View Full Version : Do YOU believe gays deserve the same rights as married couples
actsnoblemartin
04-02-2008, 06:04 PM
whether you call it civil unions or marriage, do they deserve the same rights?
why or why not?
i'd like to hear what you think
I think they should have the same rights, why should the state deny them the same rights as everyone else? they are 2 humans that love eachother and want to be together in the eyes of their God (if they are religious) and in the eyes of the state.
hjmick
04-02-2008, 06:38 PM
Honestly, I don't care. My life is unaffected either way. At the very least, same sex couples should be afforded the same rights, and in a few states they are, as heterosexual couples with regards to medical and legal decisions. In my opinion.
This is an argument where I see both sides, and I can honestly say that both have valid points, as long as their points are made sans hate.
jimnyc
04-02-2008, 06:55 PM
Gay people already have 100% identical rights as heterosexuals. Nothing should be changed to cater to their deviant lifestyles.
retiredman
04-02-2008, 07:49 PM
I think that the church should not have anything to do with contractual civil unions and the state should not have anything to do with marriages.
Let the state license any two people who want to unite their estates and share in the benefits of insurance and inheritance.
Let the church unite whoever they want to in "holy matrimony".
avatar4321
04-02-2008, 08:16 PM
They have the same rights as everyone else. They can marry anyone who is 1)above the age of minority, 2)Not blood related, 3)Not married, and 4)of the opposite sex, the same as everyone else.
The idea that we somehow have different rights when we can do exactly the same thing is absurd.
retiredman
04-02-2008, 08:21 PM
They have the same rights as everyone else. They can marry anyone who is 1)above the age of minority, 2)Not blood related, 3)Not married, and 4)of the opposite sex, the same as everyone else.
The idea that we somehow have different rights when we can do exactly the same thing is absurd.
wrong. they cannot marry the person they love, we can... but as I said above, the state should be out of the marriage business and the church should be out of the civil union business.
Mr. P
04-02-2008, 08:31 PM
wrong. they cannot marry the person they love, we can... but as I said above, the state should be out of the marriage business and the church should be out of the civil union business.
At first I thought you might have a point, but then what does love have to do with rights? Don't see it as a valid argument.
retiredman
04-02-2008, 08:39 PM
At first I thought you might have a point, but then what does love have to do with rights? Don't see it as a valid argument.
it is not necessarily an argument, it is just a fact. My point for years has been as expressed above. separate church and state functions.
and if you believe that marrying the person you love is a valid goal in the pursuit of happiness, then our founding fathers certainly implied it.
avatar4321
04-02-2008, 08:40 PM
wrong. they cannot marry the person they love, we can... but as I said above, the state should be out of the marriage business and the church should be out of the civil union business.
We choose who we love.
And you may love your sister but you cant marry her. You may love a 12 year old, but you cant marry them. You can love a married person but you can't marry them.
They have the same rights we do. We are under the same restrictions who we marry as they are. But I am sure you will continue to ignore this fact of life.
retiredman
04-02-2008, 08:42 PM
We choose who we love.
And you may love your sister but you cant marry her. You may love a 12 year old, but you cant marry them. You can love a married person but you can't marry them.
They have the same rights we do. We are under the same restrictions who we marry as they are. But I am sure you will continue to ignore this fact of life.
no. we are not. we can marry someone we love as long as they are not a blood relative, are not a minor, and are not already married. they cannot.
and if marrying the one you love is not a valid part of pursuing happiness, I do not know what is.
avatar4321
04-02-2008, 08:43 PM
it is not necessarily an argument, it is just a fact. My point for years has been as expressed above. separate church and state functions.
and if you believe that marrying the person you love is a valid goal in the pursuit of happiness, then our founding fathers certainly implied it.
And marriage between a man and a woman has a legitimate state function. It ensures the perpetuation of the species in the best environment for our children. Marriage between gays (an oxymoron as it is) serves no state function.
avatar4321
04-02-2008, 08:44 PM
no. we are not. we can marry someone we love as long as they are not a blood relative, are not a minor, and are not already married. they cannot.
We can't marry people of the same sex we may love either. You keep trying to neglect that. But its the most vital part of marriage.
retiredman
04-02-2008, 08:44 PM
And marriage between a man and a woman has a legitimate state function. It ensures the perpetuation of the species in the best environment for our children. Marriage between gays (an oxymoron as it is) serves no state function.
"marriage" serves no state functions that a civil union would not also serve.
Kathianne
04-02-2008, 08:45 PM
"marriage" serves no state functions that a civil union would not also serve.
Which is why it's the best alternative for those with alternative lifestyles.
retiredman
04-02-2008, 08:50 PM
Which is why it's the best alternative for those with alternative lifestyles.
as I have said many times before:
We should get the state out of the marriage business, and get the church out of the civil contract business.
Let church's "marry" whoever their creed lets them marry but that marriage has no force of law...and let the state administer contractual arrangements between consenting adults without any "moral" or "religious" aspect to the contract.
"marriage" is a funny thing when the state gets a hold of it
britney can "marry" after a drunken spree and divorce less than a day later
one can make a contract with someone for marriage, even if the contract is based solely on sex
one can marry someone on paper, just to get or get them in the country
fact: marriage is defined as simply a "contract" under the laws of the united states. there is nothing "holy" about the "contract", that is why elvis can marry you in vegas....
avatar4321
04-02-2008, 10:33 PM
"marriage" is a funny thing when the state gets a hold of it
britney can "marry" after a drunken spree and divorce less than a day later
one can make a contract with someone for marriage, even if the contract is based solely on sex
one can marry someone on paper, just to get or get them in the country
fact: marriage is defined as simply a "contract" under the laws of the united states. there is nothing "holy" about the "contract", that is why elvis can marry you in vegas....
that's because our culture doesnt view contractual/convenant agreements to be sacred. But is there really anything more sacred than giving your word?
Kathianne
04-02-2008, 10:37 PM
Actually that is the argument between state and church. It should be holy, in the traditional sense. If not appropriate for the 'couple', be they man/man, woman/woman, man/woman, they do have alternatives.
that's because our culture doesnt view contractual/convenant agreements to be sacred. But is there really anything more sacred than giving your word?
doesn't our culture believe in the seperation of church and state? we could argue ad nasuem over what this means, but for purposes here, do you agree that marriage, as defined by the state, is a contract ("Contract")? as such, you are legally allowed to break your word.
i have no problem keeping marriage, the term, sacred and in church. if the state grants rights to people under the Contract, and said rights have little to do with "sacredness", then isn't a denial of those state created rights to a class of people, discrimination? do you believe it is ok to contract for marriage solely for sex? the state allows it. do you believe it is ok to allow someone to get married and have that marriage annulled/disolved a day later? the state allows it.
either the state gets out of marriage entirely, or they alllow the state created rights for everyone that is legally able to join. this does put the state in a bind, because while it is illegal for family to marry, will that be illegal under a "civil union?" i don't know, the state created this mess and needs to fix it.
avatar4321
04-03-2008, 01:17 AM
doesn't our culture believe in the seperation of church and state? we could argue ad nasuem over what this means, but for purposes here, do you agree that marriage, as defined by the state, is a contract ("Contract")? as such, you are legally allowed to break your word.
i have no problem keeping marriage, the term, sacred and in church. if the state grants rights to people under the Contract, and said rights have little to do with "sacredness", then isn't a denial of those state created rights to a class of people, discrimination? do you believe it is ok to contract for marriage solely for sex? the state allows it. do you believe it is ok to allow someone to get married and have that marriage annulled/disolved a day later? the state allows it.
either the state gets out of marriage entirely, or they alllow the state created rights for everyone that is legally able to join. this does put the state in a bind, because while it is illegal for family to marry, will that be illegal under a "civil union?" i don't know, the state created this mess and needs to fix it.
The state invalidates contracts for being unbeneficial all the times. The state will not recognize certain contracts.
The key point is what is the public policy issue surrounding marriage? The reason the state recognizes marriage is because its the most effective way to raise children in a stable environment. That is the public policy behind it. It doesn't matter if you marry for love, money, sex, etc. The public policy is that children are entitled to be raised by a mother and father joined together in marriage.
That's why the marriage covenant is recognized. Because it inherently benefits society by creating and raising children in the ideal environment where they can get the attention they need from both their mother and father when they need it.
Every contract, covanent, oath, vow, obligation, etc is sacred to those who seek truth and integrity in their life. To them their word means something. We may live in a culture that fails to recognize the sacred act of giving your word, but that doesn't make it any less sacred.
diuretic
04-03-2008, 02:13 AM
And marriage between a man and a woman has a legitimate state function. It ensures the perpetuation of the species in the best environment for our children. Marriage between gays (an oxymoron as it is) serves no state function.
That's a bit, well, statist isn't it? Next we'll be being told who we have to marry and procreate with.
diuretic
04-03-2008, 02:17 AM
The state invalidates contracts for being unbeneficial all the times. The state will not recognize certain contracts.
The key point is what is the public policy issue surrounding marriage? The reason the state recognizes marriage is because its the most effective way to raise children in a stable environment. That is the public policy behind it. It doesn't matter if you marry for love, money, sex, etc. The public policy is that children are entitled to be raised by a mother and father joined together in marriage.
That's why the marriage covenant is recognized. Because it inherently benefits society by creating and raising children in the ideal environment where they can get the attention they need from both their mother and father when they need it.
Every contract, covanent, oath, vow, obligation, etc is sacred to those who seek truth and integrity in their life. To them their word means something. We may live in a culture that fails to recognize the sacred act of giving your word, but that doesn't make it any less sacred.
The protection and benefits of the marriage contract you've pointed out apply equally as well to childless heterosexual couples. Given that, do you think the intended protection and benefits should only apply if children result from the marriage? Because if you do then you'd have to deny marriage to those heterosexual couples who have no intention of having children.
jimnyc
04-03-2008, 05:11 AM
wrong. they cannot marry the person they love, we can... but as I said above, the state should be out of the marriage business and the church should be out of the civil union business.
Ok, so you're saying that a homosexual cannot marry the person they love if that person is of the same sex. I'm a heterosexual, what if I should happen to one day fall in love with another man, do I have the right to marry him?
Man, or woman, as the laws are written, the rights are 100% identical to each person.
bullypulpit
04-03-2008, 05:19 AM
Gay people already have 100% identical rights as heterosexuals. Nothing should be changed to cater to their deviant lifestyles.
Uh...no Jim, they don't. In most states it is still legal to fire individuals from their jobs if they are homosexual...Still legal to deny renting a home to individuals because of their sexuality...Despite the legal documents a committed same-gender couple may have in place, an blood relative can still supersede the life-partner in any medical or legal decisions for an ill or deceased partner, often stripping the surviving partner of any survivorship assets.
There is no documented, demonstrable harm in permitting same gender couples to enjoy the same rights and benefits as traditional married couples, whether you want to call it marriage or legal/civil union. The only genuine, vested interests the state has in either case is in the contractual relationship established regarding the care of dependent minors and the division of property in the event on the death of one partner or the dissolution of the relationship
bullypulpit
04-03-2008, 05:24 AM
And marriage between a man and a woman has a legitimate state function. It ensures the perpetuation of the species in the best environment for our children. Marriage between gays (an oxymoron as it is) serves no state function.
So, by this logic, my marriage to my wife, or that of any other straight couple where no children result, is null and void as we can't have children thus the marriage serves no "state function". Funny, the Nazis said the same thing of Jews, Gypsies and other "undesirables".
The "survival of the species argument" doesn't hold water.
diuretic
04-03-2008, 05:26 AM
Uh...no Jim, they don't. In most states it is still legal to fire individuals from their jobs if they are homosexual...Still legal to deny renting a home to individuals because of their sexuality...Despite the legal documents a committed same-gender couple may have in place, an blood relative can still supersede the life-partner in any medical or legal decisions for an ill or deceased partner, often stripping the surviving partner of any survivorship assets.
There is no documented, demonstrable harm in permitting same gender couples to enjoy the same rights and benefits as traditional married couples, whether you want to call it marriage or legal/civil union. The only genuine, vested interests the state has in either case is in the contractual relationship established regarding the care of dependent minors and the division of property in the event on the death of one partner or the dissolution of the relationship
Where is the "you have to be bloody joking!" smiley?
jimnyc
04-03-2008, 05:41 AM
Uh...no Jim, they don't. In most states it is still legal to fire individuals from their jobs if they are homosexual...Still legal to deny renting a home to individuals because of their sexuality...Despite the legal documents a committed same-gender couple may have in place, an blood relative can still supersede the life-partner in any medical or legal decisions for an ill or deceased partner, often stripping the surviving partner of any survivorship assets.
There is no documented, demonstrable harm in permitting same gender couples to enjoy the same rights and benefits as traditional married couples, whether you want to call it marriage or legal/civil union. The only genuine, vested interests the state has in either case is in the contractual relationship established regarding the care of dependent minors and the division of property in the event on the death of one partner or the dissolution of the relationship
in 49 out of 50 states, barring a bonafide contract, you can be fired because your boss doesn't like the color of your clothes that day. You can be fired because you have too many children. You can be fired because your boss thinks your spouse is ugly. None of these are protected characteristics. We live in an era where the states work under what they call "at will", which means you can be fired for any reason or no reason, while you can also quit for any reason at all.
As for the rest, I have no issue with the states strengthening the legality of the bond. Allow them to get contracts from the state that offer them protection. Hell, for that fact, I have no problem if someone draws up a contract giving equal protection to them and their dog. I don't want to deny homosexuals the right to have protection for their loved ones, just how they go about getting that protection. Let the states handle it, let the churches have their own say - and call it civil unions.
diuretic
04-03-2008, 06:19 AM
in 49 out of 50 states, barring a bonafide contract, you can be fired because your boss doesn't like the color of your clothes that day. You can be fired because you have too many children. You can be fired because your boss thinks your spouse is ugly. None of these are protected characteristics. We live in an era where the states work under what they call "at will", which means you can be fired for any reason or no reason, while you can also quit for any reason at all.
As for the rest, I have no issue with the states strengthening the legality of the bond. Allow them to get contracts from the state that offer them protection. Hell, for that fact, I have no problem if someone draws up a contract giving equal protection to them and their dog. I don't want to deny homosexuals the right to have protection for their loved ones, just how they go about getting that protection. Let the states handle it, let the churches have their own say - and call it civil unions.
You need to sort out that employment bullshit. That's a frigging disgrace. No wonder you folks are antsy about gay marriage, you don't believe in rights. That employment stuff is disgusting.
jimnyc
04-03-2008, 06:39 AM
You need to sort out that employment bullshit. That's a frigging disgrace. No wonder you folks are antsy about gay marriage, you don't believe in rights. That employment stuff is disgusting.
You'll get no disagreement from me! Most of the laws are geared towards protection of the employers. You only have recourse if you have a contract, or what the employer does is unlawful. As for discrimination, only Title VII - which protects discrimination against race, color, religion, sex or national origin. I believe, but could be wrong, that there is one state that allows protection for sexual preference. You can even be fired if you're a disgusting fat slob! Unless of course you live in Michigan, where being obese is considered a protected characteristic.
diuretic
04-03-2008, 07:05 AM
Michigan.
I get it - Mike Moore right? :lol:
I can be obtuse :D
But seriously, that's terrible. You should all come here! We're short of skilled people, we're a bit second world but we have good employment laws and the beer's pretty good! Come on down!
chesswarsnow
04-03-2008, 09:24 AM
Sorry bout that,
1. I believe gays should have zero rights.
2. And I would soon fire one if I had one hired.
3. Reprobates.
4. To award evil life styles with rights is contradictory to all thats good, and right, and just.
5. Call me a prude, but thats how, *The Great CWN* sees it.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Hobbit
04-03-2008, 12:05 PM
I do not think they should have the same rights as married couples for a very important reason: Heterosexual married couples stabilize society and are far more productive and more likely to produce more productive citizens than single persons are. Gay couples, on the other hand (married or not, as seen by regions where it is allowed) have a detrimental effect on society and are incapable of producing children, while children adopted by them tend to grow up maladjusted far more often than not.
retiredman
04-03-2008, 12:23 PM
I do not think they should have the same rights as married couples for a very important reason: Heterosexual married couples stabilize society and are far more productive and more likely to produce more productive citizens than single persons are. Gay couples, on the other hand (married or not, as seen by regions where it is allowed) have a detrimental effect on society and are incapable of producing children, while children adopted by them tend to grow up maladjusted far more often than not.
the two bolded phrases will need some links. Methinks you are blowing smoke out of your ass.
Hagbard Celine
04-03-2008, 12:30 PM
I do not think they should have the same rights as married couples for a very important reason: Heterosexual married couples stabilize society and are far more productive and more likely to produce more productive citizens than single persons are. Gay couples, on the other hand (married or not, as seen by regions where it is allowed) have a detrimental effect on society and are incapable of producing children, while children adopted by them tend to grow up maladjusted far more often than not.
:rolleyes: Outrageous lies and half-cocked aspersions conjured from the primitive biases of sexually-frustrated philistines and absolutely nothing else.
wrong. they cannot marry the person they love, we can... but as I said above, the state should be out of the marriage business and the church should be out of the civil union business.
What in reality is degenerate lust is commonly mistaken as homosexual love.
bullypulpit
04-03-2008, 03:10 PM
What in reality is degenerate lust is commonly mistaken as homosexual love.
Oh c'mon you big ole closet queen! You know you just want to ride a high hard one until you scream like a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. :laugh2:
The state invalidates contracts for being unbeneficial all the times. The state will not recognize certain contracts.
The key point is what is the public policy issue surrounding marriage? The reason the state recognizes marriage is because its the most effective way to raise children in a stable environment. That is the public policy behind it. It doesn't matter if you marry for love, money, sex, etc. The public policy is that children are entitled to be raised by a mother and father joined together in marriage.
That's why the marriage covenant is recognized. Because it inherently benefits society by creating and raising children in the ideal environment where they can get the attention they need from both their mother and father when they need it.
Every contract, covanent, oath, vow, obligation, etc is sacred to those who seek truth and integrity in their life. To them their word means something. We may live in a culture that fails to recognize the sacred act of giving your word, but that doesn't make it any less sacred.
why did the state feel it necessary to create a marriage contract though? you're right about void contracts, however, the void applies to everyone regardless of gender/race etc...thus on its face, the prohibition against granting same sex partners state created legal benefits of marriage is discriminatory.
The protection and benefits of the marriage contract you've pointed out apply equally as well to childless heterosexual couples. Given that, do you think the intended protection and benefits should only apply if children result from the marriage? Because if you do then you'd have to deny marriage to those heterosexual couples who have no intention of having children.
excellent point
in 49 out of 50 states, barring a bonafide contract, you can be fired because your boss doesn't like the color of your clothes that day. You can be fired because you have too many children. You can be fired because your boss thinks your spouse is ugly. None of these are protected characteristics. We live in an era where the states work under what they call "at will", which means you can be fired for any reason or no reason, while you can also quit for any reason at all.
As for the rest, I have no issue with the states strengthening the legality of the bond. Allow them to get contracts from the state that offer them protection. Hell, for that fact, I have no problem if someone draws up a contract giving equal protection to them and their dog. I don't want to deny homosexuals the right to have protection for their loved ones, just how they go about getting that protection. Let the states handle it, let the churches have their own say - and call it civil unions.
:clap: exactly. homosexuals should not be allowed to "marry" as the term is traditionally derived from religion. the state created rights (estates, hospital, etc) do not come from religion, they come directly from the state. i guess what i'm trying to say is:
outlaw gay marriage, but it should be legal for gays to take under someone's estate shoudl they die intestate, or be able to make medical decisions without having to create seperate legal documents IF they want to contract for a legal UNION.
retiredman
04-03-2008, 03:15 PM
why did the state feel it necessary to create a marriage contract though? you're right about void contracts, however, the void applies to everyone regardless of gender/race etc...thus on its face, the prohibition against granting same sex partners state created legal benefits of marriage is discriminatory.
excellent point
:clap: exactly. homosexuals should not be allowed to "marry" as the term is traditionally derived from religion. the state created rights (estates, hospital, etc) do not come from religion, they come directly from the state. i guess what i'm trying to say is:
outlaw gay marriage, but it should be legal for gays to take under someone's estate shoudl they die intestate, or be able to make medical decisions without having to create seperate legal documents IF they want to contract for a legal UNION.
we are of one mind on this issue counselor. well said.
we are of one mind on this issue counselor. well said.
i must commit honorable sepuku :laugh2:
retiredman
04-03-2008, 05:13 PM
i must commit honorable sepuku :laugh2:
oh...why don't you wait until I die and then commit honorable oibara?
Lizabeth
04-03-2008, 05:22 PM
Just in case you didn't know the reason that states require the issuance of a marriage license is for the spread of disease and birth defects (cycle cell). Hence the blood test requirement. It began primarily due to outbreaks of venereal diseases like syphilis but also prevented marriages that were also too close like sister and brother.
Maybe this does not seem to relevant any longer but think about it for a moment. There are new diseases that are higher to same sex couples which the CDC may need to monitor for general health reasons. Also I would think people getting married might want to know if they are a carrier of a disease that could be passed along to offspring.
And in answer to the over all question. . . , no I do not think they should be able to marry. Whether that be civil union or what ever you want to call it. Marriage is to procreate and give a legal name to a child of the union. Same sex couples cannot procreate. Only 50% of that population can do it artificially.
If all they want are rights to inherit or be named legal guardian. There are laws in existence to do that. As far as the health insurance coverage I don't feel that is right. What if my nephew came to live with me and he didn't have heath insurance I couldn't put him on my policy even though he is a blood relation. Same with a brother, sister or parent. Look at all the seniors who need better prescription coverage. If you allow the gay community to add on health insurance then why can't I add my mother so her scripts won't cost her so much? Opens a BIG FLOOD GATE of problems.
avatar4321
04-03-2008, 05:52 PM
:rolleyes: Outrageous lies and half-cocked aspersions conjured from the primitive biases of sexually-frustrated philistines and absolutely nothing else.
and yet all you can offer as evidence is "Nah ah!"
Just in case you didn't know the reason that states require the issuance of a marriage license is for the spread of disease and birth defects (cycle cell). Hence the blood test requirement. It began primarily due to outbreaks of venereal diseases like syphilis but also prevented marriages that were also too close like sister and brother.
Maybe this does not seem to relevant any longer but think about it for a moment. There are new diseases that are higher to same sex couples which the CDC may need to monitor for general health reasons. Also I would think people getting married might want to know if they are a carrier of a disease that could be passed along to offspring.
And in answer to the over all question. . . , no I do not think they should be able to marry. Whether that be civil union or what ever you want to call it. Marriage is to procreate and give a legal name to a child of the union. Same sex couples cannot procreate. Only 50% of that population can do it artificially.
If all they want are rights to inherit or be named legal guardian. There are laws in existence to do that. As far as the health insurance coverage I don't feel that is right. What if my nephew came to live with me and he didn't have heath insurance I couldn't put him on my policy even though he is a blood relation. Same with a brother, sister or parent. Look at all the seniors who need better prescription coverage. If you allow the gay community to add on health insurance then why can't I add my mother so her scripts won't cost her so much? Opens a BIG FLOOD GATE of problems.
blood test? what state do you live in?
retiredman
04-03-2008, 09:35 PM
blood tests are not required in Maine.
but then, there are always rumors of inbreeding in the hinterlands! ;)
blood tests are not required in Maine.
but then, there are always rumors of inbreeding in the hinterlands! ;)
we now know MFM's 'hood'
:D
that was good and you know it!
retiredman
04-03-2008, 09:44 PM
we now know MFM's 'hood'
:D
that was good and you know it!
actually, I live in one of the big cities. We have stop lights and McDonald's and even a Walmart!
We are miles (i.e. more than one) from the "hinterlands"
actually, I live in one of the big cities. We have stop lights and McDonald's and even a Walmart!
We are miles (i.e. more than one) from the "hinterlands"
wasn't sure what "miles" meant, thanks...
do you live by the coast? my wife and i have always dreamed of making a trip back there to kayak/camp. i know its cheesy, but rachel ray did a show there, i think she was in a canoe, and there is this place where you have to boat to or kayak/canoe to in order to get incredible lobster rolls. i nearly jumped into the TV.
retiredman
04-03-2008, 10:02 PM
wasn't sure what "miles" meant, thanks...
do you live by the coast? my wife and i have always dreamed of making a trip back there to kayak/camp. i know its cheesy, but rachel ray did a show there, i think she was in a canoe, and there is this place where you have to boat to or kayak/canoe to in order to get incredible lobster rolls. i nearly jumped into the TV.
We're about 40 miles from the coast, but drive there often for dinner - especially in the summer.
Lots of sea kayaking done near Deer Isle... and near there is the Lincolnville Lobster pound where I have seen kayakers pull up for lunch, but, for my money, the absolute BEST lobster rolls in Maine are at Red's Easts in Wiscasset.
Hagbard Celine
04-03-2008, 11:31 PM
and yet all you can offer as evidence is "Nah ah!"
Yes, I offer absolutely nothing, same as you.
Mr. P
04-03-2008, 11:58 PM
We're about 40 miles from the coast, but drive there often for dinner - especially in the summer.
Lots of sea kayaking done near Deer Isle... and near there is the Lincolnville Lobster pound where I have seen kayakers pull up for lunch, but, for my money, the absolute BEST lobster rolls in Maine are at Red's Easts in Wiscasset.
Many trips to Princeton and we'd drive to the motel in Calais, ME. We always stopped at a small place on hwy 1 for a roll....SOoooooooooo GOOD!
What I really liked was a contact with an independent lobster fisherman in Bucks Harbor. He'd sell me his culls for $3 each! I'd always take a large cooler!
We're about 40 miles from the coast, but drive there often for dinner - especially in the summer.
Lots of sea kayaking done near Deer Isle... and near there is the Lincolnville Lobster pound where I have seen kayakers pull up for lunch, but, for my money, the absolute BEST lobster rolls in Maine are at Red's Easts in Wiscasset.
man, when i get the $$, would love to go there. we could meet, then really tease each other, LOL. you buy lunch tho......you're lucky to live in such a nice area. i have been fortunate to live on the CA coast (except being born in GA, and a spell in MT) i have lived my live on the pacific coast. lived in walla walla, salem ore, and there is nothing like the pacific coast. though maine sure comes close.
Mr. P
04-04-2008, 12:09 AM
man, when i get the $$, would love to go there. we could meet, then really tease each other, LOL. you buy lunch tho......you're lucky to live in such a nice area. i have been fortunate to live on the CA coast (except being born in GA, and a spell in MT) i have lived my live on the pacific coast. lived in walla walla, salem ore, and there is nothing like the pacific coast. though maine sure comes close.
It's time to come home, Yurt! I'll leave the light on.
Hagbard Celine
04-04-2008, 12:12 AM
and yet all you can offer as evidence is "Nah ah!"
So it surprises you that your baseless accusations have elicited baseless retorts? Do you expect me to meet your unsubstantiated rantings with flow charts and census data? Why would the burden of proof fall to my side when you're the one relating dubious allegations? It's downright wacky man! :lol:
Hagbard Celine
04-04-2008, 12:13 AM
bump
bullypulpit
04-04-2008, 06:18 AM
Sorry bout that,
Indeed, you have much to apologize for.
1. I believe gays should have zero rights.
What you believe is irrelevant to the conversation. How's about providing evidence from an independent, peer-reviewed source indicating that there is ANY demonstrable harm to individuals or society at large in providing same gender couples the the same rights and benefits under the law as traditional married couples.
2. And I would soon fire one if I had one hired.
Your loss.
3. Reprobates.
Look to your own morals.
4. To award evil life styles with rights is contradictory to all thats good, and right, and just.
Your knowledge of what is "good, and right, and just" consists mostly of your own uninformed opinion unsupported by any facts whatsoever.
5. Call me a prude, but thats how, *The Great CWN* sees it.
You should really take your meds on a consistent basis. Your delusions are getting out of hand. If you can't manage them on a daily basis, their are deep IM injections that will be absorbed over about a month, usually reserved for wards of the state and others who are chronically non-compliant with their psych meds.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
bullypulpit
04-04-2008, 06:19 AM
So it surprises you that your baseless accusations have elicited baseless retorts? Do you expect me to meet your unsubstantiated rantings with flow charts and census data? Why would the burden of proof fall to my side when you're the one relating dubious allegations? It's downright wacky man! :lol:
I was gonna rep you, but I gotta spread some joy first.
It's time to come home, Yurt! I'll leave the light on.
:lol:
emmett
04-04-2008, 05:58 PM
whether you call it civil unions or marriage, do they deserve the same rights?
why or why not?
i'd like to hear what you think
Gays deserve nothing! They certainly do not deserve the right to have a recognized marriage. Mariage produces children, they can have no children. Marriage also means that I have to pay their SS when one or the other dies of AIDS.
People can queer off with one another all they want but MArriage, NO!
Gays deserve nothing! They certainly do not deserve the right to have a recognized marriage. Mariage produces children, they can have no children. Marriage also means that I have to pay their SS when one or the other dies of AIDS.
People can queer off with one another all they want but MArriage, NO!
um, that is logical fallacy and false statement....
bullypulpit
04-04-2008, 10:52 PM
Gays deserve nothing! They certainly do not deserve the right to have a recognized marriage. Mariage produces children, they can have no children. Marriage also means that I have to pay their SS when one or the other dies of AIDS.
People can queer off with one another all they want but MArriage, NO!
SO, by your logic, since my wife and I can't have children, our marriage is null and void? What utter bullshit.
Since you are adamantly opposed to the marriage of same-gender couples, are civil unions okay? Marriage in everything but name?
bullypulpit
04-04-2008, 10:54 PM
um, that is logical fallacy and false statement....
Logic has nothing to do with his sentiment.
mrg666
04-05-2008, 10:04 AM
I think that the church should not have anything to do with contractual civil unions and the state should not have anything to do with marriages.
Let the state license any two people who want to unite their estates and share in the benefits of insurance and inheritance.
Let the church unite whoever they want to in "holy matrimony".
homo as spoken
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.