|
Post by heathenesque on Feb 9, 2007 14:59:26 GMT -5
Then why don't you be a 'gentleman' and point out your so-called "rational' argument against same-sex unions. I've been addressing the "marriage" issue, not queer unions. So have I. Call it marriage, call it civil union, what it boils down to is allowing two people of the same sex to have the same benefits as two people of opposite sexes via a legal and binding marital contract.
|
|
|
Post by heathenesque on Feb 9, 2007 15:00:23 GMT -5
Also a great question for your queer friends... You're still under the mistaken assumption that only homosexuals have anal sex?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2007 15:16:31 GMT -5
Also a great question for your queer friends... You're still under the mistaken assumption that only homosexuals have anal sex? Not at all. Queers and other disgusting individuals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2007 15:17:30 GMT -5
I've been addressing the "marriage" issue, not queer unions. So have I. Call it marriage, call it civil union, what it boils down to is allowing two people of the same sex to have the same benefits as two people of opposite sexes via a legal and binding marital contract. Then you have the wrong thread to push your queer agenda, this thread is about marriage. No what it boils down to is allowing queers to redefine marriage to suit themselves, period.
|
|
|
Post by lestercat on Feb 9, 2007 15:20:52 GMT -5
I've been addressing the "marriage" issue, not queer unions. So have I. Call it marriage, call it civil union, what it boils down to is allowing two people of the same sex to have the same benefits as two people of opposite sexes via a legal and binding marital contract. If any two people, regardless of sex, can be joined in marriage, then what is marriage? That is Grumps point. If you water it down to include everyone who proclaims they are a couple, then it has no traditional validity. You have basically destroyed marriage. I'm not even going to try and describe what a marriage is, or isn't. And, it's a fact that there are many bad marriages. Yet, if you remove the, "...join this man and this woman in matrimony....." you might as well just trash the whole thing. Which, I presume, is truly the whole premise of this "gay marriage" proposal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2007 15:23:23 GMT -5
So have I. Call it marriage, call it civil union, what it boils down to is allowing two people of the same sex to have the same benefits as two people of opposite sexes via a legal and binding marital contract. If any two people, regardless of sex, can be joined in marriage, then what is marriage? That is Grumps point. If you water it down to include everyone who proclaims they are a couple, then it has no traditional validity. You have basically destroyed marriage. I'm not even going to try and describe what a marriage is, or isn't. And, it's a fact that there are many bad marriages. Yet, if you remove the, "...join this man and this woman in matrimony....." you might as well just trash the whole thing. Which, I presume, is truly the whole premise of this "gay marriage" proposal. That's exactly what it amounts to and apparently there are plenty around here that don't have the brains to see that.
|
|
|
Post by mrsp on Feb 9, 2007 15:25:15 GMT -5
If any two people, regardless of sex, can be joined in marriage, then what is marriage? That is Grumps point. If you water it down to include everyone who proclaims they are a couple, then it has no traditional validity. You have basically destroyed marriage. I'm not even going to try and describe what a marriage is, or isn't. And, it's a fact that there are many bad marriages. Yet, if you remove the, "...join this man and this woman in matrimony....." you might as well just trash the whole thing. Which, I presume, is truly the whole premise of this "gay marriage" proposal. That's exactly what it amounts to and apparently there are plenty around here that don't have the brains to see that. There are plenty of who do not see it that way. It does not mean lack of brains. It means a difference of opinion. Shall I start calling you an idiot because your opinion is different than mine?
|
|
|
Post by heathenesque on Feb 9, 2007 15:25:33 GMT -5
You're still under the mistaken assumption that only homosexuals have anal sex? Not at all. Queers and other disgusting individuals. So do you think those other "disgusting" individuals should not be allowed to marry then?
|
|
|
Post by lestercat on Feb 9, 2007 15:27:06 GMT -5
If any two people, regardless of sex, can be joined in marriage, then what is marriage? That is Grumps point. If you water it down to include everyone who proclaims they are a couple, then it has no traditional validity. You have basically destroyed marriage. I'm not even going to try and describe what a marriage is, or isn't. And, it's a fact that there are many bad marriages. Yet, if you remove the, "...join this man and this woman in matrimony....." you might as well just trash the whole thing. Which, I presume, is truly the whole premise of this "gay marriage" proposal. That's exactly what it amounts to and apparently there are plenty around here that don't have the brains to see that. Yeah, but I said it without refering to someones rectum being violated
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2007 15:28:31 GMT -5
Not at all. Queers and other disgusting individuals. So do you think those other "disgusting" individuals should not be allowed to marry then? If they are of opposite sex and meet the other required criteria sure. Most of them are. Makes them no less disgusting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2007 15:31:24 GMT -5
That's exactly what it amounts to and apparently there are plenty around here that don't have the brains to see that. There are plenty of who do not see it that way. It does not mean lack of brains. It means a difference of opinion. A difference of opinion because of a lack of brains, if they can't see the obvious for what it is. Why stop now?
|
|
|
Post by mrsp on Feb 9, 2007 15:32:59 GMT -5
Please do show me where I have called you an idiot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2007 15:33:46 GMT -5
That's exactly what it amounts to and apparently there are plenty around here that don't have the brains to see that. Yeah, but I said it without refering to someones rectum being violated I went for some time without doing so. It don't work. We'll see if your post makes any difference. LOL.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2007 15:34:08 GMT -5
I say move all them to Arkansas and let it be a nation of its own. I really dont see the big deal, who am I to judge what goes on behind closed doors. And i think he the same sex have lived together a long time they need to make a will stating they leave each other everything. As far as marriage, i know some folks who have lived together for over 20 years but never maried, but they are husband and wife in every sense except they didnt go to a church and get married. Live and let live.
|
|
|
Post by heathenesque on Feb 9, 2007 15:34:29 GMT -5
If any two people, regardless of sex, can be joined in marriage, then what is marriage? People who have made a commitment to each other to love, honor and cherish until death do they part. At least that's the ideal. Then that would include anyone who marries on the spur of the moment, anyone who cheats on their spouse, anyone who gets a divorce, anyone who lies to their potential spouse, anyone who marries "for convenience". From what I've seen all around me with het couples, the concept of marriage as we romanticise it today is already destroyed. Interestingly enough, I know more homosexual couples who are far closer in keeping with the spirit of marriage than het couples. Why does it have to be removed? Why can't it just be changed to "join these two people"? Then you presume wrongly.
|
|