Gay Marriage

[Timminz]

Whatever it is, why shouldn't it apply to gays as well?

Because if I don't promote hate towards them, I'm worried that my urges will mean I'm gay too.

[jay_a2j]

I think that incest is a stretch?

People said the same thing about gay marriage in the 70's and 80's. Now look where we are. Liberals will never be satisfied UNTIL they have the "right" to do WHATEVER they want, bar none. It will not end at gay's being able to marry.

[InkL0sed]

I think that incest is a stretch?

People said the same thing about gay marriage in the 70's and 80's. Now look where we are. Liberals will never be satisfied UNTIL they have the "right" to do WHATEVER they want, bar none. It will not end at gay's being able to marry.

What do you have against incest, exactly?

Other than it grosses you out and that it isn't Christian?

[captain.crazy]

I think that incest is a stretch?

People said the same thing about gay marriage in the 70's and 80's. Now look where we are. Liberals will never be satisfied UNTIL they have the "right" to do WHATEVER they want, bar none. It will not end at gay's being able to marry.

What do you have against incest, exactly?

Other than it grosses you out and that it isn't Christian?

Well... if Octo mom was having incestuous sex, then there would be like 14 mutants that the state would end up paying for. Hope that helps.

[Timminz]

a ban on gay marriage directly violates the constitution

It does? Hmmm I guess a ban on inter-family marriage (incest) would be unconstitutional too. Maybe beastiality violates the Constitution as well.

Absolutely! And if I want to f*ck my bible, the asshole gubmint better not try to stop me.

[captain.crazy]

a ban on gay marriage directly violates the constitution

It does? Hmmm I guess a ban on inter-family marriage (incest) would be unconstitutional too. Maybe beastiality violates the Constitution as well.

Absolutely! And if I want to f*ck my bible, the asshole gubmint better not try to stop me.

That was quite an odd thing to say.

[Timminz]

a ban on gay marriage directly violates the constitution

It does? Hmmm I guess a ban on inter-family marriage (incest) would be unconstitutional too. Maybe beastiality violates the Constitution as well.

Absolutely! And if I want to f*ck my bible, the asshole gubmint better not try to stop me.

That was quite an odd thing to say.

Coming from you, that an honour.

[captain.crazy]

Coming from you, that an honour.

Well, hey, the good news is that having sex with your bible is not illegal! Yay You!

But the bad news is that you might get a paper cut on your shaft... which, for you, just might cause castration... Be forewarned.

[Timminz]

Coming from you, that an honour.

Well, hey, the good news is that having sex with your bible is not illegal! Yay You!

But the bad news is that you might get a paper cut on your shaft... which, for you, just might cause castration... Be forewarned.

How did you know I was so inadequate? Have you been watching me with your super-sexy, pyramid eye, or are you just a paranoid schizophrenic?

[captain.crazy]

Coming from you, that an honour.

Well, hey, the good news is that having sex with your bible is not illegal! Yay You!

But the bad news is that you might get a paper cut on your shaft... which, for you, just might cause castration... Be forewarned.

How did you know I was so inadequate? Have you been watching me with your super-sexy, pyramid eye, or are you just a paranoid schizophrenic?

It must be the eye... your alternate option just doesn't make any sense... at all.

[Timminz]

Coming from you, that an honour.

Well, hey, the good news is that having sex with your bible is not illegal! Yay You!

But the bad news is that you might get a paper cut on your shaft... which, for you, just might cause castration... Be forewarned.

How did you know I was so inadequate? Have you been watching me with your super-sexy, pyramid eye, or are you just a paranoid schizophrenic?

It must be the eye... your alternate option just doesn't make any sense... at all.

*wink*

*nod*

[captain.crazy]

*wink*

*nod*

Are you flirting with me? And in the Gay marriage thread too? You cheeky bastard you!

[Timminz]

*wink*

*nod*

Are you flirting with me? And in the Gay marriage thread too? You cheeky bastard you!

I wouldn't say "flirting", but I am pretty sure that we would have crazy, animal sex, were we ever to meet.

Bat shit crazy turns me on.

[captain.crazy]

*wink*

*nod*

Are you flirting with me? And in the Gay marriage thread too? You cheeky bastard you!

I wouldn't say "flirting", but I am pretty sure that we would have crazy, animal sex, were we ever to meet.

Bat shit crazy turns me on.

Guano... great stuff. You can fertilize your garden and use it to make gun powder!

You're alright in my book Timmy!

[PLAYER57832]

What ever you say player. If you think that the current American Government is practical, I will take constitutional impracticality behind door number 2. Get off your ass and quit sucking up to the government for a hand out. You'll feel better about yourself.

I believe in the constitution. You will have to quote the part about the states having the right to take away individual people's freedoms. Seems I missed that part.

You have a lot to learn about life if you think I am "sucking up to the government for a hand out". You sure don't know much about me.

wasn't that you that said you had a kid that was ADD or something, and you need government subsidy to get him the special care he deeded?

No. I have mentioned that we could not get state insurance (paid) when we needed it because my husband' employer offered a very poor plan. Because they switched from a relatively decent one to a terrible one on Dec 1, right when my just born son had complications, we found ourselves facing 2 $1000 deductibles per person in our family with absolutely no warning in advance and almost did lose our house as result.

Now my husband has a new employer with decent insurance, more pay, yet, ironically, my son does qualify. However the sum total of assistance has been less than $100. My other son receives therapy that is simply not availabe in our community on a private basis. (we'd ahve to go to Pittsburgh, almost 3 hours away). He will not be receiving anyting come June (thankfully has outgrown his problem with help of the therapist). Further, since my husband is a volunteer firefighter, he has more than compensated fellow taxpayers, as have I when I worked disasters and other services.[/quote]

Other than that, I can't seem to find the part where it says that people are entitled to government handouts,

When its an individual who needs money to BUY groceries at the local store (a profit for the store owner) or pay rent (a profit for the landlord), its a "handout".

But, when Walmart moved in nearby, they were given a complete tax break as a "business incentive". Their thanks? They employ roughly 200 people. Almost all part-time. All but 20 of those that are fulltime make so little a 2 person family qualifies for food stamps (and childcare assistance, and reduced school lunches, and WIC if their kids are under 5, etc.)

So the REAL result of that "business incentive?" A bunch of people get slightly cheaper groceries and household supplies (at least until they run the remaining competition out), while ALL taxpayers wind up with a higher bill ... whether we shop at Walmart or not.

The REAL beneficiaries? Walmart stockholders. Sorry, but that is the REAL government handout, not helping someone who is hungry. (no, I don't mean my family.. we get by)

or where it says anything about Marriage.

Marriage is a basic human right. Period.

The government supports it through tax breaks, etc, because it is beneficial to society for people to marry. They take better care of their kids (in general... I KNOW there are plenty of exceptions!) are able to help each other, and tend to be more "settled" members of the community. This is slightly changing, with more single parents doind decent jobs, etc. However, marriage is an overall benefit to society.

So no need to take it to the federal level, its an issue that belongs at the states.

Again, you did not answer my question. Where does it say that the state has the right to TAKE AWAY anyone's right to marry whom they please?

This is not about the state having its rights taken away, this about some people wanting to say that certain individuals don't have the same right they have. In the past, that argument was accepted because people honestly felt homosexuality was harmful. Now we know differently. How is denying a homosexual the right to marry whomever they please harming you or anyone? That denial certainly harms the people involved, but no one else.

[sailorseal]

*wink*

*nod*

Are you flirting with me? And in the Gay marriage thread too? You cheeky bastard you!

I wouldn't say "flirting", but I am pretty sure that we would have crazy, animal sex, were we ever to meet.

Bat shit crazy turns me on.

Guano... great stuff. You can fertilize your garden and use it to make gun powder!

You're alright in my book Timmy!

WOW

[captain.crazy]

What ever you say player. If you think that the current American Government is practical, I will take constitutional impracticality behind door number 2. Get off your ass and quit sucking up to the government for a hand out. You'll feel better about yourself.

I believe in the constitution. You will have to quote the part about the states having the right to take away individual people's freedoms. Seems I missed that part.

You have a lot to learn about life if you think I am "sucking up to the government for a hand out". You sure don't know much about me.

wasn't that you that said you had a kid that was ADD or something, and you need government subsidy to get him the special care he deeded?

No. I have mentioned that we could not get state insurance (paid) when we needed it because my husband' employer offered a very poor plan. Because they switched from a relatively decent one to a terrible one on Dec 1, right when my just born son had complications, we found ourselves facing 2 $1000 deductibles per person in our family with absolutely no warning in advance and almost did lose our house as result.

Now my husband has a new employer with decent insurance, more pay, yet, ironically, my son does qualify. However the sum total of assistance has been less than $100. My other son receives therapy that is simply not availabe in our community on a private basis. (we'd ahve to go to Pittsburgh, almost 3 hours away). He will not be receiving anyting come June (thankfully has outgrown his problem with help of the therapist). Further, since my husband is a volunteer firefighter, he has more than compensated fellow taxpayers, as have I when I worked disasters and other services.

Other than that, I can't seem to find the part where it says that people are entitled to government handouts,[/quote]

When its an individual who needs money to BUY groceries at the local store (a profit for the store owner) or pay rent (a profit for the landlord), its a "handout".

But, when Walmart moved in nearby, they were given a complete tax break as a "business incentive". Their thanks? They employ roughly 200 people. Almost all part-time. All but 20 of those that are fulltime make so little a 2 person family qualifies for food stamps (and childcare assistance, and reduced school lunches, and WIC if their kids are under 5, etc.)

So the REAL result of that "business incentive?" A bunch of people get slightly cheaper groceries and household supplies (at least until they run the remaining competition out), while ALL taxpayers wind up with a higher bill ... whether we shop at Walmart or not.

The REAL beneficiaries? Walmart stockholders. Sorry, but that is the REAL government handout, not helping someone who is hungry. (no, I don't mean my family.. we get by)

or where it says anything about Marriage.

Marriage is a basic human right. Period.

The government supports it through tax breaks, etc, because it is beneficial to society for people to marry. They take better care of their kids (in general... I KNOW there are plenty of exceptions!) are able to help each other, and tend to be more "settled" members of the community. This is slightly changing, with more single parents doind decent jobs, etc. However, marriage is an overall benefit to society.

This is where government falls down. Your city / county officials, like so many throughout the country, have let Walmart come in and destroy the economy there. It is most unfortunate. Look for the corruption in your officials and punish them accordingly. But you will have to make the people of your community see that Walmart is the Devil, and needs to be exercised.

Marriage is a benefit to the community largely because it is the proper vehicle in which to raise children. If your community at large, particularly, the state, can allow Gay People to adopt children, then you have a good basis for starting the argument for changing the ideas around marriage. But you will never convince me that an all powerful Federal government will ever be the best way to enforce these kinds of rules. Smaller federal government please. Next issue!

So no need to take it to the federal level, its an issue that belongs at the states.

Again, you did not answer my question. Where does it say that the state has the right to TAKE AWAY anyone's right to marry whom they please?

In the case of California, where the right was given and taken away, there should be grandfathered marriage rites for people, unless, as I understand the situation, the Courts were legislating from the bench, then the state legislature has grounds to overturn those marriages and nullify them. I have already outlined my solution to the problem. It is a states issue.

This is not about the state having its rights taken away, this about some people wanting to say that certain individuals don't have the same right they have. In the past, that argument was accepted because people honestly felt homosexuality was harmful. Now we know differently. How is denying a homosexual the right to marry whomever they please harming you or anyone? That denial certainly harms the people involved, but no one else.

I beg to differ. A clergymen (woman) of any given faith can deny anyone that he / she wishes the rites of marriage. The States aught to consider changing the terms by which it contracts people into civil unions, then the issue would roughly be dissolved. End of discussion.

[/quote]

[SEAsportsfan]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but basically people don't want gays to have marriage because it ruins the sacredness of marriage? Okay, so my idea is that there is the government-controlled Civil Marriage for government purposes (civil unions, benefits, rights, etc.) and this is for people who are gay, atheists (don't want to deal with the Church), etc. And then, there is Religious Marriage, which is for the "sacred" union of a man and a woman. That way gays have their rights, and religious people have their sacred marriage.

Now, I know you're asking, "But, SEA, God doesn't like gays, we can't have God angry!" My quick response, "Let God deal with it in heaven/hell, but let gays have their rights here on Earth."

Please correct me if I'm getting any part of any argument wrong.

[captain.crazy]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but basically people don't want gays to have marriage because it ruins the sacredness of marriage? Okay, so my idea is that there is the government-controlled Civil Marriage for government purposes (civil unions, benefits, rights, etc.) and this is for people who are gay, atheists (don't want to deal with the Church), etc. And then, there is Religious Marriage, which is for the "sacred" union of a man and a woman. That way gays have their rights, and religious people have their sacred marriage.

Now, I know you're asking, "But, SEA, God doesn't like gays, we can't have God angry!" My quick response, "Let God deal with it in heaven/hell, but let gays have their rights here on Earth."

Please correct me if I'm getting any part of any argument wrong.

Thats not what I am saying. Everyone gets the same thing. Its just not called marriage, except by whatever religious origination will perform the actual ceremony. The state sanctioned part of it is nothing more than a civil union. It is essentially the same way that it works now. Gays have simply made the wrong approach to the issue.

[sailorseal]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but basically people don't want gays to have marriage because it ruins the sacredness of marriage? Okay, so my idea is that there is the government-controlled Civil Marriage for government purposes (civil unions, benefits, rights, etc.) and this is for people who are gay, atheists (don't want to deal with the Church), etc. And then, there is Religious Marriage, which is for the "sacred" union of a man and a woman. That way gays have their rights, and religious people have their sacred marriage.

Now, I know you're asking, "But, SEA, God doesn't like gays, we can't have God angry!" My quick response, "Let God deal with it in heaven/hell, but let gays have their rights here on Earth."

Please correct me if I'm getting any part of any argument wrong.

Thats not what I am saying. Everyone gets the same thing. Its just not called marriage, except by whatever religious origination will perform the actual ceremony. The state sanctioned part of it is nothing more than a civil union. It is essentially the same way that it works now. Gays have simply made the wrong approach to the issue.

No they have been denied equal rights, if I said you have made the wrong approach to this thread, does that mean I can ban you?

[captain.crazy]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but basically people don't want gays to have marriage because it ruins the sacredness of marriage? Okay, so my idea is that there is the government-controlled Civil Marriage for government purposes (civil unions, benefits, rights, etc.) and this is for people who are gay, atheists (don't want to deal with the Church), etc. And then, there is Religious Marriage, which is for the "sacred" union of a man and a woman. That way gays have their rights, and religious people have their sacred marriage.

Now, I know you're asking, "But, SEA, God doesn't like gays, we can't have God angry!" My quick response, "Let God deal with it in heaven/hell, but let gays have their rights here on Earth."

Please correct me if I'm getting any part of any argument wrong.

Thats not what I am saying. Everyone gets the same thing. Its just not called marriage, except by whatever religious origination will perform the actual ceremony. The state sanctioned part of it is nothing more than a civil union. It is essentially the same way that it works now. Gays have simply made the wrong approach to the issue.

No they have been denied equal rights, if I said you have made the wrong approach to this thread, does that mean I can ban you?

Only if you have the authority to do so. Since I haven't broken any rules, except for your fantasy rule where you are the final say in everything in all the world, You can't ban me. No, I di not think so. On the other hand, since gays went for too much too fast, rather than simply going for the right to be civilly united in the eyes of the state, they have raised up much opposition by people that don't like them. Then they run off to the federal government, which has no right to meddle in the affairs of states marriage laws.

So sorry.

[SEAsportsfan]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but basically people don't want gays to have marriage because it ruins the sacredness of marriage? Okay, so my idea is that there is the government-controlled Civil Marriage for government purposes (civil unions, benefits, rights, etc.) and this is for people who are gay, atheists (don't want to deal with the Church), etc. And then, there is Religious Marriage, which is for the "sacred" union of a man and a woman. That way gays have their rights, and religious people have their sacred marriage.

Now, I know you're asking, "But, SEA, God doesn't like gays, we can't have God angry!" My quick response, "Let God deal with it in heaven/hell, but let gays have their rights here on Earth."

Please correct me if I'm getting any part of any argument wrong.

Thats not what I am saying. Everyone gets the same thing. Its just not called marriage, except by whatever religious origination will perform the actual ceremony. The state sanctioned part of it is nothing more than a civil union. It is essentially the same way that it works now. Gays have simply made the wrong approach to the issue.

No they have been denied equal rights, if I said you have made the wrong approach to this thread, does that mean I can ban you?

Only if you have the authority to do so. Since I haven't broken any rules, except for your fantasy rule where you are the final say in everything in all the world, You can't ban me. No, I di not think so. On the other hand, since gays went for too much too fast, rather than simply going for the right to be civilly united in the eyes of the state, they have raised up much opposition by people that don't like them. Then they run off to the federal government, which has no right to meddle in the affairs of states marriage laws.

So sorry.

BUT, isn't denying them a civil union denying them rights? And therefore, violating the constitution? I think the states should decide to call it a Marriage or a Union, but the Gov't needs to decide that denying gays a civil union is the same as denying a minority a marriage

[captain.crazy]

BUT, isn't denying them a civil union denying them rights? And therefore, violating the constitution? I think the states should decide to call it a Marriage or a Union, but the Gov't needs to decide that denying gays a civil union is the same as denying a minority a marriage

I don't believe that they ever asked for a civil union.

[azezzo]

How terrible is it that Gays cannot marry? Depriving them of their basic rights!
We should be ashamed

let them marry, then they can be as miserable as the heterosexuals who get married. 50% divorce rate says alot.

so, why does the bride smile as shes walking down the isle to get married?
'cause shes thinking to herself, "I never have to suck this guys dick ever again"

[sailorseal]

BUT, isn't denying them a civil union denying them rights? And therefore, violating the constitution? I think the states should decide to call it a Marriage or a Union, but the Gov't needs to decide that denying gays a civil union is the same as denying a minority a marriage

I don't believe that they ever asked for a civil union.

It's arbitrary whether or not they asked for it they deserve it