post until it popped up again...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francois
I If there are no children, there is no "Mom". And, no, don't start that tired argument saying marriage is for having children--if that were true, then anyone who was infertile would be denied a marriage license. Anyone who had had a hysterectomy would be denied a marriage license. Anyone past the age of menopause would be denied a marriage license. Marriage is a legal contract between two ADULTS.
Marriage IS about having Children - it's not the end all or a requirement as you seem to try and pigeonhole it, but it's a huge piece of it.
Children even know this. Have you never watched kids at play? Have you never heard the children's rhyme? "Billy and Chrissy sitting in a tree, k.i.s.s.i.n.g" first comes what? Then comes what? Then comes what in a baby carriage? Kids seem to get it.
I would argue that marriage is much much more than a simple legal contract. In fact it's that attitude that makes my point. Marriage has been cheapened into what it is to the point it's just become a legal contract.
But if it's simply a legal contract - rights you want...read on further down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francois
Even when same-sex couples DO have children, there isn't a "Mom", but guess what? Plenty of single-father households don't have a "mom", and even more single-mom households don't have a Dad. Two parents still means twice the attention, love, and resources to a child than with a single parent, --but again, this is not about parenting, it's about marriage, which is a legal contract between two adults and NOWHERE in that legal contract does it mention that having children is a requirement.
They handle it the same way a single Mom handles a son or a single dad handles a daughter--the ones I know with children make sure there are plenty of family and friends of the child's own sex to serve as fe/male role models and yes, to handle things like menstruation with teenage girls.
All those scenarios are compromises and very hard circumstances - perhaps you should ask a single dad or mom for yourself. Why would we be so quick to make that a "norm" when we have a structure that works? Makes no sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francois
it had nothing to do with fitness for a LEGAL CONTRACT.
Okay, "legal contract" That's all you want. Right? Keep reading...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francois
most likely men were quite polygamous,
Oh boy, so now they can get married too! Why deny them their "rights"? Why discriminate? Why the hate toward that group? Hmm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francois
People who have a legal contract are more likely to remain together through thick and thin. Having couples remain together is a good thing for society, obviously so where children are involved but even when they are no. Stability in one's personal relationships is good for a person's mental health, not to mention physical heatlh: someone who is married is less promiscuous (whether homo- or hetero-) than someone who is not. If you don't understand why promiscuity is a bad thing for soceity, you'll have to learn that on your own.
Also, it is good for financial security. Two unmarried people cannot inherit each other's property without many different kinds of paperwork, and wills can and often are challenged by family members. Even with will and powers of attorney in place, some rights can NEVER be signed to a non-"family member": disposal of the body in case of death, for example, is legally the responsibility of "Next of Kin", meaning even with every legal document in the world signed, a third cousin to the deceased, who's never met him, has more legal say in what to to with the body or ashes than one's loved partner of decades. This is true even with civil unions because they are not considered "next of kin".
Okay so now we start to get to the meat of the matter.
You think a "legal contract" will strengthen a relationship. I would argue the statistics show otherwise. Going back to my point that marriage is much more than a "legal contract" and has been cheapened and watered down to such a level that it has barely the meaning it once did...You have the results speaking for themselves. It's not a motivator, as divorce...excuse me, the dissolution of a "legal contract" between a "husband and wife" can be had for 50 cents at the town hall these days.
Moreover you're very words above contain issues that have nothing to do with a legal contract. It has to do with a committed relationship that no piece of paper or "legal contract" can instill. So, marriage is much more than a legal contract. Ask just about any married couple who stood at the alter if they were motivated by having a "legal contract" or if it went much deeper.
You'll find your answer, and then you'll also realize that marriage is much more than paperwork and dividing ones assets up when they are dead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francois
And back to the argument with children: if two women raise a child that is the biological child of the other, and the nonbiological mother dies, the child is NOT entitled to her Social Security, which is obviously a worse case for the child, especially if the deceased parent was the primary breadwinner. Legal marriage would ensure that dependency and inheritance worked properly for a child.
Heck, you are so worried about SSI being inherited by a "spouse" why don't you act responsibly then and take out a freakin 50 dollar life insurance policy for half a million dollars - you can make your cat the beneficiary. You think healthy, responsible families rely on SSI payments in case a spouse passes away? LOL I've got a million dollar policy on myself, and 300K on my wife. Get with the program...sheesh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francois
So, it sounds like you have a lot of problems with heterosexual marraiges, as well.
With the state it's in and the way our culture in this country views it? Very much so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francois
Security and devotion are not typically things considered "left until marriage". Usually people experience devotion to their loved once BEFORE deciding to get married?
Do you really think people who are shacked up are as devoted to each other as a married couple? Really? Do you also think that the only thing keeping folks from divorcing is the paperwork? Again, with the age of drive through divorces, it's not a problem anymore.
When one sits down to contemplate divorce, more times than not it goes much deeper than worrying about breaking the "legal contract" proving yet again that marriage is much more than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francois
How can strengthening relationships in thousands of couples in any way be considered "destruction of morals and family structure"??
Wait, you just said - just said that these things were there before marriage. Why would it change or get "stronger" after marriage? Answer that and you have just defeated your own argument.
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You want it both ways and then deny it in the same breath.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francois
Your marriage is NOT IN ANY WAY THREATENED BY SOMEONE ELSE'S MARRIAGE, whether said marriage is two men or a man and a women or two women. If your marriage is healthy, it will stay healthy no matter HOW many other people do, or don't, get married!
THAT, is a LIE. Straight up lie. It does threaten the traditional family, it does cheapen the institute of marriage.
How about a little fact for you.
Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as traditionally defined, and survived.
Ouch.
Let me hit you with another "fact" since we are going there...
Transient relationships: While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged "societal oppression." A study in the Netherlands , a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.
Argue with that all you want, it's not going to change it as it's not "opinion".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francois
Same-sex marriage has NOTHING to do with the crime rate, drug use, greed, etc.
I never said that. It is a sign of the degrading morals within a society and all the other things tow the line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francois
Once again, your marriage, if it is healthy, is not threatened by someone else getting married. No matter how much of a busybody you seem to be, with your constant obsession on what people are doing with their genitals.
You can try and demonize me all you want it doesn't make me any less determined and frankly I think people are starting to get sick of the tactic
I don't care what you do in your private life. I do care when you try and destroy the institution of marriage as it's the undercarriage to our society.
Written by a longtime Republican legal strategist.
It's not a political issue and not everyone marches to a drumbeat. You'll find liberals against homosexual marriage too. What's your point?
P.S. Since you are concerned about my "grammar" you might want to run a spell check on your own posts, it's pretty atrocious. Just sayin...
Quote:
Originally Posted by I'minformed2
BTW Jviello you sound like such warm and kind person!
And you sound like a tolerant open minded person to opposing viewpoints yourself!
Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 419gottaminute
Are they the ones getting ALL of those divorces, or would they if allowed to marry??? Are they going around cheating on their spouses (boyfriend/girlfriend)???
That is what's called a red herring. Thanks for showing up though...
My wife and I are athiests, and we were legally married in a church???
You know, do any of you think that any child out there
(that needs adoption)
would give a sh*t if his/her parents are of the same sex???
H*LL NO!!!
Why are there so many ppl out there who really care if two ppl of the same sex get married??? There NOT bothering you are they??? Did they take something away from your religious beliefs, or did I since I'm athiests??? Are they the ones getting ALL of those divorces, or would they if allowed to marry??? Are they going around cheating on their spouses (boyfriend/girlfriend)???
The sanctity of marriage is too over rated...
Get over it ppl...
Time to move on......
Be Happy.......
It isn't possible to "take away" someone's religious belief's. It's more like allowing something to be passed that one's religion says is wrong to. Yes I know you are an Athiest and probably think I dumb or ignorant; whatever.
An answer to your questions.
Look at where you post next time...this is the bible belt if you didn't notice.
But I have a question, not just to you.
What if an Hindu and a Catholic got married?
What would happen then? (i know its not about same sex marriage but just think about it)
I will be interested in your answer.
It isn't possible to "take away" someone's religious belief's.
He said "Take away from your religious beliefs." But either way, you just reinforced his point when you stated that one's beliefs are one's own, and nothing anyone else does can diminish them--so why is marraige a threat?
Quote:
It's more like allowing something to be passed that one's religion says is wrong to.
Numerous religions ban the eating of pork or drinking alcohol. Do you think we should ban pork and reinstate Prohibition because it might offend some people to know that other people are eating pork and drinking, with the "blessing" of the government? Some religions require women to cover their heads in scarves. Are you saying that if a religion dictates something, it must apply to EVERYONE, whether they follow that religion or not? You are starting to sound like a radical Fundamentalist aka terrorist, since that's exactly what they believe: "MY religion forbids X and therefore I believe everyone must not do X!"
Is this what you are stating? that is ONE religion forbids something then nobody should be allowed to do it (in a country that was founded on Freedom of Religious Expression)? I want to make sure I understand you.
Quote:
But I have a question, not just to you.
What if an Hindu and a Catholic got married?
What about it? They are certainly entitled to do so, and mixed-religion marriages happen all the time, prescisely because marriage is a civil contract that need not take religious views into account, or it could take multiple religious traditions into account. What is your point? I can't even fathom where you are going with that, since people of different faiths (or of no faith) get married ALL THE TIME.
Ok fine forget it. I didn't mean to offend you in any way and I didn't realize you were so touchy about it.
I did not mean that religious beliefs should be a dictatorship and the reason why some people wish that it wouldn't pass would be because they simply don't. Not wanting to and not doing it are two different things.
Hows that sound? Better?
Either way it will pass.
First:
I am surprised to see a staff member bring up an issue such as this in a local forum. I don't think it belongs here and having a staff member initiate it doesn't sit well with me.
Second:
I feel that people hide behind religion as an excuse. If you don't believe that gay people should get married just say it on your own don't drag religion into it. If you support a religion that doesn't believe gay marriage should be allow, just state that you don't believe it should be allowed. Stand on your own believes.
I don't think it will be allowed in NC for some time and I am fine with that.
First:
I am surprised to see a staff member bring up an issue such as this in a local forum. I don't think it belongs here and having a staff member initiate it doesn't sit well with me.
.
message on this topic which above topic isnt relevant to this thread
Quote:
First, as it's already been stated, moderators are just as entitled to their opinions as any other member. We pick mods from among the regular users and we cannot and will not tell them to stop posting or delete their previous post to take the position.
feel free to dm me or senior moderator markablue I welcome it
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.
