North Carolina bans same sex marriage

[jimnyc]

North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban, CNN projects

(CNN) -- North Carolina voters have passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, CNN projects, putting a ban that already existed in state law into the state's charter.

With more than 1.5 million votes counted from Tuesday's referendum, supporters of the ban led opponents by a margin of 61% to 39%, according to figures from the State Board of Elections. Its backers prepared to celebrate by serving wedding cake to their supporters in a Raleigh ballroom.

Tami Fitzgerald, the head of Vote for Marriage NC, said she had been confident that "the people of North Carolina would rise up and vote to keep the opposition from redefining traditional marriage.

"We are not anti-gay, we are pro-marriage," she said. "And the point -- the whole point -- is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/08/politics/north-carolina-marriage/index.html?section=cnn_latest

[cadet]

Well, I know where I'm moving too.

Just as soon as all the gay protesters come and go.

[Noir]

I wonder if gods idea of marriage includes the idea of (say) a man and a woman, both divorced several times, getting married.

[Wind Song]

You can marry your cousin in Tennessee but you can't marry your same sex lover and companion.

[Wind Song]

Marraige licenses have immigration implications and rights connected to them. Most married couples don't plan on spending their savings on attorney fees just so one partner can stay in the US as long as possible, while simultaneously spending money to secure other options in Canada or one of the other countries that might recognize their relationship for immigration purposes.

Living their lives in complete uncertainty what country they may be living in next month.

Being deported for a simple trafffic violation.

[Wind Song]

What happens to an American lesbian in London who meets the woman of her dreams and wants to bring her back to America to live out the rest of their lives? If she's heterosexual, all she has to do is fill out some paperwork, but ultimately, she'll be able to do it.

If she's a lesbian, her partner will have to apply for a work visa, and they'll both have to keep praying it will be renewed or that some nice employer will sponsor her for citizenship. Otherwise her partner will have to return to her own country or may in desperation, enter into a fraudulent heterosexual marriage which will grant her citizenship rights. If she pulls it off, she can stay. If she gets caught, it's prison, then deportation.

[jimnyc]

I wonder if gods idea of marriage includes the idea of (say) a man and a woman, both divorced several times, getting married.

The Catholic Church is against divorce and you cannot remarry in the church once you've done so.

[MtnBiker]

The headline should read "In North Carolina Obama's base turns out to ban gay marriage"


As National Journal's Beth Reinhard wrote on Monday, the issue of gay marriage is politically complicated for Obama because while young voters largely support it, African-Americans do not.

Indeed, many rural, heavily African-American counties that strongly supported Obama in the 2008 contest overwhelmingly backed the gay marriage ban. In Hertford County, which is over 60 percent African-American, Obama won 70 percent of the vote in 2008 but it voted heavily for Amendment 1 (3,817 yes votes; 1,627 no votes).

In Bertie County, the most African-American county in the state (over 62 percent), Obama garnered over 65 percent of the vote. But a whopping 73 percent of the county's voters supported the constitutional amendment.

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2012/05/north-carolina-2.php

[Wind Song]

Social security is a major form of retirement for most people. LGBT people are not eligible to receive spousal benefits because we do not fit the marriage framework. We are NOT able to legally marry. Pension and 401k plans often don't recognize a same sex partner as a beneficiary. Marriage ensures that spouses receive benefits that right now LGBT people can't get.

50% of Area Agencies on Aging would not want LGBT people at their senior centers. AAA's provide the bulk of social services to seniors.

[logroller]

Marraige licenses have immigration implications and rights connected to them. Most married couples don't plan on spending their savings on attorney fees just so one partner can stay in the US as long as possible, while simultaneously spending money to secure other options in Canada or one of the other countries that might recognize their relationship for immigration purposes.

Living their lives in complete uncertainty what country they may be living in next month.

Being deported for a simple trafffic violation.

totally off topic. Fresh off a 24-hr and now you're gunning for a thread ban.

[logroller]

What happens to an American lesbian in London who meets the woman of her dreams and wants to bring her back to America to live out the rest of their lives? If she's heterosexual, all she has to do is fill out some paperwork, but ultimately, she'll be able to do it.

If she's a lesbian, her partner will have to apply for a work visa, and they'll both have to keep praying it will be renewed or that some nice employer will sponsor her for citizenship. Otherwise her partner will have to return to her own country or may in desperation, enter into a fraudulent heterosexual marriage which will grant her citizenship rights. If she pulls it off, she can stay. If she gets caught, it's prison, then deportation.
She comes and post about it in a thread that has nothing to do with LGBT, marriage or immigration?

[logroller]

I wonder if gods idea of marriage includes the idea of (say) a man and a woman, both divorced several times, getting married.

Then the Pope has got some explaining to do.

[Wind Song]

Het couple Jane and John go to the sperm bank because they want to have a child and John is infertile. They pick out a nice donor and after some time. Bingo, Jane is pregnant.

Jane and Julie, a lesbian couple, go to the sperm bank because they want to have a child. After several attempts, Jane is pregnant.

It looks like all things should be equal. One biological parent, one nonbiological parent in both couples. It should be equal, but it's not.

Because of their civil marriage, Jane and John have their child and each of their names automatically go on the birth certificate. But for Jane and Julie, the ordeal is just beginning. After their baby is born, only Jane's name is on the birth certificate. The non-biological parent, Julie, is considered a legal stranger, unless her state allow her to go either through a second parent adoption or a stepparent adoption.

Second parent adoptions protect children in same sex parent families by giving them the security of two legal parents. The second parent adoption protects the rights of the second parent by making sure he or she will continue to have legally recognized parent relationship to the child in the event that the couple separates or the biological parent dies or becomes incapacitated. Second parent adoption is only legal in ten states.

[tailfins]

She comes and post about it in a thread that has nothing to do with LGBT, marriage or immigration?

Some people just don't know any better.

[jimnyc]

Het couple Jane and John go to the sperm bank because they want to have a child and John is infertile. They pick out a nice donor and after some time. Bingo, Jane is pregnant.

Jane and Julie, a lesbian couple, go to the sperm bank because they want to have a child. After several attempts, Jane is pregnant.

It looks like all things should be equal. One biological parent, one nonbiological parent in both couples. It should be equal, but it's not.

Because of their civil marriage, Jane and John have their child and each of their names automatically go on the birth certificate. But for Jane and Julie, the ordeal is just beginning. After their baby is born, only Jane's name is on the birth certificate. The non-biological parent, Julie, is considered a legal stranger, unless her state allow her to go either through a second parent adoption or a stepparent adoption.

Second parent adoptions protect children in same sex parent families by giving them the security of two legal parents. The second parent adoption protects the rights of the second parent by making sure he or she will continue to have legally recognized parent relationship to the child in the event that the couple separates or the biological parent dies or becomes incapacitated. Second parent adoption is only legal in ten states.

Are we discussing marriage equality and adoptions - or abortions, which WAS the subject of this thread? I'm confused.

[Wind Song]

Are we discussing marriage equality and adoptions - or abortions, which WAS the subject of this thread? I'm confused.


I'm making a case about why people should give a damn about marriage equality. If you'd rather I didn't post the reasons then I won't. Yikes I screwed up and posted this stuff on the wrong thread.

If it's not too much trouble could you move those posts to the thread about banning gay marriage in North Carolina.

[Wind Song]

Yikes, I just spent a ton of time posting some essays on the wrong thread.

[Wind Song]

:thumb:

Hey Jim can you move my essays on the reason why marriage equality is important to the other thread?

sorry

[jimnyc]

Hey Jim can you move my essays on the reason why marriage equality is important to the other thread?

sorry

Posts and any subsequent replies were moved from the other thread to this one

[Noir]

The Catholic Church is against divorce and you cannot remarry in the church once you've done so.

Only if you got married in a Catholic church, if you got married in say a Protestant church (surprise!) you weren't married at all, according to the Catholics.

[tailfins]

Only if you got married in a Catholic church, if you got married in say a Protestant church (surprise!) you weren't married at all, according to the Catholics.

So some of Newtie Gingrich's marriages didn't necessitate a divorce since he wasn't married in the first place? Just asking.

[Wind Song]

Posts and any subsequent replies were moved from the other thread to this one

Thank you.

[jimnyc]

Only if you got married in a Catholic church, if you got married in say a Protestant church (surprise!) you weren't married at all, according to the Catholics.

I don't think it's that simple, but I'm not as knowledgeable as others on the subject. From what I recall, the Church doesn't believe in divorce and won't remarry people once they have done so, and you're not to get communion once divorced either. I don't think they just ignore marriages from other Churches and therefore ignore any divorces.

[darin]

You can marry your cousin in Tennessee but you can't marry your same sex lover and companion.

Nor can you marry your pet, house, car, or anything else one simply 'loves'. :)

Good for the people of the state; deciding how they want to be governed.

[Wind Song]

Nor can you marry your pet, house, car, or anything else one simply 'loves'. :)

Good for the people of the state; deciding how they want to be governed.


Good for the state preferring incest over marriage equality.

[Noir]

So some of Newtie Gingrich's marriages didn't necessitate a divorce since he wasn't married in the first place? Just asking.

idk enough about his life to comment on him specificly, however, I do know that if you get married outside the Catholic Church, and without their permission, the the marriage is not a valid one, hiw that would apply to him I'm not sure.

[Noir]

I don't think it's that simple, but I'm not as knowledgeable as others on the subject. From what I recall, the Church doesn't believe in divorce and won't remarry people once they have done so, and you're not to get communion once divorced either. I don't think they just ignore marriages from other Churches and therefore ignore any divorces.

From the Catholic Marriage Centre.


Q. My fiancé and I are both Catholic, and we would like to get married in a Catholic church, however, I am a divorcee. Is it still possible for us to marry in a Catholic church in the UK?

A. If your first marriage was valid, and marriage is said to ‘have the favour of law’ that is, it is assumed valid until it is legally proved otherwise, then you are not free to marry again. I quote from the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church No.349:
'The Church, since she is faithful to her Lord, cannot recognise the union of people who are civilly divorced and remarried. "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her: and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"(Mark 10:11-12). The Church manifests an attentive solicitude towards such people and encourages them to a life of faith, prayer, works of charity and the Christian education of their children. However, they cannot receive sacramental absolution, take Holy Communion, or exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities as long as their situation, which objectively contravenes God's law, persists.'

And


Q.My fiancé and I are both Catholics and we would like to get married in a Catholic church. However, I am a divorcee, previously married in an Anglican church in Australia. Is it still possible for us to marry in a Catholic Church in the UK?
A. If you were a Catholic at the time of your marriage in the Anglican Church, and you married without the permission of the Catholic Church, and without the presence of a Catholic priest or deacon to witness your exchange of vows, then that marriage was not valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church. This means you are probably free to marry in the Catholic Church as you would not be, and have not been, married. Your local catholic priest would need to be satisfied of all the relevant information.

If, however, you received permission to marry in an Anglican church, and the appropriate stipulations of the Catholic Church were met, then that would have been a valid marriage; and despite a civil divorce, you would not be free to marry again.

http://www.catholicmarriagecentre.org.uk/marriagefaq.php#f

[tailfins]

Good for the state preferring incest over marriage equality.


One nuance you have missed is that many Southern churches worship Southern culture, not Jesus. It's evident that's why you asked me what I would do if I saw a gaggle of gays on the subway or walking down the street. The concern or reasonable is that marriage can be redefined out of existence. I get it that gay "marriage" is not the ONLY or even the chief force at work in this.

[Wind Song]

One nuance you have missed is that many Southern churches worship Southern culture, not Jesus. It's evident that's why you asked me what I would do if I saw a gaggle of gays on the subway or walking down the street. The concern or reasonable is that marriage can be redefined out of existence. I get it that gay "marriage" is not the ONLY or even the chief force at work in this.


Is incest "Southern culture"? You can still marry your first cousin in North Carolina. Why aren't the moralists up in arms over that? Legal incest is a far more dangerous law than civil marriage equality.

Marriage will not be re-defined out of existence. For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone cares if gays and lesbians CIVILLY MARRY.

[tailfins]

Is incest "Southern culture"?



Ask Jerry Lee Lewis.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yRdDnrB5kM

[jimnyc]

From the Catholic Marriage Centre.



And



http://www.catholicmarriagecentre.org.uk/marriagefaq.php#f

More on the process here, about how the Church determines what is a marriage and whether or not the prior is invalid.




What is Marriage? In order to understand what the Church means when it issues a Declaration of Nullity it is helpful to look first at the Church’s understanding of marriage. Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman which establishes a partnership for life. Marriage is a vocation which fosters the good of the spouses and naturally leads to the procreation and education of children. Marriage is a sacrament, as St. Paul taught in the New Testament (Eph. 5).
A number of elements must come together for the sacrament of marriage to occur. The first is the “Canonical Form” of marriage: a Catholic must ordinarily be married within a Catholic church and before a priest or deacon. The requirements for the Canonical Form of marriage applies only to Catholic spouses, so we would recognize the marriage of two persons who are not Catholic, even if they did not marry in a church ceremony or religious service.
However, following the proper canonical form of marriage is not all that is necessary for a valid sacramental marriage to take place. The couple must also freely and knowingly choose to enter marriage as the Church understands marriage. This is “Marital Consent.” A number of intentions must be made by the couple at the time of marriage in order for consent to be valid, that is, in order to establish the unbreakable bond between husband and wife that is a sacramental marriage. The couple must understand what marriage is and they must intend their marriage to be a lifelong partnership which is open to children. They must intend fidelity and the mutual good of one another. They must also have the physical and psychological ability to follow through on these intentions.
When all of the above factors are brought together, a sacramental, indissoluble union is established by God. If a Catholic spouse marries with the proper Canonical Form and with at least the semblance of the necessary intentions given through the marriage vows, we recognize the enduring marriage bond which cannot be dissolved, even if the civil government, through divorce, no longer recognizes that a marriage exists.
When Christians marry in this way, we believe that God has made the two persons one in the sacrament of marriage (cf. Mt. 19:5). Because Jesus taught the indissolubility of marriage—“therefore, let no one separate what God has joined” (Mt. 19:6)—we believe that it is impossible for any human power to break the God-made bond, or sacramental covenant, between husband and wife.

So, What Exactly is a Declaration of Invalidity? Is it ever possible to enter a second marriage? If a Catholic spouse did not follow the Canonical Form of marriage, outlined above, then a relatively simple process can be followed in order to receive a Declaration of Nullity based on a Lack of Canonical Form. But if proper Canonical Form was observed, or if it was not required—for members of other faith traditions, for example—a second type of process examines Marital Consent, that is, the intentions and abilities of the spouses at the time of marriage. This process is called a Formal Case. It is possible to have two persons legally married, but never actually joined together by God in a sacramental union. The Formal Case process is complex, detailed, and is lengthy—9 to 18 months.
In either the Lack of Form Case or the Formal Case we must be very clear: the Decree of Invalidity is not a “Catholic Divorce.” The Church does not have the power to divorce any persons who have been united by God. A Decree of Invalidity states that the enduring bond of the sacrament of marriage was never present from the very beginning of the marriage. If this is decided by a church Tribunal, the spouses are free to marry again.
It must also be made clear that a Decree of Invalidity in no way affects the legitimacy of children of such a previous marriage, and has no bearing on other natural and civil obligations such as child support or custody. A church Decree of Invalidity does not imply that the marriage never existed, but only that it did not have the character of a sacrament. The Church does not seek to assign blame for the marriage breakup to any of the persons involved.
Does a Divorce affect my Status in the Catholic Church? Please remember that a divorce alone would not affect, or hinder in any way, your participation in the Catholic Church. A divorced Catholic is free to receive the sacraments. However, if you are divorced and remarried without an Decree of Invalidity (and your former spouse is still living) a problem does arise. Similarly, if your spouse was previously married and has not received an Decree of Invalidity from a Tribunal, there is a problem. In such circumstances, you may not partake of the sacraments, including the reception of Holy Communion. We respect all marriages, even those which have ended in a civil divorce. Every prior marriage must be examined, since each is presumed to be valid with a lasting and lifelong commitment. Until it is shown otherwise through the ministry of the Tribunal, no person is free to enter into another marriage without the appearance or occasion of serious sin.
If you or your current spouse are divorced, and remarried outside of the Catholic Church, please consider seeking the healing that an investigation for a Decree of Invalidity can bring to you and which will enable you to return to a full participation in the sacramental life of the Church.


http://www.archatl.com/offices/tribunal/drm_c.html

[cadet]

Good for the state preferring incest over marriage equality.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeIsxXDyjlc

[MtnBiker]

I'm making a case about why people should give a damn about marriage equality.


Do you realize that it would be much harder for the Preezy of the United Steezy be reelected by his own base if he supported gay marriage?

[Abbey Marie]

No linky yet, but I have heard that John Stossel had a program that showed that marrying even siblings, while disgusting, doesn't result in genetic abnormalities as is generally believed.

:scared::dunno:

[MtnBiker]

Good for the state preferring incest over marriage equality.

So, of the states that allow same sex marriage, how many of those states also allow marriage between first cousins?

[tailfins]

Do you realize that it would be much harder for the Preezy of the United Steezy be reelected by his own base if he supported gay marriage?

In most gay marriage ban votes, the black vote goes in favor of the ban.

[Wind Song]

In most gay marriage ban votes, the black vote goes in favor of the ban.

So what? Are you trying to throw in the race card?

[darin]

Good for the state preferring incest over marriage equality.

How is a law applying to everybody somehow 'unequal'?

[Gator Monroe]

2010 x 10 in 12:salute:

[MtnBiker]

Is incest "Southern culture"?


Is it California culture?

[Gator Monroe]

The Blue Cities lost there is hope in more Populus States !:link:

[Wind Song]

How is a law applying to everybody somehow 'unequal'?

Is fucking your first cousin something you agree with? My point is that INCEST is legal in North Carolina but gay marriage isn't. That doesn't make much sense to me.


Is it California culture?

No, we don't let first cousins marry in California.

[darin]

Is fucking your first cousin something you agree with? My point is that INCEST is legal in North Carolina but gay marriage isn't. That doesn't make much sense to me.



So YOUR judgment on who should get married is somehow 'enlightened'? You want inclusive marriages - but those ONLY on your terms? Hypocrite.

[MtnBiker]

Is fucking your first cousin something you agree with?

What if it is two gay men that are cousins?

BTW, the state of California agrees with it.

[Wind Song]

What if it is two gay men that are cousins?

BTW, the state of California agrees with it.

The state of California does not agree with first cousins marrying.

[Gator Monroe]

Is it California culture?
San Franpsycho / Marin / Mount Shasta Pagan Wiccan Lesbian Values are being foisted on the Populace Nationwide

[Wind Song]

So YOUR judgment on who should get married is somehow 'enlightened'? You want inclusive marriages - but those ONLY on your terms? Hypocrite.

You're making an ASSumption here. I certainly didn't say my judgment is enlightened, but thanks for thinking that.

I want gays and lesbians to be able to marry. YOU seem to favor incest over marriage equality for gays and lesbians.

I find INCEST a serious immorality. Perhaps you don't.

[MtnBiker]

No, we don't let first cousins marry in California.


The county of San Joaquin disagrees with you!


Recorder / County Clerk's OfficeMarriage Licenses
Requirements


No blood tests are required
One does not have to be a California resident to marry in California
There is no waiting period between receipt of a marriage license and the ceremony
First cousins may marry in California
Only unmarried persons may purchase a license to marry in California
If in a State Registered Domestic Partnership and marriage will be to someone other than the registered domestic partner, the domestic partnership must first be terminated.
"Common-Law" marriage and marriage by "Proxy" are not allowed in California



http://www.sjgov.org/recorder/marriage.aspx

[Gator Monroe]

Is Fucking or Marrying a 17 year old Boy OK for a 46 year old man (Even if it's legal ?)

[Wind Song]

It wouldn't be OK if that was MY 17 year old son. Be glad I'm not a gun owner.

[Gator Monroe]

It wouldn't be OK if that was MY 17 year old son. Be glad I'm not a gun owner.

Here here Windy , we'll make a moderate outta you yet !:coffee:

[MtnBiker]

No, we don't let first cousins marry in California.

Is Los Angeles in California?

http://www.losangelesmarriagelicense.com/marriage-license-requirements.html
(http://www.losangelesmarriagelicense.com/marriage-license-requirements.html)

[ConHog]

The Catholic Church is against divorce and you cannot remarry in the church once you've done so.



Unless you pay enough money for the church to issue an annulment pretending the first marriage never happened LOL

[Gator Monroe]

13% of all Legal Divorces since 1964 have been in Catholic Households

[Noir]

Is Fucking or Marrying a 17 year old Boy OK for a 46 year old man (Even if it's legal ?)

Lout of curiosity, what do you think is the youngest age that is acceptable for a 46 year old man or woman to have sex with? (If this expands much I'll move it to another topic)

[Gator Monroe]

17 should get you 20 (Reguardless of the State ):lol:

[logroller]

Lout of curiosity, what do you think is the youngest age that is acceptable for a 46 year old man or woman to have sex with? (If this expands much I'll move it to another topic)
I'd say 30 for a relationship. Sex with...who cares as long as they're consenting adults.

[Gator Monroe]

16 is not a consenting Adult (Even with Parental Consent):lol:

[ConHog]

You're making an ASSumption here. I certainly didn't say my judgment is enlightened, but thanks for thinking that.

I want gays and lesbians to be able to marry. YOU seem to favor incest over marriage equality for gays and lesbians.

I find INCEST a serious immorality. Perhaps you don't.


So the law should be on the side of what YOU find morally objectionable?

Hell, who gives a shit if cousins marry? Or even siblings? I mean gross, but why would you care?

[ConHog]

16 is not a consenting Adult (Even with Parental Consent):lol:

Depends on where you live friend, 16 is consenting adult for sex in Arkansas and many other states. I believe 14 is the legal age of consent in Utah.

[Gator Monroe]

So your ok with a 46 year old man Marrying a 15 year old Boy ? (Legally)

[darin]

You're making an ASSumption here. I certainly didn't say my judgment is enlightened, but thanks for thinking that.

Your attitude betrays your elitist feelings. Thanks for pointing out my Ass, though. It really is lovely.


I want gays and lesbians to be able to marry. YOU seem to favor incest over marriage equality for gays and lesbians.

I want states to decide what is best for themselves.


I find INCEST a serious immorality. Perhaps you don't.

You place value/moral judgments on different types of marriages, yet you berate others for doing the same. That's being a hypocrite.

[Wind Song]

Your attitude betrays your elitist feelings. Thanks for pointing out my Ass, though. It really is lovely.



I want states to decide what is best for themselves.



You place value/moral judgments on different types of marriages, yet you berate others for doing the same. That's being a hypocrite.

Your first sentence is inflammatory. Your second is silly. DOMA should be undone. It's federal.

Yes, I place value moral judgements on different types of marriage and I consider incest to be marriage I am morally not in favor of. That's not being a hypocrite but being completely consistent morally.

I don't consider gay and lesbian marriage immoral. You do. (at least that's the impression you give)

[Wind Song]

So your ok with a 46 year old man Marrying a 15 year old Boy ? (Legally)

I would think you'd be able to infer that if I would take a gun to a 46 year old marrying my 17 year old son, (or daughter) I would object to the same 46 year old marrying my 15 year old son or daughter.

[Gator Monroe]

Your first sentence is inflammatory. Your second is silly. DOMA should be undone. It's federal.

Yes, I place value moral judgements on different types of marriage and I consider incest to be marriage I am morally not in favor of. That's not being a hypocrite but being completely consistent morally.

I don't consider gay and lesbian marriage immoral. You do. (at least that's the impression you give)

Oh so I see your really ok with a 46 Year old Gay Man Cougar brainwarshing your 17 year old son into a Marrage (If its legal) ?:coffee:

[Wind Song]

So the law should be on the side of what YOU find morally objectionable?

Hell, who gives a shit if cousins marry? Or even siblings? I mean gross, but why would you care?


Birth defects, for one thing.

[Wind Song]

Oh so I see your really ok with a 46 Year old Gay Man Cougar brainwarshing your 17 year old son into a Marrage (If its legal) ?:coffee:


No, I'm not. This is the THIRD time I've told you I'm not in favor of this.

[ConHog]

Birth defects, for one thing.

It's impossible for

A) Kin to procreate without being married?

B) Kin to marry and choose not to procreate? (by the way I will of course remind you that gays can't procreate out of simple biology so surely you aren't arguing that if people aren't going to procreate, why bother getting married?)

[Gator Monroe]

No, I'm not. This is the THIRD time I've told you I'm not in favor of this.

I'm confused , your not for Gay Marrage ???:lol:

[Wind Song]

It's impossible for

A) Kin to procreate without being married?

B) Kin to marry and choose not to procreate? (by the way I will of course remind you that gays can't procreate out of simple biology so surely you aren't arguing that if people aren't going to procreate, why bother getting married?)


Incest happens even when it isn't legal. IMO, a pregnancy that comes out of incest ought to be optional.

No, procreation is not a condition of civil marriage law. It's perfectly legal for infertile couples to marry and IMO, it should be legal for lesbians and gays to marry.

[darin]

Your first sentence is inflammatory. Your second is silly. DOMA should be undone. It's federal.

Three sentences and not one is logical. Three swings, three logical fallacies.


Yes, I place value moral judgements on different types of marriage and I consider incest to be marriage I am morally not in favor of. That's not being a hypocrite but being completely consistent morally. I don't consider gay and lesbian marriage immoral. You do. (at least that's the impression you give)


And plenty of reasonable people consider sexual deviancy of any type immoral. You are essentially bitching at folks for making a moral judgment of marriage, yet YOU make a moral judgment about marriage. I consider restrictions on gay and lesbian marriage the same type of special privileges for select members of society in line with OTHER restrictions - such as those governing driving a car, voting, etc,

What the popular gay marriage debate is: Some people aren't happy until they FORCE inclusion - no...until they force acceptance of their PERSONAL preferences onto the entire society. It's akin to my preference for chocolate being forced on to the menu of EVERY restaurant.

[Wind Song]

I'm confused , your not for Gay Marrage ???:lol:

You're not confused in the slightest. You're attempting some mind fucking bull shit. You asked if it was OK with me if a 46 year old man married a 15 or 17 year old boy or girl. It may be legal, but that doesn't make it OK.

Do you see the difference?


Three sentences and not one is logical. Three swings, three logical fallacies.




And plenty of reasonable people consider sexual deviancy of any type immoral. You are essentially bitching at folks for making a moral judgment of marriage, yet YOU make a moral judgment about marriage. I consider restrictions on gay and lesbian marriage the same type of special privileges for select members of society in line with OTHER restrictions - such as those governing driving a car, voting, etc,

What the popular gay marriage debate is: Some people aren't happy until they FORCE inclusion - no...until they force acceptance of their PERSONAL preferences onto the entire society. It's akin to my preference for chocolate being forced on to the menu of EVERY restaurant.


I'm not bitching at folks makinig a moral judgment. I'm bitching at the law. I don't care if I can't marry in a church. I want the civil rights that come with a marriage license.

My marriage is no less important to me than your is to you. We're both citizens in this country and our rights should be equal.

[Gator Monroe]

You're not confused in the slightest. You're attempting some mind fucking bull shit. You asked if it was OK with me if a 46 year old man married a 15 or 17 year old boy or girl. It may be legal, but that doesn't make it OK.

Do you see the difference?

Legality = Mind Fucking Bullshit ?:lol:

[Wind Song]

Legality = Mind Fucking Bullshit ?:lol:


I've tried to talk to you but it's not working for me. We're done for the day, you and I.

[MtnBiker]

We're both citizens in this country and our rights should be equal.


Your rights are equal, you both have the same right to marry one person of the opposite sex.

And if you live in California, it could be your first cousin.

[logroller]

Some people say let the states decide; but here's the problem with that: other states may. E compelled to honor another states licensing sometimes. Like say, a woman is arrested in a state for some wrong doing. Can her partner, who's technically a spouse in another state, be compelled to testify against her?
It gets confusing from a legal perspective, because the offended state may have laws protecting spousal privileges, but soesnt recognize gay marriage; only according to the other state where the woman told her something in confidence it was protected by immunity. I know this is an exceptional example, but surely there are a plethora of other marital privileges which would also be problematic across state lines; that's why DOMA was enacted. It says nope, doesn't count.

[Abbey Marie]

Some people say let the states decide; but here's the problem with that: other states may. E compelled to honor another states licensing sometimes. Like say, a woman is arrested in a state for some wrong doing. Can her partner, who's technically a spouse in another state, be compelled to testify against her?
It gets confusing from a legal perspective, because the offended state may have laws protecting spousal privileges, but soesnt recognize gay marriage; only according to the other state where the woman told her something in confidence it was protected by immunity. I know this is an exceptional example, but surely there are a plethora of other marital privileges which would also be problematic across state lines; that's why DOMA was enacted. It says nope, doesn't count.

I would say that you follow the rules of the state in which you committed the crime. If I am caught with pot in a state with a more severe penalty than my home state, the courts aren't going to care what my home state says about it. Ditto burglary, etc.

[tailfins]

Depends on where you live friend, 16 is consenting adult for sex in Arkansas and many other states. I believe 14 is the legal age of consent in Utah.

You seem very well versed on that topic. :poke:

[Wind Song]

Your rights are equal, you both have the same right to marry one person of the opposite sex.

And if you live in California, it could be your first cousin.

If want you want us to do is fraud, we lesbians could team up with a gay couple and get married rights fraudulently. I'd rather go the legal route myself. I'm married as it is, but I'd like my marriage to be as fully priveleged as any hetero's marriage is.

[darin]

I'm not bitching at folks makinig a moral judgment. I'm bitching at the law. I don't care if I can't marry in a church. I want the civil rights that come with a marriage license.


Law didn't just happen. People VOTED this law in to govern themselves. Its like banging my head against a wall. VERY SLOWLY HERE: You have the SAME RIGHTS AS A PERSON WHO DECIDED TO NOT BE GAY. Both of you can marry after meeting the same requirements. What you're after is legal protection and validation of your hobby/lifestyle/personal preference.

[Wind Song]

Law didn't just happen. People VOTED this law in to govern themselves. Its like banging my head against a wall. VERY SLOWLY HERE: You have the SAME RIGHTS AS A PERSON WHO DECIDED TO NOT BE GAY. Both of you can marry after meeting the same requirements. What you're after is legal protection and validation of your hobby/lifestyle/personal preference.


What we're after is protection for our families, just as you have legal protection for yours. Being lesbian isn't a hobby or a lifestyle or a preference. It's who I am, in my essence.

[Missileman]

You have the SAME RIGHTS AS A PERSON WHO DECIDED TO NOT BE GAY.

How many times have you made this decision? Has it ever been a difficult one? Have you ever just flipped a coin and left the decision to chance? Do you wake up every morning and make a conscious decision to be straight?

[tailfins]

What we're after is protection for our families, just as you have legal protection for yours. Being lesbian isn't a hobby or a lifestyle or a preference. It's who I am, in my essence.


Remember the song where Michael Jackson sings "I'm not gonna spend my life being a color". Why don't you decide likewise?

[fj1200]

Lout of curiosity, what do you think is the youngest age that is acceptable for a 46 year old man or woman to have sex with? (If this expands much I'll move it to another topic)


I'd say 30 for a relationship. Sex with...who cares as long as they're consenting adults.

Exactly, I believe the formula is 1/2 + 7.

[fj1200]

Law didn't just happen. People VOTED this law in to govern themselves. Its like banging my head against a wall. VERY SLOWLY HERE: You have the SAME RIGHTS AS A PERSON WHO DECIDED TO NOT BE GAY. Both of you can marry after meeting the same requirements. What you're after is legal protection and validation of your hobby/lifestyle/personal preference.

No, you have the privilege of marrying the person you want to have sexy time with. Not so with WS, she only has the privilege of marrying someone she DOESN'T want to have sexy time with.

[KarlMarx]

Remember the song where Michael Jackson sings "I'm not gonna spend my life being a color". Why don't you decide likewise?
Because they can't or won't. Gays have only one thing in common, a behavior. Contrary to what they want us to believe, they aren't born that way. The whole mechanism of sexual orientation is much more complicated than a genetic predisposition towards that.

There's another group of people that get discriminated against who are born that way... alcoholics. If your mom or dad is an alcoholic, chances are pretty good that you'll be one too. But alcoholics can't drink and drive... but neither can the rest of us. So, because they're born that way, we should make a law stating that alcoholics, for the sake of driving equality, should be able to drink and drive. What the hey.. let them drink and fly airplanes, too.. operate heavy machinery.. after all, they can't help themselves... they have a genetic predisposition towards being drunk.

So, you may ask... two gays marrying and having children together is a positive thing, while driving while being intoxicated is not. When no-fault divorce was being considered by many states several decades ago, it too was touted as a positive thing. There is the law of unintended consequences. Things are the way they are for a reason. Marriage has been a contract between a man and a woman for many millenia. That type of institution benefits society by providing a stable environment to raise children.

Gays suffer from higher incidents of drug and alcohol abuse, are more likely to suffer from mental illness and are more prone to committing suicide. Even in cities where gays are tolerated. I wonder, how does it benefit children to be raised by a group of people that are more likely to suffer from mental illness and substance abuse than the rest of us?

Marriage is not a right. If that were the case, then no fault divorce should be declared a violation of human rights. After all, in divorce usually only one person wants the divorce. So, in these cases, isn't someone's rights being violated?

When I am divorced, those so called protections that are granted to me by the State suddenly end... so why isn't divorce unconstitutional?

Call it what you will, but gay marriage is a sham. It's going to be a big to do until the gays get their marriage equality... then it will be on to something else. Perhaps it will be demands that we have sexual reassignment surgery paid for by the American taxpayer, perhaps it will be affirmative action for gays... it will never end.

[Little-Acorn]

No, you have the privilege of marrying the person you want to have sexy time with. Not so with WS, she only has the privilege of marrying someone she DOESN'T want to have sexy time with.

So the difference is not in her privileges, the difference is only in what she wants?

[fj1200]

So the difference is not in her privileges, the difference is only in what she wants?

No, her privileges are not in line with her orientation.

[ConHog]

Exactly, I believe the formula is 1/2 + 7.

Whew my wife and i just made you cut. I think.

Im 41 shes 27 almost 28.


Yes i rock lol

[fj1200]

So, you may ask... two gays marrying and having children together is a positive thing, ... Marriage has been a contract between a man and a woman for many millenia. That type of institution benefits society by providing a stable environment to raise children.

And gays are having kids, there is nothing you can do about that. If you want the stable environment to raise children then you'd have to admit that providing it for any family is beneficial.

[Abbey Marie]

What we're after is protection for our families, just as you have legal protection for yours. Being lesbian isn't a hobby or a lifestyle or a preference. It's who I am, in my essence.

Wait, weren't you once married to a man? How do we know which way really is your essence?

[fj1200]

Whew my wife and i just made you cut. I think.

Im 41 shes 27 almost 28.


Yes i rock lol

How about when you met you amoral sicko. :poke:

[ConHog]

Because they can't or won't. Gays have only one thing in common, a behavior. Contrary to what they want us to believe, they aren't born that way. The whole mechanism of sexual orientation is much more complicated than a genetic predisposition towards that.

There's another group of people that get discriminated against who are born that way... alcoholics. If your mom or dad is an alcoholic, chances are pretty good that you'll be one too. But alcoholics can't drink and drive... but neither can the rest of us. So, because they're born that way, we should make a law stating that alcoholics, for the sake of driving equality, should be able to drink Anderson drive. What the hey.. let them drink and fly airplanes, too.. operate heavy machinery.. after all, they can't help themselves... they have a genetic predisposition towards being drunk.

So, you may ask... two gays marrying and having children together is a positive thing, while driving while being intoxicated is not. When no-fault divorce was being considered by many states several decades ago, it too was touted as a positive thing. There is the law of unintended consequences. Things are the way they are for a reason. Marriage has been a contract between a man and a woman for many millenia. That type of institution benefits society by providing a stable environment to raise children.

Gays suffer from higher incidents of drug and alcohol abuse, are more likely to suffer from mental illness and are more prone to committing suicide. Even in cities where gays are tolerated. I wonder, how does it benefit children to be raised by a group of people that are more likely to suffer from mental illness and substance abuse than the rest of us?

@Marriage is not a right. If that were the case, then no fault divorce should be declared a violation of human rights. After all, in divorce usually only one person wants the divorce. So, in these cases, isn't someone's rights being violated?

When I am divorced, those so called protections that are granted to me by the State suddenly end... so why isn't divorce unconstitutional?

Call it what you will, but gay marriage is a sham. It's going to be a big to do until the gays get their marriage equality... then it will be on to something else. Perhaps it will be demands that we have sexual reassignment surgery paid for by the American taxpayer, perhaps it will be affirmative action for gays... it will never end.


The sham is you giving a fuck who says theyre married to whom.


Heres an idea mind your own goddamned business. And i mean that in the general sense of you karl not you specifically


How about when you met you amoral sicko. :poke:

She was 19 when we met


Wait, weren't you once married to a man? How do we know which way really is your essence?

And therin lies there entire quandry. Seriously i dont get it. If i were gay id be like fuck you i choose to be gay and you cant keep me from doing it and you couldnt. So why do some pretend they cant help it?

[Wind Song]

Remember the song where Michael Jackson sings "I'm not gonna spend my life being a color". Why don't you decide likewise?

You don't get it and I'm not going to try and explain it to you. I have loved the same woman faithfully for 27 years. I'm not going to pretend I'm not a lesbian because of somebody else's preference that I retreat into the closet.

[fj1200]

She was 19 when we met

This is you right?

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTly7wa1glfmFLGq2GFyrn-XvCMDEdcllNwYjWMbgb4DFEF1xvuwQ

And I highly recommend Horrible Bosses especially if you've ever wanted to hear Jennifer Anniston say, "finger bang..."

[Wind Song]

Wait, weren't you once married to a man? How do we know which way really is your essence?


You presumed I had sex with the man I married. I didn't. I married him when he was HIV positive and about to lose his health insurance so that my policy could cover him. He was one of my closest friends in this lifetime.

[ConHog]

This is you right?

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTly7wa1glfmFLGq2GFyrn-XvCMDEdcllNwYjWMbgb4DFEF1xvuwQ

And I highly recommend Horrible Bosses especially if you've ever wanted to hear Jennifer Anniston say, "finger bang..."

Im npt really interested in hearing her talk ar all


I wonder if windy would fuck her of whe had the chance


You presumed I had sex with the man I married. I didn't. I married him when he was HIV positive and about to lose his health insurance so that my policy could cover him. He was one of my closest friends in this lifetime.

Dat be insurance fraud. Gotta ask, was he gay?

[Wind Song]

Dat be insurance fraud. Gotta ask, was he gay?

Tough shit. You can't have it both ways. You don't want us to be able to marry and yet you don't want us to marry a man fraudently either.

Fuck off. It was one of the kindest, most loving things I've ever done and I don't regret one bit. Tom was family to me. He was the funniest, most loving man I've known in this lifetime.

[ConHog]

Tough shit. You can't have it both ways. You don't want us to be able to marry and yet you don't want us to marry a man fraudently either.

Fuck off. It was one of the kindest, most loving things I've ever done and I don't regret one bit. Tom was family.

See there you go generalizing again when clearly i think you should be allowed to marry. What the hell?

[Wind Song]

See there you go generalizing again when clearly i think you should be allowed to marry. What the hell?

Right as long as the state doesn't issue any marriage licenses. Bullshit.

[darin]

How many times have you made this decision? Has it ever been a difficult one? Have you ever just flipped a coin and left the decision to chance? Do you wake up every morning and make a conscious decision to be straight?

Absolutely! I am the boss of me; I decide what to do with my body. I in fact make the conscious decision to follow my inclinations or not to follow them. Not just in my sexual partner(s), but in my innate preference to have money. I've so far refrained from securing money through robbing a bank. Of course I'm BORN this way - with my desires. Instead of bending to whims or curiosities about destructive, poor-choices - if things got to the point where I wanted to do things to harm myself or my mind, I'd tend to seek help and understanding to assist in overcoming them. If I could NOT overcome my desire for money, I'd certainly NOT demand bank-robbing be legalized.

And no, my choice to not have sex with men has been easy. Some guys, however, face a more-difficult choice through social or environmental factors. Some guys choose that behavior for awhile, then decide to stop after seeing the harm. Same with drugs, crime, whatever...

We all choose our behavior - and its our behavior that defines us.


You presumed I had sex with the man I married. I didn't. I married him when he was HIV positive and about to lose his health insurance so that my policy could cover him. He was one of my closest friends in this lifetime.


Dat be insurance fraud. Gotta ask, was he gay?

Holy shitballs WS - I think CH is right; did you just admit to a felony?

Frankly, I think you're full of shit and making up the story to prove a point...but if you did that, I'd think you'd be scared about admitting it.

[Wind Song]

True story. I married Tom, who was dying of AIDS, in order that he be able to continue to have health insurance. Tom had been married to my wife many years before when they were kids and we were close family to one another.

I don't regret it for a second and I don't give a shit what you think of me.

No matter what true story I tell some idiot like you will think it's a lie or judge me for how I've lived my life.

You're a tiresome bore, dump, and I'm ignoring you for the rest of the day.

[tailfins]

And gays are having kids, there is nothing you can do about that. If you want the stable environment to raise children then you'd have to admit that providing it for any family is beneficial.

I won't admit that. A child needs to be raised by a male and a female. If one of them is perhaps a grandparent, we might have something to discuss.


True story. I married Tom, who was dying of AIDS, in order that he be able to continue to have health insurance. Tom had been married to my wife many years before when they were kids and we were close family to one another.

I don't regret it for a second and I don't give a shit what you think of me.

No matter what true story I tell some idiot like you will think it's a lie or judge me for how I've lived my life.

You're a tiresome bore, dump, and I'm ignoring you for the rest of the day.

Anyone can at least serve as a bad example. At least have the honesty to include the consequences of your twisted decisions.

You see, it doesn't matter if I judge you or not. Bad choices lead to bad consequences.

Regarding insurance fraud: I would tend to doubt that. A marriage of convenience is still a marriage. One would have to study carefully to see what meets the threshold of a bonafide marriage.

Especially if there were no plans to divorce like there would be with marriage fraud connected to immigration.



I don't have to worry about you being a public figure for gay marriage. Your history shows a contempt for marriage in general and shows no concern about maintaining its importance. You would be subject to public ridicule if you ever became a public figure.

[Wind Song]

I won't admit that. A child needs to be raised by a male and a female. If one of them is perhaps a grandparent, we might have something to discuss.

I know plenty of women who have raised children on their own, without men, and those kids have turned into responsible, loving adults.

You're prejudiced.

[darin]

True story. I married Tom, who was dying of AIDS, in order that he be able to continue to have health insurance. Tom had been married to my wife many years before when they were kids and we were close family to one another.

I don't regret it for a second and I don't give a shit what you think of me.

No matter what true story I tell some idiot like you will think it's a lie or judge me for how I've lived my life.

You're a tiresome bore, dump, and I'm ignoring you for the rest of the day.

BS - or you're admitting Fraud.


I know plenty of women who have raised children on their own, without men, and those kids have turned into responsible, loving adults.

Sometimes that happens. We're talking ideals here. You want to settle - want kids to settle. Fine. how nice for you. I strive to give my kids the best chance for balance. Father. Mother. Those two - as they impart wisdom, discipline, and knowledge to kids - create the best chance of success.
You're prejudiced.

[Wind Song]

BS - or you're admitting Fraud.

It wasn't fraud. Tom and I were legally married. Damn, I forgot and answered you. Downside of you being a mod. I'll just scroll through your inflammatory posts from now on.

[fj1200]

True story. I married Tom, who was dying of AIDS, in order that he be able to continue to have health insurance.

I'm sure the insurance company was happy to help you make YOUR point with THEIR money.

[darin]

It wasn't fraud. Tom and I were legally married. Damn, I forgot and answered you. Downside of you being a mod. I'll just scroll through your inflammatory posts from now on.

I'm not a mod.

Did you tell your insurance company you only got married so they could pay for your new "husband"?

[Wind Song]

I'm sure the insurance company was happy to help you make YOUR point with THEIR money.

Aren't you one of the same people telling me that every lesbian and gay has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that you do.

Frankly, I don't give a shit what you think of me. I would do it again in a heartbeat if I wasn't married now. If we'd had married rights back then, Tom would have had his husbands insurance and I would have already been married to my wife.

I, at least, genuinely loved Tom. All you shallow people care about is that I never fucked him. I've always been faithful to my wife.

[fj1200]

I won't admit that. A child needs to be raised by a male and a female. If one of them is perhaps a grandparent, we might have something to discuss.

Then family stability is not your primary goal, you want to use a third party to promote your views.

[tailfins]

I know plenty of women who have raised children on their own, without men, and those kids have turned into responsible, loving adults.

You're prejudiced.

Sometimes what someone DOESN'T say tells you as much as what they do say. You not mentioning men that raised children without a woman says a lot. Surely you have studied the statistics of children raised in single parent households relative to incarceration, unemployment and poverty.


Then family stability is not your primary goal, you want to use a third party to promote your views.

Like I said, statistics show someone being raised in a single household has numerous negative consequences.

[fj1200]

Aren't you one of the same people telling me that every lesbian and gay has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that you do.

No, you might want to recheck the thread.


Frankly, I don't give a shit what you think of me. I would do it again in a heartbeat if I wasn't married now. If we'd had married rights back then, Tom would have had his husbands insurance and I would have already been married to my wife.

I, at least, genuinely loved Tom. All you shallow people care about is that I never fucked him. I've always been faithful to my wife.

He's not able to purchase his own insurance? Oh, and the insurance market is another one that government intrusion has screwed.

[Wind Song]

Sometimes what someone DOESN'T say tells you as much as what they do say. You not mentioning men that raised children without a woman says a lot. Surely you have studied the statistics of children raised in single parent households relative to incarceration, unemployment and poverty.



Like I said, statistics show someone being raised in a single household has numerous negative consequences.

Goodbye TF and the rest of you. Research on gay families is that the children are doing exceptionally well.

[fj1200]

Like I said, statistics show someone being raised in a single household has numerous negative consequences.

But we're not talking about single households are we?

[tailfins]

But we're not talking about single households are we?

Interesting point: Verification versus Validation issue. Has anyone done an unbiased survey of inmates to determine how many were raised by gay parents?

[Wind Song]

No, you might want to recheck the thread.



He's not able to purchase his own insurance? Oh, and the insurance market is another one that government intrusion has screwed.

Tom was dying. He had lost his job due to his prolonged illness, I loved him dearly. I married him on my 40th birthday with my not-then wife and his partner in attendance.

It wasn't fraud. He and I were legally married.

What seems to be pissing a lot of you off today is that I didn't fuck Tom.

[fj1200]

Interesting point: Verification versus Validation issue.

You lost me somewhere along the way then. :dunno:

[tailfins]

You lost me somewhere along the way then. :dunno:

Verification: The numbers and methods are correct.
Validation: You're conducting the proper test.

Statistics 101.

[tailfins]

Tom was dying. He had lost his job due to his prolonged illness, I loved him dearly. I married him on my 40th birthday with my not-then wife and his partner in attendance.

It wasn't fraud. He and I were legally married.

What seems to be pissing a lot of you off today is that I didn't truck Tom.

I'm agreeing with you on that particular point and you still get cranky with me. A marriage can be bonifide if the reason was to provide companionship and the marriage wasn't entered into with the intent of divorcing later.

[fj1200]

Verification: The numbers and methods are correct.
Validation: You're conducting the proper test.

Statistics 101.

Thanks. :rolleyes: Now relate it to the conversation.

[Wind Song]

I'm agreeing with you on that particular point and you still get cranky with me. A marriage can be bonifide if the reason was to provide companionship and the marriage wasn't entered into with the intent of divorcing later.


Too bad. I regret nothing. I only wish that we'd been able to have marriage rights, so that Tom's partner could have been the one to marry him and provide the health insurance he needed as he was dying.

[tailfins]

Too bad. I regret nothing. I only wish that we'd been able to have marriage rights, so that Tom's partner could have been the one to marry him and provide the health insurance he needed as he was dying.

I would just say this: If the insurance decided to contest the coverage, did you eventually divorce him, or are you legally a widow? If the marriage itself were questioned, you would have had to demonstrate that you at the very least provided him with companionship and preferably shared a residence.

[Wind Song]

I would just say this: If the insurance decided to contest the coverage, did you eventually divorce him, or are you legally a widow? If the marriage itself were questioned, you would have had to demonstrate that you at the very least provided him with companionship and preferably shared a residence.

Too bad for you. I took care of a family member and you resent the hell out of it. I can't tell you how many arrogant hets on forums have told me I have the same right to marry a person of the opposite gender that they have.

You folks want it both ways. Tough shit.

Our families matter to us as much as yours matter to you.

We don't want your "approval", we want the right to take care of each other faithfully until we die.

[tailfins]

Too bad for you. I took care of a family member and you resent the hell out of it.

Are you actually reading my posts or just saying the first thing that comes to mind? I resent very few things. I'm a green eye shades kind of guy. I look heavily at details and was previewing what would happen if the insurance company investigated your health policy. My conclusion is that you could probably get away with it if you're not stupid. The formal charges may vary in our nation's inmate population, but many people are locked up for being stupid. I pity the attorney that has you as a client.

[Wind Song]

Are you actually reading my posts or just saying the first thing that comes to mind? I resent very few things. I'm a green eye shades kind of guy. I look heavily at details and was previewing what would happen if the insurance company investigated your health policy. My conclusion is that you could probably get away with it if you're not stupid. The formal charges may vary in our nation's inmate population, but many people are locked up for being stupid.


Here's what I think is going on. You HATE it, that I had the smarts and the compassion to care for my dear one, Tom when he was dying. You'd lock me up for it.

I have fought my whole life with people like you. You're not worth it.

I give up. I'm not talking to any of you anymore today.

If you can fault me for giving Tom health insurance when he was losing his and had no alternative, then you're not the kind of people I want to associate with.

[tailfins]

Here's what I think is going on. You HATE it, that I had the smarts and the compassion to care for my dear one, Tom when he was dying. You'd lock me up for it.

I have fought my whole life with people like you. You're not worth it.

I give up. I'm not talking to any of you anymore today.

If you can fault me for giving Tom health insurance when he was losing his and had no alternative, then you're not the kind of people I want to associate with.

The opposite is true. I would help you NOT get locked up. I'm simply thinking of what legally makes a bonafide marriage. You do however seem worried. You can get away with what you did, you just have to make sure you got the details correct.

[Wind Song]

The opposite is true. I would help you NOT get locked up. I'm simply thinking of what legally makes a bonafide marriage. You do however seem worried. You can get away with what you did, you just have to make sure you got the details correct.


I already got away with it many years ago. Too bad on you.

[tailfins]

I already got away with it many years ago. Too bad on you.


Too bad on me? All I did was take a moment to ponder the legal difference between legal marriage and marriage fraud. I bet you regularly get your "fingers caught in the mousetrap" because you don't pay attention to all the details. Well ... this has been fun, but I have some code to write and training to do.

[Wind Song]

Too bad on me? All I did was take a moment to ponder the legal difference between legal marriage and marriage fraud. I bet you regularly get your "fingers caught in the mousetrap" because you don't pay attention to all the details. Well ... this has been fun, but I have some code to write and training to do.

Bye. I can't say it's been fun for me.

[darin]

I already got away with it many years ago. Too bad on you.

You're enjoying your lack of ethics, and possible commission of a felony? Frankly, I think you're lying about it anyway...so...yeah.

[Wind Song]

You're enjoying your lack of ethics, and possible commission of a felony? Frankly, I think you're lying about it anyway...so...yeah.

This entire post is ad hominem. You called me a felon, a liar and an unethical person. For this, you want me to kiss your ass.

When hell freezes over.

I can't stand being called a liar when I tell the truth about the details of my family life. You are more or less attacking my family.

My father, my husband and my wife are gay and lesbian, respectively. That's the truth of my life and my family.

[darin]

This entire post is ad hominem. You called me a felon, a liar and an unethical person. For this, you want me to kiss your ass.

When hell freezes over.

I can't stand being called a liar when I tell the truth about the details of my family life. You are more or less attacking my family.

My father, my husband and my wife are gay and lesbian, respectively. That's the truth of my life and my family.

You claimed insurance fraud. Thus, YOU called you a felon. Your bragging about your stated unethical behaviour calls you a an unethical person.

Again, I believe you're lying about EVERY detail of your life anyway...but I think it's stupid to brag / claim insurance fraud and yet get upset when people call you on it. You're one crazy dude.

[Wind Song]

You claimed insurance fraud. Thus, YOU called you a felon. Your bragging about your stated unethical behaviour calls you a an unethical person.

Again, I believe you're lying about EVERY detail of your life anyway...but I think it's stupid to brag / claim insurance fraud and yet get upset when people call you on it. You're one crazy dude.

Stop calling me a liar.

I'm not crazy. I've lived and live an unconventional life. Get your head out from under the rock and notice that people differerent from you live on the planet.

I thought this was a place that welcomed diversity. It isn't.

It's my mistake for disclosing personal details of my life in an effort to get to know people. I should only discuss issues that don't personally affect my life.

[darin]

Stop calling me a liar.

I'm not crazy. I've lived and live an unconventional life. Get your head out from under the rock and notice that people differerent from you live on the planet.

I thought this was a place that welcomed diversity. It isn't.

It's my mistake for disclosing personal details of my life in an effort to get to know people. I should only discuss issues that don't personally affect my life.

Stop lying and you won't be called a liar.

We LOVE diversity. We hate frauds and idiocy. :)

[Wind Song]

Stop lying and you won't be called a liar.

We LOVE diversity. We hate frauds and idiocy. :)

I'm not lying. No amount of you saying so will change that. You must lead a sheltered existence completely surrounded by people who agree with you all the time.

You don't love diversity here.

[jimnyc]

Tough shit. You can't have it both ways. You don't want us to be able to marry and yet you don't want us to marry a man fraudently either.

Fuck off. It was one of the kindest, most loving things I've ever done and I don't regret one bit. Tom was family to me. He was the funniest, most loving man I've known in this lifetime.

Now things are a little clearer. I thought you and your "wife" were a little wacky for having married the same man. Instead, you're just criminals.

[Wind Song]

Now things are a little clearer. I thought you and your "wife" were a little wacky for having married the same man. Instead, you're just criminals.


Nope. I legally married Tom because I loved him and he was family to me. I am happy that I was able to allow him to get on my health insurance. No fraud was committed. I have a great capacity to love and I regret nothing about this.

Don't attack my family.

[jimnyc]

Tom was dying. He had lost his job due to his prolonged illness, I loved him dearly. I married him on my 40th birthday with my not-then wife and his partner in attendance.

It wasn't fraud. He and I were legally married.

What seems to be pissing a lot of you off today is that I didn't fuck Tom.

You slipped and told your age previously, and if you have in fact been married for 27 years, you were married when you committed this fraud.

[Wind Song]

You slipped and told your age previously, and if you have in fact been married for 27 years, you were married when you committed this fraud.

Use your brain. I wasn't able to legally marry my wife until two years ago. I was not legally married until my fortieth birthday.

[jimnyc]

Nope. I legally married Tom because I loved him and he was family to me. I am happy that I was able to allow him to get on my health insurance. No fraud was committed. I have a great capacity to love and I regret nothing about this.

Don't attack my family.

You married someone for benefits. No different than someone marrying another for a green card. Both are fraud. Good intentions perhaps, but STILL fraud.

[jimnyc]

Use your brain. I wasn't able to legally marry my wife until two years ago. I was not legally married until my fortieth birthday.

Ok, I'll rephrase - you were with someone you loved very much - and married another so that they could be rewarded with your benefits, in an illegal manner. No matter how much you scream how great of a thing it is your did for Tom - it remains felony fraud that you committed.

[Wind Song]

Ok, I'll rephrase - you were with someone you loved very much - and married another so that they could be rewarded with your benefits, in an illegal manner. No matter how much you scream how great of a thing it is your did for Tom - it remains felony fraud that you committed.


There was nothing illegal in what I did. I married Tom because I loved him. He lived with us and we took care of him. Sex is not a requirement of marriage. Neither is motivation a requirement for marriage. Some people marry because of money.

I married for love.

Some of your members here have told me that I have the same equal rights as they do to marry a person of the opposite gender.

[tailfins]

Nope. I legally married Tom because I loved him and he was family to me. I am happy that I was able to allow him to get on my health insurance. No fraud was committed. I have a great capacity to love and I regret nothing about this.

Don't attack my family.


I think you likely are on OK legal ground. Companionship/company is a legal reason to marry. Especially if you shared a residence and never divorced him. However if you ever were questioned and said the primary reason was to get him health insurance, you're goose would be cooked.

[Wind Song]

I think you likely are on OK legal ground. Companionship/company is a legal reason to marry. Especially if you shared a residence and never divorced him. However if you ever were questioned and said the primary reason was to get him health insurance, you're goose would be cooked.

I'd never be questioned because male female marriages never are. That was some time ago, and Tom has died. What's unfortunate, is that gay and lesbian families aren't seen for what we are. Structures of love and caring for one another. No different than the best of any het marriage.

[Howard Roark]

3433

[Little-Acorn]

So the difference is not in her privileges, the difference is only in what she wants?

No, her privileges are not in line with her orientation.

That's what I said.

It looks to me like gays have exactly the same rights and privileges that heteros do. If I go to France and meet the girl of my dreams, and she's my long-lost half sister on my father's side, I can't marry her or bring her back. I'm SOL... heteros just can't always marry whom they want, just as gays can't. Welcome to the club.

OTOH, I can marry almost any other member of the opposite sex... and so can gays. And I am forbidden to "marry" a member of the same sex... and so are gays.

I don't see a legal problem here, either for gays or heteros. They have exactly the same rights and privileges. The fact that those rights and privileges don't always allow them to fulfill their desires, is too bad... but there is not the slightest trace of inequality here. Correct?

[fj1200]

That's what I said.

It looks to me like gays have exactly the same rights and privileges that heteros do. If I go to France and meet the girl of my dreams, and she's my long-lost half sister on my father's side, I can't marry her or bring her back. I'm SOL... heteros just can't always marry whom they want, just as gays can't. Welcome to the club.

OTOH, I can marry almost any other member of the opposite sex... and so can gays. And I am forbidden to "marry" a member of the same sex... and so are gays.

I don't see a legal problem here, either for gays or heteros. They have exactly the same rights and privileges. The fact that those rights and privileges don't always allow them to fulfill their desires, is too bad... but there is not the slightest trace of inequality here. Correct?

No, you cheapened her orientation with "want" as if she changes her wants when she changes her socks. You just happen to be in the segment of the population that has been preferenced by marriage laws and other regulations. Why should you have the privilege of creating a contractual arrangement, including all inherent benefits, with the one you love but your average gay on the street can't?

[Little-Acorn]

No, you cheapened her orientation with "want" as if she changes her wants when she changes her socks.
Not at all. My dedication to my half sister on my father's side, is every bit as strong, as deep, and as permanent as any gay's dedication to their same-0sex person. It is most definitely an "orientation" on my part, as much as the gays' desire is an "orientation" on their part.

How dare you try to cheapen my feelings and desires by implying that such things are as easy to change as my changing my socks?


You just happen to be in the segment of the population that has been preferenced by marriage laws and other regulations.
Not even close. I am FORBIDDEN to marry my loved one, permanently, irrevocably, despite my complete and utter dedication to her.


Why should you have the privilege of creating a contractual arrangement, including all inherent benefits, with the one you love but your average gay on the street can't?
I have no such privilege, as I have pointed out. There are millions of others I am allowed to marry, but in the example I cited, I am not allowed to marry to one I love... a situation that exists for a few other members of the population: Those who love a close relation, those who love a member of the same sex, etc.

As I said, welcome to the club. Sometimes we are forbidden to marry whom we love, by force of law. and that is just as true for straights as for gays.

Complete equality. Learn it, live it... even if you don't love it.

[fj1200]

^You want to have conjugal (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjugal) relations with your half sister?

[Little-Acorn]

^You want to have conjugal (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjugal) relations with your half sister?

One can have a marriage without conjugal relations, at least according to one member of this forum. But my half sister was a stranger to me when we met, neither of us had any idea we were related. But we were so sympatico, so well in tune with each other's feelings and reactions, it was soul-stirring. We are clearly an excellent couple, far batter together than many couple you see nowadays.

But we are not allowed to marry, by law. As I said, this is no different from the situation faced by a small minority of members of the population: Those who want to marry close relations, those who want to marry the same sex, etc.

Complete equality. Learn it, live it... even if you don't love it.

[fj1200]

One can have a marriage without conjugal relations, at least according to one member of this forum. But my half sister was a stranger to me when we met, neither of us had any idea we were related. But we were so sympatico, so well in tune with each other's feelings and reactions, it was soul-stirring. We are clearly an excellent couple, far batter together than many couple you see nowadays.

But we are not allowed to marry, by law. As I said, this is no different from the situation faced by a small minority of members of the population: Those who want to marry close relations, those who want to marry the same sex, etc.

Complete equality. Learn it, live it... even if you don't love it.

That is a very interesting story but not of issue. Your offspring, presumably, run the risk of birth defects as being related which is the reason for being illegal. The original issue of this line of reasoning was based on family and providing a stable environment, kids are happening and will continue to happen so if a stable family is the argument for marriage then why doesn't it make sense to extend it to other definitions of "family"?

There is little reason to think that a couple together for the purpose of conjugal relations should be preferenced over another.

[jimnyc]

I'd never be questioned because male female marriages never are. That was some time ago, and Tom has died. What's unfortunate, is that gay and lesbian families aren't seen for what we are. Structures of love and caring for one another. No different than the best of any het marriage.

EVERY marriage by those committing fraud for a green card is done by male/female marriages - and they are continually questioned. Fraud is fraud. Don't act like gay folks would be sought out for fraud and heteros wouldn't be, it happens daily.

[Wind Song]

EVERY marriage by those committing fraud for a green card is done by male/female marriages - and they are continually questioned. Fraud is fraud. Don't act like gay folks would be sought out for fraud and heteros wouldn't be, it happens daily.

As disappointed as you are, that I escaped punishment for marrying Tom, a man I loved but was never lovers with, I never committed fraud. I loved him, I married him and I cared for him until he died.

[logroller]

That is a very interesting story but not of issue. Your offspring, presumably, run the risk of birth defects as being related which is the reason for being illegal. The original issue of this line of reasoning was based on family and providing a stable environment, kids are happening and will continue to happen so if a stable family is the argument for marriage then why doesn't it make sense to extend it to other definitions of "family"?

There is little reason to think that a couple together for the purpose of conjugal relations should be preferenced over another.
Two people with sickle-cell could still get married though. Why?

I say it's the concept of family.

[Missileman]

Absolutely! I am the boss of me; I decide what to do with my body. I in fact make the conscious decision to follow my inclinations or not to follow them. Not just in my sexual partner(s), but in my innate preference to have money. I've so far refrained from securing money through robbing a bank. Of course I'm BORN this way - with my desires. Instead of bending to whims or curiosities about destructive, poor-choices - if things got to the point where I wanted to do things to harm myself or my mind, I'd tend to seek help and understanding to assist in overcoming them. If I could NOT overcome my desire for money, I'd certainly NOT demand bank-robbing be legalized.

So you regularly have the "inclination" to have homosexual sex, but make the conscious decision to abstain? Seriously, how often do you have to fight this inclination?

[jimnyc]

As disappointed as you are, that I escaped punishment for marrying Tom, a man I loved but was never lovers with, I never committed fraud. I loved him, I married him and I cared for him until he died.

How am I disappointed? Is this YOU again making things up to be a victim and vilify me? I simply stated that what you did was fraudulent, but now you're changing your tune a bit. It was you who originally, and simply stated, that you did in fact marry to grant benefits to someone suffering from AIDS. Don't blame others for making statements that are factual, based on your own statements.

[jimnyc]

You presumed I had sex with the man I married. I didn't. I married him when he was HIV positive and about to lose his health insurance so that my policy could cover him. He was one of my closest friends in this lifetime.

Nothing about "for love" or any of that jazz. It was you yourself that told us that you married him so that your benefits would cover him. Admirable move and intentions, but based on your own words, also fraudulent.

[Little-Acorn]

That is a very interesting story but not of issue.
It is absolutely of issue. The constant whining that homosexuals are somehow "discriminated against" any more than any other groups, is the purest bunkum, as I have pointed out.


Your offspring, presumably, run the risk of birth defects as being related which is the reason for being illegal.

A presumption rapidly approaching obsolescence as more and more studies find minimal risk of birth defects or other health problems resulting from sexual relations between close relations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/us/few-risks-seen-to-the-children-of-1st-cousins.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

But since you brought up the subject, would you like to examine the frequency of health problems resulting from "sexual" relations (producing or not producing offspring) between members of the same sex, compared to the frequency of health problems resulting from sexual relations (producing or not producing offspring) between close relations?

The farther this thread goes, the more reasons to not allow "marriage" between same-sex partners come up.

[Wind Song]

How am I disappointed? Is this YOU again making things up to be a victim and vilify me? I simply stated that what you did was fraudulent, but now you're changing your tune a bit. It was you who originally, and simply stated, that you did in fact marry to grant benefits to someone suffering from AIDS. Don't blame others for making statements that are factual, based on your own statements.


I did nothing fraudulent. People marry for many reasons. I married for love, not sex. I took care of him. I don't regret it and I resent your implication that I did anything wrong.

You don't understand gay families. That's YOUR ignorance showing. You are close minded.

[jimnyc]

I did nothing fraudulent. People marry for many reasons. I married for love, not sex. I took care of him. I don't regret it and I resent your implication that I did anything wrong.

You don't understand gay families. That's YOUR ignorance showing. You are close minded.

Where did I say anything at all about these things in bold? And again, it was YOU who outright stated you married for benefits. Don't get mad at me for commenting on your own statements.

[MtnBiker]

3433

Good thing in California your cousin does not need to be gay, just your cousin.

[Wind Song]

Nothing about "for love" or any of that jazz. It was you yourself that told us that you married him so that your benefits would cover him. Admirable move and intentions, but based on your own words, also fraudulent.

Not at all. Not fraudulent. I married Tom because I loved him, dearly. He was family, and by marrying him I could take care of him as family. You don't understand that because you're mind is too small to embrace the idea of families different from your own.

Plenty of people marry for money, tax reasons, convenience and lots of other less than pure intentions. It's not fraud. You're allowed to marry someone for any reason you choose.

Plenty of old people marry and never have sex. They are marrying for other reasons.

[Wind Song]

Where did I say anything at all about these things in bold? And again, it was YOU who outright stated you married for benefits. Don't get mad at me for commenting on your own statements.


It doesn't matter what reason I had for marrying Tom. There was no fraud. You're just pissed off that in case my family was taken care of. You only want rights for yourself.

[tailfins]

It doesn't matter what reason I had for marrying Tom. There was no fraud. You're just pissed off that in case my family was taken care of. You only want rights for yourself.

You convinced me that there was no fraud. However, I'm still against gay marriage. I would consider domestic guardian status where there is a practical need such as hospital visits, etc.

[Wind Song]

You convinced me that there was no fraud. However, I'm still against gay marriage. I would consider domestic guardian status where there is a practical need such as hospital visits, etc.

Fine. You don't value our families the way we do. I understand that. You'd prefer we have LESS rights than you do because you are against us legally marrying.

[jimnyc]

Not at all. Not fraudulent. I married Tom because I loved him, dearly. He was family, and by marrying him I could take care of him as family. You don't understand that because you're mind is too small to embrace the idea of families different from your own.

Plenty of people marry for money, tax reasons, convenience and lots of other less than pure intentions. It's not fraud. You're allowed to marry someone for any reason you choose.

Plenty of old people marry and never have sex. They are marrying for other reasons.

No one would have said a damn word had you stated this originally. It was YOUR own words that stated you did so to attain benefits for him. IF what YOU posted were true, then it WOULD be fraud. While you may believe there are many other reasons to marry, and you could be right - doing so to gain benefits from a company is illegal. Don't vilify me for simply replying to what YOU wrote.


It doesn't matter what reason I had for marrying Tom. There was no fraud. You're just pissed off that in case my family was taken care of. You only want rights for yourself.

Why do you insist on continually telling others what they said and what they want - when we clearly stated no such things? You want to make yourself a victim rather than debate the actual things that are posted. You claim everyone is pissed at you. We all want rights for ourselves. We don't understand. Stop claiming things that people are not saying. And then you continue with these things - that were never said - and play the victim, while at the same time making it out as if the other person is somehow bad - for what they never said. And then you eventually explode and SCREAM victim, and how we all want you to leave, and how you should never have come out on this forum, and how others want to relinquish their own rights so you cant have them - THINGS THAT PEOPLE NEVER SAID. Stop with it. People are trying to have reasonable discussions with you, but it's hard when you play the perpetual victim and continually make claims of things that simply were never stated.

[jimnyc]

Fine. You don't value our families the way we do. I understand that. You'd prefer we have LESS rights than you do because you are against us legally marrying.

Victim again. And he's a bad boy for something he never stated.

[Wind Song]

No one would have said a damn word had you stated this originally. It was YOUR own words that stated you did so to attain benefits for him. IF what YOU posted were true, then it WOULD be fraud. While you may believe there are many other reasons to marry, and you could be right - doing so to gain benefits from a company is illegal. Don't vilify me for simply replying to what YOU wrote.



Why do you insist on continually telling others what they said and what they want - when we clearly stated no such things? You want to make yourself a victim rather than debate the actual things that are posted. You claim everyone is pissed at you. We all want rights for ourselves. We don't understand. Stop claiming things that people are not saying. And then you continue with these things - that were never said - and play the victim, while at the same time making it out as if the other person is somehow bad - for what they never said. And then you eventually explode and SCREAM victim, and how we all want you to leave, and how you should never have come out on this forum, and how others want to relinquish their own rights so you cant have them - THINGS THAT PEOPLE NEVER SAID. Stop with it. People are trying to have reasonable discussions with you, but it's hard when you play the perpetual victim and continually make claims of things that simply were never stated.

I stated I loved Tom more than one time. You weren't listening the second you heard I never fucked Tom. I married Tom at his request because I loved him and I was losing him. He was dying and losing his insurance.

You don't understand gay families and you don't support us having equal rights.

[Wind Song]

Victim again. And he's a bad boy for something he never stated.


He didn't have to state it. He's against marriage equality. End of story.

[MtnBiker]

A thread started on the topic of a vote result in North Carolina has turned into the personal life of Wind Song. :unsure:

[jimnyc]

I stated I loved Tom more than one time. You weren't listening the second you heard I never fucked Tom. I married Tom at his request because I loved him and I was losing him. He was dying and losing his insurance.

You don't understand gay families and you don't support us having equal rights.

I never asked about any type of sex with Tom, as I really couldn't care less. I listed to the exact quote of yours I posted already. The rest of your post you can crumble up into a little ball and go fuck yourself with it. I'm literally fucking tired of correcting you on things I've never said. You have no desire to have reasonable discussions. You've placed words in my mouth/posts like 500x no more, and unfortunately for both of us, I'm not going to try anymore and refuse to post someone who can't refrain from doing so.

[Wind Song]

A thread started on the topic of a vote result in North Carolina has turned into the personal life of Wind Song. :unsure:


God forbid the only lesbian posting at the moment references her own life on the GAY RIGHTs vote in North Carolina. If you don't like my posts, ignore them.

[Wind Song]

I never asked about any type of sex with Tom, as I really couldn't care less. I listed to the exact quote of yours I posted already. The rest of your post you can crumble up into a little ball and go fuck yourself with it. I'm literally fucking tired of correcting you on things I've never said. You have no desire to have reasonable discussions. You've placed words in my mouth/posts like 500x no more, and unfortunately for both of us, I'm not going to try anymore and refuse to post someone who can't refrain from doing so.


Fine. Ignore me.

[tailfins]

Fine. Ignore me.

There goes Dippy Dorothy and her self-pity.

[Wind Song]

There goes Dippy Dorothy and her self-pity.

Not at all. I'm happy to have a break from Jim. He can ignore me permanently for all I care.

[logroller]

Not at all. I'm happy to have a break from Jim. He can ignore me permanently for all I care.

He can't ignore you completely though; he has a responsibility as the owner.
That'd be like going into your house and spraying gasoline all over and telling you, if you don't like, ignore it!

[Wind Song]

He can't ignore you completely though; he has a responsibility as the owner.

Not my problem. He can scroll through the posts just like I do with his and dmps.

[jimnyc]

There goes Dippy Dorothy and her self-pity.

I know people in real life too who literally can't cope unless there is drama going on in their lives daily. They'll happily create it if none exists already.

"If I'm not a victim, I'll blindly accuse someone of saying something and become more and more of a victim as they deny saying what everyone knows they didn't say. Then once everyone sees I made it up, I'll just go to the steel cage, call that person out, and tell them how I hate their guts and going to ignore them now".

Me? I'd rather just reasonably discuss the issues, but I have to be honest, it gets a bit monotonous after awhile.

[logroller]

Not my problem. He can scroll through the posts just like I do with his and dmps.

But your posting style is his problem.

[Wind Song]

But your posting style is his problem.


Again, not my problem. The guy would rather ignore me and take cheap shots at me. Sound familiar?

He's against gay marriage. He's stated it over and over again.

[MtnBiker]

Hey Jim, since this is a thread about voters in a state. Can you remind me of something. When put to a vote how many states have chose to define marriage as one man and one woman?

[Little-Acorn]

A thread started on the topic of a vote result in North Carolina has turned into the personal life of Wind Song. :unsure:

You should be used to that by now.

Nearly any thread on any topic in this forum, seems to turn into the personal life of little windy... and how moral, tolerant, and loving she is, next to how base, ignorant, and hateful you are.

[jimnyc]

Hey Jim, since this is a thread about voters in a state. Can you remind me of something. When put to a vote how many states have chose to define marriage as one man and one woman?

The people will have the last say. I believe it's 32-0 in state charters/constitutions now, that marriage is between one man and one woman. People can scream from the mountains that America is changing their minds about queers, or gay marriage, but votes and amendments thus far are painting a bit of a different picture.

[MtnBiker]

The people will have the last say. I believe it's 32-0 in state charters/constitutions now, that marriage is between one man and one woman. People can scream from the mountains that America is changing their minds about queers, or gay marriage, but votes and amendments thus far are painting a bit of a different picture.

Ok, 32 states.

Now can someone help me with the math?

There are 50 states in the country, right. What percentage is 32 of 50?

[logroller]

Again, not my problem. The guy would rather ignore me and take cheap shots at me. Sound familiar?

He's against gay marriage. He's stated it over and over again.

I really could give a rat's ass to be honest; but we were just becoming cordial, hate to see you get banned once again.

But as the Taoist Pooh once said, 'Oh bother'.

[jimnyc]

Ok, 32 states.

Now can someone help me with the math?

There are 50 states in the country, right. What percentage is 32 of 50?

That would be 64%, young man!

[jimnyc]

I really could give a rat's ass to be honest; but we were just becoming cordial, hate to see you get banned once again.

But as the Taoist Pooh once said, 'Oh bother'.

I don't think Wing Nut will be doing anything to get banned. But I don't see much of a difference when you end up conversing with yourself. Mental people talk to themselves. Hmmmmm.......

[logroller]

Ok, 32 states.

Now can someone help me with the math?

There are 50 states in the country, right. What percentage is 32 of 50?

π= 3.14, carry the two....64%

[Little-Acorn]

That would be 64%, young man!

And in how many states has such a state Constitutional amendment been proposed and put to the statewide voted, and FAILED?

Hmmm, let's see... 64% of the states..... AND COUNTING.

Remind me again... what percentage of states does it take to ratify an amendment to the **U.S.** Constitution? (since the issue is apparently not going to go away any time soon?)

[MtnBiker]

That would be 64%, young man!



Ah ha! 64% of voters in American states have voted to define marriage as one man and one woman.

Jim, you are abosolutely right, the opinion polls conducted over the phone really do not matter. The votes are quite clear.

[Wind Song]

I really could give a rat's ass to be honest; but we were just becoming cordial, hate to see you get banned once again.

But as the Taoist Pooh once said, 'Oh bother'.

Thinking Jim is a jerk isn't against the rules. I'm not in the slightest bit concerned about being banned.

[MtnBiker]

Remind me again... what percentage of states does it take to ratify an amendment to the **U.S.** Constitution? (since the issue is apparently not going to go away any time soon?)

2/3rd or 60% Wow!

[Little-Acorn]

2/3rd or 60% Wow!

*ahem* try 75%.

and, 2/3 is closer to 67%, isn't it?

[jimnyc]

And in how many states has such a state Constitutional amendment been proposed and put to the statewide voted, and FAILED?

Hmmm, let's see... 64% of the states..... AND COUNTING.

Remind me again... what percentage of states does it take to ratify an amendment to the **U.S.** Constitution? (since the issue is apparently not going to go away any time soon?)

I'm too lazy to look it up - but 2/3 aka 66%? If so, it's already doomed.

[logroller]

Thinking Jim is a jerk isn't against the rules. I'm not in the slightest bit concerned about being banned.
Neither is being an asshole...obviously Jim had his own selfish reasons for not making that rule, but that doesn't mean we should all do so.
Just my opinion, nothing more.

[jimnyc]

*ahem* try 75%.

and, 2/3 is closer to 67%, isn't it?

I should have waited 10 seconds before posting.

[Wind Song]

Marriage equality will come in degrees. The abolishment of DADT is a recent milestone. We need to eliminate DOMA.



“Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages.” – Coretta Scott-King

[jimnyc]

Neither is being an asshole...obviously Jim had his own selfish reasons for not making that rule, but that doesn't mean we should all do so.
Just my opinion, nothing more.

We welcome assholes here too! So long as they abide by the rules at least. Proof, Conhog is still posting, as well as someone from the psych ward! :coffee:

[MtnBiker]

*ahem* try 75%.

and, 2/3 is closer to 67%, isn't it?



Yup, thanks for the correction.

[logroller]

Marriage equality will come in degrees. The abolishment of DADT is a recent milestone.

Some might say the basic tenets of marriage have been abolished in degrees...tomato tomato...that works better when you say it.:laugh:

[MtnBiker]

Are 32 states defining marriage as one man to one woman milestones? In fact 32 milestones.

[jimnyc]

Yup, thanks for the correction.

Look at the statistics and votes and states involved. Would you believe they are all gay bashers? What a despicable world we live in - disagree with something and vote with your conscience, and you're a hater!! LOL

I'm a proud hater then, I suppose. But I know one thing for certain, shoving shit down my throat and making me out to be the bad guy WILL NOT change my mind. :laugh2:

[Little-Acorn]

...tomato tomato...that works better when you say it.:laugh:

BTW, have you ever met ANYONE who regularly pronounces it "tomahto"? I never have.

Ever.

[jimnyc]

Are 32 states defining marriage as one man to one woman milestones? In fact 32 milestones.

I think it's odd that NOT EVEN ONE STATE had enough votes from the people to NOT ban gay marriage.

[logroller]

We welcome assholes here too! So long as they abide by the rules at least. Proof, Conhog is still posting, as well as someone from the psych ward! :coffee:

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning for insanity."

[Wind Song]

Some might say the basic tenets of marriage have been abolished in degrees...tomato tomato...that works better when you say it.:laugh:

Don't blame the gay community for heterosexual divorce rates.

[Little-Acorn]

I think it's odd that NOT EVEN ONE STATE had enough votes from the people to NOT ban gay marriage.
Why? I certainly don't.


Are 32 states defining marriage as one man to one woman milestones? In fact 32 milestones.

32 examples of common sense, actually.

Has there ever been a time in the history of the human race when "marriage" meant something other than a union of male and female?

[jimnyc]

Why? I certainly don't.

Sorry, it was my tongue planted firmly in my cheek that prevented me from being clearer. :)

[Wind Song]

Charlie Sheen can make a "porn family". Kelsey Grammar ended his 15 year relationship over the phone. Larry King has had 8 divorces. Kim Kardashians marriage cost ten million dollars and lasted 72 days. Newt Gingrich had affairs while both his first and second wives were ill. Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage. 43-50% of traditional marriage end in divorce.

Yet, somehow same sex marriage is going to destroy the institution? I don't think so.

[ConHog]

We welcome assholes here too! So long as they abide by the rules at least. Proof, Conhog is still posting, as well as someone from the psych ward! :coffee:

Fuck you bitch... Thought I wouldn't see that post didn't you..........
:laugh2:



Note to Dorothy: ^^ That's how you handle Jim when he's being his usual dick self. :lol:

[logroller]

Don't blame the gay community for heterosexual divorce rates.

Lifetime commitment is but one tenet of marriage; if I were looking for someone to blame it'd be the suffragists. I'm not however. I'm merely stating what marriage once was, no longer is...for better or worse. But to return to the commitment tenet, or rather, lack of, I'd say marriage is worse off, but society is better off because it. That's why I favor doing away with marriage altogether. Have it like any other partnership; that's really all it is anymore.

[tailfins]

BTW, have you ever met ANYONE who regularly pronounces it "tomahto"? I never have.

Ever.


No, just Tow Mater.

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/8300000/Tow-Mater-disney-pixar-cars-8365921-1700-1100.jpg

[ConHog]

Lifetime commitment is but one tenet of marriage; if I were looking for someone to blame it'd be the suffragists. I'm not however. I'm merely stating what marriage once was, no longer is...for better or worse. But to return to the commitment tenet, or rather, lack of, I'd say marriage is worse off, but society is better off because it. That's why I favor doing away with marriage altogether. Have it like any other partnership; that's really all it is anymore.



No doubt, no doubt , far fewer divorces back when it was acceptable for a man to show his wife the back of his hand.........

[jimnyc]

Charlie Sheen can make a "porn family". Kelsey Grammar ended his 15 year relationship over the phone. Larry King has had 8 divorces. Kim Kardashians marriage cost ten million dollars and lasted 72 days. Newt Gingrich had affairs while both his first and second wives were ill. Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage. 43-50% of traditional marriage end in divorce.

Yet, somehow same sex marriage is going to destroy the institution? I don't think so.

Since no link was given, we all assume you wrote this. But I must ask as an administrator - did YOU write these words, or once again have you "borrowed" them from elsewhere?

[jimnyc]

Fuck you bitch... Thought I wouldn't see that post didn't you..........
:laugh2:



Note to Dorothy: ^^ That's how you handle Jim when he's being his usual dick self. :lol:

Yeah, I kinda figured it would pass over and you would miss it. Since it didn't work out that way, I'll take my words back and rephrase - fuck you!! :lol: :coffee:

[Little-Acorn]

Fuck you bitch... Thought I wouldn't see that post didn't you..........
:laugh2:



Note to Dorothy: ^^ That's how you handle Jim when he's being his usual dick self. :lol:

Sounding like a truculent, spittle-spraying 7-year-old is how you "handle" Jim?

What makes you think you can "handle" anything" this way?

It's never worked for little windy, why would it work for you... for a change?

[ConHog]

Sounding like a truculent, spittle-spraying 7-year-old is how you "handle" Jim?

What makes you think you can "handle" anything" this way?

It's never worked for little windy, why would it work for you... for a change?


Because Jim and I actually get along pretty well. because we understand each other, take a shot, give a shot. That's Dorothy's biggest problem here she wants to give shots without receiving any.

[jimnyc]

Since no link was given, we all assume you wrote this. But I must ask as an administrator - did YOU write these words, or once again have you "borrowed" them from elsewhere?

Since there was no reply to this, I'll give a source for the PLAGIARIZED comments that WS tried to once again pass off as her own:


Dear uptight homophobic people,


Charlie Sheen can make a "porn family," Kelsey Grammar can end a 15 year marriage over the phone, Larry King can be on divorce number nine, Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage, and Jesse James and Tiger Woods, while married, were having sex with EVERYONE. Yet, the idea of same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really?




http://dearblankpleaseblank.com/permalink.php?viewid=393205

[Abbey Marie]

Charlie Sheen can make a "porn family". Kelsey Grammar ended his 15 year relationship over the phone. Larry King has had 8 divorces. Kim Kardashians marriage cost ten million dollars and lasted 72 days. Newt Gingrich had affairs while both his first and second wives were ill. Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage. 43-50% of traditional marriage end in divorce.

Yet, somehow same sex marriage is going to destroy the institution? I don't think so.

Your right, Wind. Liberals make sucky spouses.

Newt has changed his ways, unless you think he is a liar. I don't.

[Gator Monroe]

Then the Pope has got some explaining to do.

Perhaps I could sub for him here ???:lol:

[fj1200]

It is absolutely of issue. The constant whining that homosexuals are somehow "discriminated against" any more than any other groups, is the purest bunkum, as I have pointed out.

You can have something, half sibling aside, that they cannot. A contractual relationship with someone they love.


A presumption rapidly approaching obsolescence as more and more studies find minimal risk of birth defects or other health problems resulting from sexual relations between close relations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/us/few-risks-seen-to-the-children-of-1st-cousins.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Well, that pretty well covers you and your cousin but... If a law restricting your freedoms is based on old information and is thus outdated, work to change it rather than just throwing up your arms and living with it.


But since you brought up the subject, would you like to examine the frequency of health problems resulting from "sexual" relations (producing or not producing offspring) between members of the same sex, compared to the frequency of health problems resulting from sexual relations (producing or not producing offspring) between close relations?

The farther this thread goes, the more reasons to not allow "marriage" between same-sex partners come up.

Not from my end. I prefer no laws related to the marriage especially at the Federal level. Besides, if they can't get married do you think they're just going to go away?

[fj1200]

Remind me again... what percentage of states does it take to ratify an amendment to the **U.S.** Constitution? (since the issue is apparently not going to go away any time soon?)

That would be a stupid amendment.

[differentDemocrat]

I dont care about the ban either way but, I dont understand why they had to punish children who's mothers were UNwed for one reason or another. Now 1 million children in NC will no longer have health care because of this stupid law

[logroller]

I dont care about the ban either way but, I dont understand why they had to punish children who's mothers were UNwed for one reason or another. Now 1 million children in NC will no longer have health care because of this stupid law
Welcome aboard; glad to have you around. Not quite following your post though. Does this law prevent an insured father from listing his dependent children on his health insurance?

[fj1200]

I dont care about the ban either way but, I dont understand why they had to punish children who's mothers were UNwed for one reason or another. Now 1 million children in NC will no longer have health care because of this stupid law

It appears you do care about it but how do 1mm children lose HC because of it?

[ConHog]

Welcome aboard; glad to have you around. Not quite following your post though. Does this law prevent an insured father from listing his dependent children on his health insurance?



I think he's talking about situations where two ball busting dykes have chased off the kid's father and so he's no longer in the picture and the new "daddy" has insurance, but the kid can't get on it.

Now see, I agree with the sentiment. I have a 19 year old who's been living with us since he was 15 (different circumstances though his mom kicked him out and his dad is in prison) and this kid didn't have any medical insurance. I couldn't put him on mine even though I was his caregiver. Now eventually we went to court and got custody from his mother (imagine how much that would have cost had I had to pay an attorney shudder) and so then he was a dependent and I could put him on my insurance.

How much simpler if contracts could take care of all that kind of thing.

[Wind Song]

Your right, Wind. Liberals make sucky spouses.

Newt has chaaged his ways, unless you think he is a liar. I don't.


Politics has nothing to do with what kind of spouse you marry.

[jimnyc]

Politics has nothing to do with what kind of spouse you marry.

Unless of course the other person has political views 100% different than yours, then you may never even get together let alone reach marriage. Generally speaking, married couples tend to have similar political views. Notice I said generally speaking, as even I know a few couples who are at odds in that department.

[Wind Song]

Unless of course the other person has political views 100% different than yours, then you may never even get together let alone reach marriage. Generally speaking, married couples tend to have similar political views. Notice I said generally speaking, as even I know a few couples who are at odds in that department.

My wife and I have similar political views. Most of my close friends have similiar political views. Most of my relatives have opposite political views. We don't discuss politics.

[jimnyc]

My wife and I have similar political views. Most of my close friends have similiar political views. Most of my relatives have opposite political views. We don't discuss politics.

That's the key right there. The priest I saw prior to marriage told the wife and I that you will face really only a handful of problems - sex, money & politics (and in-laws).

[logroller]

That's the key right there. The priest I saw prior to marriage told the wife and I that you will face really only a handful of problems - sex, money & politics (and in-laws).
That's just sound advice for society, not just marriage. I mean, i think most people find politicians screwing us out of our money problematic. The in-laws thing though, is truly unique to marriage.

[fj1200]

I dont care about the ban either way but, I dont understand why they had to punish children who's mothers were UNwed for one reason or another. Now 1 million children in NC will no longer have health care because of this stupid law

OK, so 1mm of the ~2.5mm kids (40%) under 18 will no longer have HC because of THIS law? I call BS.


I think he's talking about situations where two ball busting dykes have chased off the kid's father and so he's no longer in the picture and the new "daddy" has insurance, but the kid can't get on it.

I don't know the situation before to know how this change could possibly affect the insurance market to a large degree, but I have doubts.

[SassyLady]

Are adopted children eligible for insurance? If so, why aren't the same sex partners adopting so they can put children on either person's insurance?

[Wind Song]

Are adopted children eligible for insurance? If so, why aren't the same sex partners adopting so they can put children on either person's insurance?


You act like adoption is a real easy option for same sex partners. It isn't.

[jimnyc]

You act like adoption is a real easy option for same sex partners. It isn't.

That's because society as a whole would rather see adopted children go to a mother AND a father.

[SassyLady]

You act like adoption is a real easy option for same sex partners. It isn't.

Why is it harder? I'm talking about the adoption of their partner's child, so I truly don't understand why it would be that difficult.

[Wind Song]

That's because society as a whole would rather see adopted children go to a mother AND a father.

I'd rather see a child go to parents who love him or her.

[Wind Song]

Why is it harder? I'm talking about the adoption of their partner's child, so I truly don't understand why it would be that difficult.


Yes, I know what you're talking about. Many state laws prohibit same sex adoption by marital status.

[jimnyc]

I'd rather see a child go to parents who love him or her.

Sometimes love alone isn't enough to raise a child.

[Wind Song]

Sometimes love alone isn't enough to raise a child.


My wife and I would have been good parents.

[jimnyc]

My wife and I would have been good parents.

Perhaps, don't know either of you well enough to form an opinion.

But who would teach him to hit a baseball? Toss a spiral while playing football? Taught him why he "had that funny feeling" in his tummy when he starts liking girls? Taught him how to handle himself when his heart was broken? Taught him how to be a man? Taught him how to treat a lady? Taught him how to handle himself when it's time to defend himself?

And if a little girl, who is going to call her "Daddy's little girl"? Who will raise her on his shoulders and give her rides around the park? Who will build her bicycles and guide her down the road ensuring she won't get hurt? Who will teach her to hit a ball when she wants to hang with the guys? Who will walk her down the aisle and raise her veil, and give her away?

There is a certain love that ONLY a man could give. And there is also a certain love only a woman can give. That's why we call them Mom and Dad, and we all only have one. I'm of the belief that a child should have both forms of love as a part of their lives. I do not mean to say that a child "cannot" be happy and healthy in a household with 2 parents of the same sex, cause I know it happens. But all in all, I still think there are just too many variables and too many reasons that a child is better off learning from a Mom and a Dad.

[Wind Song]

We would have been great parents.

[jimnyc]

We would have been great parents.

They'd be short on forming opinions if you simply repeated yourself to them. :)

[Wind Song]

They'd be short on forming opinions if you simply repeated yourself to them. :)
.

[jimnyc]

.

I'm unsure why I continually see you posting "." all over the place. I suppose if that's how you choose to express yourself, but it's odd and adds nothing.

[Wind Song]

I'm unsure why I continually see you posting "." all over the place. I suppose if that's how you choose to express yourself, but it's odd and adds nothing.

I'd like to delete the post. It's the only way I can get you to do it.

[logroller]

They'd be short on forming opinions if you simply repeated yourself to them. :)
I don't know about that; seems my wife and I often telling our kids the same things, repeatedly, yet they have a different opinion from either of us.;)

[Wind Song]

Jim is unable to fathom that gay and lesbian families raise healthy and happy children.

[jimnyc]

Jim is unable to fathom that gay and lesbian families raise healthy and happy children.

Stop telling me what I do and don't do and what I believe and don't. That's what you CHOOSE to read into my words. I already stated that I know that kids can perhaps thrive in a family where the parents were homosexual. You outright ignore that part and make up your own words. Please stop doing that and deal with what I actually do post.

[jimnyc]

I'd like to delete the post. It's the only way I can get you to do it.

You want to delete a post and you make another post with a dot instead? Or are you saying you edit your post and remove the contents and leave a period in it's place? I couldn't care less if that's what you choose to do, but the editing window is a fairly short amount of time, and others very well may quote your post before you edit it. It would be easier for you if you had the courage to post things, or a stance, and stick with it.