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.
Marriage is a legal status in this country, not spiritual or religious. If the law states that you are married, you are married.
It is all about money.
Gays want to "suck the state teat", and gain certain financial entitlements. It is NOTHING but that.
If it was about a social blessing of their relationship, they would give it a different name, and many in society (myself included) would be happy to respect it.
You call it marriage, you may even believe it's marriage, but it's not and never will be and there is absolutely nothing you can do to change that. All you can do is label it marriage, you can't make it something it's not. A roof is still just a roof. No matter what you call it and no matter how much you want it believe to is so, it can never be the sky.
And as the people who held the view that the earth was flat, identical twins were a sign that the mother was possessed by the devil and women should not have the right to vote have succumbed to their own demise so shall you.
You and your kind are like spirits trapped within the confines of their own hell. they don't know their dead so they continually act out the same patterns over and over and over again.
It's alright,you can go to the light now. Your views are dead your beliefs cast away your finished, it's time to go.
Last edited by julian17033; 02-25-2013 at 06:30 AM..
Why are some straight people so scared of gay marriage?
Simple:
The "trailing spouse" will be a bloodsucker - causing the rest of society to pick up the tab.
This is (barely) tolerable in traditional Man/Woman relationship, and is tolerated because that union produces children, and thereby is the future of our cvilisation
Hogwash. We have elevated bloodsuckers to the highest status in all aspects of this society. Being needy is now an honorable profession. Being productive and/or wealthy is what is "barely tolerated".
The flaw in this argument is we identify the sky. It is an existent. It exists independent of the fact that we perceive it and identify it. The sky existed before us, it shall exist after we are gone.
Marriage, on the other hand, is a relationship defined by man. Nothing more. Therefore, it can be redefined by man. And the result will really BE marriage, because marriage is nothing more than something we define.
What you are really saying that it will be different than it was, and you have decided you personally will not recognize it under its new definition. But you, and other people of your generation, will die and the new definition will extend beyond your days. People born and raised under the new definition will be comfortable with it and will find it a novelty that marriage was once limited to those of opposite sexes.
I don't personally think the State should have anything to say about any of this. Marriage should be left to the private sector. I don't recognize the right of the State to confer its "blessing" on relationships that should be left to the private domain.
----"left to the private domain "-- is not what gays want.
They demand the govt sanction their relationship.
I think you make some interesting points here, and especially appreciate the links. This does not mean that these things done in ancient times, though called marriage, truly constituted marriage as it was originally conceived. Marriage was perverted by the ancients as well as the moderns.
I admire you for being willing to identify so-called gay marriage with Nero, though, as many would shy away from any association with such as nasty character for fear that people might conclude that we are flirting with adopting his morality. But you are willing to embrace Nero and all he stood for, plus polygamy to boot!More on your side should be so clear as to what you intend for our society.
Well, Nero started out well, ending secret trials, banning capital punishment reducing taxes, allowing slaves to sue unjust owners and he gave aid to the Jews. But, when all said and done, like all good politicians, he ended up killing hundreds of innocent people and looking like a psycho. lol Not much has changed in politics, but regarding marriage changes have indeed taken place. I realize using Nero is a bit like using George W, but my point wasn't how many people he damaged, my point and you know it, was marriage included same sex partners throughout history. It's not a new fangled idea. Now, marriage under God, that is a new thing.
Your point was that marriage is one man, one woman. Gay marriage isn't "real" marriage, they've had to add "gay" to it to clarify.
Nope, "you've" added the gay to it to "separate" them from you, not the other way around. You've singled them out and excluded them, they have not excluded themselves. They are only including themselves and you don't like it. They want the equality in marriage, you want them disqualified from marriage.
I think I proved well that the marriage you hold so dear is the newest invented ideal of marriage, not the other way around. Religion stepped in, as usual, and burned some witches, threatened some people with hell, changed some wording and gave you a set of balls to condemn others with.
Your version isn't reflective of historical marriage, it's a religiously manipulated version. Under God didn't come into play until late in the game. Once you reflect backwards on the meaning of marriage you open the historic door for all to gaze. Since you only gazed back midway I thought I'd shed some light. You could swallow more enlightenment if you click that link and read the rest of it. IMO, of course.
Your effort on hiding your prejudice with logic are failing, IMO. Your prejudice is showing.
Last edited by PoppySead; 02-25-2013 at 08:14 AM..
It is all about money.
Gays want to "suck the state teat", and gain certain financial entitlements. It is NOTHING but that.
If it was about a social blessing of their relationship, they would give it a different name, and many in society (myself included) would be happy to respect it.
I think in truth heterosexuals are pushing others away at the teat. You don't want to share, you want to rid the teat of the smaller pups. You are gorging.
Since you are owned, you eventually will be forced to share. This is a democracy, you can't win just because your the fattest pup. The teat is divided equally, regardless of your personal agenda. You aren't the only puppy in the pen. IMO, of course.
I think in truth heterosexuals are pushing others away at the teat. You don't want to share, you want to rid the teat of the smaller pups. You are gorging.
Since you are owned, you eventually will be forced to share. This is a democracy, you can't win just because your the fattest pup. The teat is divided equally, regardless of your personal agenda. You aren't the only puppy in the pen. IMO, of course.
May I humbly propose surgical excision of the teat? Then no one need fight over it.
Should we flow the lead of a place where the posts opposing so-called gay marriage in this forum would result in our being tried and fined before a "Human Rights" Commission? No, thank you. Come back when you truly have free speech.
We have free speech, the population doesn't have the appetite to allow hate speech. That's cause we're awesome like that.
It is all about money.
Gays want to "suck the state teat", and gain certain financial entitlements. It is NOTHING but that.
If it was about a social blessing of their relationship, they would give it a different name, and many in society (myself included) would be happy to respect it.
Heterosexuals want to "suck on the state teat". How about we take away this concern for you? Take away financial entitlements for straight marriage and then give equality to both gay and straight marriage. You won't have to worry about homosexuals getting financial entitlements. You won't get any either though.
----"left to the private domain "-- is not what gays want.
They demand the govt sanction their relationship.
You kmow that !
Do you want the govt to refuse to sanction heterosexual relationships? Why is it wrong for gay couples to want their relationships legally recognized but right for straight couples to want their relationships legally recognized?
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.
IMO, of course.