Who should regulate marriages?

[gabosaurus]

I say no one should.
First of all, marriage is not about religion. It is a civil ceremony. There are a lot of people who don't believe in religion. Or, if they do, it is not the religion that follows the teachings of the Christian Bible.
I know a lot of you advocate that the government should stay out of people's lives. Why is this different.

I know homosexuality offends a lot of you. It doesn't offend me. But what if I decided that I am offended by an American marrying someone from Russia, or from South America? Can I move for a law or constitutional amendment stating that American citizens can not marry those from other countries?

Why is it the business of the government who should get married? The U.S. is supposed to be a free country. The government should not regulate morality.
We do have laws concerning age limits and behavior with animals. I am talking two willing people, whether they be same sex or different sex.

Please tell me why the government should interfere.

[Kathianne]

I say no one should.
First of all, marriage is not about religion. It is a civil ceremony. There are a lot of people who don't believe in religion. Or, if they do, it is not the religion that follows the teachings of the Christian Bible.
I know a lot of you advocate that the government should stay out of people's lives. Why is this different.

I know homosexuality offends a lot of you. It doesn't offend me. But what if I decided that I am offended by an American marrying someone from Russia, or from South America? Can I move for a law or constitutional amendment stating that American citizens can not marry those from other countries?

Why is it the business of the government who should get married? The U.S. is supposed to be a free country. The government should not regulate morality.
We do have laws concerning age limits and behavior with animals. I am talking two willing people, whether they be same sex or different sex.

Please tell me why the government should interfere.

For many religion plays a most important role in their marriages, raising of children, in their lives. Perhaps none of those apply to you, but the rights are there for those that choose differently.

[gabosaurus]

That's not my point. I want to know why the government shouldn't sanction same sex marriage.
Individuals can think and do what they believe.

[hjmick]

Ah shit.

I agree with Gabs on somethinng...

[ConHog]

I say no one should.
First of all, marriage is not about religion. It is a civil ceremony. There are a lot of people who don't believe in religion. Or, if they do, it is not the religion that follows the teachings of the Christian Bible.
I know a lot of you advocate that the government should stay out of people's lives. Why is this different.

I know homosexuality offends a lot of you. It doesn't offend me. But what if I decided that I am offended by an American marrying someone from Russia, or from South America? Can I move for a law or constitutional amendment stating that American citizens can not marry those from other countries?

Why is it the business of the government who should get married? The U.S. is supposed to be a free country. The government should not regulate morality.
We do have laws concerning age limits and behavior with animals. I am talking two willing people, whether they be same sex or different sex.

Please tell me why the government should interfere.

How is marriage not a religious matter? Marriage IS a religious institution.

Government out of marriage. THat means out as far as marriage benefits or anything of that matter to.

Civil contracts for those who don't with to be married but want certain contractual protections.

Churches can marry whomever they like (consenting adults of course)

[ConHog]

That's not my point. I want to know why the government shouldn't sanction same sex marriage.
Individuals can think and do what they believe.

That's the part that trips self labeled "conservatives" up. They don't believe in freedom. They believe in THEIR freedom.

homosexuality is disgusting. I support the right of free Americans to be disgusting as long as they are not harming other people.

[ConHog]

Ah shit.

I agree with Gabs on somethinng...

I keep trying to tell yall Gabs is not a liberal LOL

[mundame]

Well. Go back to the basics.

Why marry at all? Africans don't marry; indeed, they mostly do prostitution, if you read about those systems, and the women take care of any resulting children, assuming they or the children survive. Primitives in various areas don't marry in our sense --- Australians, New Guineans, etc.

In Roman times marriage was wholly a state issue, and was about heirs and property and money and so on. Augustus famously nagged aristocratic young men of Rome to marry and beget -- they weren't at the time. Rome was extremely tolerant of religion, at least till one religion used that tolerance to take over entirely and force the other religions out, and religion was not a basis for marriage at all.

Marriage wasn't a Christian sacrament till sometime in the Dark Ages. It was quickly challenged by early heresies (no marriage, no begetting or sex in some cases, or orgies, depending on the heresy).

Because of strong Christian roots this American government could until the 1960s rely on marriage for distributing social security and all sorts of legal issues of inheritance and so on. Now, obviously, that is dying out. In our lifetime! Big thing to happen, really.

The government could stop ALL entitlements based on marriage: it's the only sensible response to the DOMA problem, in which some states call homosexual unions "marriage" but the government doesn't give one of the pair spousal benefits.

Marriage stabilizes any state: without it, men gather in male packs in coffee houses or the street corners and get into trouble and do no work, like in Afghanistan and Africa and so on. With marriage, men are productive and repopulate the state. It's a way to harness male energies. Without marriage, women raise all the children by themselves, as in Africa, and everyone is poorer. There's no inheriting, there's nothing to inherit.

So the state wants marriage for general prosperity, but I think that ship has probably sailed.

[tailfins]

Well. Go back to the basics.

Why marry at all? Africans don't marry; indeed, they mostly do prostitution, if you read about those systems, and the women take care of any resulting children, assuming they or the children survive. Primitives in various areas don't marry in our sense --- Australians, New Guineans, etc.

In Roman times marriage was wholly a state issue, and was about heirs and property and money and so on. Augustus famously nagged aristocratic young men of Rome to marry and beget -- they weren't at the time. Rome was extremely tolerant of religion, at least till one religion used that tolerance to take over entirely and force the other religions out, and religion was not a basis for marriage at all.

Marriage wasn't a Christian sacrament till sometime in the Dark Ages. It was quickly challenged by early heresies (no marriage, no begetting or sex in some cases, or orgies, depending on the heresy).

Because of strong Christian roots this American government could until the 1960s rely on marriage for distributing social security and all sorts of legal issues of inheritance and so on. Now, obviously, that is dying out. In our lifetime! Big thing to happen, really.

The government could stop ALL entitlements based on marriage: it's the only sensible response to the DOMA problem, in which some states call homosexual unions "marriage" but the government doesn't give one of the pair spousal benefits.

Marriage stabilizes any state: without it, men gather in male packs in coffee houses or the street corners and get into trouble and do no work, like in Afghanistan and Africa and so on. With marriage, men are productive and repopulate the state. It's a way to harness male energies. Without marriage, women raise all the children by themselves, as in Africa, and everyone is poorer. There's no inheriting, there's nothing to inherit.

So the state wants marriage for general prosperity, but I think that ship has probably sailed.


Marriage has to be a good deal for men or they won't participate. In my case, it was a full time wife (and later mother for the kids) or no deal. I wonder if most men could earn more than the average family if not distracted by other things.

[mundame]

Marriage has to be a good deal for men or they won't participate. In my case, it was a full time wife (and later mother for the kids) or no deal. I wonder if most men could earn more than the average family if not distracted by other things.

Good points. You should definitely hold out for whatever is your bottom line.

Nowadays since women have options, marriage also has to be a good deal for women, or they won't participate. I was reading an article that in Russia, Germany, and especially Japan, women simply flatly refuse to marry and large proportions are saying they won't have children.

Could become a problem......

I'm for depopulating down to an eighth of the current gross overpopulation, but it has to be managed so that high-populating immigrants don't simply invade and take over everything.

[fj1200]

That's not my point. I want to know why the government shouldn't sanction same sex marriage.
Individuals can think and do what they believe.

They shouldn't sanction same-sex marriage. Just as they shouldn't sanction traditional marriage.


I say no one should.

Or do you disagree with yourself?

[gabosaurus]

You don't have to be religious to be married. You don't have to get married in a church.
My sister is not religious. She was legally married in a civil ceremony.

The government says you have to be legally married for either of the partners receive certain benefits.
Several members of my mother's family live in Germany. Except for one of my aunts, they are all married. Germans have nothing against marriage.

I doesn't matter if you think homosexuality is disgusting. It's not against the law. Therefore, there should be nothing saying that homosexuals shouldn't get married.

[DragonStryk72]

I say no one should.
First of all, marriage is not about religion. It is a civil ceremony. There are a lot of people who don't believe in religion. Or, if they do, it is not the religion that follows the teachings of the Christian Bible.
I know a lot of you advocate that the government should stay out of people's lives. Why is this different.

I know homosexuality offends a lot of you. It doesn't offend me. But what if I decided that I am offended by an American marrying someone from Russia, or from South America? Can I move for a law or constitutional amendment stating that American citizens can not marry those from other countries?

Why is it the business of the government who should get married? The U.S. is supposed to be a free country. The government should not regulate morality.
We do have laws concerning age limits and behavior with animals. I am talking two willing people, whether they be same sex or different sex.

Please tell me why the government should interfere.

Um, because like you said, its a civil matter, which requires regulation. Regulation is the only thing that keeps a deranged man from marrying his 14 year old daughter. What? She's willing. So in your estimation from the argument, there's no issue.

Why is it you always make the worst possible argument in favor of gay marriage? I face palm every time you pull one of these arguments. But throwing all regulation out the window only makes those of us on the side of gay marriage look like fucking loons

[gabosaurus]

Um, because like you said, its a civil matter, which requires regulation. Regulation is the only thing that keeps a deranged man from marrying his 14 year old daughter. What? She's willing. So in your estimation from the argument, there's no issue.


There are already age restrictions. As I said in my original statement. Therefore, your point is invalid.
Who says you aren't a fucking loon? :p

[tailfins]

You don't have to be religious to be married. You don't have to get married in a church.
My sister is not religious. She was legally married in a civil ceremony.

The government says you have to be legally married for either of the partners receive certain benefits.
Several members of my mother's family live in Germany. Except for one of my aunts, they are all married. Germans have nothing against marriage.

I doesn't matter if you think homosexuality is disgusting. It's not against the law. Therefore, there should be nothing saying that homosexuals shouldn't get married.

Maybe not, but it invites God's judgement.

[gabosaurus]

Maybe not, but it invites God's judgement.

People who don't believe in God don't care if he judges them or not.

[aboutime]

There are already age restrictions. As I said in my original statement. Therefore, your point is invalid.
Who says you aren't a fucking loon? :p


Gabby. Most of us know from experience here. ONLY YOU qualify as That kind of LOON. And we don't mean the bird. That would be an insult to those poor flying things. So. YOU ALONE hold that distinction for all of Eternity, and nobody will, or can ever take that away from you. 4383

[Thunderknuckles]

How is marriage not a religious matter? Marriage IS a religious institution.

Government out of marriage. THat means out as far as marriage benefits or anything of that matter to.

Civil contracts for those who don't with to be married but want certain contractual protections.

Churches can marry whomever they like (consenting adults of course)
Amen.

[mundame]

I doesn't matter if you think homosexuality is disgusting. It's not against the law. Therefore, there should be nothing saying that homosexuals shouldn't get married.


Such reasoning scrambles my brain.

An article in Commentary put it best, I think: Caligula made his horse a Consul, a Senate office.

But is the horse a Consul? Caligula had it walked in and tied in the Senate when it met, with hay and water. Does that make the horse a Consul?


The answer is, no, the horse is not a Consul, whatever Caligula said.

[Robert A Whit]

I say no one should.
First of all, marriage is not about religion. It is a civil ceremony. There are a lot of people who don't believe in religion. Or, if they do, it is not the religion that follows the teachings of the Christian Bible.
I know a lot of you advocate that the government should stay out of people's lives. Why is this different.

I know homosexuality offends a lot of you. It doesn't offend me. But what if I decided that I am offended by an American marrying someone from Russia, or from South America? Can I move for a law or constitutional amendment stating that American citizens can not marry those from other countries?

Why is it the business of the government who should get married? The U.S. is supposed to be a free country. The government should not regulate morality.
We do have laws concerning age limits and behavior with animals. I am talking two willing people, whether they be same sex or different sex.

Please tell me why the government should interfere.

So far as I know, religion has not taken over marriages. As you personally admitted.

So, why ought marriage be the business of your state? It ought not to be the business of the Feds. They should butt out.

If you forsee a troubled marriage where party A decides to ignore Party B and Parties C,D, E and so forth, maybe you understand the purpose of marriage laws.

Here is what your plan would amount to is to cast off regulations or law giving children rights inside the parents marriage. What would you do if the parents legally can deny child support?

If the state that actually has laws over marriages allow what you want to allow, they will have no basis to deny any adult from marrying the person or persons they want to marry. A man could of course marry as many women as he can support. Matter of fact, currently a man may date as many women as he wants to date and live with many of them at the same time. Hugh Heffner is a good example of a man with his personal harem. Since that is lega, why couldn't he marry all of them?

Then you have the case of a mother in CA that put the newborn up for adoption. She played no role in his growing up. When he was an adult, the son tracked down his birth mother. They fell in love. I guess they did since they had not known each other and perhaps the son so resembled his father she fell in love all over again. And they had two children.

The upshot was when the cops discovred this, both adults got arrested and put on trial.

An adult woman author wrote a book that when she was in her early twenties, she decided to try to get closer to her father. The two of them lived in harmony and were lovers. This lasted about 3 years. She wrote of her reasons and experiences.

Suppose they wanted to marry each other?

Well, do you want government in marriage or not?

[aboutime]

I say no one should.
First of all, marriage is not about religion. It is a civil ceremony. There are a lot of people who don't believe in religion. Or, if they do, it is not the religion that follows the teachings of the Christian Bible.
I know a lot of you advocate that the government should stay out of people's lives. Why is this different.

I know homosexuality offends a lot of you. It doesn't offend me. But what if I decided that I am offended by an American marrying someone from Russia, or from South America? Can I move for a law or constitutional amendment stating that American citizens can not marry those from other countries?

Why is it the business of the government who should get married? The U.S. is supposed to be a free country. The government should not regulate morality.
We do have laws concerning age limits and behavior with animals. I am talking two willing people, whether they be same sex or different sex.

Please tell me why the government should interfere.


Gabby. If you are presently married to a man. You should cease being a hypocrite, and find a woman who will please you more. And don't forget to tell the man in your life how little you value him...in lieu of the affections of a woman whom offers a gay alternative.

[fj1200]

Here is what your plan would amount to is to cast off regulations or law giving children rights inside the parents marriage. What would you do if the parents legally can deny child support?

Balderdash. Child support is not related to marriage.

[fj1200]

Gabby. If you are presently married to a man. You should cease being a hypocrite, and find a woman who will please you more. And don't forget to tell the man in your life how little you value him...in lieu of the affections of a woman whom offers a gay alternative.

Please point out where she stated that everyone should only marry those of the same sex.

[mundame]

Balderdash. Child support is not related to marriage.


Right, IMO. Child support is what the state requires instead of marriage. It's the substitute for marriage.

Good way to depopulate the country.

[Robert A Whit]

There are already age restrictions. As I said in my original statement. Therefore, your point is invalid.
Who says you aren't a fucking loon? :p


Deregulate as you ask for and there are no age restrictions. Logic supplied to you free of charge.

[Robert A Whit]

That's not my point. I want to know why the government shouldn't sanction same sex marriage.
Individuals can think and do what they believe.

Easy, because your premise is to get the Government out of that business.

Logic supplied free of charge.

[fj1200]

Deregulate as you ask for and there are no age restrictions. Logic supplied to you free of charge.

Your logic fails. Minors lack the legal capacity to engage in a civil contract, which it essentially becomes.

[ConHog]

Right, IMO. Child support is what the state requires instead of marriage. It's the substitute for marriage.

Good way to depopulate the country.

Um what?

You may not realize this but child support can be agreed upon and collected without marriage being a factor. Or the government for that matter.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=610241#post610241)
Here is what your plan would amount to is to cast off regulations or law giving children rights inside the parents marriage. What would you do if the parents legally can deny child support?






Balderdash. Child support is not related to marriage.

I was discussing her plan. In a marriage, child support is related to marriage. She calls for the government stepping aside from marriage. And if the children are step children, the law will not force the step dad to pay for their child support. So not saying you are wrong, but I am saying she will not be pleased if the government goes out of the marriage bueiness.

[Robert A Whit]

Your logic fails. Minors lack the legal capacity to engage in a civil contract, which it essentially becomes.

Non responsive to my actual point. I agree with the above remark.

[ConHog]

You don't have to be religious to be married. You don't have to get married in a church.
My sister is not religious. She was legally married in a civil ceremony.

The government says you have to be legally married for either of the partners receive certain benefits.
Several members of my mother's family live in Germany. Except for one of my aunts, they are all married. Germans have nothing against marriage.

I doesn't matter if you think homosexuality is disgusting. It's not against the law. Therefore, there should be nothing saying that homosexuals shouldn't get married.

Gabby, I don't care if you go down to the supermarket, and buy a carton of milk and the pimply kid behind the counter unites you to your same sex partner and you call it marriage. It's just a label. I don't care. The word Marriage or any form thereof should not appear in a single government document.

The word CONTRACT should and could cover every conceivable situation. The government should be required to accept ANY contract that does not violate the law. Since the word married is not in any government documents it stands to reason that no laws against any marriages may exist.


loons that keep screaming that kids would be getting married, get real. There are age of consent laws in regards to contracts in every state in the union, as well as statutory rape laws.

[gabosaurus]

No one has presented a valid legal reason why two adults of either sex can't marry each other.
There are already laws concerning minors and bestiality. My original posts specifically refers to adults.

This country specifically divides church and state. Religion should not dictate how people should live, since not all people share the same religious beliefs. Or any beliefs at all.

[ConHog]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png



I was discussing her plan. In a marriage, child support is related to marriage. She calls for the government stepping aside from marriage. And if the children are step children, the law will not force the step dad to pay for their child support. So not saying you are wrong, but I am saying she will not be pleased if the government goes out of the marriage bueiness.


you logic still fails. Family courts don't care about the marital relationship between mother and father when considering the issue of child support.

[fj1200]

I was discussing her plan. In a marriage, child support is related to marriage. She calls for the government stepping aside from marriage. And if the children are step children, the law will not force the step dad to pay for their child support. So not saying you are wrong, but I am saying she will not be pleased if the government goes out of the marriage bueiness.

Her plan would be of no consequence to what you bring up. Child support could/would still be an issue if the parents have a dispute. I'm sure family courts would still intervene if the parents could not come to an agreement.


Non responsive to my actual point. I agree with the above remark.

Responsive it was.

[ConHog]

Non responsive to my actual point. I agree with the above remark.


http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQfQx33TsYaj8jEk9MClPl-vm8BYqtukXmOIoqNhzZPesD_vlhNSuobMa2


his post was dead on point to yours

[avatar4321]

God & Couples

[fj1200]

God & Couples

I noticed you did not include the State.

[cadet]

No one has presented a valid legal reason why two adults of either sex can't marry each other.
There are already laws concerning minors and bestiality. My original posts specifically refers to adults.

This country specifically divides church and state. Religion should not dictate how people should live, since not all people share the same religious beliefs. Or any beliefs at all.

Marriage is a religious term. If you're not religious, WHY THE HELL DOES IT MATTER????

It's for your church to decide. And even then, it's for your religion to decide as well.

After that, get a civil union, who cares?

Don't shove that gay crap on my religion. All religions are against it. (Yes I'm discounting "Scientology")

This is how I and most religious folk view it, keep it out of my church, and we won't have a problem.

Besides, what's the point? It's not like you can have kids.

[aboutime]

No one has presented a valid legal reason why two adults of either sex can't marry each other.
There are already laws concerning minors and bestiality. My original posts specifically refers to adults.

This country specifically divides church and state. Religion should not dictate how people should live, since not all people share the same religious beliefs. Or any beliefs at all.


Gabby. What official U.S. Document 'specifically divides church and state'.....In those words?

[fj1200]

Besides, what's the point? It's not like you can have kids.

Gays have kids.

[Robert A Whit]

You don't have to be religious to be married. You don't have to get married in a church.
My sister is not religious. She was legally married in a civil ceremony.

The government says you have to be legally married for either of the partners receive certain benefits.
Several members of my mother's family live in Germany. Except for one of my aunts, they are all married. Germans have nothing against marriage.

I doesn't matter if you think homosexuality is disgusting. It's not against the law. Therefore, there should be nothing saying that homosexuals shouldn't get married.

More logic for you.

Homosexuals nor anybody should get special benefits from the Feds given they have no laws about marriage at all.

If you mean state benefits, states somehow have sneaked in their right to govern marriage. But the Feds also snuck in some benefit over marriage and over children.

Each human has to be treated equal. And your claim they can restrict due to age makes no sense since you want the government out of marriages to begin with.

[ConHog]

Marriage is a religious term. If you're not religious, WHY THE HELL DOES IT MATTER????

It's for your church to decide. And even then, it's for your religion to decide as well.

After that, get a civil union, who cares?

Don't shove that gay crap on my religion. All religions are against it. (Yes I'm discounting "Scientology")

This is how I and most religious folk view it, keep it out of my church, and we won't have a problem.

Besides, what's the point? It's not like you can have kids.


LOL, of course that statement isn't true.




also PS wanting you to shut up about them wanting to call their unions marriages, is NOT I repeat NOT shoving gay down your religion's throats.

You mind your business, they mind theirs, everyone is happy, at least theoretically.

[cadet]

Gays have kids.

Show me one gay couple that's managed to HAVE kids. Not adopt, not sperm donate, HAVE.

[Robert A Whit]

That's not my point. I want to know why the government shouldn't sanction same sex marriage.
Individuals can think and do what they believe.

Why should government sanction any marriage? I thought you wanted government out of marriage.

[fj1200]

Show me one gay couple that's managed to HAVE kids. Not adopt, not sperm donate, HAVE.

Not the point. You need to get out more.

[ConHog]

Show me one gay couple that's managed to HAVE kids. Not adopt, not sperm donate, HAVE.

you do realize that there are straight couple out there who for various reasons can't procreate with each other but some how still manage to HAVE kids right?

Being a parent isn't about getting a woman pregnant or becoming pregnant, any fucking tool can accomplish that.

[Robert A Whit]

I say no one should.
First of all, marriage is not about religion. It is a civil ceremony. There are a lot of people who don't believe in religion. Or, if they do, it is not the religion that follows the teachings of the Christian Bible.
I know a lot of you advocate that the government should stay out of people's lives. Why is this different.

I know homosexuality offends a lot of you. It doesn't offend me. But what if I decided that I am offended by an American marrying someone from Russia, or from South America? Can I move for a law or constitutional amendment stating that American citizens can not marry those from other countries?

Why is it the business of the government who should get married? The U.S. is supposed to be a free country. The government should not regulate morality.
We do have laws concerning age limits and behavior with animals. I am talking two willing people, whether they be same sex or different sex.

Please tell me why the government should interfere.

Read your first comment. You state no one should. But this also has to mean that when the Government has no business in any of it, they can't decide some age is correct, some person may not enter polygamy and other things I have said can happen.

End your logic lesson with your concluding remark.

All done for you on this forum at no charge at all.

[gabosaurus]

OK, let's move the subject to a different plane -- give me a good, legal reason why gays or lesbians should not be allowed to get married.

Procreation is not a valid reason. There are a great many couples (including my husband and I) who are unable to have children. We adopted.

[ConHog]

Read your first comment. You state no one should. But this also has to mean that when the Government has no business in any of it, they can't decide some age is correct, some person may not enter polygamy and other things I have said can happen.

End your logic lesson with your concluding remark.

All done for you on this forum at no charge at all.

Robert, read very carefully

The LAW says that a contract can't be made with children. A marriage from whomever would be considered a CONTRACT as far as the government is concerned. Ipso facto , any contract with a child would be null and void.

Also, "married" or not a person who has sex with a minor has committed statutory rape and can be arrested.

There's LOGIC for you.


And you can paypal me a dollar, I don't work for free.

[ConHog]

OK, let's move the subject to a different plane -- give me a good, legal reason why gays or lesbians should not be allowed to get married.

Procreation is not a valid reason. There are a great many couples (including my husband and I) who are unable to have children. We adopted.

Gabby, seems like most who are participating in the thread agree with you, let gets marry who cares.

You're going to have to wait for the fake conservatives to find this thread to have someone to argue that point with.

[gabosaurus]

And you can paypal me a dollar, I don't work for free.

He can take it out of the weekly amount he pays his female servant.

[Robert A Whit]

That's the part that trips self labeled "conservatives" up. They don't believe in freedom. They believe in THEIR freedom.

homosexuality is disgusting. I support the right of free Americans to be disgusting as long as they are not harming other people.

I happen to believe that government should butt out of marriage if we mean the Federal Government. Since states have powers that the Feds lack, it depends on the constitution of each state.

I have no idea why the state constitutions are virtually never brought up.

She is carping over what some states have decided to do. But as to the Feds, I also say butt the hell out.

As you said, it also means no tax benefits by the Feds. No federal laws of any type about marriage. The Feds do not pass out rights to a certain religion yet some claim marriage is religion too but seem to want the Feds involved in a rite they claim is religion.

I am so puzzled by Gabby. She first says keep govertnment out but reverses herself by saying they need to sanction it. She has to pick one view or some other.

[ConHog]

I happen to believe that government should butt out of marriage if we mean the Federal Government. Since states have powers that the Feds lack, it depends on the constitution of each state.

I have no idea why the state constitutions are virtually never brought up.

She is carping over what some states have decided to do. But as to the Feds, I also say butt the hell out.

As you said, it also means no tax benefits by the Feds. No federal laws of any type about marriage. The Feds do not pass out rights to a certain religion yet some claim marriage is religion too but seem to want the Feds involved in a rite they claim is religion.

I am so puzzled by Gabby. She first says keep govertnment out but reverses herself by saying they need to sanction it. She has to pick one view or some other.

let me be clear. When I say government out, I mean ALL government out. it's not a governmental matter at all. Not federal, not state, and not local.

OUT OF MARRIAGE and if that means my one exception to my rule about the word marriage never being used in a government document meaning a federal law directing that no jurisdiction may pass laws concerning marriage , so be it.

[Robert A Whit]

Well. Go back to the basics.

Why marry at all? Africans don't marry; indeed, they mostly do prostitution, if you read about those systems, and the women take care of any resulting children, assuming they or the children survive. Primitives in various areas don't marry in our sense --- Australians, New Guineans, etc.

In Roman times marriage was wholly a state issue, and was about heirs and property and money and so on. Augustus famously nagged aristocratic young men of Rome to marry and beget -- they weren't at the time. Rome was extremely tolerant of religion, at least till one religion used that tolerance to take over entirely and force the other religions out, and religion was not a basis for marriage at all.

Marriage wasn't a Christian sacrament till sometime in the Dark Ages. It was quickly challenged by early heresies (no marriage, no begetting or sex in some cases, or orgies, depending on the heresy).

Because of strong Christian roots this American government could until the 1960s rely on marriage for distributing social security and all sorts of legal issues of inheritance and so on. Now, obviously, that is dying out. In our lifetime! Big thing to happen, really.

The government could stop ALL entitlements based on marriage: it's the only sensible response to the DOMA problem, in which some states call homosexual unions "marriage" but the government doesn't give one of the pair spousal benefits.

Marriage stabilizes any state: without it, men gather in male packs in coffee houses or the street corners and get into trouble and do no work, like in Afghanistan and Africa and so on. With marriage, men are productive and repopulate the state. It's a way to harness male energies. Without marriage, women raise all the children by themselves, as in Africa, and everyone is poorer. There's no inheriting, there's nothing to inherit.

So the state wants marriage for general prosperity, but I think that ship has probably sailed.

You know, when I studied law in college, we were taught who created our laws and why. I knew long ago that this country has a blend of laws about women, children and marriage and said privilidges.

In tax courses i also took in college along with the tons of tax lectures for credit I took to try to understand tax matters, we also learned more about the law as to why some benefits were put into law.

Your post should be read by every poster and studied in depth.

Marriage has nothing to do with religion as to federal law. I can't say that about each state since I have never studied each and every state constitution trying to ferret this out.

I tend to doubt I will ever read each state constituiton. Most of them have no impact on me.

Thus marriage has no impact on me other than perhaps the reasons you cited are good reasons.

[Robert A Whit]

Robert, read very carefully

The LAW says that a contract can't be made with children. A marriage from whomever would be considered a CONTRACT as far as the government is concerned. Ipso facto , any contract with a child would be null and void.

Also, "married" or not a person who has sex with a minor has committed statutory rape and can be arrested.

There's LOGIC for you.


And you can paypal me a dollar, I don't work for free.

Best to put numbered points to talk to me. That way I can deal with items you and I don't agree on better.


The law says for instance.

We completely agree. The fact it is considered a contract is the basis of a lot of government interference yet you stated in another post that you want all government out of marriage. While you are correct in your explanation, does it conflict with your concept that one keeps government out of all marriages?

We also agree on statutory rape. I was trying to explain to Gabby her idea of keeping government out of marriage contracts has flaws.

My fees for logic are higher than yours and since we agree on both your points, maybe you owe me something, I owe you nothing for validating my own points.

[logroller]

OK, let's move the subject to a different plane -- give me a good, legal reason why gays or lesbians should not be allowed to get married.

Procreation is not a valid reason. There are a great many couples (including my husband and I) who are unable to have children. We adopted.
Better yet, give me one valid legal reason for heterosexuals to get married. I think doug Stanhope said it best, "this shit's so good baby, we gotta get government involved!" From a legal perspective, marriage is a boilerplate contract. Have and to hold, better or worse, time-honored vows before God etc, not legally binding.

[Robert A Whit]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQfQx33TsYaj8jEk9MClPl-vm8BYqtukXmOIoqNhzZPesD_vlhNSuobMa2


his post was dead on point to yours


It was not on point to me. And why don't you explain to the board just how it was dead on point to my post?

[ConHog]

Well. Go back to the basics.

Why marry at all? Africans don't marry; indeed, they mostly do prostitution, if you read about those systems, and the women take care of any resulting children, assuming they or the children survive. Primitives in various areas don't marry in our sense --- Australians, New Guineans, etc.


Australians would be surprised to learn that they are primitive people




In Roman times marriage was wholly a state issue, and was about heirs and property and money and so on. Augustus famously nagged aristocratic young men of Rome to marry and beget -- they weren't at the time. Rome was extremely tolerant of religion, at least till one religion used that tolerance to take over entirely and force the other religions out, and religion was not a basis for marriage at all.

Rome was tolerant of other religeons until they became a Christian Empire? Is that really where you want to go with that?




Marriage wasn't a Christian sacrament till sometime in the Dark Ages. It was quickly challenged by early heresies (no marriage, no begetting or sex in some cases, or orgies, depending on the heresy).

No one said it was a Christian concept, just a religious one. a common one among nearly every religion.



Because of strong Christian roots this American government could until the 1960s rely on marriage for distributing social security and all sorts of legal issues of inheritance and so on. Now, obviously, that is dying out. In our lifetime! Big thing to happen, really.

Not only can you not prove that marriage provides any sort of social security, you can't even provide a constitutional basis for declaring that the government has dominion over social security.

As for inheritance issues and such, that is what contracts are for.



The government could stop ALL entitlements based on marriage: it's the only sensible response to the DOMA problem, in which some states call homosexual unions "marriage" but the government doesn't give one of the pair spousal benefits.

Again, eliminate marriage from the equation, sign a contract. You got married in a church? Big whoopie, that means nothing to the State. sign a contract or you get no benefits.




Marriage stabilizes any state: without it, men gather in male packs in coffee houses or the street corners and get into trouble and do no work, like in Afghanistan and Africa and so on.
I think a fairly convincing argument could be made that as a rule Middle Easterners are much more family centric than Americans.




With marriage, men are productive and repopulate the state

so single men can't have kids?




. It's a way to harness male energies. Without marriage, women raise all the children by themselves, as in Africa, and everyone is poorer.

Once again, the people in Africa actually tend to group together as villages to raise children, they don't do the "single mother" thing.

Also, since roughly half of the marriages in this country end in divorce your point is moot.




There's no inheriting, there's nothing to inherit.

Sure there is, it's called a contract.




So the state wants marriage for general prosperity, but I think that ship has probably sailed.

Fine, but you still haven't actually proven that a state sanctioned marriage has ANYTHING to do with prosperity.

[Robert A Whit]

He can take it out of the weekly amount he pays his female servant.

The HE you speak of has no female servant.

[cadet]

Here's a better question, why do gays WANT marriage so badly?
they're tied down to one partner by a piece of paper, no religion involved, just a contract that say's they can only be with that one person.
Kinda sucks if you think about it.

Or are all gays just needy and thriving for attention, and this is the best way to do it?

[ConHog]

Here's a better question, why do gays WANT marriage so badly?
they're tied down to one partner by a piece of paper, no religion involved, just a contract that say's they can only be with that one person.
Kinda sucks if you think about it.

Or are all gays just needy and thriving for attention, and this is the best way to do it?

Psst, cadet, why do you want guns? oh that's fucking right, its no ones fucking business why you want to enjoy your rights.

[logroller]

We completely agree. The fact it is considered a contract is the basis of a lot of government interference yet you stated in another post that you want all government out of marriage. While you are correct in your explanation, does it conflict with your concept that one keeps government out of all marriages?
its not treated as a mere contract though; its afforded special rights automatically and without those who enter it fully understanding what is conveyed. I assure you if any other contractual agreement that conveyed what marriage does, it'd take more than a simple form. Where's the fine print?




We also agree on statutory rape. I was trying to explain to Gabby her idea of keeping government out of marriage contracts has flaws.

My fees for logic are higher than yours and since we agree on both your points, maybe you owe me something, I owe you nothing for validating my own points.
Fixed that for ya. See the difference?

[cadet]

And here's another view, some might think it's "intolerant"
kids of gay parents would never learn what it means to be a man. A true honest to god man.

Hate to say it, but guys and gals are wired differently, and you need both sides to teach your kids. Men understand boys, women understand girls.

You want society to fall further into stupidity? America no longer know's what a gentleman or lady is.
What next, Asexual people should be able to marry themselves!

[Robert A Whit]

Her plan would be of no consequence to what you bring up. Child support could/would still be an issue if the parents have a dispute. I'm sure family courts would still intervene if the parents could not come to an agreement.



Responsive it was.

She failed to account for things that show up in divorce court. With her idea of no marriage, since she rejects any religion in it, and calls for no government laws about marriage, why do you presume she agrees with so much as child support? She is telling us what she wishes, not what is.

Don't you get it. Her way she gets rid of such laws.

As to your point, I was not discussing what you are so that is why you were non responsive.

Matter of fact, I too call for marriage to be removed from government interference.

As to children, based on my very intensive research into this, it was over children and their issues that marriage came into being. Toss in a lot of men don't want to share their women in a lot of cases. But you must also know that a lot of men do not mind one bit sharing their women.
Young men do it all the time. They date her and bed her and move on. They move to a woman who had sex with some other guy. Sure, at some point only due to the marriage contract, they end up marrying. But trust me, you no doubt had shared sex with plenty of women. When men want kids to be locked to themselves, they need the woman for that purpose. Ergo they marry.

[ConHog]

And here's another view, some might think it's "intolerant"
kids of gay parents would never learn what it means to be a man. A true honest to god man.

Hate to say it, but guys and gals are wired differently, and you need both sides to teach your kids. Men understand boys, women understand girls.

You want society to fall further into stupidity? America no longer know's what a gentleman or lady is.
What next, Asexual people should be able to marry themselves!

If your idea of being a man is fucking women, you got a lot of things to learn junior.

[DragonStryk72]

There are already age restrictions. As I said in my original statement. Therefore, your point is invalid.
Who says you aren't a fucking loon? :p

You mean there are regulations that prevent that? Those are he laws you speak of, so which is it? You just called for the removal of the very regulations you say protect people from that sort of thing.

[cadet]

Psst, cadet, why do you want guns? oh that's fucking right, its no ones fucking business why you want to enjoy your rights.

And it's noone's $#^&ing business to want to throw in something in my religion that isn't their either!
It's a religious term! Call it a civil union and be done with it! But keep it out of all the normal people's religions.

2% of the population, (if even that much!) I'm not sure if that's enough to start making changes to the rules. THE REST OF THE POPULATION ISN'T! Throw 98% of the population under the bus? is that how america works?

[cadet]

If your idea of being a man is fucking women, you got a lot of things to learn junior.

My idea of a man is someone who can get his ass kicked and stand right back up. My idea of a man is someone who will do anything for his WIFE. My idea of a man is someone who wants to do something with his life and do the right thing all the time. And my idea of a man is raising a child to be ready for the world.

[ConHog]

She failed to account for things that show up in divorce court. With her idea of no marriage, since she rejects any religion in it, and calls for no government laws about marriage, why do you presume she agrees with so much as child support? She is telling us what she wishes, not what is.

Don't you get it. Her way she gets rid of such laws.

As to your point, I was not discussing what you are so that is why you were non responsive.

Matter of fact, I too call for marriage to be removed from government interference.

As to children, based on my very intensive research into this, it was over children and their issues that marriage came into being. Toss in a lot of men don't want to share their women in a lot of cases. But you must also know that a lot of men do not mind one bit sharing their women.
Young men do it all the time. They date her and bed her and move on. They move to a woman who had sex with some other guy. Sure, at some point only due to the marriage contract, they end up marrying. But trust me, you no doubt had shared sex with plenty of women. When men want kids to be locked to themselves, they need the woman for that purpose. Ergo they marry.

where did she propose doing away with child support laws? Do you understand that the government can now already collect child support even if the mother and father were NEVER married?

[Robert A Whit]

its not treated as a mere contract though; its afforded special rights automatically and without those who enter it fully understanding what is conveyed. I assure you if any other contractual agreement that conveyed what marriage does, it'd take more than a simple form. Where's the fine print?

Fixed that for ya. See the difference?

Fixed a thing I agree with? How so? I have written a post today and many times in the past that marriage affords the man unique benefits such as society protecting his rights upon marriage. (women as well)

I assure you that I agree with you.

So, tell me again since we agree just how you fixed something we both agree is true?

[ConHog]

My idea of a man is someone who can get his ass kicked and stand right back up.


sometimes being a man means just walking away from a fight.




My idea of a man is someone who will do anything for his WIFE.

Being married has little, nay NOTHING to do with being a man.



My idea of a man is someone who wants to do something with his life and do the right thing all the time.


Now you're on the right track



And my idea of a man is raising a child to be ready for the world.


being a father has little to do with being a man

[ConHog]

And it's noone's $#^&ing business to want to throw in something in my religion that isn't their either!
It's a religious term! Call it a civil union and be done with it! But keep it out of all the normal people's religions.

2% of the population, (if even that much!) I'm not sure if that's enough to start making changes to the rules. THE REST OF THE POPULATION ISN'T! Throw 98% of the population under the bus? is that how america works?

NO ONE said your religion had to call someone else married. By the same token YOU don't get to tell them they have to follow YOUR religion.

Get that?

[Robert A Whit]

where did she propose doing away with child support laws? Do you understand that the government can now already collect child support even if the mother and father were NEVER married?

She stipulated she wants the government entirely out of marriage. As to the other matter you persist in discussing, the child and said support, how can she want government out of marriage yet still claim she is for child support?

I agree with you that there are child support laws on the books. I have not called for getting rid of those however. She needs to back up and think her premise over and over. Then one more time.

Some research into this topic wouuld do her a lot of good too.

[cadet]

NO ONE said your religion had to call someone else married. By the same token YOU don't get to tell them they have to follow YOUR religion.

Get that?

But marriage is everything about religion, there's no point to get married if it's not for a religion! If you're gay, why in the hell would you want to be tied down? You can procreate with that person, you may as well just go out on orgies every chance you get!

And yes, it has EVERYTHING to do with religion. Cause if you hadn't noticed, the biggest fight is gay's vs. the church. Bash bash bash, that's all i hear from gays. Talk to any of them, they all hate the church and want to get married in a church. :slap:

[ConHog]

But marriage is everything about religion, there's no point to get married if it's not for a religion! If you're gay, why in the hell would you want to be tied down? You can procreate with that person, you may as well just go out on orgies every chance you get!

And yes, it has EVERYTHING to do with religion. Cause if you hadn't noticed, the biggest fight is gay's vs. the church. Bash bash bash, that's all i hear from gays. Talk to any of them, they all hate the church and want to get married in a church. :slap:

umm b/c some churches are okay with gay marriage and you don't get to tell them they are wrong?

Point dismissed.

[ConHog]

She stipulated she wants the government entirely out of marriage. As to the other matter you persist in discussing, the child and said support, how can she want government out of marriage yet still claim she is for child support?

I agree with you that there are child support laws on the books. I have not called for getting rid of those however. She needs to back up and think her premise over and over. Then one more time.

Some research into this topic wouuld do her a lot of good too.

no, indeed you need to prove why her thoughts have ANYTHING to do with child support whatsoever. YOU brought it up, she didn't mention child support. YOU did.

[cadet]

sometimes being a man means just walking away from a fight.

Not sure if i agree with you, I may be thinking about different types of fights then you. (dad taught me to never start a fistfight, but i sure as hell better finish one)



Being married has little, nay NOTHING to do with being a man.

Nothing as in raising someone, taking care of a family, etc?


Now you're on the right track


being a father has little to do with being a man

I, can not agree with you on that. If you can't raise a kid to carry on your morals and good deeds, what are you?

[ConHog]

Not sure if i agree with you, I may be thinking about different types of fights then you. (dad taught me to never start a fistfight, but i sure as hell better finish one)



Nothing as in raising someone, taking care of a family, etc?



I, can not agree with you on that. If you can't raise a kid to carry on your morals and good deeds, what are you?

you missed my point entirely kid. A single guy with no kids can certainly be a MAN, thus marriage and kids are not requirements of being a man.

[cadet]

umm b/c some churches are okay with gay marriage and you don't get to tell them they are wrong?

Point dismissed.

I do get to tell them their wrong, and i point it out to them often.
Part of being a christian is upholding your brothers in christ, and if they've given way to sin, you should be there helping them out of it.

And churches that have given into gay marriage, have fallen far.

They're what we like to call, lukewarm Christians. (Christians in name only)

[Robert A Whit]

Conhog remarks to Mundame: Rome was tolerant of other religeons until they became a Christian Empire? Is that really where you want to go with that?


She can correct me if she wants to but I do not believe she said it that way.

She accurately reported that Rome was extremely tolerant of other religions. The brief perriod just prior to Contantine was a period of no tolerance for Christians but that applied to but one Roman emperor.

Constantine wrapped himself in the Christian faith and made it the approved religion of Rome.

[ConHog]

I do get to tell them their wrong, and i point it out to them often.
Part of being a christian is upholding your brothers in christ, and if they've given way to sin, you should be there helping them out of it.

And churches that have given into gay marriage, have fallen far.

They're what we like to call, lukewarm Christians. (Christians in name only)

Okay, more correctly you don't get to tell them they are wrong via governmental fiat.

See, the first Amendment does not just protect YOUR religion. Sorry if someone told you it did, but it does not.

[ConHog]

She can correct me if she wants to but I do not believe she said it that way.

She accurately reported that Rome was extremely tolerant of other religions. The brief perriod just prior to Contantine was a period of no tolerance for Christians but that applied to but one Roman emperor.

Constantine wrapped himself in the Christian faith and made it the approved religion of Rome.

LOL

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/christianityromanempire_article_01.shtml


one Emperor , brief period LOL thanks for the laugh

[cadet]

Okay, more correctly you don't get to tell them they are wrong via governmental fiat.

See, the first Amendment does not just protect YOUR religion. Sorry if someone told you it did, but it does not.

I know, it protects ALL religion.
Religiously i can tell them they're nukin futs all day long.
Gov't wise, go get a civil union in court, there's plenty of states that let them do it.

But, here's the but, Gov't can't tell religions to accept gays, the religions have their freedom to deny them as much as they want.
And yet, all these gays want is to get married in a church. And, due to the huge prejudice against Christians in this country, that means the Christians church, instead of a mosque, or etc.

[cadet]

And i'm sorry, i have to get a little off topic, this video made me laugh like crazy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-YCdcnf_P8

[ConHog]

I know, it protects ALL religion.
Religiously i can tell them they're nukin futs all day long.
Gov't wise, go get a civil union in court, there's plenty of states that let them do it.

But, here's the but, Gov't can't tell religions to accept gays, the religions have their freedom to deny them as much as they want.
And yet, all these gays want is to get married in a church. And, due to the huge prejudice against Christians in this country, that means the Christians church, instead of a mosque, or etc.

listen closely.

NO ONE is saying you have to accept SHIT.

We are saying that you don't have an exclusive right to the word MARRIAGE.

you're a fake conservative kid, learn what real conservatism is, minding your own business.

You certainly don't have to let them get married in YOUR church, but you can't tell them they can't get married in THEIR church either.

And why you would even care is what is mind boggling.

[aboutime]

And i'm sorry, i have to get a little off topic, this video made me laugh like crazy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-YCdcnf_P8

Cadet. Made me laugh too! If they are convinced women with such little self-respect would waste their life on a gay partner. Somebody ought to let them keep thinking "They will take away girlfriends".

Of course. Due to the ever growing LACK of morals in this nation. Who would be surprised that the uneducated, always dependent women decided to take gay men as their partners? Other women? Gays?

Let them. I have no fear of such promises, or threats. I've been blessed with a wonderful, smart, moral woman who gave us two son's that were Men enough to marry women..instead of other guys...who could never give us grandchildren.

[cadet]

listen closely.

NO ONE is saying you have to accept SHIT.

We are saying that you don't have an exclusive right to the word MARRIAGE.

you're a fake conservative kid, learn what real conservatism is, minding your own business.

You certainly don't have to let them get married in YOUR church, but you can't tell them they can't get married in THEIR church either.

And why you would even care is what is mind boggling.

Because i don't want my future kids raised in the middle of all this crap. It goes completely against my morals. Gay is used more as a cry for attention by teenage girls then anyone else. If we can nip it in the bud now, we might have a chance of keeping this country from falling down any further.
Remember title 9? helped destroy lady like behavior. People were beyond pissed about that.
We should just start giving up? give in give in give in until there's nothing left of chivalry, or what we call normal today?

What one generation does in moderation, the next will do in excess. Do you really want humanity to decline even further? don't you think we can turn this around?
If not, fuck it. My last ditch effort is to move to Ireland. There i can at least live in a normal world.

[aboutime]

Because i don't want my future kids raised in the middle of all this crap. It goes completely against my morals. Gay is used more as a cry for attention by teenage girls then anyone else. If we can nip it in the bud now, we might have a chance of keeping this country from falling down any further.
Remember title 9? helped destroy lady like behavior. People were beyond pissed about that.
We should just start giving up? give in give in give in until there's nothing left of chivalry, or what we call normal today?

What one generation does in moderation, the next will do in excess. Do you really want humanity to decline even further? don't you think we can turn this around?
If not, fuck it. My last ditch effort is to move to Ireland. There i can at least live in a normal world.


Cadet. He is right. You don't have to accept anything HE IS PREACHING to you, which is SHIT. He has become the master of it.
Don't waste your time with him. The normal world you are looking to find is here. Without the CORNHOGS who try to stifle, and distort your idea's with his SHIT.

[ConHog]

Because i don't want my future kids raised in the middle of all this crap. It goes completely against my morals. Gay is used more as a cry for attention by teenage girls then anyone else. If we can nip it in the bud now, we might have a chance of keeping this country from falling down any further.
Remember title 9? helped destroy lady like behavior. People were beyond pissed about that.
We should just start giving up? give in give in give in until there's nothing left of chivalry, or what we call normal today?

What one generation does in moderation, the next will do in excess. Do you really want humanity to decline even further? don't you think we can turn this around?
If not, fuck it. My last ditch effort is to move to Ireland. There i can at least live in a normal world.

Dude , listen to yourself. You're insisting that others should live by YOUR morals.

what if the shoe hit the other foot and suddenly others were insisting that you live by THEIR morals. I certainly don't want that.

Live and let live little bruh.

[ConHog]

Cadet. He is right. You don't have to accept anything HE IS PREACHING to you, which is SHIT. He has become the master of it.
Don't waste your time with him. The normal world you are looking to find is here. Without the CORNHOGS who try to stifle, and distort your idea's with his SHIT.

Hilarious that you go around trying to stifle other people all the while claiming that it is they who are trying to stifle YOU.

I wish to stifle NO ONE. If you're against gay. Be against it, I have no desire to see you made to accept it, nothing of the sort. But neither do you have the right to stifle someone else.

[cadet]

Dude , listen to yourself. You're insisting that others should live by YOUR morals.

what if the shoe hit the other foot and suddenly others were insisting that you live by THEIR morals. I certainly don't want that.

Live and let live little bruh.

If they have higher morals then me i tend to listen.... grudgingly. But i will.

*Keyword Higher*

[cadet]

Cadet. He is right. You don't have to accept anything HE IS PREACHING to you, which is SHIT. He has become the master of it.
Don't waste your time with him. The normal world you are looking to find is here. Without the CORNHOGS who try to stifle, and distort your idea's with his SHIT.

You know what, you're right.
I have the right to fight this tooth and nail. And i'm going to exercise that right till I'm dead.

[ConHog]

If they have higher morals then me i tend to listen.... grudgingly. But i will.

*Keyword Higher*

listening is one thing, being made to live by is another.

And isn't it funny that one person always thinks their morals are higher than anothers when trying to boss them around.

I've never once heard of anyone saying " Now I'm not the most knowledgable person around, nor do I know what's best, but follow me boys"

Besides that you don't have the right to insist that anyone live by a moral code PERIOD. A legal code? Certainly, but not a moral code. That is the ENTIRE point of the first amendment.

I weep at the very thought of you not understanding that, I TRULY do.

[cadet]

listening is one thing, being made to live by is another.

And isn't it funny that one person always thinks their morals are higher than anothers when trying to boss them around.

I've never once heard of anyone saying " Now I'm not the most knowledgable person around, nor do I know what's best, but follow me boys"

Besides that you don't have the right to insist that anyone live by a moral code PERIOD. A legal code? Certainly, but not a moral code. That is the ENTIRE point of the first amendment.

I weep at the very thought of you not understanding that, I TRULY do.

I find that the easiest people to follow are the ones that say "I'm not the best for the job, but damnit i'm gonna do it."
i can insist on people following a moral code as long as I deem it possible.
Mootchers off of unemployment, people with 10 kids and no spouse or job, gays, assholes, people who act like the center of the world and all should bow to them, etc.

Now, I am completely fine with a stupid civil union (barely), but calling it marriage... That's a promise before God...
That's like saying... I'm gonna murder every year, i swear to God! I promise god i'll always watch porn! I promise god i'll always steal from my neighbors! I promise... Get the point?
If the entire gay group stops fighting the different churches so that they can "feel official" with a church wedding... that'd be fine.

But, it's not just a gov't issue like you seem to think. It is HIGHLY a religious one as well.
To completely dismiss the church, is completely pig headed. Since ever marriage ceremony is taken in a Church, yeah, it's a big deal. (unless you do it before a judge of course)

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=610337#post610337)
She stipulated she wants the government entirely out of marriage. As to the other matter you persist in discussing, the child and said support, how can she want government out of marriage yet still claim she is for child support?

I agree with you that there are child support laws on the books. I have not called for getting rid of those however. She needs to back up and think her premise over and over. Then one more time.

Some research into this topic wouuld do her a lot of good too.



Conhog comes back:


no, indeed you need to prove why her thoughts have ANYTHING to do with child support whatsoever. YOU brought it up, she didn't mention child support. YOU did.

Actually, I do not .... DO NOT, believe she thought it through enough to consider children.

So, I fully agree with you that she did not bring it up.

[ConHog]

I find that the easiest people to follow are the ones that say "I'm not the best for the job, but damnit i'm gonna do it."
i can insist on people following a moral code as long as I deem it possible.

you can insist on whatever you like, the government however is prevented by the COTUS from making laws which deal with religion. You truly don't understand that point?


Mootchers off of unemployment, people with 10 kids and no spouse or job, gays, assholes, people who act like the center of the world and all should bow to them, etc.

has completely nothing to do with this topic, but the government makes none of those things illegal neither.



Now, I am completely fine with a stupid civil union (barely), but calling it marriage... That's a promise before God...

I'm sure that gays are happy to see that you are willing to , barely, give them civil marriages in much the same way as blacks were thrilled to learn that we would get their own drinking faucets.


That's like saying... I'm gonna murder every year, i swear to God! I promise god i'll always watch porn! I promise god i'll always steal from my neighbors! I promise... Get the point?
If the entire gay group stops fighting the different churches so that they can "feel official" with a church wedding... that'd be fine.


complete and utter gibberish that made nary a point


But, it's not just a gov't issue like you seem to think.

Have you even read a thing I've posted here, and indeed long before this thread existed? I 100% agree that government should have NOTHING to do with marriage and that it is a religious institution. I just think you're being a nosy asshole who thinks he knows everything and wants the government to run peoples lives for suggesting that YOUR religion is the only right way.


To completely dismiss the first amendment, is completely pig headed.
[/QUOTE]
I fixed that for you and now yes I agree.

[logroller]

Fixed a thing I agree with? How so? I have written a post today and many times in the past that marriage affords the man unique benefits such as society protecting his rights upon marriage. (women as well)

I assure you that I agree with you.

So, tell me again since we agree just how you fixed something we both agree is true?

I changed the statement, eliminating "marriage"; yet here you continue discussing it. Whoever is charged fees for your logic deserves a refund. As for marriage affording unique benefits, indeed! Saying a man who marries a man is unlawful violates the privileges and immunities clause.

[cadet]

you can insist on whatever you like, the government however is prevented by the COTUS from making laws which deal with religion. You truly don't understand that point?

has completely nothing to do with this topic, but the government makes none of those things illegal neither.

I'm sure that gays are happy to see that you are willing to , barely, give them civil marriages in much the same way as blacks were thrilled to learn that we would get their own drinking faucets.


Just keep it out of the sanctity of marriage! The least they can do is leave the church alone! It's not just the church saying no (Like you mostly hear) it's also those morons that bash the church 24/7.


complete and utter gibberish that made nary a point

It made the point that they're swearing to god to do a sin for the rest of their life. That's just a wee bit contradictory don't you think?

That's what marriage is, a promise to god. Or, whatever god you believe in.




Have you even read a thing I've posted here, and indeed long before this thread existed? I 100% agree that government should have NOTHING to do with marriage and that it is a religious institution. I just think you're being a nosy asshole who thinks he knows everything and wants the government to run peoples lives for suggesting that YOUR religion is the only right way.


To completely dismiss the first amendment, is completely pig headed.

I fixed that for you and now yes I agree.

i don't think that you get that this isn't just a Gov't issue.
The gov't can't mess with religion, right?
That means, they can't force gay marriage. Due to it being a RELIGIOUS THING!!!!

So there, to make it any clearer, at the very least, the only thing i want is for those idiots to keep it out of church.
I would like for it to be abolished completely, due to me wanting the world not to go to hell in a hand-basket.

So, keep the gov't out of it, it's a religious issue.
In fact, if it means so much, uncle sam should get rid of the "benefits" of being married (IE. Automatically being on the will if none is made)
Then maybe the flamers will keep shut up cause they're not going to get anything out of it except a cry for attention.

[cadet]

One last thing, I don't think you've read a single post I've made. I think you've just assumed your way through this whole argument. Try reading a little.
If you can even tell me what my views are about this, i'll be surprised.

[ConHog]

Just keep it out of the sanctity of marriage! The least they can do is leave the church alone! It's not just the church saying no (Like you mostly hear) it's also those morons that bash the church 24/7.



It made the point that they're swearing to god to do a sin for the rest of their life. That's just a wee bit contradictory don't you think?

That's what marriage is, a promise to god. Or, whatever god you believe in.



i don't think that you get that this isn't just a Gov't issue.
The gov't can't mess with religion, right?
That means, they can't force gay marriage. Due to it being a RELIGIOUS THING!!!!

So there, to make it any clearer, at the very least, the only thing i want is for those idiots to keep it out of church.
I would like for it to be abolished completely, due to me wanting the world not to go to hell in a hand-basket.

So, keep the gov't out of it, it's a religious issue.
In fact, if it means so much, uncle sam should get rid of the "benefits" of being married (IE. Automatically being on the will if none is made)
Then maybe the flamers will keep shut up cause they're not going to get anything out of it except a cry for attention.

I'm beginning to believe you might be more suited for McDonalds than college.

Listen. You have EVERY right to keep gay marriage out of YOUR church. You have NO right to keep gay marriage out of any other church.

Do you get that simple point?

There are churches out there who do NOT believe that homosexuality is a sin. They have a first amendment right to their beliefs. That means the government can NOT interfere with said right at all. Including marriage.

Think of it the other way around. Would you want some guy deciding that straight marriage is against HIS religion so YOUR church should not be able to marry straights either?

Separate your feelings about homosexuality from the first amendment argument and you MUST conclude that I am right.

[ConHog]

One last thing, I don't think you've read a single post I've made. I think you've just assumed your way through this whole argument. Try reading a little.
If you can even tell me what my views are about this, i'll be surprised.

Son I get your view perfectly, you want to control other people and make them follow your religious code.

The entire founding of our nation was on the principle that you can't do that exact thing.

[jimnyc]

** Page 7 - I haven't made a reply - biting my tongue - trying to avoid negative thoughts - will keep it to myself **

Ok, sorry for that. I will now keep my unhealthy opinion to myself. :poke:

[cadet]

I'm beginning to believe you might be more suited for McDonalds than college.

Listen. You have EVERY right to keep gay marriage out of YOUR church. You have NO right to keep gay marriage out of any other church.

Do you get that simple point?

There are churches out there who do NOT believe that homosexuality is a sin. They have a first amendment right to their beliefs. That means the government can NOT interfere with said right at all. Including marriage.

Think of it the other way around. Would you want some guy deciding that straight marriage is against HIS religion so YOUR church should not be able to marry straights either?

Separate your feelings about homosexuality from the first amendment argument and you MUST conclude that I am right.

At this point, like i've been TRYING to say (and if you actually read you might have caught that), it's not about just Gov't and the first amendment. Marriage is more of a religious fight than anything else. I can agree totally that Uncle Sam can't step in any way. But the church has a total right to deny any and all marriages that they see as immoral.
The Gov't needs to SIT IT'S FAT ASS OUT of the entire situation.
Marriage is not a contract, it is a promise to God. Marriage is not gov't sanctioned, it's religiously. What gay's need to realize, is that there is no reason to get married, since they're not doing it for any religious reason what'so'ever. And they may as well just live with each other, without trying to get their grubby little fingers into the normal american's church.

[ConHog]

** Page 7 - I haven't made a reply - biting my tongue - trying to avoid negative thoughts - will keep it to myself **

Ok, sorry for that. I will now keep my unhealthy opinion to myself. :poke:

if I remember correctly back some time ago, I already got you to concede that I'm right.

:poke:

[cadet]

Son I get your view perfectly, you want to control other people and make them follow your religious code.

The entire founding of our nation was on the principle that you can't do that exact thing.

WRONG

I want the gays to keep their asses out of marriage, due to it being a religious aspect. And i see no point in them wanting to be married due to the religious affiliation.

[ConHog]

At this point, like i've been TRYING to say (and if you actually read you might have caught that), it's not about just Gov't and the first amendment. Marriage is more of a religious fight than anything else. I can agree totally that Uncle Sam can't step in any way. But the church has a total right to deny any and all marriages that they see as immoral.
The Gov't needs to SIT IT'S FAT ASS OUT of the entire situation.
Marriage is not a contract, it is a promise to God. Marriage is not gov't sanctioned, it's religiously. What gay's need to realize, is that there is no reason to get married, since they're not doing it for any religious reason what'so'ever. And they may as well just live with each other, without trying to get their grubby little fingers into the normal american's church.

That's correct, but you REFUSE to acknowledge that some churches don't agree with YOUR churches view. They have a right to disagree with you, ergo they have a right to dispense gay marriage.

Glad we agree.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=610347#post610347)
She can correct me if she wants to but I do not believe she said it that way.

She accurately reported that Rome was extremely tolerant of other religions. The brief perriod just prior to Contantine was a period of no tolerance for Christians but that applied to but one Roman emperor.

Constantine wrapped himself in the Christian faith and made it the approved religion of Rome.




LOL

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient...ticle_01.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/christianityromanempire_article_01.shtml)


one Emperor , brief period LOL thanks for the laugh

I recommend not BBC, but the books by Edward Gibbon.

Sigh. Early on, there was no such thing as Christians in the Roman Empire. Upon the death of Jesus, slowly over a long time, the group that came from Israel managed to grow. As Rome had the official position of tolerating any religion, mostly outside the group that were not Roman Citizens, and in the rule of law of the Romans, they actually protected such religions, an emperor just prior to Constantine became very vicious. He is the emperor who is represented in film where Christians were told to discard Christian beliefs of die, and some that did not discard said religion were put to death, and since Constantine decided upon a victory at a bridge to embrace them, they went back to protected status.

Read Gibbon. Best scholar on the Roman empire.

BBC did not make a case of long term persecution, it did speak of sporadic persecution.

But look at this from Romes view. Why Christans but not Jews? Why not religions based in Africa?

What could Christians have done to the Romans.

Well, not a hell of a lot. Not all Roman emporers were bat shit crazy. They had such a wide empire that they had to tolerate just about any cause. So long as they were not an enemy to the state of Rome.

Explain if you want to what Christians did to Rome to be persecuted? Pick up Gibbons and find out.

[ConHog]

WRONG

I want the gays to keep their asses out of marriage, due to it being a religious aspect. And i see no point in them wanting to be married due to the religious affiliation.

HOLY SHIT, seriously what part of this don't you get.


YOUR CHURCH DOES NOT I REPEAT DOES NOT GET TO DICTATE WHAT ANOTHER CHURCH MAY BELIEVE IS MORAL

there are in fact churches that believe God is okay with gay marriage. Therefor they wish to perform gay marriages.

If , and you've already agreed to this, the government has no place in marriage, then why in the fuck would you say gays cant marry at THEIR church?

Your "logic" is just ridiculous here.

[ConHog]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png

I recommend not BBC, but the books by Edward Gibbon.

Sigh. Early on, there was no such thing as Christians in the Roman Empire. Upon the death of Jesus, slowly over a long time, the group that came from Israel managed to grow. As Rome had the official position of tolerating any religion, mostly outside the group that were not Roman Citizens, and in the rule of law of the Romans, they actually protected such religions, an emperor just prior to Constantine became very vicious. He is the emperor who is represented in film where Christians were told to discard Christian beliefs of die, and some that did not discard said religion were put to death, and since Constantine decided upon a victory at a bridge to embrace them, they went back to protected status.

Read Gibbon. Best scholar on the Roman empire.

BBC did not make a case of long term persecution, it did speak of sporadic persecution.

But look at this from Romes view. Why Christans but not Jews? Why not religions based in Africa?

What could Christians have done to the Romans.

Well, not a hell of a lot. Not all Roman emporers were bat shit crazy. They had such a wide empire that they had to tolerate just about any cause. So long as they were not an enemy to the state of Rome.

Explain if you want to what Christians did to Rome to be persecuted? Pick up Gibbons and find out.













































your claim that it was one emperor over a short period of time who persecuted christians was wrong. but that has nothing to do with this thread.

go start a thread in the appropriate forum on that topic and I'll be happy to come down and spank your ass in that thread to.

[aboutime]

At this point, like i've been TRYING to say (and if you actually read you might have caught that), it's not about just Gov't and the first amendment. Marriage is more of a religious fight than anything else. I can agree totally that Uncle Sam can't step in any way. But the church has a total right to deny any and all marriages that they see as immoral.
The Gov't needs to SIT IT'S FAT ASS OUT of the entire situation.
Marriage is not a contract, it is a promise to God. Marriage is not gov't sanctioned, it's religiously. What gay's need to realize, is that there is no reason to get married, since they're not doing it for any religious reason what'so'ever. And they may as well just live with each other, without trying to get their grubby little fingers into the normal american's church.


Cadet. Do you see how he is playing the patronizing game with you? And while doing it. Being the very hypocrite he expects the rest of us not to recognize in his word games, and semantic rhetorical ignorance.
ConHog is a two faced, intolerant, liberal denial master who easily calls others names, but can't handle being confronted with truth.

[logroller]

Just keep it out of the sanctity of marriage! The least they can do is leave the church alone! It's not just the church saying no (Like you mostly hear) it's also those morons that bash the church 24/7.



It made the point that they're swearing to god to do a sin for the rest of their life. That's just a wee bit contradictory don't you think?

That's what marriage is, a promise to god. Or, whatever god you believe in.



i don't think that you get that this isn't just a Gov't issue.
The gov't can't mess with religion, right?
That means, they can't force gay marriage. Due to it being a RELIGIOUS THING!!!!

So there, to make it any clearer, at the very least, the only thing i want is for those idiots to keep it out of church.
I would like for it to be abolished completely, due to me wanting the world not to go to hell in a hand-basket.

So, keep the gov't out of it, it's a religious issue.
In fact, if it means so much, uncle sam should get rid of the "benefits" of being married (IE. Automatically being on the will if none is made)
Then maybe the flamers will keep shut up cause they're not going to get anything out of it except a cry for attention.
Bingo!!!

[Drummond]

OK, let's move the subject to a different plane -- give me a good, legal reason why gays or lesbians should not be allowed to get married.

Procreation is not a valid reason. There are a great many couples (including my husband and I) who are unable to have children. We adopted.

The argument about the legality or illegality of homosexual acts .. much less whether they should enter into a form of 'marriage' .. is a crock.

Legal systems across the world (for the most part) develop, change, over time. In the UK .. and not many decades ago .. homosexual acts were themselves illegal. But, as laws change, so did recognition of gay relationships.

I don't know about American law, but I'd be amazed if the same failed to be true of the US.

My point is that legality or illegality on such an issue falls to what that society wants to be true for itself. There are still social systems in the world which regard this as illegal, and I'm sure the citizens of those countries would do their damndest to argue that THEY were right, and YOU are wrong.

So, in that sense, it's relative. You will possess one belief. Others will believe differently. So, how do you apply an 'absolute' value to this ?

RELIGIONS do so. And where marriage is concerned, marriage came from religion.

I expect marriage vows in America strongly resemble UK ones ? See this ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_vows


The original wedding vows, as printed in The Book of Common Prayer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Common_Prayer), are:


Groom: I,____, take thee,_____, to be my lawful wedded Wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth.



Bride: I,_____, take thee,_____, to be my lawful wedded Husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obedience_(human_behavior)), till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I give thee my troth.


Then, as the groom places the ring on the bride's finger, he says the following:


With this Ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.


In the Alternative Service Book (1980) two versions of the vows are included: the bride and groom must select one of the versions only. Version A:


I,N, take you, N, to be my wife (or husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy law, and this is my solemn vow.


Version B is identical except for the clause "to love and to cherish" where the groom says "to love, cherish, and worship" and the bride says "to love, cherish, and obey".

Since 2000 the service in Common Worship the normal vows are as follows:


I,N, take you, N, to be my wife (or husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy law, in the presence of God I make this vow.



References to God persist, don't they .. 'God's holy law' .. ? Why ? BECAUSE OF THE GROUNDING OF MARRIAGE IN RELIGION.

Now, tell me which religions sanction homosexual marriage.

If homosexual marriage becomes permitted, whether in your society or mine, this will occur for just ONE ultimate reason ... because authorities in each country have tampered with the original concept of marriage, and subverted it for the sake of some perceived 'convenience'. It'll be the will of man-made authority being exercised to override the religious roots from which marriage springs.

[ConHog]

The argument about the legality or illegality of homosexual acts .. much less whether they should enter into a form of 'marriage' .. is a crock.

Legal systems across the world (for the most part) develop, change, over time. In the UK .. and not many decades ago .. homosexual acts were themselves illegal. But, as laws change, so did recognition of gay relationships.

I don't know about American law, but I'd be amazed if the same failed to be true of the US.

My point is that legality or illegality on such an issue falls to what that society wants to be true for itself. There are still social systems in the world which regard this as illegal, and I'm sure the citizens of those countries would do their damndest to argue that THEY were right, and YOU are wrong.

So, in that sense, it's relative. You will possess one belief. Others will believe differently. So, how do you apply an 'absolute' value to this ?

RELIGIONS do so. And where marriage is concerned, marriage came from religion.

I expect marriage vows in America strongly resemble UK ones ? See this ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_vows



References to God persist, don't they .. 'God's holy law' .. ? Why ? BECAUSE OF THE GROUNDING OF MARRIAGE IN RELIGION.

Now, tell me which religions sanction homosexual marriage.

If homosexual marriage becomes permitted, whether in your society or mine, this will occur for just ONE ultimate reason ... because authorities in each country have tampered with the original concept of marriage, and subverted it for the sake of some perceived 'convenience'. It'll be the will of man-made authority being exercised to override the religious roots from which marriage springs.

United Church of Christ

guess they don't have first amendment protections though, only if the states say they can LOL

[ConHog]

Cadet. Do you see how he is playing the patronizing game with you? And while doing it. Being the very hypocrite he expects the rest of us not to recognize in his word games, and semantic rhetorical ignorance.
ConHog is a two faced, intolerant, liberal denial master who easily calls others names, but can't handle being confronted with truth.

Excuse me sir, I have been ENTIRELY on point this entire thread and have not called ANYONE names. Take your lies down to the cage where they belong.

nor in fact am I hypocritical. I stated EXACTLY what I believe in and that is EXACTLY what I practice. Live and let live. you don't harm me, I don't harm you.

ps if and when you ever actually do present a truth, I will handle it.

[cadet]

HOLY SHIT, seriously what part of this don't you get.


YOUR CHURCH DOES NOT I REPEAT DOES NOT GET TO DICTATE WHAT ANOTHER CHURCH MAY BELIEVE IS MORAL

there are in fact churches that believe God is okay with gay marriage. Therefor they wish to perform gay marriages.

If , and you've already agreed to this, the government has no place in marriage, then why in the fuck would you say gays cant marry at THEIR church?

Your "logic" is just ridiculous here.

YEAH IT DOES!!!
IF A CHURCH DOESN'T HAVE OTHER CHURCHES TO KEEP IT HOLY, WHAT ELSE DOES IT HAVE?!?!?!?!?!
Do you even know what being held accountable is? Churches do that, believe it or not. We just LOVE corruption (sarcasm). May as well stick a middle finger up to the Big guy!

Edit;
Not only that, but I also have the trust that if churches I go to start going bad, the other churches will point it out!

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=610332#post610332)
Fixed a thing I agree with? How so? I have written a post today and many times in the past that marriage affords the man unique benefits such as society protecting his rights upon marriage. (women as well)

I assure you that I agree with you.

So, tell me again since we agree just how you fixed something we both agree is true?





Logroller retorts: I changed the statement, eliminating "marriage"; yet here you continue discussing it. Whoever is charged fees for your logic deserves a refund. As for marriage affording unique benefits, indeed! Saying a man who marries a man is unlawful violates the privileges and immunities clause.


Robert comments: If you did, I am in the dark. Why can't you take YES for an answer?

I did not call for marriage nor did I call for a man marrying a man.

I merely have offered in my posts some of the reasons for marriage and remarked that marriage laws are part of the states responsibility and that I do not believe the Feds have any role in it.

As to my refund, does that apply to you or do you blather on for free?

/lesson ends

[gabosaurus]

At this point, like i've been TRYING to say (and if you actually read you might have caught that), it's not about just Gov't and the first amendment. Marriage is more of a religious fight than anything else. I can agree totally that Uncle Sam can't step in any way. But the church has a total right to deny any and all marriages that they see as immoral.
The Gov't needs to SIT IT'S FAT ASS OUT of the entire situation.
Marriage is not a contract, it is a promise to God. Marriage is not gov't sanctioned, it's religiously. What gay's need to realize, is that there is no reason to get married, since they're not doing it for any religious reason what'so'ever. And they may as well just live with each other, without trying to get their grubby little fingers into the normal american's church.

My dear Cadet:
May I first say that you know that I don't dislike you. I believe you are a very intelligent person who truly believes what he posts here. But I also believe you have bought into some misconceptions. Please hear me out on this.

There are gays and lesbians who are very religious. They believe in and worship the same God you do.
Some of these people are very manly (or womanly). A few have even served in the military. The men are just as "manly" as you or your dad.
If they fit what you state as your "religious principles," why would you deny them a right to marriage?
Some people feel homosexuality is "immoral." I believe those who enjoy killing are "immoral."
What if I told you that I feel that playing violent video games is immoral? Or that I feel that owning a large quantity of weapons is immoral?
You would claim your basic rights as an American citizen to do something that has not been prohibited by law. And you would want me to stay out of your business.
So why are you claiming moral superiority over others? They don't think they are immoral. Just as you don't believe you are immoral.

In Matthew 5:9, Jesus said: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God"
There are some who claim that passages like this make it immoral and against the will of God to serve in the military. It violates their concept of religion and what is God's will for them.
If this is so, you are immoral for being in ROTC and pledging your support of the military. Does this make you immoral in the eyes of God?

There is NO "normal American's church" because there is no "normal American." We are all different and unique.
There are some gays and lesbians who want to be married for the same reason heterosexuals want to be marriage -- they love their partner and want their union to be legal in the eyes of the state and the eyes of God.

There are some very wonderful people who are not religious. They have no desire to attend church or pray to a God.
My sister and her husband are two of them. They have a wonderful and loving marriage.
It is wonderful that you love God. But a great many people don't. You can't expect everyone to adhere to your morals and principles.

Just thought I would let you know.

[ConHog]

YEAH IT DOES!!!
IF A CHURCH DOESN'T HAVE OTHER CHURCHES TO KEEP IT HOLY, WHAT ELSE DOES IT HAVE?!?!?!?!?!
Do you even know what being held accountable is? Churches do that, believe it or not. We just LOVE corruption (sarcasm). May as well stick a middle finger up to the Big guy!

Edit;
Not only that, but I also have the trust that if churches I go to start going bad, the other churches will point it out!

Just what I suspected. Another "conservative" who thinks they know best and wants to tell everyone else how to live their life.

[cadet]

Just what I suspected. Another "conservative" who thinks they know best and wants to tell everyone else how to live their life.

... do you even go to church? You know what a church does right? Holds you accountable for doing the holy right thing... Just as they hold other churches to that as well. They even give you a place to worship. Has nothing to do with Gov't....

[logroller]

HOLY SHIT, seriously what part of this don't you get.


YOUR CHURCH DOES NOT I REPEAT DOES NOT GET TO DICTATE WHAT ANOTHER CHURCH MAY BELIEVE IS MORAL

there are in fact churches that believe God is okay with gay marriage. Therefor they wish to perform gay marriages.

If , and you've already agreed to this, the government has no place in marriage, then why in the fuck would you say gays cant marry at THEIR church?

Your "logic" is just ridiculous here.
Religion is an institution for dogmatic expression of beliefs-- if one so chooses to believe and practice, more power to them-- but establishing its tenets through government runs afoul of the free choice God instills within every individual. To forbid another their right to choose, you sow the seeds for the loss of your own. Pretty simple. But introduce religious fervor and logic goes right out the window-- hence why our forefathers thought to include the first amendment provisions on religion.

[ConHog]

Religion is an institution for dogmatic expression of beliefs-- if one so chooses to believe and practice, more power to them-- but establishing its tenets through government runs afoul of the free choice God instills within every individual. To forbid another their right to choose, you sow the seeds for the loss of your own. Pretty simple. But introduce religious fervor and logic goes right out the window-- hence why our forefathers thought to include the first amendment provisions on religion.

Absolutely right. Hope to be able to read more such brilliance in the future. :laugh2:

[Robert A Whit]

your claim that it was one emperor over a short period of time who persecuted christians was wrong. but that has nothing to do with this thread.

go start a thread in the appropriate forum on that topic and I'll be happy to come down and spank your ass in that thread to.

Actually that is not what I stated. I said the emperor prior to Constantine was a real bastard.

To wit: He very much persecuted some Christians. You may not realize this but due to Christian history, a lot of untrue shit gets passed along as if it is fact.

Yes, you will spank my ass. ROFLMAO Little do you know I keep Gibbon by my side in case I run into smart assholes. Not saying you are one but you have a way with words.

I think you want this abandoned here because you suspect I am not bluffing about my books. I suspect when you can't answer why Romans persecuted them you just shit your pants and said, hey let me pull this shit on some other thread. LMAO

[ConHog]

... do you even go to church? You know what a church does right? Holds you accountable for doing the holy right thing... Just as they hold other churches to that as well. They even give you a place to worship. Has nothing to do with Gov't....

Have you ever read the first amendment?


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

It EXPRESSELY forbids the government from passing ANY law which prohibits a religion from being freely exercised.

Now , as with other amendments there have been court ruled exceptions , and I suppose that if you got a law passed making it illegal to be gay then you could possibly argue that that's not covered - although I think you're law would fail constitutional muster - but since you don't have such a law , religions are free to allow their members to be as gay as they want, no matter how much it disgusts you.

you as an individual are free to boo and hiss all you like.

[ConHog]

Actually that is not what I stated. I said the emperor prior to Constantine was a real bastard. He very much persecuted some Christians. You may not realize this but due to Christian history, a lot of untrue shit gets passed along as if it is fact.

Yes, you will spank my ass. ROFLMAO Little do you know I keep Gibbosn by my side in case I run into smart assholes. Not saying you are one but you have a way with words.

I think you want this abandoned here because you suspect I am not bluffing about my books. I suspect when you can't answer why Romans persecuted them you just shit your pants and said, hey let me pull this shit on some other thread. LMAO

wrong thread robert. I only have two legs and can only do so much ass kicking at one time, go start a thread and I'll be along to thrash you shortly.

[cadet]

My dear Cadet:
May I first say that you know that I don't dislike you. I believe you are a very intelligent person who truly believes what he posts here. But I also believe you have bought into some misconceptions. Please hear me out on this.

There are gays and lesbians who are very religious. They believe in and worship the same God you do.
Some of these people are very manly (or womanly). A few have even served in the military. The men are just as "manly" as you or your dad.
If they fit what you state as your "religious principles," why would you deny them a right to marriage?
Some people feel homosexuality is "immoral." I believe those who enjoy killing are "immoral."
What if I told you that I feel that playing violent video games is immoral? Or that I feel that owning a large quantity of weapons is immoral?
You would claim your basic rights as an American citizen to do something that has not been prohibited by law. And you would want me to stay out of your business.
So why are you claiming moral superiority over others? They don't think they are immoral. Just as you don't believe you are immoral.

In Matthew 5:9, Jesus said: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God"
There are some who claim that passages like this make it immoral and against the will of God to serve in the military. It violates their concept of religion and what is God's will for them.
If this is so, you are immoral for being in ROTC and pledging your support of the military. Does this make you immoral in the eyes of God?

I've thought about that. Hence why I'm going to be a medivac pilot. So I can save people rather then kill them.


There is NO "normal American's church" because there is no "normal American." We are all different and unique.
There are some gays and lesbians who want to be married for the same reason heterosexuals want to be marriage -- they love their partner and want their union to be legal in the eyes of the state and the eyes of God.

Legally, whatever. They can do what they want. Religiously, I can throw out bible quotes too.
The mass of the fight when it comes to gay marriage is gays fighting the christian church for disagreeing. Even if the church doesn't say anything at first.
Remember the whole chick'fil'a thing? Guy said he was religious, that was it. The gay comunity made a huge fuss about nothing, like always.

And honestly, the state should just stay the frack out of it. You get almost no beifits for being married. I don't see a point in fighting for it.


There are some very wonderful people who are not religious. They have no desire to attend church or pray to a God.
My sister and her husband are two of them. They have a wonderful and loving marriage.
It is wonderful that you love God. But a great many people don't. You can't expect everyone to adhere to your morals and principles.

Just thought I would let you know.

I know plenty of people as well that are very high moraled and the nicest people you could meet that are not religious, I never said you had to go to church to be a good person.
In fact, if you ever see me around christians, i'm very stingy to them. They SAY they're the nicest people and then go spread rumors about you. (I don't hang out with the christian group at my school do to their corruption)
My best friend Dan is a total atheist. He doesn't tell me that what the church does is wrong, i don't tell him the same. We just talk about video games.

[cadet]

Have you ever read the first amendment?


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

It EXPRESSELY forbids the government from passing ANY law which prohibits a religion from being freely exercised.

Now , as with other amendments there have been court ruled exceptions , and I suppose that if you got a law passed making it illegal to be gay then you could possibly argue that that's not covered - although I think you're law would fail constitutional muster - but since you don't have such a law , religions are free to allow their members to be as gay as they want, no matter how much it disgusts you.

you as an individual are free to boo and hiss all you like.

You're damn right I'm allowed to boo and hiss! :laugh:

And do to gov't not being allowed in religion, they shouldn't get their grubby hands in marriage. And this should be a church issue, in all religions, where the churches hold each other accountable to the the truth of their religion.
Where, at least christians, SHOULD keep something that goes against the religion out of their church. IE, gay marriage.

[ConHog]

You're damn right I'm allowed to boo and hiss! :laugh:

And do to gov't not being allowed in religion, they shouldn't get their grubby hands in marriage. And this should be a church issue, in all religions, where the churches hold each other accountable to the the truth of their religion.
Where, at least christians, SHOULD keep something that goes against the religion out of their church. IE, gay marriage.

not all churches believe the same truths. Why can't you get that fact through your head Cadet?

There is a crazy church out there that believes that snake handling proves that God loves you. I want no part of that, do you want that church sharing THAT "truth" with you?

And guess what religion is "faith" based anyway, not truth based. So your argument is MOOT

[logroller]

... do you even go to church? You know what a church does right? Holds you accountable for doing the holy right thing... Just as they hold other churches to that as well. They even give you a place to worship. Has nothing to do with Gov't....
What do you mean by holds you accountable? i thought the laws of nature (God) does that.
Does your church membership go after other church members for their mistaken beliefs? Do your parishioners flog you or something? Public ridicule? Crucifixion?

Might want to read up on the history of your religion, paying close attention to the Protestant reformation.
Btw, that church is paid for with the tithings of its members-- it's not given to you by the church, but rather, its members. A church is just a structure; ever heard of the Tower of Babel?

[logroller]

not all churches believe the same truths. Why can't you get that fact through your head Cadet?

There is a crazy church out there that believes that snake handling proves that God loves you. I want no part of that, do you want that church sharing THAT "truth" with you?

And guess what religion is "faith" based anyway, not truth based. So your argument is MOOT
That's irrefutable. :laugh:

[ConHog]

What do you mean by holds you accountable? i thought the laws of nature (God) does that.
Does your church membership go after other church members for their mistaken beliefs? Do your parishioners flog you or something? Public ridicule? Crucifixion?

Might want to read up on the history of your religion, paying close attention to the Protestant reformation.
Btw, that church is paid for with the tithings of its members-- it's not given to you by the church, but rather, its members. A church is just a structure; ever heard of the Tower of Babel?

That's not entirely true. A church is more than just the building. But that seems to be getting way off track anyway.

I want to further explore why Cadet feels that the very Amendment which explicitly says that the government can not declare that one religion is right over another should just be ignored when it comes to gay marriage

[avatar4321]

I noticed you did not include the State.

It wasn't an oversight.

[cadet]

That's not entirely true. A church is more than just the building. But that seems to be getting way off track anyway.

I want to further explore why Cadet feels that the very Amendment which explicitly says that the government can not declare that one religion is right over another should just be ignored when it comes to gay marriage

Gov't wise all the churches in all the religions should be ignored, because marriage isn't a gov't issue. Thus, marriage should be ignored by gov't, but not you when it's affecting your religion.

All I really want is for the gays to stop telling me what it is i worship (by adding fake bible quotes, or reading real ones the wrong way, by using only half of a quote) and to stay the hell out of my church.
That being said, all the churches, being the body of christ, should keep the rest of the body in good health by holding them accountable. (one way i do this is by bashing westboro)

I could throw out bible quotes, but i know i won't get anywhere with them.

In a nut shell, gov't should drop the issue, drop all "benifits" to married people, and live and let live.

[cadet]

What do you mean by holds you accountable? i thought the laws of nature (God) does that.
Does your church membership go after other church members for their mistaken beliefs? Do your parishioners flog you or something? Public ridicule? Crucifixion?

Might want to read up on the history of your religion, paying close attention to the Protestant reformation.
Btw, that church is paid for with the tithings of its members-- it's not given to you by the church, but rather, its members. A church is just a structure; ever heard of the Tower of Babel?

i know that, but saying the church is easier then saying "the entirety of everyone in the christian religion making up the body of christ."

[ConHog]

Gov't wise all the churches in all the religions should be ignored, because marriage isn't a gov't issue. Thus, marriage should be ignored by gov't, but not you when it's affecting your religion.

All I really want is for the gays to stop telling me what it is i worship (by adding fake bible quotes, or reading real ones the wrong way, by using only half of a quote) and to stay the hell out of my church.
That being said, all the churches, being the body of christ, should keep the rest of the body in good health by holding them accountable. (one way i do this is by bashing westboro)

I could throw out bible quotes, but i know i won't get anywhere with them.

In a nut shell, gov't should drop the issue, drop all "benifits" to married people, and live and let live.

correct, which means let those who wish to marry gays do so. Congratulations young man.

[logroller]

That's not entirely true. A church is more than just the building. But that seems to be getting way off track anyway.

I want to further explore why Cadet feels that the very Amendment which explicitly says that the government can not declare that one religion is right over another should just be ignored when it comes to gay marriage
That's why I said structure.

As for why the first doesnt apply, because gayness is a socially communicable disease. We need marriage to inoculate us from the gayness. Its science. :laugh2:

[cadet]

correct, which means let those who wish to marry gays do so. Congratulations young man.

Thus, making it a religious issue instead of a gov't one.
Then, let my church fight it tooth and nail. And other religions do whatever it is they do.

There, i'm done. No more.

[ConHog]

That's why I said structure.

As for why the first doesnt apply, because gayness is a socially communicable disease. We need marriage to inoculate us from the gayness. Its science. :laugh2:

okay , well a church is more than a structure.

As to the other, sure seems to be a lot of people scared they might catch it. Or maybe what they really fear is that if it becomes somewhat acceptable that their down lo will want to step out of the closet. :laugh:

[ConHog]

Thus, making it a religious issue instead of a gov't one.
Then, let my church fight it tooth and nail. And other religions do whatever it is they do.

There, i'm done. No more.

Okay, finally you've conceded other churches can do what they want. I'm failing to see though what your church needs to fight tooth and nail? Your church is protected by the very same first amendment and no one can FORCE you to marry gays. Hell you can hang a big sign up on the front door "gays stay out"

Doesn't matter to me.

[logroller]

okay , well a church is more than a structure.

As to the other, sure seems to be a lot of people scared they might catch it. Or maybe what they really fear is that if it becomes somewhat acceptable that their down lo will want to step out of the closet. :laugh:
Structure: Construction or framework of identifiable elements (components, entities, factors, members, parts, steps, etc.) which gives form and stability, and resists stresses and strains. Structures have defined boundaries within which (1) each element is physically or functionally connected to the other elements, and (2) the elements themselves and their interrelationships are taken to be either fixed (permanent) or changing only occasionally or slowly.

Church is a structure; what doesn't that definition cover?

In the closet...is that reference to skeletons in the closet?

[ConHog]

Structure: Construction or framework of identifiable elements (components, entities, factors, members, parts, steps, etc.) which gives form and stability, and resists stresses and strains. Structures have defined boundaries within which (1) each element is physically or functionally connected to the other elements, and (2) the elements themselves and their interrelationships are taken to be either fixed (permanent) or changing only occasionally or slowly.

Church is a structure; what doesn't that definition cover?

In the closet...is that reference to skeletons in the closet?

well it appears that you have me on the structure point. But I think that instead of conceding the point I will instead call you poopy headed , racist, liberal, stupid, and possibly a communist. :rofl:

[logroller]

well it appears that you have me on the structure point. But I think that instead of conceding the point I will instead call you poopy headed , racist, liberal, stupid, and possibly a communist. :rofl:

I can only deny these truths you speak :lalala:

[fj1200]

Here's a better question, why do gays WANT marriage so badly?
they're tied down to one partner by a piece of paper, no religion involved, just a contract that say's they can only be with that one person.
Kinda sucks if you think about it.

Or are all gays just needy and thriving for attention, and this is the best way to do it?

Are you prepared to answer this one then? Why do straights WANT to keep gays out so badly?

[fj1200]

And here's another view, some might think it's "intolerant"
kids of gay parents would never learn what it means to be a man. A true honest to god man.

Hate to say it, but guys and gals are wired differently, and you need both sides to teach your kids. Men understand boys, women understand girls.

You want society to fall further into stupidity? America no longer know's what a gentleman or lady is.
What next, Asexual people should be able to marry themselves!

Oh brother. Does your logic apply to all boys who were raised by a single mother too?

[fj1200]

She failed to account for things that show up in divorce court. With her idea of no marriage, since she rejects any religion in it, and calls for no government laws about marriage, why do you presume she agrees with so much as child support? She is telling us what she wishes, not what is.

Don't you get it. Her way she gets rid of such laws.

As to your point, I was not discussing what you are so that is why you were non responsive.

Matter of fact, I too call for marriage to be removed from government interference.

As to children, based on my very intensive research into this, it was over children and their issues that marriage came into being. Toss in a lot of men don't want to share their women in a lot of cases. But you must also know that a lot of men do not mind one bit sharing their women.
Young men do it all the time. They date her and bed her and move on. They move to a woman who had sex with some other guy. Sure, at some point only due to the marriage contract, they end up marrying. But trust me, you no doubt had shared sex with plenty of women. When men want kids to be locked to themselves, they need the woman for that purpose. Ergo they marry.

Seriously, YOU should have to pay people to read what you pass off as logic. Intensive research. :laugh: According to your "logic" childless couples. by choice or otherwise, would never have gotten married because they were unable to have children.

Nevertheless, please point out where Gabby has advocated for eliminating child support. You can't because she hasn't and I don't think her idea boils down to no marriage as you claim.

[fj1200]

But marriage is everything about religion, there's no point to get married if it's not for a religion! If you're gay, why in the hell would you want to be tied down? You can procreate with that person, you may as well just go out on orgies every chance you get!

And yes, it has EVERYTHING to do with religion. Cause if you hadn't noticed, the biggest fight is gay's vs. the church. Bash bash bash, that's all i hear from gays. Talk to any of them, they all hate the church and want to get married in a church. :slap:

Exactly where do you get your information from? If you're barren or don't want kids why in the hell would you get married? Oh yeah, love and wanting to stay with someone for the rest of your life.

Would it surprise you to know that there are plenty of gays who go to church? Because plenty do, my church even. Would it surprise you to know that there are gay Christians (http://www.gaychristian101.com)? Go ahead, click the link; you won't catch gay.

[fj1200]

Since ever marriage ceremony is taken in a Church...

No they're not.

[fj1200]

Cadet. Do you see how he is playing the patronizing game with you? And while doing it. Being the very hypocrite he expects the rest of us not to recognize in his word games, and semantic rhetorical ignorance.
ConHog is a two faced, intolerant, liberal denial master who easily calls others names, but can't handle being confronted with truth.

To what "truth" would you be referring?

[taft2012]

There are already age restrictions. As I said in my original statement. Therefore, your point is invalid.
Who says you aren't a fucking loon? :p

Yes, there are age restrictions against marrying a 14 year-old girl. So are we to assume you would have no problem with a man marrying his 21 year-old daughter?

Are you saying society has no compelling interest in preventing such marriages?

The laws against marrying a 14 year-old girl, or one's own daughter, are every bit as arbitrary as those against gay marriage. Why would you support those arbitrary prohibitions and not the prohibition against gay marriage?

If government is exiting the marriage equation, why should they still be able to make secular rules for religious ceremonies?

And on the flip side, with government removed from the marriage equation and religious institutions taking the helm, who would oversee divorces and the division of marital properties? How much do you think an imam will give a Muslim woman and her children when the husband accuses her of all sorts of Muslim transgressions, like wearing a short skirt?

Go back and think this through a bit more plz.

[fj1200]

Now, tell me which religions sanction homosexual marriage.

Irrelevant to Equal Protection.


YOUR CHURCH DOES NOT I REPEAT DOES NOT GET TO DICTATE WHAT ANOTHER CHURCH MAY BELIEVE IS MORAL


YEAH IT DOES!!!
IF A CHURCH DOESN'T HAVE OTHER CHURCHES TO KEEP IT HOLY, WHAT ELSE DOES IT HAVE?!?!?!?!?!

Wrong, the relevant word was "dictate." Other churches do not get to dictate. BTW, there are other religions that Christian in the US.

[fj1200]

In a nut shell, gov't should drop the issue, drop all "benifits" to married people, and live and let live.


correct, which means let those who wish to marry gays do so. Congratulations young man.

I guess we're all in agreement then. :2up:

[fj1200]

Yes, there are age restrictions against marrying a 14 year-old girl. So are we to assume you would have no problem with a man marrying his 21 year-old daughter?

Are you saying society has no compelling interest in preventing such marriages?

The laws against marrying a 14 year-old girl, or one's own daughter, are every bit as arbitrary as those against gay marriage. Why would you support those arbitrary prohibitions and not the prohibition against gay marriage?

If government is exiting the marriage equation, why should they still be able to make secular rules for religious ceremonies?

And on the flip side, with government removed from the marriage equation and religious institutions taking the helm, who would oversee divorces and the division of marital properties? How much do you think an imam will give a Muslim woman and her children when the husband accuses her of all sorts of Muslim transgressions, like wearing a short skirt?

Go back and think this through a bit more plz.

There are age restrictions from entering into a contract.

What rules does government make re: religious ceremonies?

The courts intervene in contract disputes.

[taft2012]

There are age restrictions from entering into a contract.

What rules does government make re: religious ceremonies?

The courts intervene in contract disputes.

Emmm, there was a proposal on the table here that religious institutions regulate marriages, not the government. Which would no longer make them civil contracts.

[fj1200]

Emmm, there was a proposal on the table here that religious institutions regulate marriages, not the government. Which would no longer make them civil contracts.

No. The proposal:


Who should regulate marriages?

I say no one should.
First of all, marriage is not about religion. It is a civil ceremony...

A civil ceremony governed by a civil contract.

[taft2012]

There's a lot being said in this thread. It's not all about *YOU*....:laugh:

[mundame]

Um what?

You may not realize this but child support can be agreed upon and collected without marriage being a factor. Or the government for that matter.


Right. That's what I'm saying. Child support is what the government (and perhaps individuals also) are doing INSTEAD OF marriage.

You don't have child support payments within a marriage, after all. You have them when marriage has failed or there never was a marriage.

DNA cataloguing, that's the answer. Forget about marriage. Everyone gets DNA catalogued, and then when a baby occurs, they know who the father is and the government puts a lien on him till the child is 18 for child support payments, whoever it is: ex-husband, milkman, whomever.

[mundame]

let me be clear. When I say government out, I mean ALL government out. it's not a governmental matter at all. Not federal, not state, and not local.

OUT OF MARRIAGE and if that means my one exception to my rule about the word marriage never being used in a government document meaning a federal law directing that no jurisdiction may pass laws concerning marriage , so be it.


Yes, I think that's the way to go. Stop basing Social Security on marriage, first of all, write the regs for individuals. Many civil laws now are based on an institution of marriage that no longer represents the majority of people in this country, so all that needs to go.

This is radical because marriage DOES stabilize and enrich a country, but --- it's gone. We have to recognize the facts on the ground. We could still have some sort of inheritance laws, but they'd have to be based on DNA, I think. Which, really, would be an improvement, IMO. If there is no reliable institution of marriage, why make a big issue of bastardy?

When perverts are the only people wanting to get married to further their "homosexuality is normal" agenda, and everyone normal is fleeing marriage -- well, it probably is time for the government to get out of the marriage business.

[fj1200]

There's a lot being said in this thread. It's not all about *YOU*....:laugh:

That's an interesting method of saying, "sorry, I was wrong." Such is your right I suppose.


Right. That's what I'm saying. Child support is what the government (and perhaps individuals also) are doing INSTEAD OF marriage.

You don't have child support payments within a marriage, after all. You have them when marriage has failed or there never was a marriage.

DNA cataloguing, that's the answer. Forget about marriage. Everyone gets DNA catalogued, and then when a baby occurs, they know who the father is and the government puts a lien on him till the child is 18 for child support payments, whoever it is: ex-husband, milkman, whomever.

You're kidding, right?

[fj1200]

Yes, I think that's the way to go. Stop basing Social Security on marriage, first of all, write the regs for individuals. Many civil laws now are based on an institution of marriage that no longer represents the majority of people in this country, so all that needs to go.

This is radical because marriage DOES stabilize and enrich a country, but --- it's gone. We have to recognize the facts on the ground. We could still have some sort of inheritance laws, but they'd have to be based on DNA, I think. Which, really, would be an improvement, IMO. If there is no reliable institution of marriage, why make a big issue of bastardy?

When perverts are the only people wanting to get married to further their "homosexuality is normal" agenda, and everyone normal is fleeing marriage -- well, it probably is time for the government to get out of the marriage business.

Then why not honor when anytime two people come together and pledge themselves? For kids and country right?

Inheritance based on DNA? WTF?

[mundame]

Australians would be surprised to learn that they are primitive people[quote]

Australians would not be surprised to learn they have aboriginal people, with an average IQ of 56, lowest in the world.


[QUOTE]Rome was tolerant of other religeons until they became a Christian Empire? Is that really where you want to go with that?

Why not? It's basic history, isn't it? I don't specialize in Rome (yet) but I think everyone knows at least that.



Not only can you not prove that marriage provides any sort of social security, you can't even provide a constitutional basis for declaring that the government has dominion over social security.

You are saying there is no improvement in security from marriage? Darn. And that Social Security has to have a constitutional basis or it is illegal? These aren't good arguments.


As for inheritance issues and such, that is what contracts are for.

That's right, that's what wills are for, but the state has forever and ever regulated what to do in the common (usual) situation when there IS no contract.


Again, eliminate marriage from the equation, sign a contract. You got married in a church? Big whoopie, that means nothing to the State. sign a contract or you get no benefits.

That's what I'm saying. I have the impression you are reinforcing my own arguments throughout, but on the misapprehension that you are disagreeing with me.


I think a fairly convincing argument could be made that as a rule Middle Easterners are much more family centric than Americans.


Ha. Women in purdah is not "family-centric."


so single men can't have kids?

As a rule, not if they can help it.....and when they do, they leave it all to the women, worldwide. Certainly all the baby-daddies do, and all the white guys as well. No, single men don't WANT to have kids, and I think that at least pushes the birth rate down somewhat. A lot. The point of marriage is improved security and getting to claim the kids. If they can't claim the kids, the state has to chase single men down. I want them DNA tested and the screws put to them to pay up, but I do not think that will result in INCREASED birth rates: more likely a shutting down entirely.


Once again, the people in Africa actually tend to group together as villages to raise children, they don't do the "single mother" thing.

You don't know a lot about Africa either, do you? It's now mostly cardboard shanty cities with no toilets and the feces scraped up against the "house" walls, and AIDS orphans: lots and lots of AIDS orphans.


Also, since roughly half of the marriages in this country end in divorce your point is moot.

Since half the marriages end in divorce, that IS my point. You are arguing with me even though we are not in disagreement. Interesting combativeness.



Fine, but you still haven't actually proven that a state sanctioned marriage has ANYTHING to do with prosperity.

Why are you hung up on state sanctioning? The state didn't come into it until a couple centuries ago, if that much. The whole entire Tudor thing was about religious sacrament problems. Had nothing to do with the government ---- until Thomas Cromwell had his bright idea about how to solve the problem and suggested it to the king. Even then the solution was based on religion: Henry should simply declare himself head of the English church instead of the Pope, and then declare himself divorced. It took YEARS of anguish before anyone was even able to imagine state involvement in marriage.

I'm more interested in prosperity, however. Of course married people are richer: who is married and who isn't has quickly become an upper versus lower class issue in this society. Money and good education goes with the married people, that's all. The others have working single moms struggling to raise children in poverty. This issue is as old as human history. Intact families are more prosperous and safer than struggling women alone, that's all. Nobody supports a prostitute's child, after all.

[mundame]

Here's a better question, why do gays WANT marriage so badly?
they're tied down to one partner by a piece of paper, no religion involved, just a contract that say's they can only be with that one person.
Kinda sucks if you think about it.

Or are all gays just needy and thriving for attention, and this is the best way to do it?



Oh, that's well known, I think, cadet.

They get beat up in bars: it IS a problem, I can see it would be.

Their idea is that if they are totally accepted as normal and even have marriages based on their kind of sex, then people won't/can't beat them up anymore.

I don't think many of them actually want to get married in any sense: they want to go to gay bars and be promiscuous. But it's great politics to pretend, and some older men and women do have stable relationships, so they've worked out this agenda. It has certainly successfully confused a lot of people.


Next they'll work on normalizing man-boy "love."

[mundame]

She can correct me if she wants to but I do not believe she said it that way.

She accurately reported that Rome was extremely tolerant of other religions. The brief perriod just prior to Contantine was a period of no tolerance for Christians but that applied to but one Roman emperor.

Constantine wrapped himself in the Christian faith and made it the approved religion of Rome.


AH!!! Thank you, I didn't realize ConHog was referring to the intolerance against Christians.

Yes, you are of course right. Let's see if I can work it out more correctly this time: First Rome was famously tolerant of religion, in fact, the more the better was the point of view of the government. Second, this sect called "Christians" started up among mostly slaves, and it became rebellious and seditious, apparently -- that's what all the persecution was about, from what one reads. They were accused of many riotous acts like setting fire to Rome, though who knows. ALSO, they had the problematic idea that they should be the only religion and all others should be banned: like Muslims do today. This didn't go along with the basic Roman idea that everyone should believe as they liked but tolerate everyone else's beliefs. They were hunted down and thrown to lions in the Superbowl and so on.

Then came the Constantine thing, In This Sign I Conquer, and Christians quite quickly took over and extirpated all the other religions, like Muslims would do today here if they could, and already have done wherever they've taken over.

[mundame]

My best friend Dan is a total atheist. He doesn't tell me that what the church does is wrong, i don't tell him the same. We just talk about video games.


Here's a game you might be interested in: Dante's Inferno. I'm playing it on Xbox 360 and it's surprisingly close to the original work, especially the sarcastic comments straight from the 14th century writing when you die (again). Okay, it's lurid and has sex, I admit, but --- they've got the levels of Hell, the same monsters, really, they did a darn good job! It WAS a horror novel with monsters, after all......like the Odyssey, which it resembles in some ways.

And a novel about "asexual people loving themselves," as you said. "Distress," by Greg Egan. Sci-fi, wonderful book. Five sexes in the future: Enhanced male, male, asex, female, enhanced female. You can't tell what asexes were born as, and they won't tell.

[ConHog]

Yes, I think that's the way to go. Stop basing Social Security on marriage, first of all, write the regs for individuals. Many civil laws now are based on an institution of marriage that no longer represents the majority of people in this country, so all that needs to go.

This is radical because marriage DOES stabilize and enrich a country, but --- it's gone. We have to recognize the facts on the ground. We could still have some sort of inheritance laws, but they'd have to be based on DNA, I think. Which, really, would be an improvement, IMO. If there is no reliable institution of marriage, why make a big issue of bastardy?

When perverts are the only people wanting to get married to further their "homosexuality is normal" agenda, and everyone normal is fleeing marriage -- well, it probably is time for the government to get out of the marriage business.

HUH? So let's see, my wife has adopted her step son, he's not inheritance from her b/c there is no DNA match? Your "thought" is dead on arrival.

Inheritence is and should be based on CONTRACT law. Right now theoretically, a marriage license is excepted as a contract for purposes of inheritance, but only a fool would rely on that. Do you not have a will that specifies an inheritance to your spouse? I sure do.

Hell, you can bequeath your inheritance to a cat if you so choose.

As for your ridiculous comments about perverts, that's already been covered. In the United States we are permitted to be perverts as long as that perversion does not interfere with the rights of another.

[mundame]

Inheritance based on DNA? WTF?


Sure, why not? As a default, I mean.

People could still write wills, civil contracts, specifying that only "children of the marriage" or "children of the body" (these clauses exclude bastards and adopted children, a common function of wills) would inherit.

But the government default would be DNA testing. That would at least include bastards, a problem issue for lo, these many centuries, though it would still exclude adopted children unless there was a rider including children adopted by previous legal civil contracts, perhaps. That would be fair.

[fj1200]

Sure, why not? As a default, I mean.

People could still write wills, civil contracts, specifying that only "children of the marriage" or "children of the body" (these clauses exclude bastards and adopted children, a common function of wills) would inherit.

But the government default would be DNA testing. That would at least include bastards, a problem issue for lo, these many centuries, though it would still exclude adopted children unless there was a rider including children adopted by previous legal civil contracts, perhaps. That would be fair.

Well, for one I don't want the government just DNA testing and b, we already have intestacy laws. Those are for the dumb and those who don't plan.

[mundame]

In the United States we are permitted to be perverts as long as that perversion does not interfere with the rights of another.


Hey, if that's your thing, enjoy.

[ConHog]

[QUOTE=ConHog;610318]Australians would be surprised to learn that they are primitive people[quote]

Australians would not be surprised to learn they have aboriginal people, with an average IQ of 56, lowest in the world.




Why not? It's basic history, isn't it? I don't specialize in Rome (yet) but I think everyone knows at least that.




You are saying there is no improvement in security from marriage? Darn. And that Social Security has to have a constitutional basis or it is illegal? These aren't good arguments.



That's right, that's what wills are for, but the state has forever and ever regulated what to do in the common (usual) situation when there IS no contract.



That's what I'm saying. I have the impression you are reinforcing my own arguments throughout, but on the misapprehension that you are disagreeing with me.



Ha. Women in purdah is not "family-centric."



As a rule, not if they can help it.....and when they do, they leave it all to the women, worldwide. Certainly all the baby-daddies do, and all the white guys as well. No, single men don't WANT to have kids, and I think that at least pushes the birth rate down somewhat. A lot. The point of marriage is improved security and getting to claim the kids. If they can't claim the kids, the state has to chase single men down. I want them DNA tested and the screws put to them to pay up, but I do not think that will result in INCREASED birth rates: more likely a shutting down entirely.



You don't know a lot about Africa either, do you? It's now mostly cardboard shanty cities with no toilets and the feces scraped up against the "house" walls, and AIDS orphans: lots and lots of AIDS orphans.



Since half the marriages end in divorce, that IS my point. You are arguing with me even though we are not in disagreement. Interesting combativeness.




Why are you hung up on state sanctioning? The state didn't come into it until a couple centuries ago, if that much. The whole entire Tudor thing was about religious sacrament problems. Had nothing to do with the government ---- until Thomas Cromwell had his bright idea about how to solve the problem and suggested it to the king. Even then the solution was based on religion: Henry should simply declare himself head of the English church instead of the Pope, and then declare himself divorced. It took YEARS of anguish before anyone was even able to imagine state involvement in marriage.

I'm more interested in prosperity, however. Of course married people are richer: who is married and who isn't has quickly become an upper versus lower class issue in this society. Money and good education goes with the married people, that's all. The others have working single moms struggling to raise children in poverty. This issue is as old as human history. Intact families are more prosperous and safer than struggling women alone, that's all. Nobody supports a prostitute's child, after all.

off topic but would it surprise you to learn that a higher percentage of women who are ordered to pay child support are dead beat parents than are men?


Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9% Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9%


http://lists101.his.com/pipermail/smartmarriages/2000-October/000402.html

please take your man issues elsewhere
</pre>

[ConHog]

Hey, if that's your thing, enjoy.

sure thing, and same for gays. IF that's their thing, go for it.

[mundame]

Well, for one I don't want the government just DNA testing and b, we already have intestacy laws. Those are for the dumb and those who don't plan.


One interesting (unintended?) consequence with default DNA testing for inheritance would be that occasionally persons who all their lives thought they were children of the marriage (despite their red hair...) would suddenly find out they weren't!

The milkman problem.

Great new plots for murder mysteries, though.

[fj1200]

:dunno:

[ConHog]

One interesting (unintended?) consequence with default DNA testing for inheritance would be that occasionally persons who all their lives thought they were children of the marriage (despite their red hair...) would suddenly find out they weren't!

The milkman problem.

Great new plots for murder mysteries, though.

That's great, now show me where in the COTUS the government is charged with ,or empowered to, telling anyone "hey guess what , that dude you thought was your dad..........."

I mean seriously now

[mundame]

Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9% Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9%



</PRE>



You have a big math problem here, no doubt on purpose. Mothers are almost always the default caretakers of their children. So you have a HUGE number of men who default and run off entirely, versus a very small number of women so mentally ill that they default entirely and don't even take care of their children, as almost all women do.

It is very rare for men to be stuck with the kids after the break-up.

I say again: just get the rate of male crime down to the rate of female crime. If no more men than women bug out and pay nothing and don't take any care of their children, that is all I ask for.

[mundame]

:dunno:

What don't you like about my DNA idea, fj? I would be interested.

[tailfins]

sure thing, and same for gays. IF that's their thing, go for it.

You don't account for the moral pollution of our society. Sodomy was illegal only a few decades ago.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg/400px-Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg.png
Yellow: U.S. sodomy laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws) by the year when they were repealed or struck down. Laws repealed or struck down before 1970.
Dark Yellow: Laws repealed or struck down from 1970-1989.
Orange: Laws repealed or struck down from 1989-2002.
Red: Laws struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2003.

[fj1200]

What don't you like about my DNA idea, fj? I would be interested.


Well, for one I don't want the government just DNA testing and b, we already have intestacy laws. Those are for the dumb and those who don't plan.

Need a recap?

[ConHog]

You have a big math problem here, no doubt on purpose. Mothers are almost always the default caretakers of their children. So you have a HUGE number of men who default and run off entirely, versus a very small number of women so mentally ill that they default entirely and don't even take care of their children, as almost all women do.

It is very rare for men to be stuck with the kids after the break-up.

I say again: just get the rate of male crime down to the rate of female crime. If no more men than women bug out and pay nothing and don't take any care of their children, that is all I ask for.

How do I have a math problem? My statement was that more women who owe child support fail to pay than do men who owe and fail to pay. I then provided a link that provided the numbers and a source that proved I was right.

I would seriously like to know why so many on this site can't just concede that a point was proven instead of pulling some dumb shit like "you have a math problem" or the even dumber "that's your opinion"

I absolutely, positively PROVED the fact that I claimed was in FACT true.

[fj1200]

You don't account for the moral pollution of our society. Sodomy was illegal only a few decades ago.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg/400px-Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg.png
Yellow: U.S. sodomy laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws) by the year when they were repealed or struck down. Laws repealed or struck down before 1970.
Dark Yellow: Laws repealed or struck down from 1970-1989.
Orange: Laws repealed or struck down from 1989-2002.
Red: Laws struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2003.

Would the implication be that the red states are more moral than the yellow states?

[ConHog]

You don't account for the moral pollution of our society. Sodomy was illegal only a few decades ago.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg/400px-Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg.png
Yellow: U.S. sodomy laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws) by the year when they were repealed or struck down. Laws repealed or struck down before 1970.
Dark Yellow: Laws repealed or struck down from 1970-1989.
Orange: Laws repealed or struck down from 1989-2002.
Red: Laws struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2003.

I do account for the moral pollution, and frankly it personally disgusts me, but as a matter of LAW the US government should not and indeed can not dictate morals.

What they CAN and SHOULD do is protect the rights of ALL

By the way, you do realize that some straight men enjoy anal sex with their women and that those sodomy laws made that illegal to don't you?

[mundame]

That's great, now show me where in the COTUS the government is charged with ,or empowered to, telling anyone "hey guess what , that dude you thought was your dad..........."

I mean seriously now


Sorting out inheritance issues has been a government monopoly since at least Roman times; probably earlier. I'm sure they do it in non-Western civilizations, too, in those areas that have civilizations and property ownership. After all, the government always arranges to get a cut.

A lot of the function of wills and marriages is to keep government from taking that cut.

There have been many, many solutions found over the ages, all of them involving the government both regulating inheritance and taking its cut: in Tudor times orphan heirs were contracted out -- by the state -- as wardships that were purchased -- from the king. The children were expected to be married to the children of the owner of the wardship, along with their valuable property. The opinion of the children was not factored in, nor relevant.

England put in Death Taxes in, I believe, the 1930s; we have Estate Taxes. Also, governments have invariably simply taken over property that falls vacant without heirs, as the default owner, and since families die out but governments last long, that amounts to a lot in the long term.

The government can sort issues out by DNA testing if it wants: that's why they call it "the government." IMO that will happen, as it IS sort of an obvious solution. To a whole lot of problems. I love DNA testing.

[ConHog]

Sorting out inheritance issues has been a government monopoly since at least Roman times; probably earlier. I'm sure they do it in non-Western civilizations, too, in those areas that have civilizations and property ownership. After all, the government always arranges to get a cut.

A lot of the function of wills and marriages is to keep government from taking that cut.

There have been many, many solutions found over the ages, all of them involving the government both regulating inheritance and taking its cut: in Tudor times orphan heirs were contracted out -- by the state -- as wardships that were purchased -- from the king. The children were expected to be married to the children of the owner of the wardship, along with their valuable property. The opinion of the children was not factored in, nor relevant.

England put in Death Taxes in, I believe, the 1930s; we have Estate Taxes. Also, governments have invariably simply taken over property that falls vacant without heirs, as the default owner, and since families die out but governments last long, that amounts to a lot in the long term.

The government can sort issues out by DNA testing if it wants: that's why they call it "the government." IMO that will happen, as it IS sort of an obvious solution. To a whole lot of problems. I love DNA testing.

So to could contract law, and at least on the face they appear to be a LOT less invasive than mandatory DNA testing.


However, once again off topic since even if we did do DNA testing the nasty, perverted gays could be DNA tested as well.

OF course we would have to do that utilizing separate doctors and or testing labs. Separate, but equal you know.

[mundame]

How do I have a math problem? My statement was that more women who owe child support fail to pay than do men who owe and fail to pay. I then provided a link that provided the numbers and a source that proved I was right.

I would seriously like to know why so many on this site can't just concede that a point was proven instead of pulling some dumb shit like "you have a math problem" or the even dumber "that's your opinion"

I absolutely, positively PROVED the fact that I claimed was in FACT true.



No, you didn't. Because your absolute numbers were WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY different for men and women.

Lots and lots of deadbeat dads;

A very few deadbeat moms.


Make honest points, Conhog. Not all of us are as stupid as you wish we were.

[fj1200]

Sorting out inheritance issues has been a government monopoly since at least Roman times; probably earlier. I'm sure they do it in non-Western civilizations, too, in those areas that have civilizations and property ownership. After all, the government always arranges to get a cut.

A lot of the function of wills and marriages is to keep government from taking that cut.

There have been many, many solutions found over the ages, all of them involving the government both regulating inheritance and taking its cut: in Tudor times orphan heirs were contracted out -- by the state -- as wardships that were purchased -- from the king. The children were expected to be married to the children of the owner of the wardship, along with their valuable property. The opinion of the children was not factored in, nor relevant.

England put in Death Taxes in, I believe, the 1930s; we have Estate Taxes. Also, governments have invariably simply taken over property that falls vacant without heirs, as the default owner, and since families die out but governments last long, that amounts to a lot in the long term.

The government can sort issues out by DNA testing if it wants: that's why they call it "the government." IMO that will happen, as it IS sort of an obvious solution. To a whole lot of problems. I love DNA testing.

:facepalm99:

[mundame]

By the way, you do realize that some straight men enjoy anal sex with their women and that those sodomy laws made that illegal to don't you?



Ahhhh, but did the women enjoy it?

The bastards.

[ConHog]

No, you didn't. Because your absolute numbers were WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY different for men and women.

Lots and lots of deadbeat dads;

A very few deadbeat moms.


Make honest points, Conhog. Not all of us are as stupid as you wish we were.

for the love of God..................

My claim is that WHEN women owe child support they default at a higher rate than men do.

That is a FACT by 20%. I said NOTHING about men OWING more child support in VOLUME than women. Because obviously they do.


I absolutely did not wish for you to be stupid.

[mundame]

:facepalm99:


I have to say, fj, your replies are not particularly responsive or informative.

Never mind, though. If you don't want to talk about it, why should you.

[fj1200]

I have to say, fj, your replies are not particularly responsive or informative.

Never mind, though. If you don't want to talk about it, why should you.

Au contraire, I would like to talk about it. I just don't want to have to repeat everything over and over.

[ConHog]

I have to say, fj, your replies are not particularly responsive or informative.

Never mind, though. If you don't want to talk about it, why should you.

After awhile of proving things to yall and you can't even concede a simple fucking fact one tends to just trying to be responsive or informative

YOU can't even concede that 49% > 29%

[ConHog]

Au contraire, I would like to talk about it. I just don't want to have to repeat everything over and over.

no shit, this thread should have lasted one page.

Topic "Can the government prevent a religion from allowing gays to marry"

Response " No, the first amendment provides for the protection of all religions, and the constitution further stipulates that all powers not specifically given to the government belong to the people"

Counter response "shit, you're right, I don't ever want the government fucking with my religion, let gays marry"

/thread

[mundame]

After awhile of proving things to yall and you can't even concede a simple fucking fact one tends to just trying to be responsive or informative

YOU can't even concede that 49% > 29%



I recognize that you studied history, ConHog, but if you are going to use mathy references, you have to be able to cope with at least the most basic sort of math. And realize that others can.

Using HUGEHUGEHUGE numbers on one side of your percentage equation, and tinytinytiny numbers on the other side ---------

I doubt you are fooling very many people here.

Do better. And make honest arguments. Honest arguments are important for credibility.

[mundame]

no shit, this thread should have lasted one page.




It would have, if you hadn't participated! Yours are by far the most posts!!

[fj1200]

I recognize that you studied history, ConHog, but if you are going to use mathy references, you have to be able to cope with at least the most basic sort of math. And realize that others can.

Using HUGEHUGEHUGE numbers on one side of your percentage equation, and tinytinytiny numbers on the other side ---------

I doubt you are fooling very many people here.

Do better. And make honest arguments. Honest arguments are important for credibility.

That's why percentages are relevant. They normalize. It's better to accept the number presented, if accurate, and then give the rebuttal.

[mundame]

no shit, this thread should have lasted one page.

Topic "Can the government prevent a religion from allowing gays to marry"

Response " No, the first amendment provides for the protection of all religions, and the constitution further stipulates that all powers not specifically given to the government belong to the people"

Counter response "shit, you're right, I don't ever want the government fucking with my religion, let gays marry"

/thread


Good heavens, you entirely misquoted the thread topic!

Which actually was, "Who should regulate marriages?"

And Gabosaurus said she doesn't think the government should.

The government DOES define marriage because of several issues: probably most importantly that Social Security is very tied up with marriage and that is a whole lot of our national deficit problem, so it really is a serious issue if you are adding in lots of homosexuals, people who want to marry their fathers, siblings, poodles, etc.

And after that, you have issues like protecting children and animals and the whole polygamy problem, which are criminal issues involving marriage.

The government could certainly be pried loose from marriage -- it's very recent that there even were government social service networks of any kind, after all, only from the 1930s. Marriage was always the social security people depended on before that. Government sort of hitched its social security laws to marriage, but that could be undone and based on individuals. Perhaps it should be.

Wow, talk about breaking up families and basing all life security on the government --- that's really what we're talking about here. However, if marriage has already broken up on the ground, something has to replace it for life security.

[mundame]

That's why percentages are relevant. They normalize. It's better to accept the number presented, if accurate, and then give the rebuttal.


It's better to give the absolute numbers the percentages are based on, so that everyone can plainly see that it's an incredibly fraudulent argument to be making.

[mundame]

Well, this is yucky.

Misquoting is going on, fraudulent math is going on, what's the point in participating in a conversation that is based on "being right" and dominating by means of fraud?


I'll check back later and see if anyone had anything interesting to say. The thread may simply be worn out.

[fj1200]

It's better to give the absolute numbers the percentages are based on, so that everyone can plainly see that it's an incredibly fraudulent argument to be making.

Then that would be your rebuttal instead of complaining how women get the short end of the evolutionary stick. Besides, if you had checked the link you would have seen that there is certainly more to it than how you portray.

[ConHog]

Well, this is yucky.

Misquoting is going on, fraudulent math is going on, what's the point in participating in a conversation that is based on "being right" and dominating by means of fraud?


I'll check back later and see if anyone had anything interesting to say. The thread may simply be worn out.

How is saying that 49% of women who owe child support pay nothing compared to 29% of men who owe paying nothing shows that more women who owe are dead beats than men fraudulent math?

I made NO claim that said more women owe than do men, that simply isn't true, so why I would claim it.

Did you even look at the link I provided?

[mundame]

Then that would be your rebuttal instead of complaining how women get the short end of the evolutionary stick.



Please cite the post in which I said such a ridiculous thing!!

It's not even possible. We're the same species: how can one sex be evolutionarily disadvantaged??

Why are people doing all this misquoting?? This is truly weird. It's Thursday...is there something wrong with Thursdays?

[fj1200]

Please cite the post in which I said such a ridiculous thing!!

It's not even possible. We're the same species: how can one sex be evolutionarily disadvantaged??

Why are people doing all this misquoting?? This is truly weird. It's Thursday...is there something wrong with Thursdays?

I was summarizing and paraphrasing. I'd say it was pretty accurate too. :poke:

[ConHog]

I was summarizing and paraphrasing. I'd say it was pretty accurate too. :poke:

I'm still trying to figure out how

49%> 29% is fraudulent math.

[ConHog]

Mundame?

[mundame]

I was summarizing and paraphrasing. I'd say it was pretty accurate too. :poke:


Well, stop doing that. It is plainly not your strong suit.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[mundame]

I'm still trying to figure out how

49%> 29% is fraudulent math.


You just keep working at it till you solve it, ConHog. It's your homework.

[ConHog]

You just keep working at it till you solve it, ConHog. It's your homework.

You're in the wrong on my point completely. Are you truly not a big enough person to just admit to an error?

[ConHog]

Well, stop doing that. It is plainly not your strong suit.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

you could just post that in every thread and save the rest of us the bother of reading your tripe.

[mundame]

It is easy to save you the bother of reading my tripe.

Boy, this is one dead thread.

[ConHog]

It is easy to save you the bother of reading my tripe.

Boy, this is one dead thread.

It's dead because FJ and I destroyed every conceivable argument there is for fighting gay marriage and most realize that and instead of writing "you're right" they just bail.