Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-17-2012, 12:54 AM
 
Location: Point Hope Alaska
4,320 posts, read 4,785,487 times
Reputation: 1146

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
"Traditional marriage" has been the cultural norm for 8,000 years? I don't think so. Check a bible. How wives did David have?
The Lord told David in no uncertain terms: If you want to be happy ONLY TAKE one wife - David didn't listen - he took 7 - He paid the price - they drove him nucking futz!

Solomon was told the exact same thing - Your father didn't listen! I'm telling you - ONLY TAKE ONE; Solomon said: Ok and took ONE thousand!!

They damn near destroyed him!

Yes Man is a sinner and God proves it over and over again and some of you people act like you have discovered something unusual and then you point fingers!!

The entire bible is about the redemption of mankind through a free gift of salvation by grace through Jesus Christ!

It shows so plainly the complete depravity of mankind in every situation imaginable! Rebellion against God!

This book was written for children - it is easily understood- ADULTS have a hard time grasping the simple principles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-17-2012, 12:58 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,008,825 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
There is massive contradiction in your post. You say homosexuals are treated equally under the laws, but you also say those rights - the ones that come with being able to access the law - are only for heterosexuals. Those both can't be true.
No, I said heterosexual couples, not heterosexual individuals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Also, you say homosexuals can somehow get those rights. That's false. We plain can't. That's why we're fighting for access to civil marriage.
Yes you can. Get married in a state that allows gay marriage, full benefits for those in civil unions, or if you insist on marrying in a state that defines marriage as a man and a woman - then get married according to that states laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2012, 01:16 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,542 posts, read 37,140,220 times
Reputation: 14001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
No, I said heterosexual couples, not heterosexual individuals.


Yes you can. Get married in a state that allows gay marriage, full benefits for those in civil unions, or if you insist on marrying in a state that defines marriage as a man and a woman - then get married according to that states laws.
Same sex marriage is only recognized in a few states...Travel to another state and those rights are stripped. Same sex marriage needs to be recognized nation wide as it is in Canada, and it will be very soon, as even I can see that bible literalists such as yourself are rapidly losing power.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2012, 01:40 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles, California
4,373 posts, read 3,228,757 times
Reputation: 1041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
You already have that. What you want are special rights.
No they don't. No he does not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2012, 01:43 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,008,825 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by adiosToreador View Post
No they don't. No he does not.
I see - you subscribe to the idea that if a lie is repeated enough - it eventually becomes true? Back up your claim.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2012, 01:47 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,008,825 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Because you believe it did, and even an atheist will join in a "let's pretend" game once in awhile, just to expose it for the nonsense it is.
LOL - this from the same person who cited a passage in the United States Declaration of Independence from Britain that references rights endowed by our Creator, yesterday. And tonight you are calling a passage from the Bible that has much to do with that same Creator nonsense? Make up your mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2012, 01:52 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles, California
4,373 posts, read 3,228,757 times
Reputation: 1041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
LOL - this from the same person who cited a passage in the United States Declaration of Independence from Britain that references rights endowed by our Creator, yesterday. And tonight you are calling a passage from the Bible that has much to do with that same Creator nonsense? Make up your mind.
*sigh* Look the DOI is NOT a religious text nor should it be taken as such even if some invisible dude or dudette is referenced in it. At the time, that was a way of making a powerful statement to the King of Britain.

The Bible, on the other hand, is a book written originally 2000 years ago that is the supposed word of the invisible being up above and was transcribed by the hand of man. It's original message, if there even was one, has been twisted/warped/mutilated and bent to benefit the political and moral gains of the men who wrote them.

So no, he or she does not have to make up his mind. Nice try though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2012, 02:10 AM
 
Location: South Africa
5,563 posts, read 7,214,408 times
Reputation: 1798
Weird these claims that gay marriage will affect other marriages. Where I live, that did not happen and churches were not forced to conduct same sex marriages. That is elective.

The same woo espoused here was all the buzz in SA before gays got their rights and all the impending chicken little warnings never transpired.

Pretty sad the nation that first walked on the moon is so backward in this respect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2012, 02:19 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
19,029 posts, read 14,205,095 times
Reputation: 16747
Marriage, or the contract for marriage, is greatly misunderstood, if homosexuals want to get "married."

Ignoring the fact that homosexuality has recently been decriminalized so that they were never presumed to be covered under existing "marriage" statutes, what IS the basic characteristic of a marriage?

It is the legal joining of property rights of two adults for the benefit of progeny. How do we know this?

The legal distinction between an illegitimate and legitimate child was that only the legitimate one could inherit from his father. Both could inherit from their mother.

Also, the common law rights of curtesy and dower were predicated on there being children emitted from the marriage. Childless marriages did not endow the surviving spouse with the marriage property. The blood kin of the deceased had a superior claim to the property of the deceased spouse.

"Right to contract marriage"

Since 1935, and national socialism, the common law rights have been surrendered, and now enumerated peons have to get permission (license) to contract a marriage. Remember, if you need government permission, it's not a right. Common law marriages are still legal for those who have common law standing (unnumbered Americans).

As to "performing" the wedding ceremony, that is superfluous, since the contract is established by the consenting adults, who exchange vows. Anything else is merely ceremonial.

Since homosexuals cannot as yet gene splice progeny, a contract for "homosexual marriage" is meaningless under the common law. As to the benefits or restrictions imposed by government upon subject persons, and their licensed marriage status - well - that is a whole different subject.

===================

MARRIAGE - Legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Singer v. Hara, 11 Wash. App. 247,522 P.2d 1187,1193. Marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married, is the legal status, condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, or until divorced, for the discharge to each other and the community of duties legally incumbent on those whose associations is founded on the distinction of sex. A contract, according to the form prescribed by law, by which a man and a woman capable of entering into such contract, mutually engage with each other to live their whole lives (or until divorced) together in state of union which ought to exist between a husband and a wife.
- - -Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P.972

SOLEMNIZATION - To enter marriage publicly before witnesses on contrast to a clandestine or common law marriage.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P.1392

COMMON LAW MARRIAGE - One not solemnized in the ordinary way (i.e. ceremonial) but created by an agreement to marry, followed by cohabitation. A consummated agreement to marry between persons legally capable of making marriage contract, per verba de praesenti, followed by cohabitation...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P.277

CURTESY - The estate to which by common law a man is entitled, on the death of his wife, in the lands or tenements of which she was seised in possession in fee-simple or in tail during her coverture, provided they have had lawful issue born alive which might have been capable of inheriting the estate.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 383
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2012, 03:23 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,642 posts, read 26,378,527 times
Reputation: 12648
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Really? After the hundreds of threads on this you're still unclear?

Us gays simply want equal access to and equal treatment under the civil, secular, marriage laws of the US and its several states. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Churches or religion or religious marriages. All I want is to be able to go down to the courthouse, contract a civil marriage with the man I love, and then exercise the same marriage rights a heterosexual couple can.



"and then exercise the same marriage rights a heterosexual couple can" = "whatever I feel is a right today and whatever I decide in the future is also a right"


How about some specifics?


FTR...you already have the same rights a heterosexual has. You are looking to change the law so that individuals may marry an adult of the same sex.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:48 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top