Celebrate? West Point's Chapel Has First [Archive] - Debate Policy

Robert A Whit

12-02-2012, 09:04 PM

I'm not disagreeing with you. Seems though that it would be best to get government out of marriage. Too divisive. Sort of an aside. The very fact that 'marriage' is divisive illustrates just how decadent our culture has become.

I'm not a religion type person, just an observation.

Here is the thing the way I see this.
West Point is part of the Federal Government. The school produces Army officers. I have been there. I know the institution.
I have been inside that chapel. A poor place for some homosexual to make a stand.

There is nothing other than DOMA to engage the feds in marriage.

Marriage is a local form of contract. By local I mean between a man and the woman he marries.
Why have marriage?

Better yet, why get the Feds in the middle when it decided to pass out deductions for nothing more than marriage and children?

Marriage has most benefits when the children are home for them. When they leave the home, then both parties have equal benefits. Children of course at home have more benefits.

For instance.

If the husband won't take care of his wife, nobody will arrest him for wife neglect.

But the state will come down on you hard if you neglect those children.

Wives are not removed from the family over lack of child care. Children are often removed from the spouses.

I once checked out the ancient Roman Laws to see how they handled this. And found as

I believe that marriage is there mostly for the kids sakes.

Also, back in those days, nobody wanted some dude taking off with his woman so he married her.

Today with our loose morals, if she takes off, a lot of men would say good bye.

fj1200

12-02-2012, 09:43 PM

Okay fj. If....IF...D.A.D.T. hadn't been passed. Where would that Couple have been married?

Umm, NY. Possibly not at the WP chapel though.

its disheartening to see such a Great and Powerful Nation go down, while the immoral and deviants drive God out of Government, Obama has single handedly down graded our military

Gays have been serving for quite some time.

There is nothing other than DOMA to engage the feds in marriage.

Marriage is a local form of contract. By local I mean between a man and the woman he marries.
Why have marriage?

There are plenty of Federal benefits for married people, 1000+ by some counts. Marriage is anything but a local religious contract these days.

Robert A Whit

12-02-2012, 09:51 PM

Umm, NY. Possibly not at the WP chapel though.

Gays have been serving for quite some time.

There are plenty of Federal benefits for married people, 1000+ by some counts. Marriage is anything but a local religious contract these days.

When I was in the Army, had some homosexual came out, he would have got shown the door out of the Army.

As to Federal benefits, a change to law and those vanish.

I don't see marriage as religious. i see it to protect children and in part to protect the two spouses mainly from each other.

fj1200

12-02-2012, 09:54 PM

When I was in the Army, had some homosexual came out, he would have got shown the door out of the Army.

Like I said elsewhere, it's sad when patriots can't serve.

As to Federal benefits, a change to law and those vanish.

I'm all for it.

I don't see marriage as religious. i see it to protect children and in part to protect the two spouses mainly from each other.

Glad to see that you have found the logic to support gay marriage; Gays have kids.

Larrymc

12-02-2012, 10:11 PM

Umm, NY. Possibly not at the WP chapel though.

Gays have been serving for quite some time.

There are plenty of Federal benefits for married people, 1000+ by some counts. Marriage is anything but a local religious contract these days.i have no doubt that Gays have been serving a long time, and it worked out just fine the way it was, and even with don't ask don't tell, but as usual there not ever satisfied until they can shout it from the roof tops, and most impotently everyone must agree that its natural and there no different than anyone else.

fj1200

12-02-2012, 10:19 PM

i have no doubt that Gays have been serving a long time, and it worked out just fine the way it was, and even with don't ask don't tell, but as usual there not ever satisfied until they can shout it from the roof tops, and most impotently everyone must agree that its natural and there no different than anyone else.

Man, Freud could write a whole paper about your posts. :laugh:

Times have changed and I can see your having a tough time accepting it. Do you see the difference between not hiding it and "shouting from the rooftops"?

Robert A Whit

12-02-2012, 10:22 PM

Glad to see that you have found the logic to support gay marriage; Gays have kids.

Say what?

When have you learned of any woman getting another woman pregnant?

Clearly men can't get each other pregnant.

Homosexuals have children by having sex with a heterosexual.

logroller

12-02-2012, 10:24 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/west-point-chapel-hosts-first-same-sex-wedding-185326592.html

Another argument for getting government out of marriage, IMO.
For the sake of argument, what reasons are there for having government in marriage?

fj1200

12-02-2012, 10:26 PM

Say what?

When have you learned of any woman getting another woman pregnant?

Clearly men can't get each other pregnant.

Homosexuals have children by having sex with a heterosexual.

You might want to get with the times. Do you know how many gay and lesbian couples have kids and the various methods by which becoming a parent can occur? If you support kids and families then it's only logical that you would support the unions that support kids.

fj1200

12-02-2012, 10:27 PM

For the sake of argument, what reasons are there for having government in marriage?

Supporting kids. ;)

logroller

12-02-2012, 10:30 PM

Larrymc

12-02-2012, 11:05 PM

Man, Freud could write a whole paper about your posts. :laugh:

Times have changed and I can see your having a tough time accepting it. Do you see the difference between not hiding it and "shouting from the rooftops"? yes not hiding is for now, shouting from the roof tops is the goal, because, what i said was true, the agenda is to make it normal, natural, as accepted as strait well its not, this is the special treatment i speak of, like i said no other sexual deviant group is trying to do that if you just wanted to serve without fear of discharge, don't ask don't tell covered it unless you made an advance on someone or actually engaged in sexual act's in the service

fj1200

12-02-2012, 11:18 PM

yes not hiding is for now, shouting from the roof tops is the goal, because, what i said was true, the agenda is to make it normal, natural, as accepted as strait well its not, this is the special treatment i speak of, like i said no other sexual deviant group is trying to do that if you just wanted to serve without fear of discharge, don't ask don't tell covered it unless you made an advance on someone or actually engaged in sexual act's in the service

Well there's no give in those statements. :rolleyes: I guess some people just don't want to be stuck in the box you set up for them.

Abbey Marie

12-03-2012, 01:38 PM

Like I said elsewhere, it's sad when patriots can't serve
...

Patriots, sure some.

Look at the boy scouts, churches, Penn State, etc. Gay men will often seek those professions where they have access to lots of other males. Children or young adults. Your assumption that gays in the military are there because they are patriots is not so sure a thing.

Larrymc

12-03-2012, 01:51 PM

Supporting kids. ;)before the Government can take any action in marital disputes it first needs a definition of it, same as civil unions, if Gays and Lesbians were only concerned with rights they would be fighting to have the rights they desire included in Unions, and leave marriage alone, but there agenda is to force everyone to be blind to the fact that there situation is different, but they can't so they seek to have the Government do it

jimnyc

12-03-2012, 01:56 PM

IMO, all they do by continually pushing this in peoples faces is make more animosity. I don't think EVERY "first" needs to make national headlines. Inviting the press into your wedding is kind of lame and reeks of attention whoring.

fj1200

12-03-2012, 02:05 PM

Patriots, sure some.

Look at the boy scouts, churches, Penn State, etc. Gay men will often seek those professions where they have access to lots of other males. Children or young adults. Your assumption that gays in the military are there because they are patriots is not so sure a thing.

Penn State? :rolleyes: Is that going to be the rallying cry for the nest 10 years?

before the Government can take any action in marital disputes it first needs a definition of it, same as civil unions, if Gays and Lesbians were only concerned with rights they would be fighting to have the rights they desire included in Unions, and leave marriage alone, but there agenda is to force everyone to be blind to the fact that there situation is different, but they can't so they seek to have the Government do it

Please indicate all of the benefits of civil unions in comparison with marriage at the Federal level. I'd be surprised if 'civil unions' are mentioned in the Federal code at all whereas 'marriage' is cited quite frequently.

IMO, all they do by continually pushing this in peoples faces is make more animosity. I don't think EVERY "first" needs to make national headlines. Inviting the press into your wedding is kind of lame and reeks of attention whoring.

That I agree with.

jimnyc

12-03-2012, 02:11 PM

Penn State? :rolleyes: Is that going to be the rallying cry for the nest 10 years?

(off topic) They had an awesome year, after everything that happened, and then losing their first 2 games and then finishing 8-4. And people can sue me if they like, but I sure miss Coach Joe. :)

That I agree with.

The thing is, if they were smart they would just celebrate their nuptials like every other person and not try to make a spectacle of themselves. I guarantee it would do more for "the cause" than having people feel like it's being jammed down their throats. As my Mommy used to say, you attract more bees with shit than you do vinegar! LOL

fj1200

12-03-2012, 02:35 PM

^Your mom, a wordsmith like none other. :laugh:

Larrymc

12-03-2012, 02:53 PM

Well there's no give in those statements. :rolleyes: I guess some people just don't want to be stuck in the box you set up for them.im not trying to put anyone in a box, i believe Homosexuality is wrong, from a Biblical stand point, but also there's no denying that its using you body in a way it was not naturally mint to, and just because you can experience pleasure don't make it OK, i know you don't like to hear it, but there has been people who find pleasure in sex with animals, discussing right, "But why? there tempted to do it, and it fells good" Now born that way no, i think there are many things that can cause a person to be tempted that way, and i know that a sexual desire can been as strong as any drug addiction, but its just like any other deviant behavior, just because your tempted to do it doesn't mean your born to do it, i may not be tempted in that area but i bet im tempted in ways that would not even be a issue for you, but unlike a lot of homosexuals i have no desire to tell you or incest that my behavior be accepted, i have friends and even family that engage in such things, i love them very much, ive been told that they just don't want to fight it, even if its against God, and i respect that, i don't like it but i respect it, but they don't call it normal, though they would like a legal union to protect there rights and understand that it can't be a Marriage in the Traditional sense, and im for that if we are going to allow open homosexuality they deserve that, but there honest and know many don't approve, so they respect that, and keep it to them selves when appropriate, sorry i don't think this is to much to ask, i hope this helps you understand my position

fj1200

12-03-2012, 03:00 PM

im not trying to put anyone in a box, i believe Homosexuality is wrong, from a Biblical stand point, but also there's no denying that its using you body in a way it was not naturally mint to, and just because you can experience pleasure don't make it OK, i know you don't like to hear it, but there has been people who find pleasure in sex with animals, discussing right, "But why? there tempted to do it, and it fells good" Now born that way no, i think there are many things that can cause a person to be tempted that way, and i know that a sexual desire can been as strong as any drug addiction, but its just like any other deviant behavior, just because your tempted to do it doesn't mean your born to do it, i may not be tempted in that area but i bet im tempted in ways that would not even be a issue for you, but unlike a lot of homosexuals i have no desire to tell you or incest that my behavior be accepted, i have friends and even family that engage in such things, i love them very much, ive been told that they just don't want to fight it, even if its against God, and i respect that, i don't like it but i respect it, but they don't call it normal, though they would like a legal union to protect there rights and understand that it can't be a Marriage in the Traditional sense, and im for that if we are going to allow open homosexuality they deserve that, but there honest and know many don't approve, so they respect that, and keep it to them selves when appropriate, sorry i don't think this is to much to ask, i hope this helps you understand my position

I didn't say I didn't understand your position, it's the same one that many people have but clearly not all people believe the same as you and/or are not Christians anyway. I place a higher order on liberty than imposing one's view of morality on others. I disagree that you are not trying to put anyone in a box, you are doing so based on your religious/moral views.

Larrymc

12-03-2012, 03:16 PM

Penn State? :rolleyes: Is that going to be the rallying cry for the nest 10 years?

Please indicate all of the benefits of civil unions in comparison with marriage at the Federal level. I'd be surprised if 'civil unions' are mentioned in the Federal code at all whereas 'marriage' is cited quite frequently.

That I agree with.they don't appreciate how for they have come, mabe they will keep pushing until people get enough and put them back in the closet

Robert A Whit

12-03-2012, 03:34 PM

For the sake of argument, what reasons are there for having government in marriage?

Marriage is a contract between a man and woman.
In the perfect world, the man and woman would take perfect care of their children. Matters such as who gets to inherit what would not be a problem.

Thus since the world is not perfect, humans end up with disputes. Said disputes have to be resolved using the rule of law.

In the perfect world, there is no need for marriage.

Robert A Whit

12-03-2012, 03:41 PM

I didn't say I didn't understand your position, it's the same one that many people have but clearly not all people believe the same as you and/or are not Christians anyway. I place a higher order on liberty than imposing one's view of morality on others. I disagree that you are not trying to put anyone in a box, you are doing so based on your religious/moral views.

Going along with your view on liberty, that is why I voted in favor of civil unions for any human wanting one. I don't care if it is the adult mother marrying her long lost son or if some group of wife swappers want to marry each other. Does not bother me. I leave the religious arguments up to God.

But when I studied law, we learned a valuable lesson. Definitions have meaning. Marriage is a word. That is all it is. The act of marriage can be named anything.

Marriage however has a long standing as to meaning. It means a man agrees with a woman that they must have a legal arrangement so the contract form is called marriage.

Homosexuals, as I have told them over and over for many years ought to be happy with the civil contract as used in CA.

I am not clear to this day why they persist on trying to redefine the term marriage.

I would also like to add that each state in this country has, under law, defined the word marriage. Some states apparently think along your lines of thinking.

This country has a porridge of laws. If you want to not pay sales taxes, there are states for you. If you don't want to pay state income taxes, other states are for you. If you wish to carry a loaded pistol around in public, other states have that approved. The nice thing about the USA is if you favor something, there are states for you.

Robert A Whit

12-03-2012, 03:50 PM

As my Mommy used to say, you attract more bees with shit than you do vinegar! LOL

Vinegar works well to trap fruit flies. Particularly Cider vinegar. Put into those small insect traps that have the sticky coating inside them, the flies sit there in agony starving to death. Stuck to the coating, they don't lay eggs either. At least not in fruit.

jimnyc

12-03-2012, 03:57 PM

"We're here, we're queer..." - always was a bit of grabbing attention and trying to jam it down others throats.

Robert A Whit

12-03-2012, 03:59 PM

You might want to get with the times. Do you know how many gay and lesbian couples have kids and the various methods by which becoming a parent can occur? If you support kids and families then it's only logical that you would support the unions that support kids.

Who invented the term gay?

Growing up, we teens knew Gay meant happy. I can say homosexual and nab both parties. You need two words.

No, I do not know the status of homosexuals and having kids in their presence. I would not impose something like that on children. I support kids being in natural families. Where the children can have a man and woman as parents. This is not a liberty issue for me. I voted for civil unions. And if that means some homosexual woman with children by a man, keeping her kids with her in a new state, that is not my problem.

Robert A Whit

12-03-2012, 04:01 PM

So if a man has a vasectomy or is otherwise sterile, he should not be allowed to marry?

What state wrote it's laws that way?

Robert A Whit

12-03-2012, 04:07 PM

Well there's no give in those statements. :rolleyes: I guess some people just don't want to be stuck in the box you set up for them.

I want your opinion on the following matters.

Case #1. Teen gets pregnant and since the man she loved decided not to stay with her leaves her with a decision, she bears a son and he is adopted to a family who raise him.

As an adult, said son takes it upon himself to locate the woman who bore him. Upon meeting her, an attraction took place to the point they had two children and wanted to be together as husband and wife.

Do you approve that actual case?

Case #2. We have all heard of the groups that marry multiple women. Do you approve men marrying multiple women or conversely a woman marrying multiple men?

Robert A Whit

12-03-2012, 04:13 PM

Patriots, sure some.

Look at the boy scouts, churches, Penn State, etc. Gay men will often seek those professions where they have access to lots of other males. Children or young adults. Your assumption that gays in the military are there because they are patriots is not so sure a thing.

i can name a lot of things wrong with military life for me. I was in the Army and was happy my term to serve was only 2 years.

But i plan to name some good things as I understand how it is right now.
1. The basics of life are provided to every person serving in the military.
2. Bonus cash is paid when they re-enlist. Not sure it applies to all occupations but in some the bonus is very high.
3. The military will pay for education. If not for all, at least for some.
4. If one stays for 20 years, they get payments for life.
I don't think too many enter military to be patriots as such but realize some do and some also want to be involved in war in a very personal way.

Robert A Whit

12-03-2012, 04:20 PM

A parade because you are not a homosexual????

Gay pride parade?

I recall a saying in the Army by some soldiers.

If you said you came from California, somebody would say that "I hear that CA is the land of hotrodders and queers and I sure don't see your tailpipes."

Larrymc

12-03-2012, 04:49 PM

Larrymc

12-03-2012, 05:12 PM

"We're here, we're queer..." - always was a bit of grabbing attention and trying to jam it down others throats.that's the point every one of them, try so despite to make is there not pushing it, know Obama thinks if you keep saying something it will become true, im guessing that's the same thinking

Larrymc

12-03-2012, 05:24 PM

Who invented the term gay?

Growing up, we teens knew Gay meant happy. I can say homosexual and nab both parties. You need two words.

No, I do not know the status of homosexuals and having kids in their presence. I would not impose something like that on children. I support kids being in natural families. Where the children can have a man and woman as parents. This is not a liberty issue for me. I voted for civil unions. And if that means some homosexual woman with children by a man, keeping her kids with her in a new state, that is not my problem.deviants are notorious for making generic relationships that resemble the real thing, but i think bring kids into one, is ridicules, they can give any monetary needs that a child could need, and even ample love but they can never give them a biological mother and father to grow up with, it will always be just an alternative to a Traditional family

Kathianne

12-03-2012, 05:29 PM

deviants are notorious for making generic relationships that resemble the real thing, but i think bring kids into one, is ridicules, they can give any monetary needs that a child could need, and even ample love but they can never give them a biological mother and father to grow up with, it will always be just an alternative to a Traditional family

Ok. What if there aren't 'biological parents' available? What if heterosexual parents want a child with characteristics that this one doesn't meet? Are you implying that two loving adults, willing to raise the child should be denied and instead the child should face multiple foster placements or institution? How are those alternatives preferable?

Larrymc

12-03-2012, 05:49 PM

Ok. What if there aren't 'biological parents' available? What if heterosexual parents want a child with characteristics that this one doesn't meet? Are you implying that two loving adults, willing to raise the child should be denied and instead the child should face multiple foster placements or institution? How are those alternatives preferable? sense i don't think gays should adopt, yes those may be the alternative, forcing a child into a controversial life style has a potential to be bad also, so its a matter of opinion

Kathianne

12-03-2012, 05:53 PM

sense i don't think gays should adopt, yes those may be the alternative, forcing a child into a controversial life style has a potential to be bad also, so its a matter of opinion

It's better to be in a loving and stable home, with caring adults. The alternatives are unacceptable, IMO.

Larrymc

12-03-2012, 06:15 PM

It's better to be in a loving and stable home, with caring adults. The alternatives are unacceptable, IMO.sounds sweet, but what evidence's do we have that being raised in a Homosexual environment is good are even better.

Kathianne

12-03-2012, 06:21 PM

sounds sweet, but what evidence's do we have that being raised in a Homosexual environment is good are even better.

If a stable relationship, I don't care if it's the animals in Jim's post on feeding others, it's preferable to be shuttled from foster home to foster home. Often with being sexually assaulted along the way. Caring adults, regardless of sexual orientation, is better than deviants, which are too common in fostering.

Larrymc

12-03-2012, 06:39 PM

If a stable relationship, I don't care if it's the animals in Jim's post on feeding others, it's preferable to be shuttled from foster home to foster home. Often with being sexually assaulted along the way. Caring adults, regardless of sexual orientation, is better than deviants, which are too common in fostering.well that's were we apparently disagree, homosexuals are deviants, if they can't control desires for such behavior, why are we to assume there trust worthy, they are a main driver of the Moral decay of this country, but if your on board with the diminishing of Traditional and Family values, just say so, so i don't wast time like i did on him.

Robert A Whit

12-03-2012, 07:30 PM

deviants are notorious for making generic relationships that resemble the real thing, but i think bring kids into one, is ridicules, they can give any monetary needs that a child could need, and even ample love but they can never give them a biological mother and father to grow up with, it will always be just an alternative to a Traditional family

I am thinking of actual times where I have heard of kids being brought into a queer environment where there was no father around. I tend to doubt that any thinking queer wants her kids to be queers. As to adult women that raised their children who later became queers, I bet a lot of kids really are not happy with those mothers.

Kathianne

12-03-2012, 07:35 PM

well that's were we apparently disagree, homosexuals are deviants, if they can't control desires for such behavior, why are we to assume there trust worthy, they are a main driver of the Moral decay of this country, but if your on board with the diminishing of Traditional and Family values, just say so, so i don't wast time like i did on him.

How many heteros qualify for deviant status in your book?

Kathianne

12-03-2012, 07:38 PM

I am thinking of actual times where I have heard of kids being brought into a queer environment where there was no father around. I tend to doubt that any thinking queer wants her kids to be queers. As to adult women that raised their children who later became queers, I bet a lot of kids really are not happy with those mothers.

Why do you think you are qualified to speak to queers desires of the raising of their children? Tip: adult women do not 'become queer.'

Robert A Whit

12-03-2012, 07:47 PM

Why do you think you are qualified to speak to queers desires of the raising of their children? Tip: adult women do not 'become queer.'

I am under the impression that any person can offer opinions. Are all posts posted by only qualified people? I doubt this.

I spoke in this case of a woman that between her and her husband owned a home that I was paid to appraise in connection to their divorce. She had lived the life of luxury. She held a degree but wanted more education. The family was adults by the way.

During her time at UCLA she took up with some woman then filed for divorce. I believe she turned queer. Seems to be clear to me.

Kathianne

12-03-2012, 07:51 PM

I am under the impression that any person can offer opinions. Are all posts posted by only qualified people? I doubt this.

I spoke in this case of a woman that between her and her husband owned a home that I was paid to appraise in connection to their divorce. She had lived the life of luxury. She held a degree but wanted more education. The family was adults by the way.

During her time at UCLA she took up with some woman then filed for divorce. I believe she turned queer. Seems to be clear to me.

No adult 'turns queer.' They are lesbian or homosexual or aren't.

So, in and of either positions, why is being either, less preferable than being fostering?

Larrymc

12-03-2012, 08:00 PM

How many heteros qualify for deviant status in your book?id say a lot, fact im guilty of a few my self im sure, but i don't nor do any other deviants, act so irresponsible as to announce it to the world fight to have it normalized, teach it to our children, no we try to be better than our weakness, and be respectable to others but not the Homosexual, but i will say i was under the illusion that they could at least be respectable to others, and that we could find a way for everyone to be comfortable, but you have probably seen my conversation with one one here, he has convinced me that its not possible, they are incapable of seeing past there on agenda, respect for others is a ridicules notion

aboutime

12-03-2012, 10:50 PM

Why do you think you are qualified to speak to queers desires of the raising of their children? Tip: adult women do not 'become queer.'

Kathianne. We could all ask you the VERY SAME QUESTION. Would you like to share your expertise on this topic? Instead of talking to everyone else like Someone Died, and Left you in charge?

logroller

12-04-2012, 01:26 AM

Marriage is a contract between a man and woman.
In the perfect world, the man and woman would take perfect care of their children. Matters such as who gets to inherit what would not be a problem.

Thus since the world is not perfect, humans end up with disputes. Said disputes have to be resolved using the rule of law.

In the perfect world, there is no need for marriage.

In a perfect world, we'd all just get along...the world isn't perfect-- noted. Now please explain how marriage being defined as man and woman assists in the settling of disputes.

Robert A Whit

12-04-2012, 04:47 PM

No adult 'turns queer.' They are lesbian or homosexual or aren't.

So, in and of either positions, why is being either, less preferable than being fostering?

Was she queer when married and the mother of several children? Why can't you understand she turned?

Translate your question please.

Robert A Whit

12-04-2012, 04:54 PM

In a perfect world, we'd all just get along...the world isn't perfect-- noted. Now please explain how marriage being defined as man and woman assists in the settling of disputes.

If you have a point, explain the point.

I can make a very long post explaining marriage to you, but doubt that is what you actually want.
Briefly, women have been considered the weaker sex forever. Men were expected not only to provide them shelterr but staples.

Women are the only sex that bears children. Children are even weaker.
Eons ago, some wise men decided to create a pact we know of as marriage.

They did it along with creating laws out of thin air.

We have to recall why they did that. Apply logic and you are up to date.

Robert A Whit

12-04-2012, 04:55 PM

Kathianne. We could all ask you the VERY SAME QUESTION. Would you like to share your expertise on this topic? Instead of talking to everyone else like Someone Died, and Left you in charge?

I am also waiting for her to reply.

Robert A Whit

12-04-2012, 04:59 PM

id say a lot, fact im guilty of a few my self im sure, but i don't nor do any other deviants, act so irresponsible as to announce it to the world fight to have it normalized, teach it to our children, no we try to be better than our weakness, and be respectable to others but not the Homosexual, but i will say i was under the illusion that they could at least be respectable to others, and that we could find a way for everyone to be comfortable, but you have probably seen my conversation with one one here, he has convinced me that its not possible, they are incapable of seeing past there on agenda, respect for others is a ridicules notion

Yes, if they would only keep it under the sheets. Parades to announce you are a homosexual?

Good lord amity. :thumb:

Larrymc

12-04-2012, 05:47 PM

Was she queer when married and the mother of several children? Why can't you understand she turned?

Translate your question please.she just expressing her support of Gays, they want everyone to believe they can't fiscally control there behavior

Robert A Whit

12-04-2012, 06:13 PM

she just expressing her support of Gays, they want everyone to believe they can't fiscally control there behavior

NOW I know the meaning of why the young tell the old they are set in their ways.

I used to think when I was young that I had strong opinions. Hell, those were nothing compared to me today. I still can't wrap my head around the term GAY.

I have not said this on this forum but my brother was a pecker lover. And he was sure not gay. The man was seriously troubled. And from the time he was about to enter high school I would say it showed up he was a queer. That is the word I learned growing up. I understand that today the word will get you kicked off by some left wing board administrators.

Queer to me is not a slur, it is the only term i knew for many decades. I can't recall why anybody would tell me a person that is extremely tormented is gay.

I have met homosexuals. I know of none that were gay. I am trying to recall if I met even one that was well adjusted and comfortable at munching pecker.

fj1200

12-05-2012, 09:34 AM

they don't appreciate how for they have come, mabe they will keep pushing until people get enough and put them back in the closet

Right where you want them eh?

But when I studied law, we learned a valuable lesson. Definitions have meaning. Marriage is a word. That is all it is. The act of marriage can be named anything.

Marriage however has a long standing as to meaning. It means a man agrees with a woman that they must have a legal arrangement so the contract form is called marriage.

Homosexuals, as I have told them over and over for many years ought to be happy with the civil contract as used in CA.

I am not clear to this day why they persist on trying to redefine the term marriage.

Let me guess, they didn't appreciate your comments? You might want to check how straight marriage offers benefits that are precluded from gay marriage that civil unions don't provide.

fj1200

12-05-2012, 09:56 AM

Growing up...

http://www.thecitizenvt.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Sept-4-E-C-Fire-Safety-C.gif

I want your opinion on the following matters.

The state shouldn't have a say in interpersonal relationships. The problem with polygamy is that many of the wives do not enter into the agreement willingly

What is the State's compelling interest in defining marriage?

fj1200

12-05-2012, 10:01 AM

i stated more than religious views but as is expected that's the one you attacked, im sure not imposing moral views is not a problem for someone like you who has none, ok i have given you the benefit of the doubt, that maybe you just didn't understand, but now its clear, your just another sicko that enjoys sexual deviant behavior, who likes to push it on others, and though you denied it earlier you agenda is to shout it from the roof tops, without anyone taking offense, i have always wondered why religious people loathe Gays and why they didn't give them a chance to also change there ways, well you have answered that for me, so ill just hope people as they have in the past, will just get enough of your type and raise up and put you people back in the closet

You're not very bright are you? Please tell me what deviant behaviors I have engaged in? For what it's worth, I know plenty of religious people who don't "loathe gays" as well as knowing religious people who are gay.

BTW, I didn't attack you or your view, I addressed an issue that you raised, there's a difference.

fj1200

12-05-2012, 10:07 AM

id say a lot, fact im guilty of a few my self im sure, but i don't nor do any other deviants, act so irresponsible as to announce it to the world fight to have it normalized, teach it to our children, no we try to be better than our weakness, and be respectable to others but not the Homosexual, but i will say i was under the illusion that they could at least be respectable to others, and that we could find a way for everyone to be comfortable, but you have probably seen my conversation with one one here, he has convinced me that its not possible, they are incapable of seeing past there on agenda, respect for others is a ridicules notion

And you're surprised that homosexuals don't accept your grand bargain with the attitude that you display.

Larrymc

12-05-2012, 10:10 AM

Right where you want them eh?

Let me guess, they didn't appreciate your comments? You might want to check how straight marriage offers benefits that are precluded from gay marriage that civil unions don't provide.actually i was under the illusion that, with respect for each other we could all be comfortable but you, convinced me that's not possible. like i have said many times, if rights was the real issue Gays would be fighting to have the rights they seek included in unions

fj1200

12-05-2012, 10:17 AM

actually i was under the illusion that, with respect for each other we could all be comfortable but you, convinced me that's not possible. like i have said many times, if rights was the real issue Gays would be fighting to have the rights they seek included in unions

How has posting with me convinced you that you can't be comfortable with homosexuals? You haven't shown one bit of respect to gays.

Larrymc

12-05-2012, 10:20 AM

And you're surprised that homosexuals don't accept your grand bargain with the attitude that you display.you can contribute my attitude to your self, it has changed sense engaging you. although my optimistic nature tells me not to draw the some conclusion on all.

fj1200

12-05-2012, 10:30 AM

you can contribute my attitude to your self, it has changed sense engaging you. although my optimistic nature tells me not to draw the some conclusion on all.

As far as I can tell your attitude is pretty set. Please tell me what I did.

Larrymc

12-05-2012, 10:43 AM

How has posting with me convinced you that you can't be comfortable with homosexuals? You haven't shown one bit of respect to gays.really, you have already forgot our long exchange, were i tried to no avail to help you understand opposing peoples stance on it, and how if Gays could consider others, we could all find a way to be comfortable, i also gave you examples of this working in my on life, but the idea that Gays should hold back at all inconsideration of others, was a ridicules notion to you. realizing that this is a popular position for Gays, it changed my attitude.

fj1200

12-05-2012, 10:59 AM

really, you have already forgot our long exchange, were i tried to no avail to help you understand opposing peoples stance on it, and how if Gays could consider others, we could all find a way to be comfortable, i also gave you examples of this working in my on life, but the idea that Gays should hold back at all inconsideration of others, was a ridicules notion to you. realizing that this is a popular position for Gays, it changed my attitude.

I haven't forgotten anything. I remember our, sometimes heated, discussion and how you seem to only be interested in making sure that homosexuals are kept from getting what you have.

Larrymc

12-05-2012, 11:07 AM

I haven't forgotten anything. I remember our, sometimes heated, discussion and how you seem to only be interested in making sure that homosexuals are kept from getting what you have.thank you for making my point, this is all you could get out of that Conversation. Convincing me further that trying to have intelligent common sense, conversation with you and apparently most Homosexuals is futile.

fj1200

12-05-2012, 11:10 AM

thank you for making my point, this is all you could get out of that Conversation. Convincing me further that trying to have intelligent common sense, conversation with you and apparently most Homosexuals is futile.

When I can sum it up in one sentence it shows how facile your argument is. Do you think that you are entitled to straight marriage benefits from the Federal government that gays do not get?

Larrymc

12-05-2012, 11:34 AM

When I can sum it up in one sentence it shows how facile your argument is. Do you think that you are entitled to straight marriage benefits from the Federal government that gays do not get?as i have said many times, not as long as they achieve though a union, but we've already determined rights is not the end goal,

fj1200

12-05-2012, 01:38 PM

as i have said many times, not as long as they achieve though a union, but we've already determined rights is not the end goal,

Please show where 'civil union' is defined in the Federal Register and equates to 'marriage.'

aboutime

12-05-2012, 02:27 PM

Please show where 'civil union' is defined in the Federal Register and equates to 'marriage.'

fj. Is that all you know how to ask? "Please show....."

If you have so many questions you simply feel compelled to always ask others.

Your time might better be spent with Searching for those answers yourself, then presenting the answers to the rest of us.

It's a win-win for you. You ask, get the answer, and you become happy to know the answer. Rather than trying to make everyone else look as dumb as you obviously seem to be...ALWAYS ASKING, and never ANSWERING.

Larrymc

12-05-2012, 02:43 PM

Please show where 'civil union' is defined in the Federal Register and equates to 'marriage.'ok ill say it again, if rights are the issue then you should be fighting for those desired rights to be in a union, then there really wouldn't be an issue. but from what i gather, rights is not the real issue,even if Civil Unions offered equal legal rights you still wouldn't be satisfied, redefining Marriage is the Goal

aboutime

12-05-2012, 02:47 PM

Larrymc

12-05-2012, 03:18 PM

Larrymc. FJ is nothing but a GOTCHA player. Always posing questions...not to get answers, but to prove to himself. How much smarter he believes he is than everyone else. And he WIN's his game whenever anyone doesn't answer, or can't answer the question to HIS SPECIFICATIONS.i thinking your right, he changes it up, but still asking the same quiston over and over, i find most Gays are like that, they or so dispirit to have someone agree with them, to sooth the natural guilt they fell.

aboutime

12-05-2012, 03:30 PM

i thinking your right, he changes it up, but still asking the same quiston over and over, i find most Gays are like that, they or so dispirit to have someone agree with them, to sooth the natural guilt they fell.

Larrymc. That is also why I suspect. FJ, and GABBY are either THE SAME PERSON, or they are RELATED.

Larrymc

12-05-2012, 04:02 PM

Larrymc. That is also why I suspect. FJ, and GABBY are either THE SAME PERSON, or they are RELATED.Makes sense

Kathianne

12-05-2012, 04:04 PM

FJ and Gabby, same person? LOL! Hardly. Gabby flits between pot stirring politics, kids, and education. That's it.

FJ? He's interested in most anything.

Robert A Whit

12-05-2012, 04:21 PM

Let me guess, they didn't appreciate your comments? You might want to check how straight marriage offers benefits that are precluded from gay marriage that civil unions don't provide.

Homosexuals may never be happy. Marriage is a legal word. It has no relationship at all to the contracts entered into by homosexuals.

This tax system is so FU that many parts of tax law I simply can't take advantage or nor am subject to such laws.

Same with you. I would get over the tax consequences. Apparently in your view this has all along been about money.

We treat the rich shitty under this system. Since that seems to me to meet the approval of democrats, being upset that homosexuals don't get each tax benefit a married couple get is sour grapes.

This tax system does not guarantee that any person is equal to the other person so far as taxing them is concerned.

I wish some intelligent legal group would challenge tax laws based on them not being equal to all of us.

A homeowner may take deductions that renters can't take. Since this system is that FU I won't try to handle something for homosexuals.

Robert A Whit

12-05-2012, 04:29 PM

http://www.thecitizenvt.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Sept-4-E-C-Fire-Safety-C.gif

The state shouldn't have a say in interpersonal relationships. The problem with polygamy is that many of the wives do not enter into the agreement willingly

What is the State's compelling interest in defining marriage?

You ignored my other set up question.

One more time since you want marriage to be extended and redefined to suit yourself.

Do you mean, so that I am clear, that if the mother in the case I cited and her son, both consenting adults, desire to be married, you feel it is correct for that marriage to happen? It is a man and woman. And both are free parties. This is a real case, not some hypothetical.

It might be said that women marry men unwillingly but I doubt that is to the point one need ban polygamy when the solution is to ensure women can't be married without consent.

I have yet to see proof that the women engaging in polygamy in the USA are not willing. But as I said, if this is true, those women have a remedy at law.

Robert A Whit

12-05-2012, 04:48 PM

How has posting with me convinced you that you can't be comfortable with homosexuals? You haven't shown one bit of respect to gays.

I read that and many other comments by a party on this thread. Seems there is this urgency to be accepted.

A question was also posed as to a civil union being in the Federal Register. I believe that congress has brought this up from time to time and it would be part of the official record. I don't plan to hunt it down but since some states have civil unions, clearly only a dumb and blind congress would never bring it up, and I doubt Congress is any of that.

Here is one thing that troubles me about homosexuals and marriage.

Marriage has a very long standing in law and the definition does not accomodate the homosexual contract.

I have long wondered and even asked homosexuals, why do you want the term marriage to apply to you? You don't accept marriage as defined. So you simply want to modify the word to mean a new thing.

A Civil union with it's warts lets homosexuals contract with each other in a fashion courts of laws can be of help to resolve problems.

When the word Marriage has a legal meaning, it means that states and or the Feds may craft on paper certain "rules of the road" that can be enforced in courts. A woman with children will get support by the court against the man in order to feed and care for his children. Children not his won't get support awards to the woman from the court.

Matter of fact, a man may support his step kids from a very early age till they are teens and upon divorce the court will not award the spouse child support for the step kids. His kids in her custody will be awarded child support. Homosexuals rarely come to some homosexual civil union with their own children. Men can't bear children thus unless they have a child with a woman, they are SOL as to rights over a child. They need the help of courts to get rights over any child not of their own seed.

I don't know a thing about all those so called Federal rights that supposedly go to married people. I don't see homosexuals calling for a repeal of those alleged rights.

I don't get it. If a homosexual is that unhappy, why claim they are gay?

Kathianne

12-05-2012, 04:53 PM

I read that and many other comments by a party on this thread. Seems there is this urgency to be accepted.

A question was also posed as to a civil union being in the Federal Register. I believe that congress has brought this up from time to time and it would be part of the official record. I don't plan to hunt it down but since some states have civil unions, clearly only a dumb and blind congress would never bring it up, and I doubt Congress is any of that.

Here is one thing that troubles me about homosexuals and marriage.

Marriage has a very long standing in law and the definition does not accomodate the homosexual contract.

I have long wondered and even asked homosexuals, why do you want the term marriage to apply to you? You don't accept marriage as defined. So you simply want to modify the word to mean a new thing.

A Civil union with it's warts lets homosexuals contract with each other in a fashion courts of laws can be of help to resolve problems.

When the word Marriage has a legal meaning, it means that states and or the Feds may craft on paper certain "rules of the road" that can be enforced in courts. A woman with children will get support by the court against the man in order to feed and care for his children. Children not his won't get support awards to the woman from the court.

Matter of fact, a man may support his step kids from a very early age till they are teens and upon divorce the court will not award the spouse child support for the step kids. His kids in her custody will be awarded child support. Homosexuals rarely come to some homosexual civil union with their own children. Men can't bear children thus unless they have a child with a woman, they are SOL as to rights over a child. They need the help of courts to get rights over any child not of their own seed.

I don't know a thing about all those so called Federal rights that supposedly go to married people. I don't see homosexuals calling for a repeal of those alleged rights.

I don't get it. If a homosexual is that unhappy, why claim they are gay?

How about a link back to the poster you were 'Quoting'? Some of us like to see things in context.

Robert A Whit

12-05-2012, 05:17 PM

How about a link back to the poster you were 'Quoting'? Some of us like to see things in context.

I am trying to not make it ABOUT the other poster, but only about the ideas on this thread. Have you followed this entire thread? What I say is clear by simply reading the posts on this thread only. But since you asked, it was over something said by FJ.

fj1200

12-06-2012, 08:53 AM

fj. Is that all you know how to ask? "Please show....."

If you have so many questions you simply feel compelled to always ask others.

Your time might better be spent with Searching for those answers yourself, then presenting the answers to the rest of us.

It's a win-win for you. You ask, get the answer, and you become happy to know the answer. Rather than trying to make everyone else look as dumb as you obviously seem to be...ALWAYS ASKING, and never ANSWERING.

You clearly don't understand the purpose for asking the question. It's quite easily understood as part of the dialectic process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic_process) and the Socratic Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method). Do a little research please; links have been provided.

And again, please show me a question that I haven't answered.

aboutime

12-06-2012, 08:59 AM

You clearly don't understand the purpose for asking the question. It's quite easily understood as part of the dialectic process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic_process) and the Socratic Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method). Do a little research please; links have been provided.

And again, please show me a question that I haven't answered.

No need. You already claim to know everything, and have all the answers. JUST ASK YOU!

fj1200

12-06-2012, 09:03 AM

ok ill say it again, if rights are the issue then you should be fighting for those desired rights to be in a union, then there really wouldn't be an issue. but from what i gather, rights is not the real issue,even if Civil Unions offered equal legal rights you still wouldn't be satisfied, redefining Marriage is the Goal

You clearly don't know what would satisfy me; I've already stated that the government shouldn't have a place in defining interpersonal relationships and basing benefits on those definitions. I would prefer that 'marriage' be eliminated from the Federal Register.

'Rights' is by far overused in our society because rights are God and Constitution given; Nobody has a right to marriage. Will you write your Congressman and ask that 'marriage' be stricken from all Federal Laws? That would assist in your goal that 'marriage' and 'unions' are on an equal footing.

Larrymc. FJ is nothing but a GOTCHA player. Always posing questions...not to get answers, but to prove to himself. How much smarter he believes he is than everyone else. And he WIN's his game whenever anyone doesn't answer, or can't answer the question to HIS SPECIFICATIONS.

At this point I would be happy with ANY answer to my questions let alone my specifications, whatever that is.

i thinking your right, he changes it up, but still asking the same quiston over and over, i find most Gays are like that, they or so dispirit to have someone agree with them, to sooth the natural guilt they fell.

You've polled most gays? Hell you haven't even been talking to any here and you're complaining. BTW, I don't care if you agree with me, I just like to point out flaws in logic. ;)

fj1200

12-06-2012, 09:15 AM

Homosexuals may never be happy. Marriage is a legal word. It has no relationship at all to the contracts entered into by homosexuals.

...

I wish some intelligent legal group would challenge tax laws based on them not being equal to all of us.

Yes 'marriage' is a legal word that violates Equal Protection (IMO and as yet undecided). And I'm pretty sure the tax issue has been decided.

You ignored my other set up question.

One more time since you want marriage to be extended and redefined to suit yourself.

Do you mean, so that I am clear, that if the mother in the case I cited and her son, both consenting adults, desire to be married, you feel it is correct for that marriage to happen? It is a man and woman. And both are free parties. This is a real case, not some hypothetical.

It might be said that women marry men unwillingly but I doubt that is to the point one need ban polygamy when the solution is to ensure women can't be married without consent.

I have yet to see proof that the women engaging in polygamy in the USA are not willing. But as I said, if this is true, those women have a remedy at law.

What exactly didn't you understand about the State NOT defining marriage? As far as polygamy you might want to look into some of the court cases involving said.

A Civil union with it's warts lets homosexuals contract with each other in a fashion courts of laws can be of help to resolve problems.

Men can't bear children thus unless they have a child with a woman, they are SOL as to rights over a child. They need the help of courts to get rights over any child not of their own seed.

To avoid being embroiled in another of your stream of consciousness posts... All marriages should be treated as civil unions.

And you do know that many states allow men to adopt don't you? Even gay men. :eek:

fj1200

12-06-2012, 09:19 AM

No need. You already claim to know everything, and have all the answers. JUST ASK YOU!

So, no research then. And where have I claimed such?

Oh sorry, I asked another question. Silly me expecting an answer to one of your baseless accusations though.

Robert A Whit

12-06-2012, 11:09 AM

Yes 'marriage' is a legal word that violates Equal Protection (IMO and as yet undecided). And I'm pretty sure the tax issue has been decided.

What exactly didn't you understand about the State NOT defining marriage? As far as polygamy you might want to look into some of the court cases involving said.

To avoid being embroiled in another of your stream of consciousness posts... All marriages should be treated as civil unions.

And you do know that many states allow men to adopt don't you? Even gay men. :eek:

Sir, you must divide your argument.
1. You seem to rely on the Feds in part of your argument. You refer to the Federal Register as if it is the source of laws rather than reports.
2. Marriage laws have long been a thing done by states and not the big boys in DC.
3. Since you know the Feds play no role in marriage,you keep arguing that the Feds hand out benefits to married people. I argue that it is an artificual construct to link payment of taxes to being married. It could be argued that marriage is not the only event these so called benefits accrue to.
4. If your purpose is to make sure the Feds stay clear of laws over Marriage, I agree with you.
5. If your purpose is to remove protections to the spouses, expecially when it comes to their own children, I do not agree. Children must come first.
6. You have no hang up about homosexuals wanting marriage but have one when it comes to other forms of the same thing. Makes no sense to me.
7. I do not believe that you understand my actual argument.
8. Trying to get to what YOU want, do you believe the term Marriage should be legally defined?
9. By whom?
10. If you want to exclude some unions and allow others, explain why?

Robert A Whit

12-06-2012, 11:22 AM

To avoid being embroiled in another of your stream of consciousness posts... All marriages should be treated as civil unions.

And you do know that many states allow men to adopt don't you? Even gay men. :eek:

So, you do want marriage defined.
Again, why do you want some excluded from either of your ideas when you fight to include only one group? To wit: You argue against both polygamy and adult incest marriages.
As to some states allowing homosexuals to adopt, mistakes are made, even at the state level.

What can children add to homosexual living arrangements? What does it do for children.

Put the kids first for a change if you don't mind. I suspect that homosexuals want kids in their homes to effect marriage law reversals. As a former child, the idea that I could have been raised by just one sex is not to my taste. Kids don't have the choice. Adults forcing kids to live in a home of homosexuals is not good for children.

fj1200

12-06-2012, 11:46 AM

Sir, you must divide your argument.
1. You seem to rely on the Feds in part of your argument. You refer to the Federal Register as if it is the source of laws rather than reports.
2. Marriage laws have long been a thing done by states and not the big boys in DC.
3. Since you know the Feds play no role in marriage,you keep arguing that the Feds hand out benefits to married people. I argue that it is an artificual construct to link payment of taxes to being married. It could be argued that marriage is not the only event these so called benefits accrue to.
4. If your purpose is to make sure the Feds stay clear of laws over Marriage, I agree with you.
5. If your purpose is to remove protections to the spouses, expecially when it comes to their own children, I do not agree. Children must come first.
6. You have no hang up about homosexuals wanting marriage but have one when it comes to other forms of the same thing. Makes no sense to me.
7. I do not believe that you understand my actual argument.
8. Trying to get to what YOU want, do you believe the term Marriage should be legally defined?
9. By whom?
10. If you want to exclude some unions and allow others, explain why?

I must divide my argument? 'Splain.
1. The Feds have made laws that make some more equal than others.
2. See #1.
3. See #2, it's far beyond taxes. Try making an actual argument.
4. Great.
5. Thank you for your support of gay marriage.
6. :confused:
7. No argument there, post it so it can be understood without the extraneous information that defines your posts.
8. Where have I not been clear?
9. A church can define marriage as it should. The State should mediate contract disputes.
10. See #8.

So, you do want marriage defined.
Again, why do you want some excluded from either of your ideas when you fight to include only one group? To wit: You argue against both polygamy and adult incest marriages.

See above.

As to some states allowing homosexuals to adopt, mistakes are made, even at the state level.

What can children add to homosexual living arrangements? What does it do for children.

Put the kids first for a change if you don't mind. I suspect that homosexuals want kids in their homes to effect marriage law reversals. As a former child, the idea that I could have been raised by just one sex is not to my taste. Kids don't have the choice. Adults forcing kids to live in a home of homosexuals is not good for children.

Your opinion. Adults force kids all the time. By your logic I have "forced" three of them to have a mommy and a daddy. I tend to see that some adults just love their kids. Crazy to your thinking I'm sure.

aboutime

12-06-2012, 02:16 PM

So, no research then. And where have I claimed such?

Oh sorry, I asked another question. Silly me expecting an answer to one of your baseless accusations though.

I know and agree. YOU ARE SORRY!

Not even willing to honestly answer your own questions. So, everybody else must be wrong?

fj1200

12-06-2012, 02:24 PM

I know and agree. YOU ARE SORRY!

Not even willing to honestly answer your own questions. So, everybody else must be wrong?

WTF are you even talking about anymore?

Robert A Whit

12-06-2012, 02:52 PM

I must divide my argument? 'Splain.
1. The Feds have made laws that make some more equal than others.
2. See #1.
3. See #2, it's far beyond taxes. Try making an actual argument.
4. Great.
5. Thank you for your support of gay marriage.
6. :confused:
7. No argument there, post it so it can be understood without the extraneous information that defines your posts.
8. Where have I not been clear?
9. A church can define marriage as it should. The State should mediate contract disputes.
10. See #8.

See above.

Your opinion. Adults force kids all the time. By your logic I have "forced" three of them to have a mommy and a daddy. I tend to see that some adults just love their kids. Crazy to your thinking I'm sure.

It would be great if you made a coherent argument.

You want a church to be the place to get married?

Do you want to say which church?

Do you want licenses to come from some church?

Would you want the Government to interfere with church rituals since you want marriage to be a church ritual?

I think it sucks trying to insert some innocent child in a home with homosexuals. Hey,you can't shoot me for having an opinion.

You were either too vague or you butchered my points so it did not good for me to offer them.

aboutime

12-06-2012, 02:52 PM

WTF are you even talking about anymore?

WTF are you calling me 'anymore' for?

Larrymc

12-06-2012, 03:18 PM

WTF are you even talking about anymore?been ignoring this thread, because you have beat this horse to death, so ill just take a guess and say, he is responding to your Obsession "Gay Rights"

fj1200

12-07-2012, 09:46 AM

It would be great if you made a coherent argument.

You want a church to be the place to get married?

Do you want to say which church?

Do you want licenses to come from some church?

Would you want the Government to interfere with church rituals since you want marriage to be a church ritual?

I think it sucks trying to insert some innocent child in a home with homosexuals. Hey,you can't shoot me for having an opinion.

You were either too vague or you butchered my points so it did not good for me to offer them.

The argument is fine, you need to stop reading between lines that aren't there.

WTF are you calling me 'anymore' for?

:420:

been ignoring this thread, because you have beat this horse to death, so ill just take a guess and say, he is responding to your Obsession "Gay Rights"

Where have I called you a horse? I'm sorry if you misunderstand liberty.

aboutime

12-07-2012, 08:18 PM

The argument is fine, you need to stop reading between lines that aren't there.

:420:

Where have I called you a horse? I'm sorry if you misunderstand liberty.

FJ. There is one thing we all can agree with, about you. YOU CERTAINLY ARE "SORRY".

logroller

12-07-2012, 10:25 PM

If you have a point, explain the point.

I can make a very long post explaining marriage to you, but doubt that is what you actually want.
Briefly, women have been considered the weaker sex forever. Men were expected not only to provide them shelterr but staples.

Women are the only sex that bears children. Children are even weaker.
Eons ago, some wise men decided to create a pact we know of as marriage.

They did it along with creating laws out of thin air.

We have to recall why they did that. Apply logic and you are up to date.
Wow. Do you still call black people negros? Times have changed. Just to bring you up to speed. Women can vote now. Wives aren't the property of their husbands, and females are contributing members of society for more than just child rearing.
At one time we were an agrarian society with high maternal and infant mortality rates. Having lots of kids was necessary for survival to assist in providing provisions. Marriage was a way of establishing the man as head of the family unit to direct these necessary operations. Now we have low mortality rates and are primarily a service based economy.(having already moved through the industrial stage) Additionally, record keeping by the state and Feds was wanton. Now, thanks to the diligent administration of public records, every citizen has an identity within a highly productive integrated workforce.
I needn't apply logic to grasp your antiquated views, just an understanding of history as a continuum. The conditions which required legal marriage are no longer. So logically, the state neednt recognize marriage. That's not to say two people shouldn't get married, just that the state no longer need recognize it as anything more than a contractual union.