I don't believe it is a birth defect. That is just the way nature is.
Shalom
Ted :-6
Gay marriage
Gay marriage
read ..... Romans 1 through the end of chapter...tsk,tsk,....so easy to read...KJV....
Preach the gospel at all times and if necessary use words..:driving: .a thought home.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Gay marriage
anastrophe wrote: If ever there was - to use an out of fashion and offensive term - a nigger in the woodpile of the liberal mentality, it is gay marraige. only on the very, very far left is gay marriage considered acceptable. Mainstream liberals simply try not to discuss it, because it betrays the bankruptcy of their liberalism. everybody else is pretty much against it.
classical liberal thought is very straightforward - ever expanding freedom and liberty for the people. diametrically opposed to current neo-liberal thought, which is 'restrict not just the state, but everyone else's freedoms, except for mine' (to wit, baker's dozen of krispy kremes says someone will complain about my use of the offensive term above).
marriage, as a social and cultural tradition, predates the state by a few thousand years. marriage is the union of two people who love each other. period. that the state "sanctions" marriage is offensive enough in itself - that there's a movement afoot on the right to amend the constitution to *forbid* gay marriage is appalling. the constitution is all about enumerating the rights, liberties, and freedoms we already hold, not about restricting further our freedoms.
no more proof that marriage is about love is needed than the fact that the first couple married in san francisco last valentine's day were a lesbian couple who have been together *50* years, now aged 83 and 79. give me a break! that's a threat to whom? that's less deserving of respect than britney spears's 50 hour marriage? please.
that's my rant for today!!
It's been 6 months since this pot's been stirred, so why not?
A Question, Anastrophe: Have your views changed at all since you posted this a year ago? Just for my curiosity.
Here's my take. Get the government out of marriage, full stop. It was fine when we were an agricultural economy and needed large families to grow. Well, we're grown.
1. We don't need financial incentives to have children. If people want to have children, they should be able to afford them. Those of us without children should not be penalized for not having them.
2. As you say, marriage predates government. In fact, many call it "holy matrimony" which hints at a little church & state overlap. Isn't that in the top 5 most deadly activities, according to the ACLU?
3. De-regulating marriage would balance the hetero- homosexual marriage issue. The question would be moot.
4. Heterosexual unions occur outside government control now, anyway. It's call common-law marriage and gives most if not all the same rights to the people involved, so why try to keep up appearances?
Cancel marriage as a legal term and all is well.
classical liberal thought is very straightforward - ever expanding freedom and liberty for the people. diametrically opposed to current neo-liberal thought, which is 'restrict not just the state, but everyone else's freedoms, except for mine' (to wit, baker's dozen of krispy kremes says someone will complain about my use of the offensive term above).
marriage, as a social and cultural tradition, predates the state by a few thousand years. marriage is the union of two people who love each other. period. that the state "sanctions" marriage is offensive enough in itself - that there's a movement afoot on the right to amend the constitution to *forbid* gay marriage is appalling. the constitution is all about enumerating the rights, liberties, and freedoms we already hold, not about restricting further our freedoms.
no more proof that marriage is about love is needed than the fact that the first couple married in san francisco last valentine's day were a lesbian couple who have been together *50* years, now aged 83 and 79. give me a break! that's a threat to whom? that's less deserving of respect than britney spears's 50 hour marriage? please.
that's my rant for today!!
It's been 6 months since this pot's been stirred, so why not?
A Question, Anastrophe: Have your views changed at all since you posted this a year ago? Just for my curiosity.
Here's my take. Get the government out of marriage, full stop. It was fine when we were an agricultural economy and needed large families to grow. Well, we're grown.
1. We don't need financial incentives to have children. If people want to have children, they should be able to afford them. Those of us without children should not be penalized for not having them.
2. As you say, marriage predates government. In fact, many call it "holy matrimony" which hints at a little church & state overlap. Isn't that in the top 5 most deadly activities, according to the ACLU?
3. De-regulating marriage would balance the hetero- homosexual marriage issue. The question would be moot.
4. Heterosexual unions occur outside government control now, anyway. It's call common-law marriage and gives most if not all the same rights to the people involved, so why try to keep up appearances?
Cancel marriage as a legal term and all is well.
Gay marriage
I'm new to FG and joined for another topic actually, but found this "discussion". I have tried to read as much of the posts from beginning to end as possible in a morning so I could get an accurate feel as to where the discussion started, ended and the important inbetween.
I hope this does not come off as an argument, as I am not into arguing, but just wanted to hopefully and peacefully state my point-of-view.
1. If you don't believe in God, than why can "such a couple" receive a marriage license if marriage is "Holy Matrimony"?....and would a minister, priest, etc. perform such a ceremony for such a couple? ("such a couple" - no disrespect intended, for point of view purpose only)
2. Why can the Ten Commandments be removed from the courthouse and silent prayer from school under "seperation of church and state", but an amendment be added preventing Gay Marriage....if a marriage is between a man and a woman under God's laws.
hmmmm, sounds like athiests are changing society, not gays.
and finally,
3. If you are a Christian (one who believes in Christ) as I am, then isn't it up to God to judge me and what is in my heart?
If God looks into my heart and finds my life unforgivable, He will deal with me; as when He looks into your heart and will judge you on what He finds.
A friend told me once (not gay) "A sin is a sin. Whether you smoke, cuss like a sailor, drink too much, hate, hurt intentionally, ignore your neighbor in need, kill, molest a child...they are all to the same degree in God's eyes. It is what is in your heart that God will judge you on. Point being, IF God sees in my heart what I am as an unforgivable sin, He will deal with me.
Anyway, I hope what I said did not sound like an argument to anything as I am not into arguing; but I read sides against gay marriage, civil union and see contridiction after contridiction. It boils down to love.
A gay couple can't adopt because a child needs a mother and a father.....oh please. My two boys' father lived 15 mins. away and did not see them for over two years. When he finally did, it would be at a resturaunt in passing.
Homosexuality is sick? There are heterosexuals making millions of $$$s on porn.
As for the person who said they couldn't picture a woman on her in that way (sorry not good with inserting quotes), than don't; and I can't picture a man on me in that way.
I hope one day the hate will vanish (on all sides) and we can all at least accept one another, even if you do not approve. Then we can take that energy on the issues that are really harming society and each other.
Peace to All.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Gay marriage
Deftly done! and welcome to FG :-6
The quote thing can be a little tricky until you get used to it. I hope you'll stay long enough to be expert. We need civil disagreement in order to grow.
glpride wrote:
[...]
1. If you don't believe in God, than why can "such a couple" receive a marriage license if marriage is "Holy Matrimony"?....and would a minister, priest, etc. perform such a ceremony for such a couple? ("such a couple" - no disrespect intended, for point of view purpose only)[...]
This is the confusion I think we can easily avoid by taking it out of the legal realm. Some churches would perform gay ceremonies, some wouldn't. Why on earth would a gay couple want to force the issue with a particular church? Got me, but it happens. The real question to me is why does a couple need a license? Is there special training involved in marriage? Should be
glpride wrote: 2. Why can the Ten Commandments be removed from the courthouse and silent prayer from school under "seperation of church and state", but an amendment be added preventing Gay Marriage....if a marriage is between a man and a woman under God's laws.
hmmmm, sounds like athiests are changing society, not gays.
I lost the connection here. Sorry.
glpride wrote: 3. If you are a Christian (one who believes in Christ) as I am, then isn't it up to God to judge me and what is in my heart?
If God looks into my heart and finds my life unforgivable, He will deal with me; as when He looks into your heart and will judge you on what He finds.
I believe all religions, at least the judeo/christian and semitic ones, believe that way.
glpride wrote: [...]I hope one day the hate will vanish (on all sides) and we can all at least accept one another, even if you do not approve. Then we can take that energy on the issues that are really harming society and each other.
Peace to All.
Just curious, do you feel the same about polygamy?
The quote thing can be a little tricky until you get used to it. I hope you'll stay long enough to be expert. We need civil disagreement in order to grow.
glpride wrote:
[...]
1. If you don't believe in God, than why can "such a couple" receive a marriage license if marriage is "Holy Matrimony"?....and would a minister, priest, etc. perform such a ceremony for such a couple? ("such a couple" - no disrespect intended, for point of view purpose only)[...]
This is the confusion I think we can easily avoid by taking it out of the legal realm. Some churches would perform gay ceremonies, some wouldn't. Why on earth would a gay couple want to force the issue with a particular church? Got me, but it happens. The real question to me is why does a couple need a license? Is there special training involved in marriage? Should be
glpride wrote: 2. Why can the Ten Commandments be removed from the courthouse and silent prayer from school under "seperation of church and state", but an amendment be added preventing Gay Marriage....if a marriage is between a man and a woman under God's laws.
hmmmm, sounds like athiests are changing society, not gays.
I lost the connection here. Sorry.
glpride wrote: 3. If you are a Christian (one who believes in Christ) as I am, then isn't it up to God to judge me and what is in my heart?
If God looks into my heart and finds my life unforgivable, He will deal with me; as when He looks into your heart and will judge you on what He finds.
I believe all religions, at least the judeo/christian and semitic ones, believe that way.
glpride wrote: [...]I hope one day the hate will vanish (on all sides) and we can all at least accept one another, even if you do not approve. Then we can take that energy on the issues that are really harming society and each other.
Peace to All.
Just curious, do you feel the same about polygamy?
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
Gay marriage
Well, I'm certainly not to wade through 11 pages of posts but I would like to make a few personal observations:
1. By what reasoning does one conclude that gays have a right, and I'm assuming this refers to a constitutional right, to be married or have said marriage endoresed by the federal government. I suggest that no one has a constitutionally gauranteed right to get married. Marriage is a religious function not a federal one. Government chooses to recognize two-gender marriages because of the benefits that society reaps. The nuclear family has been the backbone of our sociiety for centuries. The fact that some heteros like Britney Spears, Elizabeth Taylor, and Mickey Rooney make a mockery of the institution does not mean it should be diluted and cheapened further.
Gays have a right to have a relationship with whomever they choose. They should, if they don't, have the right to name their SO as their beneficiary in insurance policies, wills, etc. They should be able to, if they don't already, name their SO as the person to act in their behalf in medical/legal matters as the law allows for heterosexual couples who are not married. In other words, they should be accorded the same rights as non-married heterosexual couples.
2. Some have mentioned the tax benefit the married couples receive and that gays should be given that same benefit. How about this. Support much needed tax reform, ie flat tax or national sales tax, and the point become moot. Hetereo married couples would then have no advantage over unmarried couples whether gay or straight. Plus, society and individuals would benefit far more from meaningful tax reform than from passing out marriage certificates to gay couples.
Well, .....I've already forgottent the other issues I was going to comment on so I guess I'll just have to hush.
1. By what reasoning does one conclude that gays have a right, and I'm assuming this refers to a constitutional right, to be married or have said marriage endoresed by the federal government. I suggest that no one has a constitutionally gauranteed right to get married. Marriage is a religious function not a federal one. Government chooses to recognize two-gender marriages because of the benefits that society reaps. The nuclear family has been the backbone of our sociiety for centuries. The fact that some heteros like Britney Spears, Elizabeth Taylor, and Mickey Rooney make a mockery of the institution does not mean it should be diluted and cheapened further.
Gays have a right to have a relationship with whomever they choose. They should, if they don't, have the right to name their SO as their beneficiary in insurance policies, wills, etc. They should be able to, if they don't already, name their SO as the person to act in their behalf in medical/legal matters as the law allows for heterosexual couples who are not married. In other words, they should be accorded the same rights as non-married heterosexual couples.
2. Some have mentioned the tax benefit the married couples receive and that gays should be given that same benefit. How about this. Support much needed tax reform, ie flat tax or national sales tax, and the point become moot. Hetereo married couples would then have no advantage over unmarried couples whether gay or straight. Plus, society and individuals would benefit far more from meaningful tax reform than from passing out marriage certificates to gay couples.
Well, .....I've already forgottent the other issues I was going to comment on so I guess I'll just have to hush.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
Adam Zapple wrote: Well, I'm certainly not to wade through 11 pages of posts but I would like to make a few personal observations:
1. By what reasoning does one conclude that gays have a right, and I'm assuming this refers to a constitutional right, to be married or have said marriage endoresed by the federal government.
there is much to be gained by reading other people's opinions in this thread.
i'm pretty sure nobody has said there's a constitutional right for gays to get married. particularly since there's no enumerated constitutional right for heterosexuals to get married.
a fundamental misconception an awful lot of people seem to have is that the constitution is a list of all of our rights. it is not. it is a list of *certain* rights, which the founders believed it was necessary to enumerate, because tyrants had/have a knack for wanting to stifle those particular rights. however, amendments nine and ten of the constitution make it very clear that simply because a right (or power) may not be enumerated in the constitution, it does not mean that such other rights do not exist:
9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
one of the central issues in this thread is the (in my opinion, insane) suggestion that there should be an amendment to the constitution banning gay marraige. doing so is a bastardization of what the constitution is about - listing our rights and the powers delegated to the government - not listing things we aren't allowed to do (with a few notable exceptions).
1. By what reasoning does one conclude that gays have a right, and I'm assuming this refers to a constitutional right, to be married or have said marriage endoresed by the federal government.
there is much to be gained by reading other people's opinions in this thread.
i'm pretty sure nobody has said there's a constitutional right for gays to get married. particularly since there's no enumerated constitutional right for heterosexuals to get married.
a fundamental misconception an awful lot of people seem to have is that the constitution is a list of all of our rights. it is not. it is a list of *certain* rights, which the founders believed it was necessary to enumerate, because tyrants had/have a knack for wanting to stifle those particular rights. however, amendments nine and ten of the constitution make it very clear that simply because a right (or power) may not be enumerated in the constitution, it does not mean that such other rights do not exist:
9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
one of the central issues in this thread is the (in my opinion, insane) suggestion that there should be an amendment to the constitution banning gay marraige. doing so is a bastardization of what the constitution is about - listing our rights and the powers delegated to the government - not listing things we aren't allowed to do (with a few notable exceptions).
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
Gay marriage
there is much to be gained by reading other people's opinions in this thread.
I agree. I did skim the thread in an effort to get the flow of the discussion but it took several turns as a thread this large is certain to do. Surely you understand how time consuming it is to read 11 pages of thoughts in one sit while trying to form a manner in which to respond. There's just too much at once and it can get quite complex.
i'm pretty sure nobody has said there's a constitutional right for gays to get married. particularly since there's no enumerated constitutional right for heterosexuals to get married.
That was my point. However, I am sure that many do believe the constitution guarantees the right for not only gays to marry but to be officially recognized.
a fundamental misconception an awful lot of people seem to have is that the constitution is a list of all of our rights. it is not. it is a list of *certain* rights, which the founders believed it was necessary to enumerate, because tyrants had/have a knack for wanting to stifle those particular rights. however, amendments nine and ten of the constitution make it very clear that simply because a right (or power) may not be enumerated in the constitution, it does not mean that such other rights do not exist:
Again, I agree. I pointed out that gays have the freedom to enter relationships with whomever they please. They can find any church, minister, JOP, who is willing to preside over a marriage ceremony and can even be sanctioned by their church. However, the federal government is not obligated in any manner to endorse this union. Therefore there is no right to have any union sanctioned by the government.
10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people
Absolutely. If the state of Massachusetts or California or any of the other 48 chose to endorse gay marriage that is the perogative of the elected representative body of that state. Likewise, if a state chooses not to recognize a gay marriage that is the perogative of that state also. There is no constitutional mandate that gives the federal government or a judge the authority to force a state to recognize any marriage.
one of the central issues in this thread is the (in my opinion, insane) suggestion that there should be an amendment to the constitution banning gay marraige. doing so is a bastardization of what the constitution is about
We are in agreement once again.
I agree. I did skim the thread in an effort to get the flow of the discussion but it took several turns as a thread this large is certain to do. Surely you understand how time consuming it is to read 11 pages of thoughts in one sit while trying to form a manner in which to respond. There's just too much at once and it can get quite complex.
i'm pretty sure nobody has said there's a constitutional right for gays to get married. particularly since there's no enumerated constitutional right for heterosexuals to get married.
That was my point. However, I am sure that many do believe the constitution guarantees the right for not only gays to marry but to be officially recognized.
a fundamental misconception an awful lot of people seem to have is that the constitution is a list of all of our rights. it is not. it is a list of *certain* rights, which the founders believed it was necessary to enumerate, because tyrants had/have a knack for wanting to stifle those particular rights. however, amendments nine and ten of the constitution make it very clear that simply because a right (or power) may not be enumerated in the constitution, it does not mean that such other rights do not exist:
Again, I agree. I pointed out that gays have the freedom to enter relationships with whomever they please. They can find any church, minister, JOP, who is willing to preside over a marriage ceremony and can even be sanctioned by their church. However, the federal government is not obligated in any manner to endorse this union. Therefore there is no right to have any union sanctioned by the government.
10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people
Absolutely. If the state of Massachusetts or California or any of the other 48 chose to endorse gay marriage that is the perogative of the elected representative body of that state. Likewise, if a state chooses not to recognize a gay marriage that is the perogative of that state also. There is no constitutional mandate that gives the federal government or a judge the authority to force a state to recognize any marriage.
one of the central issues in this thread is the (in my opinion, insane) suggestion that there should be an amendment to the constitution banning gay marraige. doing so is a bastardization of what the constitution is about
We are in agreement once again.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Gay marriage
Adam Zapple wrote: Well, I'm certainly not to wade through 11 pages of posts but I would like to make a few personal observations:
Aw come on. At least read today's posts.
Aw come on. At least read today's posts.
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
Gay marriage
I did. :-6
Gay marriage
glpride:-6
I am in complete agreement with you. The only problem with gay marriage is the abuse they are subject to by "Christians" That abuse is certainly a sin.
As for reading Romans; would that it was that simple but it is not. We must learn to distinguish between the words of God in the Bible and in this case the opinions of Paul. Actually when studied with the help of scholars one finds out that there is nothing whatsoever in the Bible against gays or lesbians.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I am in complete agreement with you. The only problem with gay marriage is the abuse they are subject to by "Christians" That abuse is certainly a sin.
As for reading Romans; would that it was that simple but it is not. We must learn to distinguish between the words of God in the Bible and in this case the opinions of Paul. Actually when studied with the help of scholars one finds out that there is nothing whatsoever in the Bible against gays or lesbians.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
Gay marriage
I think a comittment between two people is just that - a willingness to say there is friendship and love to make a life together for the betterment of society. Is not a marriage that cements the boundaries of family and community. I doubt it is a matter of sex that divides us but a matter of our religions. We feel a need to pull ourselves up from our pets that copulate on our legs.
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Gay marriage
nvalleyvee:-6
I can't help agreeing with you. Good post.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I can't help agreeing with you. Good post.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
Gay marriage
Just saying how I feel. I go to sleep most every night feeling good about my day.
BTW - the gay parents I have known have never put their lifestyle on their kids. :-5
BTW - the gay parents I have known have never put their lifestyle on their kids. :-5
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Gay marriage
nvalleyvee:-6
I know, its called homophobia, fear of homosexuals. It is amazing the crap that is said about them. And indeed it is crap.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I know, its called homophobia, fear of homosexuals. It is amazing the crap that is said about them. And indeed it is crap.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Gay marriage
I have one question for every man here......If your brother - the one you looked up too and loved, or maybe the little brother you wanted to be just like you - called and said - "I am gay.....I am in a happy relationship and want you to meet him.....what would you do? " - All the ones here that are against gay relationships......would you leave him and never call him your brother??? or how much do you weigh in on your family....?? I want a serious answer..........
~~The Family~~
Happiness is knowing where you come from...
Who you are...
And why you are here.....
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
Gay marriage
I would embrace him with my heart and soul and always call him my brother.
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Gay marriage
As a Christian I would have no alternative but to love him and carry on a normal relationship with him. "No alternative" does not carry with it the idea of compulsion. Love is a way of life for the Christian and comes completely naturally.
Shalom
Ted
Shalom
Ted
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Gay marriage
mominiowa wrote: I have one question for every man here......If your brother - the one you looked up too and loved, or maybe the little brother you wanted to be just like you - called and said - "I am gay.....I am in a happy relationship and want you to meet him.....what would you do? " - All the ones here that are against gay relationships......would you leave him and never call him your brother??? or how much do you weigh in on your family....?? I want a serious answer..........
Ow. I might feel insulted if I didn't already like you so much. "every man" you say? What about the women? I have both in my family & stupidity is not limited to gender, let me tell ya.
As for your question. Family is family. My brother can love whomever he wants except for my spouse. He and his would be welcome in my house. Same goes for my sister.
Ow. I might feel insulted if I didn't already like you so much. "every man" you say? What about the women? I have both in my family & stupidity is not limited to gender, let me tell ya.
As for your question. Family is family. My brother can love whomever he wants except for my spouse. He and his would be welcome in my house. Same goes for my sister.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Gay marriage
:yh_rotfl
Gay marriage
MY brother was gay - He died in 1988 and I wish I had been older to really know him...But either way - I would love him just the same...and his partner. AS it goes, for lesbians also. Yes, I have several friends that are lesbians - and which I could not of probably gotten through a tough time in my life with out. Never once, has any one hit on me..(am I ugly?) Ha ha-- anyway...I believe that when you were born, you were born with a chemical make-up of what you will become...you do not choose to be gay - you live with it..These churches that claim they can CHANGE you - are bogus - My brother married a woman - who knew he had tried to become straight. He did this to please my Catholic wheeling parents - all it ended up being was a room mate situation and they parted friends...How sad is it - to have to to live your life in the dark to please another...even your own family. Thats where my question came from...We have a brother that chose to not go see him, before he died - and now will have to live with that all his life...and it kills him. He was young and didn't want his friends to see him - his frail body - all of 80 lbs. Yes he died of AIDS and yes it was his choice..but looking back - I would of had it all the same - because for quite a few years he was HAPPY! and to live your life - short or long - at least he was happy for awhile...
~~The Family~~
Happiness is knowing where you come from...
Who you are...
And why you are here.....
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
Gay marriage
mominiowa, I am sorry for your tragic loss. In response to your question, I would still love my brother but that doesn't mean I must agree with his choices. When my children do something I don't agree with, I don't stop loving them. But neither do I say, "Because I love you, I will consider all things in your life acceptable no matter what." My love for them is unconditional but I am still permitted to maintain my standards and principles.
I don't understand the idea that one must accept any condition or decision of another in order to love them.
I don't understand the idea that one must accept any condition or decision of another in order to love them.
Gay marriage
Nice answer Floppy...
~~The Family~~
Happiness is knowing where you come from...
Who you are...
And why you are here.....
Gay marriage
I do not want her that women are owned by their husband. That is just NOT the case especially is this family. As for gay marriage and I am a libral. But I guess people figured that out already.
I don't like it at all. But their is nothing anyone can do. This is a free country. And people can live the way they want. If doesn't happen now, it will probably happen in the future. But I think civil unions are better.
I don't like it at all. But their is nothing anyone can do. This is a free country. And people can live the way they want. If doesn't happen now, it will probably happen in the future. But I think civil unions are better.
kmhowe
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Gay marriage
Better than what? :-2
Gay marriage
The only posible constraint on marriage that I can conceive of is not allowing blood relatives to marry. And the only reason for that is bad genetics.
As for everyone else, live and let live.
Now here's something weird, almost to a person, everyone on ForumGarden has said it doesn't bother them.
Then why is it such a BIG FREAKIN' DEAL?!!! Who are these people who have a problem with gay marriage? And why aren't they represented in the Garden?:(
As for everyone else, live and let live.
Now here's something weird, almost to a person, everyone on ForumGarden has said it doesn't bother them.
Then why is it such a BIG FREAKIN' DEAL?!!! Who are these people who have a problem with gay marriage? And why aren't they represented in the Garden?:(
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Gay marriage
Chris wrote: My arguments are many. 
Let me list just one or three:
1. The actions of individuals shouldn't cancel out the greater good and meaning of certain institutions or traditions. If that was the case, we could argue that laws against murder were silly because look at all the people who commit murder!
2. Love is love. I think that's great. For me, the semantics are wrong. We should not be legislating marriage. We should be legislating Civil Unions. These people are asking for common rights. This should all be covered under Civil Union legislation. This has nothing to do with marriage.
3. Marriage's roots do lie deep in mankind's religious history and heritage. It's a union - between man and woman - primarily to pro-create and keep humanity on the face of this earth.
this guy........
Let me list just one or three:
1. The actions of individuals shouldn't cancel out the greater good and meaning of certain institutions or traditions. If that was the case, we could argue that laws against murder were silly because look at all the people who commit murder!
2. Love is love. I think that's great. For me, the semantics are wrong. We should not be legislating marriage. We should be legislating Civil Unions. These people are asking for common rights. This should all be covered under Civil Union legislation. This has nothing to do with marriage.
3. Marriage's roots do lie deep in mankind's religious history and heritage. It's a union - between man and woman - primarily to pro-create and keep humanity on the face of this earth.
this guy........
~~The Family~~
Happiness is knowing where you come from...
Who you are...
And why you are here.....
Gay marriage
I am sorry but the responses on this is so typical....we have done the same thing with divorce and separations....so common we get inured to it and then it doesn't seem so bad 'cause everybody else is doing it and it is none of our business....I can NOT believe that you think things like this is none of our business.....well, lets wait till the hot water gets cold then we can swim...in the meantime let sleeping dogs lie......not me...I would rather wake them up and be bitten than to lie down and watch and shrug my shoulders....tsk, tsk,
preach the gospel and if necessary, use words...:driving:the message home.
preach the gospel and if necessary, use words...:driving:the message home.
Preach the gospel at all times and if necessary use words..:driving: .a thought home.
-
ProfessionalMoron
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 7:50 pm
Gay marriage
If I have never learned anything but one in my brief tenure of life, it's to find a balance between chaos and order and relax with it. This issue is one of the most diametrically moot points i think i have ever had to bear witness to, yet we waste so much energy on it.
Nearly every single entity on the planet KNOWS INSTICTIVELY where it's parts go and what they are used for. Heteros AND homos. Now, with that being said, the issue boils down to a mere battle of wits, which, in itself, is an utter waste of time.
Personally, I couldn't give a rat's rectum about what you do with your "parts", but i do know this for a fact:
Any biological "intelligent" society that denounces the true nature of reproduction and outwardly, and whole-heartedly, advocates and reinforces socially immature radicalism is doomed and will collapse within itself.
Hell, from what I've seen, most heteros don't really care about their marriage either.
Marriage, in people terms, is simple.... it's the declaration of your devotion to another person... forever.... in the prescence of people, cats, God, silt, muons, EVERYTHING. If that's not what you are doing, then it's not marriage. If that idea scares you, then don't do it.
Now, this little Ren and Stimpy game of "Gay Marriage" is rediculousy. It is honestly one of THE BIGGEST, GAYEST, WASTES of time i have ever witnessed. Ultimately trifle. Does anyone Honestly think people care about gay marriage while everyone is busy trying to maintain the larger global and universal picture of life while striving for survival of themselves and their children..... and GAYS!
Do gays honestly think they are "the new order". Please get off your low horse and wake up to the fact that most people are still trying reconcile existence and rectify regrets while assuring those that rely on them there is hope for the future. You offer NO HOPE!!!!!! Only selfish condemnation of the majority around you!
Please, for God's sake, quit wasting my money trying to prove your slender little point of the fact that you are DIFFERENT, Do you HONESTLY think you are the only different person? We got it now! Your gay and proud! Hell, maybe i should suck up your money for some loser marriage program. I would be a prime candidate.
The point is:
For Christ's sake... do NOT expect 5 billion people to rub mother nature the wrong way just because you're a little upset about what's between your legs... or... what is not. :driving:
No one truely cares, not even you. For, when it's all said and done, is that what you're gonna show for yourself? that simple trite little thing?
Like I said... I don't care what you do with yourself, it's your business, just quit shoving your business all over my face when you know as well as I do how things work.
sry..... had to rant a slight myself.
Nearly every single entity on the planet KNOWS INSTICTIVELY where it's parts go and what they are used for. Heteros AND homos. Now, with that being said, the issue boils down to a mere battle of wits, which, in itself, is an utter waste of time.
Personally, I couldn't give a rat's rectum about what you do with your "parts", but i do know this for a fact:
Any biological "intelligent" society that denounces the true nature of reproduction and outwardly, and whole-heartedly, advocates and reinforces socially immature radicalism is doomed and will collapse within itself.
Hell, from what I've seen, most heteros don't really care about their marriage either.
Marriage, in people terms, is simple.... it's the declaration of your devotion to another person... forever.... in the prescence of people, cats, God, silt, muons, EVERYTHING. If that's not what you are doing, then it's not marriage. If that idea scares you, then don't do it.
Now, this little Ren and Stimpy game of "Gay Marriage" is rediculousy. It is honestly one of THE BIGGEST, GAYEST, WASTES of time i have ever witnessed. Ultimately trifle. Does anyone Honestly think people care about gay marriage while everyone is busy trying to maintain the larger global and universal picture of life while striving for survival of themselves and their children..... and GAYS!
Do gays honestly think they are "the new order". Please get off your low horse and wake up to the fact that most people are still trying reconcile existence and rectify regrets while assuring those that rely on them there is hope for the future. You offer NO HOPE!!!!!! Only selfish condemnation of the majority around you!
Please, for God's sake, quit wasting my money trying to prove your slender little point of the fact that you are DIFFERENT, Do you HONESTLY think you are the only different person? We got it now! Your gay and proud! Hell, maybe i should suck up your money for some loser marriage program. I would be a prime candidate.
The point is:
For Christ's sake... do NOT expect 5 billion people to rub mother nature the wrong way just because you're a little upset about what's between your legs... or... what is not. :driving:
No one truely cares, not even you. For, when it's all said and done, is that what you're gonna show for yourself? that simple trite little thing?
Like I said... I don't care what you do with yourself, it's your business, just quit shoving your business all over my face when you know as well as I do how things work.
sry..... had to rant a slight myself.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Gay marriage
Skeeter wrote: I am sorry but the responses on this is so typical....we have done the same thing with divorce and separations....so common we get inured to it and then it doesn't seem so bad 'cause everybody else is doing it and it is none of our business....I can NOT believe that you think things like this is none of our business.....well, lets wait till the hot water gets cold then we can swim...in the meantime let sleeping dogs lie......not me...I would rather wake them up and be bitten than to lie down and watch and shrug my shoulders....tsk, tsk,
preach the gospel and if necessary, use words...:driving:the message home.
Can you give me your address, please? Do you need pictures, or will written justification suffice? I apologize, but I was unaware, and would like to gain proper permission of where to poke my winky.
preach the gospel and if necessary, use words...:driving:the message home.
Can you give me your address, please? Do you need pictures, or will written justification suffice? I apologize, but I was unaware, and would like to gain proper permission of where to poke my winky.
Gay marriage
flopstock wrote: I can't believe you think things like this are your business, unless your spouse is cheating on you with someone of the same sex...and who's to tell, eh?
What bothers you most -being told it's none of your business or knowing that your gospel condems you for passing judgement? Wouldn't a true christians time be better spent trying to stop world hunger then trying to stop gay marriage? tsk, tsk...
I find it a hoot thinking that my husband would be cavorting with another man...he was dead set against homosexual dating,etc, right up to the time that he died...
What bothers you most -being told it's none of your business or knowing that your gospel condems you for passing judgement? Wouldn't a true christians time be better spent trying to stop world hunger then trying to stop gay marriage? tsk, tsk...
I find it a hoot thinking that my husband would be cavorting with another man...he was dead set against homosexual dating,etc, right up to the time that he died...
Preach the gospel at all times and if necessary use words..:driving: .a thought home.
Gay marriage
Skeeter:-6
Excellent posts.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Excellent posts.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
Gay marriage
ProfessionalMoron wrote: If I have never learned anything but one in my brief tenure of life, it's to find a balance between chaos and order and relax with it. This issue is one of the most diametrically moot points i think i have ever had to bear witness to, yet we waste so much energy on it.
Nearly every single entity on the planet KNOWS INSTICTIVELY where it's parts go and what they are used for. Heteros AND homos. Now, with that being said, the issue boils down to a mere battle of wits, which, in itself, is an utter waste of time.
Personally, I couldn't give a rat's rectum about what you do with your "parts", but i do know this for a fact:
Any biological "intelligent" society that denounces the true nature of reproduction and outwardly, and whole-heartedly, advocates and reinforces socially immature radicalism is doomed and will collapse within itself.
Hell, from what I've seen, most heteros don't really care about their marriage either.
Marriage, in people terms, is simple.... it's the declaration of your devotion to another person... forever.... in the prescence of people, cats, God, silt, muons, EVERYTHING. If that's not what you are doing, then it's not marriage. If that idea scares you, then don't do it.
Now, this little Ren and Stimpy game of "Gay Marriage" is rediculousy. It is honestly one of THE BIGGEST, GAYEST, WASTES of time i have ever witnessed. Ultimately trifle. Does anyone Honestly think people care about gay marriage while everyone is busy trying to maintain the larger global and universal picture of life while striving for survival of themselves and their children..... and GAYS!
Do gays honestly think they are "the new order". Please get off your low horse and wake up to the fact that most people are still trying reconcile existence and rectify regrets while assuring those that rely on them there is hope for the future. You offer NO HOPE!!!!!! Only selfish condemnation of the majority around you!
Please, for God's sake, quit wasting my money trying to prove your slender little point of the fact that you are DIFFERENT, Do you HONESTLY think you are the only different person? We got it now! Your gay and proud! Hell, maybe i should suck up your money for some loser marriage program. I would be a prime candidate.
The point is:
For Christ's sake... do NOT expect 5 billion people to rub mother nature the wrong way just because you're a little upset about what's between your legs... or... what is not. :driving:
No one truely cares, not even you. For, when it's all said and done, is that what you're gonna show for yourself? that simple trite little thing?
Like I said... I don't care what you do with yourself, it's your business, just quit shoving your business all over my face when you know as well as I do how things work.
sry..... had to rant a slight myself.
:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl So well and wittily put.
Nearly every single entity on the planet KNOWS INSTICTIVELY where it's parts go and what they are used for. Heteros AND homos. Now, with that being said, the issue boils down to a mere battle of wits, which, in itself, is an utter waste of time.
Personally, I couldn't give a rat's rectum about what you do with your "parts", but i do know this for a fact:
Any biological "intelligent" society that denounces the true nature of reproduction and outwardly, and whole-heartedly, advocates and reinforces socially immature radicalism is doomed and will collapse within itself.
Hell, from what I've seen, most heteros don't really care about their marriage either.
Marriage, in people terms, is simple.... it's the declaration of your devotion to another person... forever.... in the prescence of people, cats, God, silt, muons, EVERYTHING. If that's not what you are doing, then it's not marriage. If that idea scares you, then don't do it.
Now, this little Ren and Stimpy game of "Gay Marriage" is rediculousy. It is honestly one of THE BIGGEST, GAYEST, WASTES of time i have ever witnessed. Ultimately trifle. Does anyone Honestly think people care about gay marriage while everyone is busy trying to maintain the larger global and universal picture of life while striving for survival of themselves and their children..... and GAYS!
Do gays honestly think they are "the new order". Please get off your low horse and wake up to the fact that most people are still trying reconcile existence and rectify regrets while assuring those that rely on them there is hope for the future. You offer NO HOPE!!!!!! Only selfish condemnation of the majority around you!
Please, for God's sake, quit wasting my money trying to prove your slender little point of the fact that you are DIFFERENT, Do you HONESTLY think you are the only different person? We got it now! Your gay and proud! Hell, maybe i should suck up your money for some loser marriage program. I would be a prime candidate.
The point is:
For Christ's sake... do NOT expect 5 billion people to rub mother nature the wrong way just because you're a little upset about what's between your legs... or... what is not. :driving:
No one truely cares, not even you. For, when it's all said and done, is that what you're gonna show for yourself? that simple trite little thing?
Like I said... I don't care what you do with yourself, it's your business, just quit shoving your business all over my face when you know as well as I do how things work.
sry..... had to rant a slight myself.
:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl So well and wittily put.
Gay marriage
I think that same sex marriages are a good thing. People should be able to do whatever they want. Same sex marriages shouldn't be any different from opposite sex marriages.
anastrophe wrote: If ever there was - to use an out of fashion and offensive
term - a nigger in the woodpile of the liberal mentality, it is gay marraige. only on the very, very far left is gay marriage considered acceptable. Mainstream liberals simply try not to discuss it, because it betrays the bankruptcy of their liberalism. everybody else is pretty much against it.
classical liberal thought is very straightforward - ever expanding freedom and liberty for the people. diametrically opposed to current neo-liberal thought, which is 'restrict not just the state, but everyone else's freedoms, except for mine' (to wit, baker's dozen of krispy kremes says someone will complain about my use of the offensive term above).
marriage, as a social and cultural tradition, predates the state by a few thousand years. marriage is the union of two people who love each other. period. that the state "sanctions" marriage is offensive enough in itself - that there's a movement afoot on the right to amend the constitution to *forbid* gay marriage is appalling. the constitution is all about enumerating the rights, liberties, and freedoms we already hold, not about restricting further our freedoms.
no more proof that marriage is about love is needed than the fact that the first couple married in san francisco last valentine's day were a lesbian couple who have been together *50* years, now aged 83 and 79. give me a break! that's a threat to whom? that's less deserving of respect than britney spears's 50 hour marriage? please.
that's my rant for today!!
anastrophe wrote: If ever there was - to use an out of fashion and offensive
term - a nigger in the woodpile of the liberal mentality, it is gay marraige. only on the very, very far left is gay marriage considered acceptable. Mainstream liberals simply try not to discuss it, because it betrays the bankruptcy of their liberalism. everybody else is pretty much against it.
classical liberal thought is very straightforward - ever expanding freedom and liberty for the people. diametrically opposed to current neo-liberal thought, which is 'restrict not just the state, but everyone else's freedoms, except for mine' (to wit, baker's dozen of krispy kremes says someone will complain about my use of the offensive term above).
marriage, as a social and cultural tradition, predates the state by a few thousand years. marriage is the union of two people who love each other. period. that the state "sanctions" marriage is offensive enough in itself - that there's a movement afoot on the right to amend the constitution to *forbid* gay marriage is appalling. the constitution is all about enumerating the rights, liberties, and freedoms we already hold, not about restricting further our freedoms.
no more proof that marriage is about love is needed than the fact that the first couple married in san francisco last valentine's day were a lesbian couple who have been together *50* years, now aged 83 and 79. give me a break! that's a threat to whom? that's less deserving of respect than britney spears's 50 hour marriage? please.
that's my rant for today!!
Gay marriage
I think same sex marriage is perfectly normal. Two people should be able to get married, regardless of their sex. I think everyone is making too much of this. It shouldn't be so shunned apon.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Gay marriage
I'm fine with any adults marrying any consenting adults. I don't think any should get tax breaks just because they cohabitate.
-
Valerie100
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 6:31 am
Gay marriage
I'm dead set against gay marriages. It isn't even natural. Take a look around at the animals in nature, the birds, the squirrels, the deers, the cats, the dogs, etc. Do they get funny and funky with the same sex? No.
I think it's just plain perverted deviant behavior, an excuse to fornicate with someone of the same sex. Gay couples can't even procreate. Their own bodies don't even support what they're doing and their lifestyles. That just goes to show how natural it really is -- not.
I think it's just plain perverted deviant behavior, an excuse to fornicate with someone of the same sex. Gay couples can't even procreate. Their own bodies don't even support what they're doing and their lifestyles. That just goes to show how natural it really is -- not.
Gay marriage
Valerie100 wrote: I'm dead set against gay marriages. It isn't even natural. Take a look around at the animals in nature, the birds, the squirrels, the deers, the cats, the dogs, etc. Do they get funny and funky with the same sex? No.
I think it's just plain perverted deviant behavior, an excuse to fornicate with someone of the same sex. Gay couples can't even procreate. Their own bodies don't even support what they're doing and their lifestyles. That just goes to show how natural it really is -- not.
Wow. Where's Floppy's avatar when I need it?
I think it's just plain perverted deviant behavior, an excuse to fornicate with someone of the same sex. Gay couples can't even procreate. Their own bodies don't even support what they're doing and their lifestyles. That just goes to show how natural it really is -- not.
Wow. Where's Floppy's avatar when I need it?
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
Gay marriage
Valerie100 wrote: I'm dead set against gay marriages. It isn't even natural. Take a look around at the animals in nature, the birds, the squirrels, the deers, the cats, the dogs, etc. Do they get funny and funky with the same sex? No.
I think it's just plain perverted deviant behavior, an excuse to fornicate with someone of the same sex. Gay couples can't even procreate. Their own bodies don't even support what they're doing and their lifestyles. That just goes to show how natural it really is -- not.
well I don't know about deer, squirrels and cats, but dogs will most certainly make good use of ANYTHING.
and as for being deviant, well, I'm sorry, but that's the way god makes some folks. They shouldn't be penalised for it.
I think it's just plain perverted deviant behavior, an excuse to fornicate with someone of the same sex. Gay couples can't even procreate. Their own bodies don't even support what they're doing and their lifestyles. That just goes to show how natural it really is -- not.
well I don't know about deer, squirrels and cats, but dogs will most certainly make good use of ANYTHING.
and as for being deviant, well, I'm sorry, but that's the way god makes some folks. They shouldn't be penalised for it.
Gay marriage
Approximately 10% of all the animal kingdom engage in some form of homoseuxual behaviour. It is not unnatural at all. It may not be the norm but it is not unnatural.
Shalom
Ted
Shalom
Ted
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
Gay marriage
Accountable wrote: I'm fine with any adults marrying any consenting adults. I don't think any should get tax breaks just because they cohabitate.
Nail on the head ACC. The HMO's don't want to pay for anything anyway and the government is thinking about tax breaks. Dang those lobbyists. If you want to "play" at committment then you should not get the breaks that married people get.
Nail on the head ACC. The HMO's don't want to pay for anything anyway and the government is thinking about tax breaks. Dang those lobbyists. If you want to "play" at committment then you should not get the breaks that married people get.
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Gay marriage
anastrophe wrote: If ever there was - to use an out of fashion and offensive term - a nigger in the woodpile of the liberal mentality, it is gay marraige. only on the very, very far left is gay marriage considered acceptable. Mainstream liberals simply try not to discuss it, because it betrays the bankruptcy of their liberalism. everybody else is pretty much against it.
classical liberal thought is very straightforward - ever expanding freedom and liberty for the people. diametrically opposed to current neo-liberal thought, which is 'restrict not just the state, but everyone else's freedoms, except for mine' (to wit, baker's dozen of krispy kremes says someone will complain about my use of the offensive term above).
marriage, as a social and cultural tradition, predates the state by a few thousand years. marriage is the union of two people who love each other. period. that the state "sanctions" marriage is offensive enough in itself - that there's a movement afoot on the right to amend the constitution to *forbid* gay marriage is appalling. the constitution is all about enumerating the rights, liberties, and freedoms we already hold, not about restricting further our freedoms.
no more proof that marriage is about love is needed than the fact that the first couple married in san francisco last valentine's day were a lesbian couple who have been together *50* years, now aged 83 and 79. give me a break! that's a threat to whom? that's less deserving of respect than britney spears's 50 hour marriage? please.
that's my rant for today!!
Here Here! I agree. The state has no business saying who has the right to get married. I can still recall when I first heard that you had to apply for and buy a license to get married. I had to wonder why. I asked around and was told it was to be sure you were not infected with vd such as syphillis which was a terrible disease before penicillin. Some of our founding fathers died of it I think. Maybe it was to be sure you were not too near related. But I had to go get a blood test and wait a few days so I just waited a week. I was married for thirty years or so. but I know of many who bought the license and still were divorced in a few years. The license ought to be refundable if the marriage dont last more than ten years. *grin*
Actually I know two women who have lived together for many years too. And I had a sister inlaw who was married two times that were both short and then just had a man come live with her and that union lasted lnger than either marriage. They were together until she died. The license does nothing to make a marriage. It is the people in it.
In fact maybe they ought to have a trial period before they let you get married. Sort of test run. If you last a year or so then let you marry.
I once saw Zsa Zsa Gabor on a talk show. She had been married many times.The host mentioned that some woman she knew had got beaten by her husband. Zsa Zsa said he really must love her. She said she had been beaten many times. She went on to say that she never had sex with her husband after they got married. No wonder she got beaten. But she got rich from her divorces.
I have a nephew who was a very good kid. He was about to get married and someone convinced him he should get a prenup. He asked her to sign and it was over. No marriage. Maybe too insulted or maybe she had plans. Biut I dont feel marriage is any sort of gaurantee.
classical liberal thought is very straightforward - ever expanding freedom and liberty for the people. diametrically opposed to current neo-liberal thought, which is 'restrict not just the state, but everyone else's freedoms, except for mine' (to wit, baker's dozen of krispy kremes says someone will complain about my use of the offensive term above).
marriage, as a social and cultural tradition, predates the state by a few thousand years. marriage is the union of two people who love each other. period. that the state "sanctions" marriage is offensive enough in itself - that there's a movement afoot on the right to amend the constitution to *forbid* gay marriage is appalling. the constitution is all about enumerating the rights, liberties, and freedoms we already hold, not about restricting further our freedoms.
no more proof that marriage is about love is needed than the fact that the first couple married in san francisco last valentine's day were a lesbian couple who have been together *50* years, now aged 83 and 79. give me a break! that's a threat to whom? that's less deserving of respect than britney spears's 50 hour marriage? please.
that's my rant for today!!
Here Here! I agree. The state has no business saying who has the right to get married. I can still recall when I first heard that you had to apply for and buy a license to get married. I had to wonder why. I asked around and was told it was to be sure you were not infected with vd such as syphillis which was a terrible disease before penicillin. Some of our founding fathers died of it I think. Maybe it was to be sure you were not too near related. But I had to go get a blood test and wait a few days so I just waited a week. I was married for thirty years or so. but I know of many who bought the license and still were divorced in a few years. The license ought to be refundable if the marriage dont last more than ten years. *grin*
Actually I know two women who have lived together for many years too. And I had a sister inlaw who was married two times that were both short and then just had a man come live with her and that union lasted lnger than either marriage. They were together until she died. The license does nothing to make a marriage. It is the people in it.
In fact maybe they ought to have a trial period before they let you get married. Sort of test run. If you last a year or so then let you marry.
I once saw Zsa Zsa Gabor on a talk show. She had been married many times.The host mentioned that some woman she knew had got beaten by her husband. Zsa Zsa said he really must love her. She said she had been beaten many times. She went on to say that she never had sex with her husband after they got married. No wonder she got beaten. But she got rich from her divorces.
I have a nephew who was a very good kid. He was about to get married and someone convinced him he should get a prenup. He asked her to sign and it was over. No marriage. Maybe too insulted or maybe she had plans. Biut I dont feel marriage is any sort of gaurantee.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Gay marriage
Okie wrote: Here Here! I agree. The state has no business saying who has the right to get married. I can still recall when I first heard that you had to apply for and buy a license to get married. I had to wonder why. I asked around and was told it was to be sure you were not infected with vd such as syphillis which was a terrible disease before penicillin. Some of our founding fathers died of it I think. Maybe it was to be sure you were not too near related. But I had to go get a blood test and wait a few days so I just waited a week. I was married for thirty years or so. but I know of many who bought the license and still were divorced in a few years. The license ought to be refundable if the marriage dont last more than ten years. *grin*
Actually I know two women who have lived together for many years too. And I had a sister inlaw who was married two times that were both short and then just had a man come live with her and that union lasted lnger than either marriage. They were together until she died. The license does nothing to make a marriage. It is the people in it.
In fact maybe they ought to have a trial period before they let you get married. Sort of test run. If you last a year or so then let you marry.
I once saw Zsa Zsa Gabor on a talk show. She had been married many times.The host mentioned that some woman she knew had got beaten by her husband. Zsa Zsa said he really must love her. She said she had been beaten many times. She went on to say that she never had sex with her husband after they got married. No wonder she got beaten. But she got rich from her divorces.
I have a nephew who was a very good kid. He was about to get married and someone convinced him he should get a prenup. He asked her to sign and it was over. No marriage. Maybe too insulted or maybe she had plans. Biut I dont feel marriage is any sort of gaurantee.
Do my eyes deceive me? Do I have an ally in the marriage threads?
Okie, are you saying the gov't should get out of the marriage game? All the way out? That would mean no more gay marriage as well. No tax incentive for having children & contributing to the overpopulation myth. No more divorce. No more alimony.
Are you with me?
Actually I know two women who have lived together for many years too. And I had a sister inlaw who was married two times that were both short and then just had a man come live with her and that union lasted lnger than either marriage. They were together until she died. The license does nothing to make a marriage. It is the people in it.
In fact maybe they ought to have a trial period before they let you get married. Sort of test run. If you last a year or so then let you marry.
I once saw Zsa Zsa Gabor on a talk show. She had been married many times.The host mentioned that some woman she knew had got beaten by her husband. Zsa Zsa said he really must love her. She said she had been beaten many times. She went on to say that she never had sex with her husband after they got married. No wonder she got beaten. But she got rich from her divorces.
I have a nephew who was a very good kid. He was about to get married and someone convinced him he should get a prenup. He asked her to sign and it was over. No marriage. Maybe too insulted or maybe she had plans. Biut I dont feel marriage is any sort of gaurantee.
Do my eyes deceive me? Do I have an ally in the marriage threads?
Okie, are you saying the gov't should get out of the marriage game? All the way out? That would mean no more gay marriage as well. No tax incentive for having children & contributing to the overpopulation myth. No more divorce. No more alimony.
Are you with me?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Gay marriage
SnoozeControl wrote: I think marriage should have some sort of warrantee, and if something goes wrong, you can take him back and turn him in for a newer model.
Seriously, a two year contract with an option to renew would be a good idea.
A software upgrade, perhaps? :sneaky:
Seriously, a two year contract with an option to renew would be a good idea.
A software upgrade, perhaps? :sneaky: