Is heterosexual marriage a civil right

[actsnoblemartin]

absolutely NOT. Do you know how many people get married for the wrong reasons?. Societal pressures mostly, but also pressure from their family, or because they are in love.

I contend, marriage for heterosexuals should be a privalege that you have to earn, just like driving a car. Sure you may not kill anyone while in a marriage, but your actions affect something almost as dear.. 2 families.

If we had a real marriage license, meaning make a man and woman marry only if they can prove through tests that they are worthy, then youll have less divorce and better marriages

[actsnoblemartin]

nobody has the fucking balls, to discuss heterosexual marriage, but most of you have a fucking hard on for gay marrigage

boo boo :dance:


absolutely NOT. Do you know how many people get married for the wrong reasons?. Societal pressures mostly, but also pressure from their family, or because they are in love.

I contend, marriage for heterosexuals should be a privalege that you have to earn, just like driving a car. Sure you may not kill anyone while in a marriage, but your actions affect something almost as dear.. 2 families.

If we had a real marriage license, meaning make a man and woman marry only if they can prove through tests that they are worthy, then youll have less divorce and better marriages

[midcan5]

nobody has the fucking balls, to discuss heterosexual marriage, but most of you have a fucking hard on for gay marrigage

You have that right, hatred is a much more powerful force than thought. A common foe is the easiest way to bring people together. It can be war or just people who are different.


"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Hermann Goering

[Pale Rider]

nobody has the fucking balls, to discuss heterosexual marriage, but most of you have a fucking hard on for gay marrigage

boo boo

So... martin... you joining the ranks of homo defenders, excuse makers and apologists? You think men sticking each others cocks up their ass is OK? You think homos molesting little boys is OK? Maybe you think men sucking on each other's cocks is OK? You think it's normal for men to stand around french kissing on each other? You like all that? Now you want to be a homo enabler? If you think you're a Christian, how are you going to reconcile that with God?

[DragonStryk72]

absolutely NOT. Do you know how many people get married for the wrong reasons?. Societal pressures mostly, but also pressure from their family, or because they are in love.

I contend, marriage for heterosexuals should be a privalege that you have to earn, just like driving a car. Sure you may not kill anyone while in a marriage, but your actions affect something almost as dear.. 2 families.

If we had a real marriage license, meaning make a man and woman marry only if they can prove through tests that they are worthy, then youll have less divorce and better marriages

Well, it is a right, as per the 9th amendment, but anyhoo. As to the point, Marriage really doesn't fall within the government's purview, and no offense, but seeing all the various crap that politicians' marriages get into on all sides, I'm fairly glad for that.

People speak against gay marriage like it's the only reason regular marriage is going out the window. Gay marriage really only effects gays, I mean, the line by Whoopi Goldberg stands firm: "If you're against gay marriage.... Don't Fuckin marry 'em!"

I believe that the largest reason that marriage isn't working as well as it used to is that all of us are far too focused on our own personal thing, and as any married couple can tell you, it has to be a partnership, not my stuff and your stuff, but our stuff. However that partnership works, both sides have to be clear, and okay with, their part in it. Now, most people would be completely fine with a man who goes out to earn the income, while the wife stays home to take care of the house and kids, but if you reverse that, then most people start having a serious problem with that, even feminists, which I really don't get.

My brother would be a perfect example for this exercise. Now, Michael is a great guy, he cares about others feelings, makes certain that he tells the truth, but without the vindictive that many would put into it. He likes doing romantic things, is not afraid of making a complete ass of himself to cheer up those around, and is honestly interested in learning all he can about the girl he's with. However, the problem is that Michael, god love him, is really only able to go for two types of women: those who can play up to his level, or those who are content to be in the backdrop, because my brother takes up as huge space with his personality.

He also learns things at a rate to where it isn't an effort for him to do most things, such as teach himself how to play keyboard, learn to crochet, spend a couple of weeks to learn conversational Polish, nail down an 80k a year job doing web design from his laptop, that sort of stuff, and this causes him trouble in relationships. It isn't because the other person is shallow or anything, but when it takes you a year to really master knitting, and Michael blows you out of the water after only 3 months, it does ping the pride a ways.

Now, there are things in our society that are deteriorating marriage, some of which is drunken marriages in Vegas, or marriages of convenience. It is becoming nothing more than something marked on a piece of paper, or something to be casually tossed aside to be our own personal "me".

[Yurt]

nobody has the fucking balls, to discuss heterosexual marriage, but most of you have a fucking hard on for gay marrigage

boo boo :dance:

having a freudian moment here :laugh2:

[retiredman]

I have always said that the state should be out of the holy matrimony business and the church should be out of the civil union contract business. The state should allow consenting adults to join their fortunes and their estates and allow them the legal benefits presently provided to married couples. Similarly, the church should not be forced to marry or accept as married any people they don't choose to accept.

[Pale Rider]

I have always said that the state should be out of the holy matrimony business and the church should be out of the civil union contract business. The state should allow consenting adults to join their fortunes and their estates and allow them the legal benefits presently provided to married couples. Similarly, the church should not be forced to marry or accept as married any people they don't choose to accept.

Try telling that to the militant homo crowd in kullyfornia, who just had their homo loving liberal judges over ride a majority vote of the people.

In any case, I do agree.

[midcan5]

I have always said that the state should be out of the holy matrimony business and the church should be out of the civil union contract business. The state should allow consenting adults to join their fortunes and their estates and allow them the legal benefits presently provided to married couples. Similarly, the church should not be forced to marry or accept as married any people they don't choose to accept.

I agree but the second sentence is the tough piece, there has to be a sanctioning agent for those rights and only the state/government can do that.

[actsnoblemartin]

So... martin... you joining the ranks of homo defenders, excuse makers and apologists?

Im not joining anyone, right now im officially neutral.

You think men sticking each others cocks up their ass is OK?


Yes and No. Obviously I know god does not approve of that, but on the other hand, I cant imagine being gay, and being told, just ignore my desires. I think people make this issue too simple, and its not, its a complicated issue, and when i say people, i mean pro-homosexual, and anti-homosexual

You think homos molesting little boys is OK?

Honestly, I dont think molesting anyone is ok, homosexual or not. Do you really think the kid asks, hey before you molest me, i'd like to know youre sexual orientation for statistical purposes

Maybe you think men sucking on each other's cocks is OK?

Gay men are going to continue to blow each other, regardless of what i think, what do you want me to do?, go yell at them?, beat them up, shoot them?. as far as whats right or wrong, its not up to me, thats between them and god, not me and them. Same goes for anal sex or sodemy, depending on which term you think is more appropriate

You think it's normal for men to stand around french kissing on each other?

I believe, people should be allowed to make their own choices, as long as their both consenting adults 18+, its not up to me to decide their choices, their morals, or their consequences, as long as they are not harming me, or anyone else, but those two, or three or more in poligamy (adults only), then its really none of my business

You like all that?

Did I say i did, the answer is, personally i am heterosexual

Now you want to be a homo enabler?

if you wanna hate or not like me because you dont like my answer or dont think i agree with you, or dont agree with you enough, thats so be it

If you think you're a Christian, how are you going to reconcile that with God?

Im a jew, but I dont pretend to reconcile it. I wrestle with that question every day. I think god, I know youre against homosexuals, but why did you make them. I figure, let him judge them after they die. I understand youre views, and i dont condemn them, or judge them, because that would be condemning god, however, i dont pretend this issue is easy, atleast for me, but if its easy for you, i respect that.

[Pale Rider]

Im a jew, but I dont pretend to reconcile it. I wrestle with that question every day. I think god, I know youre against homosexuals, but why did you make them. I figure, let him judge them after they die. I understand youre views, and i dont condemn them, or judge them, because that would be condemning god, however, i dont pretend this issue is easy, atleast for me, but if its easy for you, i respect that.

By remaining silent you are condoning homosexual behavior martin... just remember that. If you don't condemn it, you're condoning it, and to God, not speaking against it is just as bad as being a homo. He ain't going to be happy with you.

[actsnoblemartin]

I felt the need to think about this some more last night and today, and now will give a direct answer


So... martin... you joining the ranks of homo defenders, excuse makers and apologists?

absolutely not

You think men sticking each others cocks up their ass is OK?


absolutely not, i think its disgusting and immoral

You think homos molesting little boys is OK?

absolutely not

Maybe you think men sucking on each other's cocks is OK?

No, I think its disgusting and immoral

You think it's normal for men to stand around french kissing on each other?

No, I think its disgusting and immoral

You like all that?

No, I do not

No, I dont. I believe you are right about homosexuals trying to force everyone else to Now you want to be a homo enabler?

I wonder why gays give a shit what others think?, and why they un-capable of comprimise, I think their is a huge nazi fascist wing of gays, who want to send us to re-education camps, but dont have the balls to say the same for jews or muslims.

If you think you're a Christian, how are you going to reconcile that with God?

Im a jew, and i cannot reconcile that with god, i dont think its possible

These are my honest and more importantly direct answers to your questions

[actsnoblemartin]

I see your point, you cant really be neutral on some issues.

You either support the rights of an un-born child or you support the rights of women to murder their babies

same with this one

I think youre right pale


By remaining silent you are condoning homosexual behavior martin... just remember that. If you don't condemn it, you're condoning it, and to God, not speaking against it is just as bad as being a homo. He ain't going to be happy with you.

[Yurt]

By remaining silent you are condoning homosexual behavior martin... just remember that. If you don't condemn it, you're condoning it, and to God, not speaking against it is just as bad as being a homo. He ain't going to be happy with you.

not sure i agree with that...do you have scripture to back that up?

[midcan5]

By remaining silent you are condoning homosexual behavior martin... just remember that. If you don't condemn it, you're condoning it, and to God, not speaking against it is just as bad as being a homo. He ain't going to be happy with you.

Don't you think it a bit presumptuous to assume you know what God is thinking?

The piece below covers homosexuality well.

Even the Bible has contradictory information as it was written by men.

"The Old and New Testaments both regarded slavery as normal and nowhere categorically condemned it. Part of that heritage was the use of female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual toys, breeding machines, or involuntary wives by their male owners, which 2 Sam. 5:13, Judges 19-21 and Num. 31:18 permitted--and as many American slave owners did some 150 years ago, citing these and numerous other Scripture passages as their justification."

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink

[bullypulpit]

Try telling that to the militant homo crowd in kullyfornia, who just had their homo loving liberal judges over ride a majority vote of the people.

In any case, I do agree.

Ummm...Pale, it was a majority of Republican judges, on the California Supreme Court that rendered the decision. :laugh2:

[bullypulpit]

nobody has the fucking balls, to discuss heterosexual marriage, but most of you have a fucking hard on for gay marrigage

boo boo :dance:

What's to discuss? A strong marriage is good for the family and for the community. Does it really matter whether the couple is traditional or the same gender? In a word, no. Granting same-gender couples the right to openly and formally establishing that relationship in the eyes of the law and society is not about granting special rights. It is about extending rights to those who did not previously enjoy them. That's been the history of this nation...From women's sufferage to the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's. It wasn't about creating "special rights", it was about exending rights already enjoyed by some to those who did not enjoy those same rights.

[glockmail]

..... Does it really matter whether the couple is traditional or the same gender? In a word, no. .....

As long as you don't minding screwing up the minds of kids.:pee:

[OCA]

So... martin... you joining the ranks of homo defenders, excuse makers and apologists? You think men sticking each others cocks up their ass is OK? You think homos molesting little boys is OK? Maybe you think men sucking on each other's cocks is OK? You think it's normal for men to stand around french kissing on each other? You like all that? Now you want to be a homo enabler? If you think you're a Christian, how are you going to reconcile that with God?

Of corse he does, how else would he ever get his rocks off other than his own hand? I mean we know women don't want to have shit to do with him, would you let any female relation of yours have anything to do with this loser?

I think ANM is a synonym for the male on male version of the dirty sanchez.

[bullypulpit]

As long as you don't minding screwing up the minds of kids.:pee:

Well golly, you lose again. There have been multiple, independent studies showing little, if any, developmental difference between the children of traditional couples and same-gender couples.

<center><a href=http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgprevspec.html>Reviews of Empirical Studies Specifically Related to Lesbian & Gay Parents and Their Children</a></center>

[glockmail]

Well golly, you lose again. There have been multiple, independent studies showing little, if any, developmental difference between the children of traditional couples and same-gender couples.

<center><a href=http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgprevspec.html>Reviews of Empirical Studies Specifically Related to Lesbian & Gay Parents and Their Children</a></center>

Sorry, but those are by tye APA, which has already been shown to have a political agenda with respect to this topic.

Just how do two women handle situations with their son better or equal to an actual male father without having an inherent understanding of a male mind?

[bullypulpit]

Sorry, but those are by tye APA, which has already been shown to have a political agenda with respect to this topic.

Just how do two women handle situations with their son better or equal to an actual male father without having an inherent understanding of a male mind?

I'll reiterate again, it was the preponderance of empirical data that led the APA to remove homosexuality from the DSM, not a "gay lobby"...not a "political agenda". Show me evidence that it was otherwise from an unbiased source, and I might just believe you.

As for the "...inherent understanding of a male mind...", more than a few women will tell you that it concerns itself with little more than food and sex...and not necessarily in that order.

[manu1959]

Sorry, but those are by tye APA, which has already been shown to have a political agenda with respect to this topic.

Just how do two women handle situations with their son better or equal to an actual male father without having an inherent understanding of a male mind?

the same way a single mother would ....... except she would have someone to discuss it with.....

[manu1959]

I'll reiterate again, it was the preponderance of empirical data that led the APA to remove homosexuality from the DSM, not a "gay lobby"...not a "political agenda". Show me evidence that it was otherwise from an unbiased source, and I might just believe you.

As for the "...inherent understanding of a male mind...", more than a few women will tell you that it concerns itself with little more than food and sex...and not necessarily in that order.

exactly....now who is going to teach that poor boy to behave proper.....

[glockmail]

I'll reiterate again, it was the preponderance of empirical data that led the APA to remove homosexuality from the DSM, not a "gay lobby"...not a "political agenda". Show me evidence that it was otherwise from an unbiased source, and I might just believe you.

As for the "...inherent understanding of a male mind...", more than a few women will tell you that it concerns itself with little more than food and sex...and not necessarily in that order.


The evidence from an unbiased, peer reviewed source was presented to you earlier.

As for the “…more than a few women will tell you that it concerns itself with little more than food and sex…”, you just proved my point.

[glockmail]

the same way a single mother would ....... except she would have someone to discuss it with.....

There have been several situations with my son that my wife just was unable to comprehend. She’s an extremely intelligent person, with a fair amount of pshrink training. She’s also had a lot of experience dealing with a young boy (her brother is 6 years younger that her) and lived with yours truly for over 20 years.

So if she can’t figure out how to handle my son, how’s two dykes supposed to?

My point is that anyone who knowingly, wittingly subjects a child to less than the ideal family situation, when that ideal is available, has done that child a disservice.

[manu1959]

There have been several situations with my son that my wife just was unable to comprehend. She’s an extremely intelligent person, with a fair amount of pshrink training. She’s also had a lot of experience dealing with a young boy (her brother is 6 years younger that her) and lived with yours truly for over 20 years.

So if she can’t figure out how to handle my son, how’s two dykes supposed to?

My point is that anyone who knowingly, wittingly subjects a child to less than the ideal family situation, when that ideal is available, has done that child a disservice.

the same way my mom did.....i basiccaly had no father for the first 10 years of my life and didn't have one for the next 38.....some say no father is better than a shitty one.....i was raised by my mom and grandma and great grandma and aunt......not a husband in the bunch.....

also i know lots of "two mommy kids" they seem just fine.....actually they are quite sweet and polite.....which is more than i can say for the lord of the files kids egged on by their "fathers"......

[glockmail]

the same way my mom did.....i basiccaly had no father for the first 10 years of my life and didn't have one for the next 38.....some say no father is better than a shitty one.....i was raised by my mom and grandma and great grandma and aunt......not a husband in the bunch.....

also i know lots of "two mommy kids" they seem just fine.....actually they are quite sweet and polite.....which is more than i can say for the lord of the files kids egged on by their "fathers"......

You are correct of course than no dad is better than a crappy one. I also know a guy, who grew up in a situation as you describe, and, like you, is a person who I admire and respect.

That doesn't change the point that I made earlier. If you have the option to place an adopted kid with an ideal family, then why wouldn't you? Why would you give preference to one that was not ideal? It is a disservice to the child for the sake of political correctness run amuck.

[AllieBaba]

Don't you think it a bit presumptuous to assume you know what God is thinking?

The piece below covers homosexuality well.

Even the Bible has contradictory information as it was written by men.

"The Old and New Testaments both regarded slavery as normal and nowhere categorically condemned it. Part of that heritage was the use of female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual toys, breeding machines, or involuntary wives by their male owners, which 2 Sam. 5:13, Judges 19-21 and Num. 31:18 permitted--and as many American slave owners did some 150 years ago, citing these and numerous other Scripture passages as their justification."

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink

The Bible does, however, provide that the people of God (Jews) free their slaves every 7 years...and treat their slaves well.
Slaves in biblical times actually had rights allowed them by the law as well, unlike the slaves of later years.
The NT tells slaves to obey their masters, but also admonishes men to treat their slaves/wives/children well.
If you substitute the word "workers" for slaves, you will find good advice for the working man in the bible, and I believe that is what it was intended to be.
Not an endorsement of slavery, but advice to workers and their supervisors.

[My Winter Storm]

So... martin... you joining the ranks of homo defenders, excuse makers and apologists? You think men sticking each others cocks up their ass is OK? You think homos molesting little boys is OK? Maybe you think men sucking on each other's cocks is OK? You think it's normal for men to stand around french kissing on each other? You like all that? Now you want to be a homo enabler? If you think you're a Christian, how are you going to reconcile that with God?

Do you think heterosexuals molesting children is okay? Do you think man to woman anal sex is okay? The risks are the same, gender shouldn't apply.

Whether you believe it is normal or abnormal is not reason enough to ban it.