Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 211

Thread: Civil Union vs. Gay Marriage

  1. #41
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In Morris Co., N.J. at the right end of a Browning 12 gauge, with Nick to my left n Rex to my right.
    Posts
    16,720
    Post Thanks / Like
    God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve....

  2. #42
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    664
    Post Thanks / Like
    Okay so if the definition of marriage is-the social institution under which a man and woman live as husband and wife by legal or religious commitments (Random House webster's)...then that is what marriage is. Not a good analogy, but if you add blue paint to yellow paint, the color will always be green. It's how it is. If you say I want to add blue paint to blue paint to get green paint....it's not gonna happen. So if the definition of marriage is what it is, then have a new term...civil union...define it how you want...with all the equalities of marriage except for the main premise....man and woman.

  3. #43
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,058
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CHIROJET-WPB;3441629]Okay so if the definition of marriage is-the social institution under which a man and woman live as husband and wife by legal or religious commitments (Random House webster's)...then that is what marriage is. Not a good analogy, but if you add blue paint to yellow paint, the color will always be green. It's how it is. If you say I want to add blue paint to blue paint to get green paint....it's not gonna happen. So if the definition of marriage is what it is, then have a new term...civil union...define it how you want...with all the equalities of marriage except for the main premise....man and woman.[/QUOTE]

    Was the definition of marriage changed to allow interracial couples to marry?

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    9,511
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm all for gay marraige.

    I think gays should have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us.

  5. #45
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    664
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Crease29;3441638]Was the definition of marriage changed to allow interracial couples to marry?[/QUOTE]

    I knew it was a bad analogy....it had nothing to do with the color / interracial.

  6. #46
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,289
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=FF2®;3441596]You may be surprise by this but a good number of gay couples have no agenda other than living their lives under equal protection as other citizens have.

    And you can call them any name you want. They are used to it.[/QUOTE]

    Nope - totally INCORRECT: the agenda is complete and forced acceptance of everything they do; for heteros to capitulate and say "yes, you're completely normal and its perfectly fine for you to be gay".

    In fact, its a genetic defect. The only reason the medical establishment decreed that homosexuality is NOT a defect is because of political correctness, and the perceived need to avoid giving the neanderthals among us a reason to persecute them.

  7. #47
    Schluberator & Gadfly ®
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,110
    Post Thanks / Like
    Maybe I'm being to simplistic here, BUT

    Vows performed by a person appointed by a govt. = union
    Vows performed by a member of the clergy = marriage


    If a couple of dick smokers find a cleric that will hitch'em up, then they can call it marriage.

  8. #48
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=quantum;3441671]Nope - totally INCORRECT: the agenda is complete and forced acceptance of everything they do...[/QUOTE]

    Ummm...you don't think that they might just want to be able to marry someone they love and then be able to do neat married stuff like make medical decisions for incapacitated loved ones? In fact, our babysitter is a lesbian...and I didn't even realize it until I saw her Facebook page. In the 2 years she's been watching my kids...she never mentioned it once, never attempted to force my wife into accepting that girl on girl carpet munching is normal. Weird, right?


    And what is your basis for considering homosexuality a "genetic defect"? Do you consider ALL forms of sexual perversion "genetic defects"? Getting a blowjob from my wife could lead to an "evolutionary dead end"...as can anything that was previously discussed in the "Backdoor" thread. What about S&M? Or facials? Or latex obsessions? Or threesomes?

    Don't get me wrong. Mudflap on mudflap action is pretty fuqing grotesque. But so is the guy who likes getting his balls stepped on. Or the chicks who enjoy getting DP'd by 10 black dudes. But apart from the revulsion associated with their sexual deviance, I see nothing wrong with Ball-Stepping Dude getting married to Ball Stepping Chick. (talk about your evolutionary dead-end...I can't see how ball-stepping can help propagate the human species)...

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13,518
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=quantum;3441671]Nope - totally INCORRECT: the agenda is complete and forced acceptance of everything they do; for heteros to capitulate and say "yes, you're completely normal and its perfectly fine for you to be gay".

    In fact, its a genetic defect. The only reason the medical establishment decreed that homosexuality is NOT a defect is because of political correctness, and the perceived need to avoid giving the neanderthals among us a reason to persecute them.[/QUOTE]

    Dude calm down. It's ok. God's gonna burn them anyway, right? :rolleyes:

  10. #50
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    7,216
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Apache 51;3441622]God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve....[/QUOTE]

    Bingo....

    Its a religious issue for me.

    If God had created Adam and Steve......

  11. #51
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    24,086
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=MACPAC;3441736]
    If God had created Adam and Steve......[/QUOTE]

    [IMG]http://static.tvguide.com/MediaBin/Galleries/Celebrities/S_Z/Toe_Tp/Tom_Brady/1/tom_brady05.jpg[/IMG]

  12. #52
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,135
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=quantum;3441671]Nope - totally INCORRECT: the agenda is complete and forced acceptance of everything they do; for heteros to capitulate and say "yes, you're completely normal and its perfectly fine for you to be gay".

    In fact, its a genetic defect. The only reason the medical establishment decreed that homosexuality is NOT a defect is because of political correctness, and the perceived need to avoid giving the neanderthals among us a reason to persecute them.[/QUOTE]

    How is anyone "forced" to deal with what goes on behind closed doors? Why do you care?

    Re the "genetic defect" schtick: interesting that you are willing to admit that it is genetic at all. That's a profound concession, since all the organized religious zealots tout it as being a "sin"... meaning it is a product of free will. I suppose we should outlaw dwarfs, mongoloids, deaf from birth, blind from birth, spina bifida and every other "genetic defect" from having equal rights too. How can we promote better social engineering in the fatherland without stamping out such abominations...:rolleyes:

  13. #53
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=MACPAC;3441736]If God had created Adam and Steve......[/QUOTE]

    There would be no Gossip Girl and The View?

  14. #54
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,289
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tyler Durden;3441464]Yeah... I should probably ask someone about this, but since I'm from Northern Ireland, I may be a citizen for Ireland and the UK.[/QUOTE]

    traitor.

  15. #55
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Roger Vick;3441650]I'm all for gay marraige.

    I think gays should have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us.[/QUOTE]

    with this in mind you sometimes wonder why there's not more fags in this world....

  16. #56
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    7,216
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Timmy®;3441747][IMG]http://static.tvguide.com/MediaBin/Galleries/Celebrities/S_Z/Toe_Tp/Tom_Brady/1/tom_brady05.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

    Can't help yourself can you?

  17. #57
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,758
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tyler Durden;3441430]Then I guess you don't see marriage as a right. I do.

    You have the right to marry the person you love. You have the right to get married 100 times over. You have the right to marry a 95 year old for his money. You have the right to get married in Vegas by Elvis. You have the right to get married on a reality TV show. You have the right to get married on Jerry Springer.[/QUOTE]

    Well, I think a few clarifications are in order here:

    1. There is no "right to marry". There are faiths that will perform religious ceremonies (vai their specific beleif system) to Marry you under their version of God(s).

    And there is a State Managed Civil Benefits/Social Engineering Program called "Marriage", which provides specific legal rights/responsabillities and fiscal benefits.

    Confusing either of these with a "Human Right" is problem #1.

    If it were, in fact, a "right", every single person could claim their human rights were being violated by society if no one choose to marry them, which is clearly and unquestionably not the case.

    2. Until recently, the 3000+ Year concept of Marriage was pretty clear. One Man. Many (or One) Women. The "Natual/Procreative Union" designed/evolved rather specificly in normal human biology.

    While no one is fond of saying it for fear of offense, homosexuallity (if indeed natural/genetic, and not a conscious choice) is still not "normal". It is a clear abnormality, a break from the normal state of homospaien pairing/reproduction. And if one needs expalined as to why that is the case, they need more help than this forum can supply (I suggest an Into-to-Biology Textbook).

    So obviously, with that much history (and biology) behind it, the ideal of what constitututes "Equallity" was not Homsexuallity, but the ideal that a Man could marry a woman (or multiple women, historicly). With respect, it's a bit premature to assume that this vast social and biological history of our species should bow over to a very short-lived modern movement and way of thinking instantly.

    3. Despite your list, the "right" to be married is still limited by a number of specifics. A. It has to be ok'd by the State. B. It has to be okayed by the Faith performing the Ceremory, if not done by the State.

    I support their cause. I see no reason for the State to make moral judgement in what is, frankly, nothing more (to them) than a legal contract deliniating rights/responsabillities between two adult individuals. What it's called it irrelevant, and lets be clear....if the legal rights/responsabillities are equal, the fact that it's named something else is in no way, shape or form similar to the "seperate but equal" racism of the past.

    Matter of fact, I would take the issue a step further.....I do not believe it's teh States role to push Marriage/Union with Fiscal benefits at all. I would remove every one of them, and make Unions?Marriage nothing more than the rights/responsabillities contract. No more tax breaks for the married, or other fiscal benefits.

    I go back to my solution posted earlier. It's the only right answer, and teh fact it would piss off both sides of teh debate only reinforces that fact.
    Last edited by Warfish; 01-08-2010 at 03:39 PM.

  18. #58
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,289
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;3441749]How is anyone "forced" to deal with what goes on behind closed doors? Why do you care?

    Re the "genetic defect" schtick: interesting that you are willing to admit that it is genetic at all. That's a profound concession, since all the organized religious zealots tout it as being a "sin"... meaning it is a product of free will. I suppose we should outlaw dwarfs, mongoloids, deaf from birth, blind from birth, spina bifida and every other "genetic defect" from having equal rights too. How can we promote better social engineering in the fatherland without stamping out such abominations...:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    I think you misread that -- gays want to force heteros to accept everything about them.

    As for the "schtick" ( :rolleyes: , btw ):

    I'm not a religious zealot; I'm a pragmatist. I see gays same as someone with diabetes or MS. But gays have taken the same road as deaf people who don't see being deaf as a bad thing and want their children to be deaf, to fit in with their "culture". Deaf is normal, its not good, not something you wish on your kids; it should be cured, not celebrated as a "culture".

    No hate on my part, except maybe for this twisting of reality I see going on.

  19. #59
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,289
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;3441700]Ummm...you don't think that they might just want to be able to marry someone they love and then be able to do neat married stuff like make medical decisions for incapacitated loved ones? In fact, our babysitter is a lesbian...and I didn't even realize it until I saw her Facebook page. In the 2 years she's been watching my kids...she never mentioned it once, never attempted to force my wife into accepting that girl on girl carpet munching is normal. Weird, right?


    And what is your basis for considering homosexuality a "genetic defect"? Do you consider ALL forms of sexual perversion "genetic defects"? Getting a blowjob from my wife could lead to an "evolutionary dead end"...as can anything that was previously discussed in the "Backdoor" thread. What about S&M? Or facials? Or latex obsessions? Or threesomes?

    Don't get me wrong. Mudflap on mudflap action is pretty fuqing grotesque. But so is the guy who likes getting his balls stepped on. Or the chicks who enjoy getting DP'd by 10 black dudes. But apart from the revulsion associated with their sexual deviance, I see nothing wrong with Ball-Stepping Dude getting married to Ball Stepping Chick. (talk about your evolutionary dead-end...I can't see how ball-stepping can help propagate the human species)...[/QUOTE]


    I object to the reality-twisting, like the gay guy trying to sell that Lincoln and a bunch of the Founding Fathers (including Ben Franklin) were gay. Why? He finally admitted he wrote essays on this to further the 'Agenda'.

  20. #60
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    7,216
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=quantum;3441772]I think you misread that -- gays want to force heteros to accept everything about them.

    As for the "schtick" ( :rolleyes: , btw ):

    I'm not a religious zealot; I'm a pragmatist. I see gays same as someone with diabetes or MS. But gays have taken the same road as deaf people who don't see being deaf as a bad thing and want their children to be deaf, to fit in with their "culture". Deaf is normal, its not good, not something you wish on your kids; it should be cured, not celebrated as a "culture".

    No hate on my part, except maybe for this twisting of reality I see going on.[/QUOTE]

    I agree with every word of this. Its how I feel about the whole "being gay is normal issue"

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us