Gay Marriage: it's about Your money in their pockets (Obama, dollars, economic)
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.
Do I sound angry, or any of the other things on your list?
If so, do not leave off: "intelligent, questioning, and clear-thing, with little tolerance for politically correct B/S."
You as a single hetero man can marry the woman you fall in love with...
Traditional marriage no longer exists. Hardly 50% of straight marriages last, why should they get benefits with their second, third, fourth and counting marriages and we get zilch. As far as I am concerned all of you straight people can just put your marriages where the sun don't shine.
I think that is going a bit too far in saying "Traditional marriage no longer exists."
Afterall, as you have stated, something like 50% of marriages endure.
But I do agree that Traditional marriage is under threat, and I think that assymmetrical Divorce laws have something to do with that. I would certain put a big fork into the present divorce laws, as I am working to restore Traditional Marriage.
I wonder what the gay community thinks about financial predators who aim to benefit from marriage? Believe me, this is bound to be a big problem in the future, as some state bless gay marriages.
I think you are not clear thinking on this issue, or you would be willing to discuss it, as I am - So far only the UK seems to have begun to confront the important issue of The Cost of Gay Marriage (to taxplayers). The dumbed-down MSM pretends the "cost" issue does not even exist.
I think that is going a bit too far in saying "Traditional marriage no longer exists."
Afterall, as you have stated, something like 50% of marriages endure.
But I do agree that Traditional marriage is under threat, and I think that assymmetrical Divorce laws have something to do with that. I would certain put a big fork into the present divorce laws, as I am working to restore Traditional Marriage.
I wonder what the gay community thinks about financial predators who aim to benefit from marriage? Believe me, this is bound to be a big problem in the future, as some state bless gay marriages.
Why? Why would gay marriage be what "financial predators" take advantage of? Why are they not now taking advantage of straight marriage? What advantages do gay marriages provide for "financial predators" that straight marriages do not provide?
(I have known several people who contracted fraud marriages for financial benefits - all were in the military)
*edit - I forgot, I also knew somebody who entered into a sham marriage for a green card
Why? Why would gay marriage be what "financial predators" take advantage of? Why are they not now taking advantage of straight marriage? What advantages do gay marriages provide for "financial predators" that straight marriages do not provide?
(I have known several people who contracted fraud marriages for financial benefits - all were in the military)
Of course straights can be financial predators in marriage - and that is not a good thing.
Have you not read my posts on assymmetrical divorce laws that I want to see changed? I want to be consistent on this, whichever sort of marriage the "predator problem" might show itself within.
Having said that, I think the "financial predator" problem will become much more apparent in gay unions, since I have often seen this dynamic in gay relationships - Please do not deny that it exists, and that it is common.
But please, try to convince me that I am wrong... I promise to listen, and read the posts.
I think you are not clear thinking on this issue, or you would be willing to discuss it, as I am - So far only the UK seems to have begun to confront the important issue of The Cost of Gay Marriage (to taxplayers). The dumbed-down MSM pretends the "cost" issue does not even exist.
If we should continue to marginalize gay couples for the sake of cost, then heck, why not just bring back slavery... We're not dumbed-down; your argument just lacks morals, character, and worthiness.
Having said that, I think the "financial predator" problem will become much more apparent in gay unions, since I have often seen this dynamic in gay relationships - Please do not deny that it exists, and that it is common.
I really have no clue what you're talking about. Perhaps we are taking "financial predator" to mean different things. What did you mean by it?
If we should continue to marginalize gay couples for the sake of cost, then heck, why not just bring back slavery... We're not dumbed-down; your argument just lacks morals, character, and worthiness.
Sorry, but I really do not understand your point - except that I get you did not like my post.
Why must limiting financial crossover in any way, "marginalize" gay couples, unless I am right and the whole gay marriage issue is : "about the money, honey." ("You want to have sex, you're gonna pay" -as the $10 wh@r3 said.)
The gay marriage opponent is minority so gonna ignore to OP.
Opposition to gay marriage is not a minority opinion. It's just tiring arguing with you people. You're not worth the aggravation. Go on an wallow in your perversions. God will deal with it all at the appointed time.
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.
We're not dumbed-down; your argument just lacks morals, character, and worthiness.
