|
|
Post by heathenesque on Feb 9, 2007 16:08:27 GMT -5
The -DO NOT- have the same rights to marry the person of their choice. Uh, neither do I should I choose some guy. Why would YOU chose to marry a guy, Grumps? Is there something you're not telling us? |
|
|
|
Post by heathenesque on Feb 9, 2007 16:09:10 GMT -5
And once again, just because you are disgusted by it does not mean it should be outlawed. It's already outlawed. And it -shouldn't- be. |
|
|
|
Post by lestercat on Feb 9, 2007 16:35:35 GMT -5
That's it in a nutshell....yes it should be. Human rights does not have to include "special interest" groups. You do not deserve "rights" simply because you think you do. Two people of the same sex have no right to be recognized as "married". Two people of the same sex in a "relationship" means two people of the same sex in a sexual relationship which is recognized as deviant behavior. Civil unions are as close to public acceptance as gays are likely to get. Remember, life's a beotch and then you die. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2007 16:57:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by proudarmymom on Feb 9, 2007 21:09:57 GMT -5
That's it in a nutshell....yes it should be. Human rights does not have to include "special interest" groups. You do not deserve "rights" simply because you think you do. Two people of the same sex have no right to be recognized as "married". Two people of the same sex in a "relationship" means two people of the same sex in a sexual relationship which is recognized as deviant behavior. Civil unions are as close to public acceptance as gays are likely to get. Remember, life's a beotch and then you die. they are not asking for SPECIAL rights just EQUAL rights!!! |
|
|
|
Post by lestercat on Feb 11, 2007 8:26:01 GMT -5
That's it in a nutshell....yes it should be. Human rights does not have to include "special interest" groups. You do not deserve "rights" simply because you think you do. Two people of the same sex have no right to be recognized as "married". Two people of the same sex in a "relationship" means two people of the same sex in a sexual relationship which is recognized as deviant behavior. Civil unions are as close to public acceptance as gays are likely to get. Remember, life's a beotch and then you die. they are not asking for SPECIAL rights just EQUAL rights!!!  They have exactly the same rights as any other single person in this country. Any two guys, any two gals....same rights!! If someone choses not to marry and remain single, are their rights being violated? NO. Therefore people choosing to be in a gay relationship are not being violated either. There is no reason to extend "special rights" to someone because they are/claim to be gay. That would be discriminatory. |
|
|
|
Post by Chevy on Feb 12, 2007 12:19:47 GMT -5
BS, lestercat. The only reason a man and woman have the 'right' to marry is because society has deemed it so. Society is constantly evolving, though. I doubt seriously if you or anyone on this board would be comfortable living under the social constraints of, say, the early 1800's but it would be YOU looked at as the oddball by THEM for your 'outrageous' views.
It is absolutely true that the legal institution of 'marriage' gives special perks and considerations to ONE form of family unit at the expense of all others. Period. Trying to argue anything else is silly. It sets up a special situation for the allotment of personal property, establishes a special tax scheme, etc. And these are 'rights' not offered to ANYONE but married couples. Marriage, by most definitions, is a RELIGIOUS arrangement but this is a clear melding of religion and state, and one that sort of points out just *why* this is an unhealthy combination.
By what reason will you justify refusing the right to marry to homosexuals, unless you get out that Book to back up your claim? And yet, *should* the Bible be used for that purpose; isn;t that just turning the subject into a theological argument instead of a legal one?
The STATE has no direct benefit in granting special dispensation to one family organization over another. Not even tax base, since the same benefits are not afforded to couples that cohabit and raise children together but are not 'legally married,' i.e. no priest said mumbo-jumbo over them in a church somewhere. This is not a state issue, and the only way to make it 'fair' is to either DENY that special status to married couples, or make an EQUAL legal status (and call it something different if necessary for the whiney butts who don't like to accept that gays are humans) for any two people who wish to apply for it, gay straight same sex different sex etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2007 13:03:59 GMT -5
BS, lestercat. The only reason a man and woman have the 'right' to marry is because society has deemed it so. Society is constantly evolving, though. I doubt seriously if you or anyone on this board would be comfortable living under the social constraints of, say, the early 1800's but it would be YOU looked at as the oddball by THEM for your 'outrageous' views. It is absolutely true that the legal institution of 'marriage' gives special perks and considerations to ONE form of family unit at the expense of all others. Period. Trying to argue anything else is silly. It sets up a special situation for the allotment of personal property, establishes a special tax scheme, etc. And these are 'rights' not offered to ANYONE but married couples. Marriage, by most definitions, is a RELIGIOUS arrangement but this is a clear melding of religion and state, and one that sort of points out just *why* this is an unhealthy combination. By what reason will you justify refusing the right to marry to homosexuals, unless you get out that Book to back up your claim? And yet, *should* the Bible be used for that purpose; isn;t that just turning the subject into a theological argument instead of a legal one? The STATE has no direct benefit in granting special dispensation to one family organization over another. Not even tax base, since the same benefits are not afforded to couples that cohabit and raise children together but are not 'legally married,' i.e. no priest said mumbo-jumbo over them in a church somewhere. This is not a state issue, and the only way to make it 'fair' is to either DENY that special status to married couples, or make an EQUAL legal status (and call it something different if necessary for the whiney butts who don't like to accept that gays are humans) for any two people who wish to apply for it, gay straight same sex different sex etc. What a humongous pile of BS. One form of family unit? LMAO! Is there more than one? Besides anyone with dependents receive special consideration under the tax laws. What a queer loving pile of crap... |
|
|
|
Post by Chevy on Feb 12, 2007 13:24:38 GMT -5
There are ALL kinds of family units, Grumpy. Just read your tax form for a FEW examples. Single male. Single female. Married filing joint. Married filing separate. Single parent female. Single parent male. And then there are blended families, yours mine and ours. Adopted kids. In vitro fertilizations where the birth mother is not even the natural mother nor does she know the father. Couples living together raising kids OUTSIDE of marriage. All kinds of familie,s even BEFORE you get to gays. It is not "queer loving crap" to acknowlege this; but it IS self-serving crap to insist that YOUR way of viewing it is the only legitimate POV.
|
|
|
|
Post by lestercat on Feb 12, 2007 14:01:09 GMT -5
BS, lestercat.  We've now come full circle on this argument. If anyone, who wants to, can be legally married then, do away with marriage....it will have become obsolete. Blame it on religion, blame it on tradition, blame it on whatever you want. Marriage is a bond of "faith" that a man, and a woman, make to one another. Any changes to that institution dissolves it and, that is the whole purpose of the gay agenda on this matter. Oh yeah....IMO (can't forget that). |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Meaner on Feb 12, 2007 15:22:29 GMT -5
I don't know about gays trying to destroy marriage, but so far the only calls for doing away with marriage are coming from those who oppose the gays.  So, apparently, doing away with marriage is part of the 'straight' agenda. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2007 15:24:15 GMT -5
I don't know about gays trying to destroy marriage, but so far the only calls for doing away with marriage are coming from those who oppose the gays. So, apparently, doing away with marriage is part of the 'straight' agenda. You need to work on your reading comprehension. They aren't calls to do so, they are warnings of what is going to happen if you fools agree to the wishes of queers. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Meaner on Feb 12, 2007 15:28:14 GMT -5
You need to work on your reading comprehension. They aren't calls to do so, they are warnings of what is going to happen if you fools agree to the wishes of queers. Still...you guys ARE the only ones bringing that up. One might think you're rooting for it to happen. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2007 15:30:33 GMT -5
You need to work on your reading comprehension. They aren't calls to do so, they are warnings of what is going to happen if you fools agree to the wishes of queers. Still...you guys ARE the only ones bringing that up. One might think you're rooting for it to happen. What's amazing is that we have to bring it up and point out the obvious. Then again maybe it says a lot for the queer loving mentality, or lack thereof. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Meaner on Feb 12, 2007 15:37:40 GMT -5
What's amazing is that we have to bring it up and point out the obvious. Then again maybe it says a lot for the queer loving mentality, or lack thereof. Newsflash...if you have to point it out, it's not that obvious. LOL So far, you've given no concrete reason why recognizing gay relationships would automatically result in rendering marriage obsolete. |
|
So, apparently, doing away with marriage is part of the 'straight' agenda.
I posted in the shout box first.. 
