I think it's funny how people place homosexuality in the same arena as incest and bestiality... think that says a lot about a person.
Oh it does? I am tired of people saying that because I "messed around " with girls I am a lesbo. It is all about preference and choice, and some disagree with those choices, that doesn't mean we should changing marriage laws because people like to " Have fun" .. no Instead we should remove the legal benefits of marriage so that everyone single, gay straight .. everyone has a fair playing field.
Originally posted by xfrozenx I'm white btw, and I am going for Obama.
And what does this little fact imply? Those that are white and not voting for Obama are not voting for him simply because he is black? Or those that are black and not voting for Obama are sellouts?
Originally posted by xfrozenx I'm white btw, and I am going for Obama.
And what does this little fact imply? Those that are white and not voting for Obama are not voting for him simply because he is black? Or those that are black and not voting for Obama are sellouts?
To add, Obama is as much white as he is black.
LOL yea .. I have no idea whta that is supposed to mean.. I mean we have blacks saying that Obama isn;t "black enough" and we have whites saying that if you don;t vote for Obama your racist.. what has this world come to? lmao!
why do roomates, singles and those that oppose marriage all together get left out of these "benefits"? so why is it fair for gay couples and married couples to get benefits and people because they choose to be "single" do not? It is the benefits that are the problem here not the marriages lol!
The United States is still stuck in the stoneage as far as gay marriage is concerned.
Dark ages may, but not stone age. That would be the Middle East. At least the U.S. does not apply stoned-to-death sentences upon gays.
As for me, I do not care either way. I am neither in support of or against of the idea.
I personally believe it to be a vote of the people. If there are as many as there are claimed to be in support of, I see no reason why gays and their supporters should be concerned.
It's an issue of current social mores. If society is ready for it, then it will pass, otherwise it will fail.
Originally posted by Mylon This has nothing to do with choice. It's raw instinct.
What of those who are into banging animals? Is that raw instinct? Just curious.
I want to put down this line of debate before you two end up hijacking the thread over this shit.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF A PERSON CHOSE TO BE GAY OR WAS BORN THAT WAY.
Why?
BECAUSE IT'S NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS WHAT CONSENTING ADULTS DO IN PRIVATE.
But if you want to get technical....
Sexuality is largely a conditioned preference. It's kind of like tastes in food or lifestyle. You don't choose to like pizza more than sushi, for instance. If you grew up on a farm, you didn't choose to be more comfortable in rural settings, you just are. I find big women (BBW) sexy. I didn't implicitly choose to like big women, but something about my environment, upbringing, past experiences, etc. lead me to that attraction. It's the same thing for homosexuals.
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe I want to put down this line of debate before you two end up hijacking the thread over this shit.
I think you missed my point completely. To make it short, I was basically agreeing with you on everything you said above (minus my attempt to hijack the thread).
It is, as you say, by a matter of conditioning. Raw instinct is simply a scapegoat for an explanation - that was my point. You missed my post above that one. I am not against, or for, going out and promoting either side. As I said, I believe something that will change the social more of marriage should be decided by the people, not the government. If the people voted "yes" on gay marriage I wouldn't have a problem with it, nor would I if they voted "no".
Originally posted by wonderwhoits So draw it at Polygamy and until then stop picking on gay people you big meany.
If only Marriage would be redefined once and no more; but that is not how it will work. Once changed, Marriage will be changed again, and again and so on, until there is complete "equality".
Polygamy is the "next right" and there is a movement in good ol' San Fran already going on.
Then let's look at the Netherlands.
Polygamy is now allowed.
And what was before that, Surprise, Surprise, Same-Sex Marriages.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
If this is simply about benefits that one select group of people receive then why not repair the system to either provide those same benefits to everyone regardless of marital status , or remove the benfits completely. Allow for individuals to decide who they want to list as next of kin, decide who they want to declare as dependants, decide who they want to have on thier insurance benefits. This should not be a matter of married, in a relationship, or single, people however they choose to live their lives should be able to have equal benefits. I agree we should have tax breaks on dependatnts, but not marital status.. that is trying to force people into marriage just to get benfits, and that in itself is crazy.
I have said it before and I will say it again. I don't care if Gay people want to marry but the Government should stay out of it.
Once the Government gets involved and makes it a legal right then Churches who refuse to perform Gay marriages will get sued. I am sorry but the Government shouldn't be allowed to over ride someone's religious beliefs. That is a first amendment right and was a fundamental right of this country.
Freedom of Religion is pretty much the largest right that this country has. It was the reason most of the founding ancestors moved here in the first place.
There is no reason why "Marriage" which is a religious thing can not be protected as a ceremony between a man and a woman.
While "Civil Unions" which is a legal thing can be for both heterosexual and homosexual people.
That is how it should be. It is ridiculous that this is even a Federal Issue at all and once again (just like Abortion) is another example of how broken our Federal Government is.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
I have said it before and I will say it again. I don't care if Gay people want to marry but the Government should stay out of it. Once the Government gets involved and makes it a legal right then Churches who refuse to perform Gay marriages will get sued. I am sorry but the Government shouldn't be allowed to over ride someone's religious beliefs. That is a first amendment right and was a fundamental right of this country. Freedom of Religion is pretty much the largest right that this country has. It was the reason most of the founding ancestors moved here in the first place. There is no reason why "Marriage" which is a religious thing can not be protected as a ceremony between a man and a woman. While "Civil Unions" which is a legal thing can be for both heterosexual and homosexual people. That is how it should be. It is ridiculous that this is even a Federal Issue at all and once again (just like Abortion) is another example of how broken our Federal Government is.
You're sorty of wrong about this. I'll tell you why.
The government is not getting involved in which church marries whom. What the debate is about is which marriage is going to be recognized under the law. It's not a matter of telling a church that they have to perform a marriage ceremony, it's a matter of recognizing a church who IS performing the marriage ceremony.
There are churches now who will not marry a heterosexual couple unless they meet certain criteria that the church deems acceptable. They are not being sued by heterosexual couples for this. The same would be true for churches that would not perform the gay marriages. However, there are a lot of churches that recognize gay marriage as an okay thing in their organization, so that is the debate.
That was so profound of you. What else would you like to ban with your banning stick of self rightousness? Perhaps there are some things that I think you do that should be banned. Does that give me the right to step on your rights and freedoms? You keep stepping on groups of people like that and trust me, your time of reckoning will come soon as well. It's a very slippery slope that I'm happy some groups have gotten up the nerve to fight against. Groups like blacks and women who finally had enough of the unequal treatment and stood up to the majority. In other words, f*ck your will to push government on others. There are some of us that would rather die fighting your will to force your beliefs on us using the government guns than lay down and try to make you feel safe and correct in your bigotry. Your oppressive nature is pitiful.
Originally posted by wonderwhoits So draw it at Polygamy and until then stop picking on gay people you big meany.
If only Marriage would be redefined once and no more; but that is not how it will work. Once changed, Marriage will be changed again, and again and so on, until there is complete "equality".
Polygamy is the "next right" and there is a movement in good ol' San Fran already going on.
Then let's look at the Netherlands.
Polygamy is now allowed.
And what was before that, Surprise, Surprise, Same-Sex Marriages.
Polygamy is marriage between consenting adults. So who are you to tell them what to do? If their religion says it's okay and they are adults and choose to live that way then more power to them.
You want to really settle this, then get the government out of recognizing select marriages. If it's such a religious issue then stop all of the marriage benefits that are given. Get rid of this automatic recognition of legal rights for married couples and make everyone individually equal. Why should married couples get more tax benefits and legal rights over non-married or unrecognized marriages anyway? It's all a way for the government to bully people and for you to use the government as a tool of manipulation.
"Polygamy is marriage between consenting adults. So who are you to tell them what to do? If their religion says it's okay and they are adults and choose to live that way then more power to them."
Now you do see this "progression" correct? First Same-Sex Marriages, then Polygamy, then onto Underage marriages or adults with minors. In the western olden years this was acceptable, and is still acceptable in some cultures and religions. Who are you to say, that with the acceptance of Same-Sex Marriages and Polygamy, that such other marriages cannot be allowed? Because these people are not Adults? The age of adulthood has been redefined by our laws, and can be done, or exceptions to be made. The Drinking Age in some states were at 14, until the highway fundings had restrictions. The Age for Marriage can be defined in any state.
Just because it is only of "adults" will not mean that will be as such forever.
So who am I to tell others, to enforce my will onto others? I am an American with a belief and opinion. If there are a majority of us who agree to such principles, then it can become the law of the land. I have as much right as you or as well as other opposition. I consider it disrespectful for marriage to be redefined, just as you consider me disrespectful for denying it onto another group.
So who is legally right, or who is morally right? Impossible to say when both believe to be right.
"You want to really settle this, then get the government out of recognizing select marriages. If it's such a religious issue then stop all of the marriage benefits that are given. Get rid of this automatic recognition of legal rights for married couples and make everyone individually equal. Why should married couples get more tax benefits and legal rights over non-married or unrecognized marriages anyway? It's all a way for the government to bully people and for you to use the government as a tool of manipulation."
Tell me, do you play empire building games? Those types of games in which you, as the acting leader seek to grow your nation, be it by military, economics, diplomacy and such? That may help out if you have not done so. One of the goals of a nation is to have its population grow and be happy. Such governmental items placed on marriage or unions are for incentives for the population to grow.
Now if you like, we can take away those benefits and incentives as you stated, and we can then become like Russia, with negative population growth. Ever occurred to you that some nations in our modern world are actually dying, fading out of history due to negative population trends, with war and hunger not being the causes?
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
I think the biggest question is "Why?"; Is this going to affect people like her somehow? Make her marriage cheap or false?
This is like not allowing anyone to get married because everyone makes marriage cheap by cheating or divorcing.
I think she should just resign from being governor and go on SNL.
Originally posted by Gorair I guesing we should change "liberty and justice for all" to read liberty and justice for only those who belive in God the same way i do...
Indeed, separation of church and state is a joke after all.
I have said it before and I will say it again. I don't care if Gay people want to marry but the Government should stay out of it. Once the Government gets involved and makes it a legal right then Churches who refuse to perform Gay marriages will get sued. I am sorry but the Government shouldn't be allowed to over ride someone's religious beliefs. That is a first amendment right and was a fundamental right of this country. Freedom of Religion is pretty much the largest right that this country has. It was the reason most of the founding ancestors moved here in the first place. There is no reason why "Marriage" which is a religious thing can not be protected as a ceremony between a man and a woman. While "Civil Unions" which is a legal thing can be for both heterosexual and homosexual people. That is how it should be. It is ridiculous that this is even a Federal Issue at all and once again (just like Abortion) is another example of how broken our Federal Government is.
Just let the states compete against on another..Gay married, abortion,funds,schools,the hole nine yard I say.The feds have just about broke everything they have touched.
compete
Verb
[-peting, -peted]
1. to take part in (a contest or competition)
2. to strive (to achieve something or to be successful): able to compete on the international market [Latin com- together + petere to seek
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Comments
Oh it does? I am tired of people saying that because I "messed around " with girls I am a lesbo. It is all about preference and choice, and some disagree with those choices, that doesn't mean we should changing marriage laws because people like to " Have fun" .. no Instead we should remove the legal benefits of marriage so that everyone single, gay straight .. everyone has a fair playing field.
Don't worry I think lesbos are great!
O_o o_O
And what does this little fact imply? Those that are white and not voting for Obama are not voting for him simply because he is black? Or those that are black and not voting for Obama are sellouts?
To add, Obama is as much white as he is black.
Bush wasn't/isn't a conservative. I would say Palin is the real thing. I would say a more accurate statement would be Palin = Female Reagan.
By the way, I not only support gay marriage, I'm willing to perform the ceremony.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Bush wasn't/isn't a conservative. I would say Palin is the real thing. I would say a more accurate statement would be Palin = Female Reagan.
By the way, I not only support gay marriage, I'm willing to perform the ceremony.
and Im willing to cater the event!
skittles for everyone...
taste the rainbow.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
And what does this little fact imply? Those that are white and not voting for Obama are not voting for him simply because he is black? Or those that are black and not voting for Obama are sellouts?
To add, Obama is as much white as he is black.
LOL yea .. I have no idea whta that is supposed to mean.. I mean we have blacks saying that Obama isn;t "black enough" and we have whites saying that if you don;t vote for Obama your racist.. what has this world come to? lmao!
why do roomates, singles and those that oppose marriage all together get left out of these "benefits"? so why is it fair for gay couples and married couples to get benefits and people because they choose to be "single" do not? It is the benefits that are the problem here not the marriages lol!
Dark ages may, but not stone age. That would be the Middle East. At least the U.S. does not apply stoned-to-death sentences upon gays.
As for me, I do not care either way. I am neither in support of or against of the idea.
I personally believe it to be a vote of the people. If there are as many as there are claimed to be in support of, I see no reason why gays and their supporters should be concerned.
It's an issue of current social mores. If society is ready for it, then it will pass, otherwise it will fail.
When I see a woman walking down the street, my eyes follow her and watch the movement of her hips and my mind starts wandering places all on its own.
This has nothing to do with choice. It's raw instinct.
Bush wasn't/isn't a conservative. I would say Palin is the real thing. I would say a more accurate statement would be Palin = Female Reagan.
By the way, I not only support gay marriage, I'm willing to perform the ceremony.
and Im willing to cater the event!
skittles for everyone...
taste the rainbow.
See, Reagan was not really the idolized Reagan, either.
Most people do not know why the elite Republicans love Reagan, and it has nothing - at all - to do with the Cold War.
Do you know what it is? It is several things.
What of those who are into banging animals? Is that raw instinct? Just curious.
What of those who are into banging animals? Is that raw instinct? Just curious.
I want to put down this line of debate before you two end up hijacking the thread over this shit.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF A PERSON CHOSE TO BE GAY OR WAS BORN THAT WAY.
Why?
BECAUSE IT'S NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS WHAT CONSENTING ADULTS DO IN PRIVATE.
But if you want to get technical....
Sexuality is largely a conditioned preference. It's kind of like tastes in food or lifestyle. You don't choose to like pizza more than sushi, for instance. If you grew up on a farm, you didn't choose to be more comfortable in rural settings, you just are. I find big women (BBW) sexy. I didn't implicitly choose to like big women, but something about my environment, upbringing, past experiences, etc. lead me to that attraction. It's the same thing for homosexuals.
I think you missed my point completely. To make it short, I was basically agreeing with you on everything you said above (minus my attempt to hijack the thread).
It is, as you say, by a matter of conditioning. Raw instinct is simply a scapegoat for an explanation - that was my point. You missed my post above that one. I am not against, or for, going out and promoting either side. As I said, I believe something that will change the social more of marriage should be decided by the people, not the government. If the people voted "yes" on gay marriage I wouldn't have a problem with it, nor would I if they voted "no".
If only Marriage would be redefined once and no more; but that is not how it will work. Once changed, Marriage will be changed again, and again and so on, until there is complete "equality".
Polygamy is the "next right" and there is a movement in good ol' San Fran already going on.
Then let's look at the Netherlands.
Polygamy is now allowed.
And what was before that, Surprise, Surprise, Same-Sex Marriages.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
If this is simply about benefits that one select group of people receive then why not repair the system to either provide those same benefits to everyone regardless of marital status , or remove the benfits completely. Allow for individuals to decide who they want to list as next of kin, decide who they want to declare as dependants, decide who they want to have on thier insurance benefits. This should not be a matter of married, in a relationship, or single, people however they choose to live their lives should be able to have equal benefits. I agree we should have tax breaks on dependatnts, but not marital status.. that is trying to force people into marriage just to get benfits, and that in itself is crazy.
Gay marrage should be completely banned forever.
I have said it before and I will say it again. I don't care if Gay people want to marry but the Government should stay out of it.
Once the Government gets involved and makes it a legal right then Churches who refuse to perform Gay marriages will get sued. I am sorry but the Government shouldn't be allowed to over ride someone's religious beliefs. That is a first amendment right and was a fundamental right of this country.
Freedom of Religion is pretty much the largest right that this country has. It was the reason most of the founding ancestors moved here in the first place.
There is no reason why "Marriage" which is a religious thing can not be protected as a ceremony between a man and a woman.
While "Civil Unions" which is a legal thing can be for both heterosexual and homosexual people.
That is how it should be. It is ridiculous that this is even a Federal Issue at all and once again (just like Abortion) is another example of how broken our Federal Government is.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
You're sorty of wrong about this. I'll tell you why.
The government is not getting involved in which church marries whom. What the debate is about is which marriage is going to be recognized under the law. It's not a matter of telling a church that they have to perform a marriage ceremony, it's a matter of recognizing a church who IS performing the marriage ceremony.
There are churches now who will not marry a heterosexual couple unless they meet certain criteria that the church deems acceptable. They are not being sued by heterosexual couples for this. The same would be true for churches that would not perform the gay marriages. However, there are a lot of churches that recognize gay marriage as an okay thing in their organization, so that is the debate.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
All Rights Reversed
That was so profound of you. What else would you like to ban with your banning stick of self rightousness? Perhaps there are some things that I think you do that should be banned. Does that give me the right to step on your rights and freedoms? You keep stepping on groups of people like that and trust me, your time of reckoning will come soon as well. It's a very slippery slope that I'm happy some groups have gotten up the nerve to fight against. Groups like blacks and women who finally had enough of the unequal treatment and stood up to the majority. In other words, f*ck your will to push government on others. There are some of us that would rather die fighting your will to force your beliefs on us using the government guns than lay down and try to make you feel safe and correct in your bigotry. Your oppressive nature is pitiful.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
All Rights Reversed
If only Marriage would be redefined once and no more; but that is not how it will work. Once changed, Marriage will be changed again, and again and so on, until there is complete "equality".
Polygamy is the "next right" and there is a movement in good ol' San Fran already going on.
Then let's look at the Netherlands.
Polygamy is now allowed.
And what was before that, Surprise, Surprise, Same-Sex Marriages.
Polygamy is marriage between consenting adults. So who are you to tell them what to do? If their religion says it's okay and they are adults and choose to live that way then more power to them.
You want to really settle this, then get the government out of recognizing select marriages. If it's such a religious issue then stop all of the marriage benefits that are given. Get rid of this automatic recognition of legal rights for married couples and make everyone individually equal. Why should married couples get more tax benefits and legal rights over non-married or unrecognized marriages anyway? It's all a way for the government to bully people and for you to use the government as a tool of manipulation.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
All Rights Reversed
I guesing we should change "liberty and justice for all" to read
liberty and justice for only those who belive in God the same way i do...
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
"Polygamy is marriage between consenting adults. So who are you to tell them what to do? If their religion says it's okay and they are adults and choose to live that way then more power to them."
Now you do see this "progression" correct? First Same-Sex Marriages, then Polygamy, then onto Underage marriages or adults with minors. In the western olden years this was acceptable, and is still acceptable in some cultures and religions. Who are you to say, that with the acceptance of Same-Sex Marriages and Polygamy, that such other marriages cannot be allowed? Because these people are not Adults? The age of adulthood has been redefined by our laws, and can be done, or exceptions to be made. The Drinking Age in some states were at 14, until the highway fundings had restrictions. The Age for Marriage can be defined in any state.
Just because it is only of "adults" will not mean that will be as such forever.
So who am I to tell others, to enforce my will onto others? I am an American with a belief and opinion. If there are a majority of us who agree to such principles, then it can become the law of the land. I have as much right as you or as well as other opposition. I consider it disrespectful for marriage to be redefined, just as you consider me disrespectful for denying it onto another group.
So who is legally right, or who is morally right? Impossible to say when both believe to be right.
"You want to really settle this, then get the government out of recognizing select marriages. If it's such a religious issue then stop all of the marriage benefits that are given. Get rid of this automatic recognition of legal rights for married couples and make everyone individually equal. Why should married couples get more tax benefits and legal rights over non-married or unrecognized marriages anyway? It's all a way for the government to bully people and for you to use the government as a tool of manipulation."
Tell me, do you play empire building games? Those types of games in which you, as the acting leader seek to grow your nation, be it by military, economics, diplomacy and such? That may help out if you have not done so. One of the goals of a nation is to have its population grow and be happy. Such governmental items placed on marriage or unions are for incentives for the population to grow.
Now if you like, we can take away those benefits and incentives as you stated, and we can then become like Russia, with negative population growth. Ever occurred to you that some nations in our modern world are actually dying, fading out of history due to negative population trends, with war and hunger not being the causes?
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
I think the biggest question is "Why?";
Is this going to affect people like her somehow? Make her marriage cheap or false?
This is like not allowing anyone to get married because everyone makes marriage cheap by cheating or divorcing.
I think she should just resign from being governor and go on SNL.
Indeed, separation of church and state is a joke after all.
i want to smoke in bars.
eat transfats
and talk while driving...
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
Just let the states compete against on another..Gay married, abortion,funds,schools,the hole nine yard I say.The feds have just about broke everything they have touched.
compete
Verb
[-peting, -peted]
1. to take part in (a contest or competition)
2. to strive (to achieve something or to be successful): able to compete on the international market [Latin com- together + petere to seek
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.