Homosexual marriage

[necritan]

Lets get something straight here, marriage is *NOT* a basic human freedom and never was, that argument is untenable, nor should it be used and abused by people with sexually deviant behaviours to suit their lifestyles.

According to who??? You??

Until these people have violated yours or anyone elses rights.......then they have the right.

 

[midcan5]

I suggest some look up, tongue in cheek - satire - irony as they sure don't get it.

But in all seriousness now, there are so many problems in this world, so much pain and tragedy and stupidity why would anyone care if two people who love each other want to marry? The church doesn't have to sanction gay marriage, a church, pick one, would sanction little of the behavior of most posters on usmb I'm sure. So after we've cured the economy, energy, child abuse, infant mortality, poverty, wage injustice, slave labor, sexual abuse, wife abuse, the environment, cancer and conservatism, then we can tackle the silly question of loving people marrying. [Sorry couldn't resist.]


"Thought is a process of exaggeration. The refusal to exaggerate is not infrequently an alibi for the disinclination to think or praise." Eric Hoffer

 

[necritan]

I suggest some look up, tongue in cheek - satire - irony as they sure don't get it.

But in all seriousness now, there are so many problems in this world, so much pain and tragedy and stupidity why would anyone care if two people who love each other want to marry? The church doesn't have to sanction gay marriage, a church, pick one, would sanction little of the behavior of most posters on usmb I'm sure. So after we've cured the economy, energy, child abuse, infant mortality, poverty, wage injustice, slave labor, sexual abuse, wife abuse, the environment, cancer and conservatism, then we can tackle the silly question of loving people marrying. [Sorry couldn't resist.]


"Thought is a process of exaggeration. The refusal to exaggerate is not infrequently an alibi for the disinclination to think or praise." Eric Hoffer

So.....how do we " Cure " all these problems you speak of??? Whats the "Cure"?? And who will perform it??

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Lets get something straight here, marriage is *NOT* a basic human freedom and never was, that argument is untenable, nor should it be used and abused by people with sexually deviant behaviours to suit their lifestyles.

According to who??? You??

Until these people have violated yours or anyone elses rights.......then they have the right.

Explain to the Bass exactly what the hell are basic human freedoms and please explain where does gay marriage fit into that dynamic. It is a basic human freedom to disagree with people and frankly thats life, so you're a hypocrite because you're trying to the Bass that basically its a denial of basic human freedom to disagree with gay marriage, but the same time gay activists are denying religious people there freedom of religion and expression by trying to suppress the voices that dissent.

 

[AllieBaba]

Deny homosexuals the right to marry and you deny them a basic human freedom.

Conservatives have a deep emotional investment in keeping homosexuals repressed through the maintenance of their morals, just as they did in maintaining their moral boundaries underlying racial segregation in the Deep South a generation ago and slavery a century before that.

Conservatism is based on the "strict father" metaphor of morality, in which a wise father (church or political leader) sets the rules, and the children (the people) are disciplined to comply, thereby gaining discipline. Moral boundaries exist in society, in the conservative's view, to maintain social order and discipline, and that is their primary purpose.

Compliance to established moral boundaries implies acceptance of the legitimacy of the moral authority figures who established them, and it is this acceptance of the legitimacy of this moral authority that is viewed as the very basis of social order. Hence there is a deep investment in the legitimacy of the moral authority, often presumed to be none other than God himself.

What are your views on homosexual marraiges...are you for or against ? I really don';t care if homos get married but if it will make them happier people why not ?

Fucking moron. The Christian Right ran the underground railroad, you idiot.

 

[necritan]

Lets get something straight here, marriage is *NOT* a basic human freedom and never was, that argument is untenable, nor should it be used and abused by people with sexually deviant behaviours to suit their lifestyles.

According to who??? You??

Until these people have violated yours or anyone elses rights.......then they have the right.

Explain to the Bass exactly what the hell are basic human freedoms and please explain where does gay marriage fit into that dynamic. It is a basic human freedom to disagree with people and frankly thats life, so you're a hypocrite because you're trying to the Bass that basically its a denial of basic human freedom to disagree with gay marriage, but the same time gay activists are denying religious people there freedom of religion and expression by trying to suppress the voices that dissent.

You are completely within your rights to think gay sex is gross......in fact....I think its gross come to think of it.

However....you have failed to tell me how two dudes bumping uglies or two chicks chowing box are violating your rights.

As soon as "Marriage" is out of the political spectrum (as it should be) this arguement ends....

Freedom of religion says...."You cant force me to Marry gay couples...and you cant force me not to" Plain and simple.

 

[AllieBaba]

I have no problem with homosexuals finding churches to marry them.

I do have a problem with forcing the majority of Americans, who do not want to change the definition of marriage, who do not want to change the basic concept of nuclear family, to accept what is an extremist agenda.

And that's what it comes down to. If you just want to get married, find a pastor who will do it.

But that's not what this is about. This is about a tiny minority trying to force a majority to concede a point. Nobody is being hurt because we refuse to vote for civil homosexual marriages. It's not a violation of anyone's rights. Rights are based on the Bible, and nowhere in the Bible does God tell us that the state has to marry homosexuals upon demand, and pretend they're the bedrock of our society.

We remain a nation that counts the (normal) family as the bedrock...one man, one woman, some sort of faith, and some kids.

 

[necritan]

I have no problem with homosexuals finding churches to marry them.

I do have a problem with forcing the majority of Americans, who do not want to change the definition of marriage, who do not want to change the basic concept of nuclear family, to accept what is an extremist agenda.

And that's what it comes down to. If you just want to get married, find a pastor who will do it.

But that's not what this is about. This is about a tiny minority trying to force a majority to concede a point. Nobody is being hurt because we refuse to vote for civil homosexual marriages. It's not a violation of anyone's rights. Rights are based on the Bible, and nowhere in the Bible does God tell us that the state has to marry homosexuals upon demand, and pretend they're the bedrock of our society.

We remain a nation that counts the (normal) family as the bedrock...one man, one woman, some sort of faith, and some kids.

I know the Agenda is there......believe me....I live within miles of the "Gay Mecca".

I believe that this is a double edged sword.....rights arent to be "Granted" by the state.....they are Unalienable....from birth. They are fighting to be granted rights at the cost of certain peoples religious rights. (typical liberal actions)

The State should have no hand in the (Marriage , Death , birth , private ownership , schooling , healthcare etc. etc. etc.) buisiness.

End the states control or knowledge of these....and the problem goes away.

 

[catzmeow]

But that's not what this is about. This is about a tiny minority trying to force a majority to concede a point. Nobody is being hurt because we refuse to vote for civil homosexual marriages. It's not a violation of anyone's rights. Rights are based on the Bible, and nowhere in the Bible does God tell us that the state has to marry homosexuals upon demand, and pretend they're the bedrock of our society.

You're wrong, Allie. I have several friends who are part of lesbian couples and are doing an admirable job of raising children (most of whom were languishing in foster care because they had special needs and Christian America didn't want them because they weren't white and perfect).

Gay and lesbian couples have major problems in a host of different areas:

taxes
health care (next of kin issues)
property ownership

They have to jump through major legal hoops and it is a major hindrance. The state should get out of the "marriage" business and simply grant domestic partnerships with certain legal rights.

Then, churches can marry whoever they wish.

 

[xotoxi]

According to who??? You??

Until these people have violated yours or anyone elses rights.......then they have the right.

Explain to the Bass exactly what the hell are basic human freedoms and please explain where does gay marriage fit into that dynamic. It is a basic human freedom to disagree with people and frankly thats life, so you're a hypocrite because you're trying to the Bass that basically its a denial of basic human freedom to disagree with gay marriage, but the same time gay activists are denying religious people there freedom of religion and expression by trying to suppress the voices that dissent.

You are completely within your rights to think gay sex is gross......in fact....I think its gross come to think of it.

However....you have failed to tell me how two dudes bumping uglies or two chicks chowing box are violating your rights.

As soon as "Marriage" is out of the political spectrum (as it should be) this arguement ends....

Freedom of religion says...."You cant force me to Marry gay couples...and you cant force me not to" Plain and simple.

Absolutely!

 

[Againsheila]

But that's not what this is about. This is about a tiny minority trying to force a majority to concede a point. Nobody is being hurt because we refuse to vote for civil homosexual marriages. It's not a violation of anyone's rights. Rights are based on the Bible, and nowhere in the Bible does God tell us that the state has to marry homosexuals upon demand, and pretend they're the bedrock of our society.

You're wrong, Allie. I have several friends who are part of lesbian couples and are doing an admirable job of raising children (most of whom were languishing in foster care because they had special needs and Christian America didn't want them because they weren't white and perfect).

Gay and lesbian couples have major problems in a host of different areas:

taxes
health care (next of kin issues)
property ownership

They have to jump through major legal hoops and it is a major hindrance. The state should get out of the "marriage" business and simply grant domestic partnerships with certain legal rights.

Then, churches can marry whoever they wish.

I know a heck of a lot of Christian white foster homes who want to adopt their foster kids, and those kids aren't all white and perfect, in fact I think they are all special needs and yes, they've had to jump through major legal hoops to get the kids they have. Why should it be different for a gay couple? Truth is, I think heterosexual married couples should have first choice when it comes to adopting kids, followed by gay couples and then single parents...and that's based on research of what's best for the kids.

I'm not sure I agree with the "domestic partnerships" thing, I think the only reason the government got into marriage in the first place (yes, it was started with religion) was so they could get money for it. In fact I have an ancestor we believe didn't marry his wife (no proof of marriage) because of the cost of a legal marriage in England at the time. They had at least 9 kids.

You want to make sure your other half inherits everything, get a will. I'm all for that. I do think though, that if you've been living with someone, married or not, for years, when they pass, YOUR wishes should be carried out before their blood relatives wishes. Not sure how to do that legally other than with a will.

I think it's decidedly unfair that many corporations now offer health insurance to gay couples but not to unmarried heterosexual couples. How is that fair? How about we make it per "household" instead of "family"?

I don't know what's best...it's amazing, back in high school I knew everything and now, I don't know anything.

 

[xotoxi]

I know a heck of a lot of Christian white foster homes who want to adopt their foster kids, and those kids aren't all white and perfect, in fact I think they are all special needs and yes, they've had to jump through major legal hoops to get the kids they have. Why should it be different for a gay couple? Truth is, I think heterosexual married couples should have first choice when it comes to adopting kids, followed by gay couples and then single parents...and that's based on research of what's best for the kids.

I may have misinterpreted your statement. Do you think that Christian white married couples should be able to adopt first?

 

[catzmeow]

You want to make sure your other half inherits everything, get a will. I'm all for that. I do think though, that if you've been living with someone, married or not, for years, when they pass, YOUR wishes should be carried out before their blood relatives wishes. Not sure how to do that legally other than with a will.

I think it's decidedly unfair that many corporations now offer health insurance to gay couples but not to unmarried heterosexual couples. How is that fair? How about we make it per "household" instead of "family"?

I think that it should all be equitable between married, unmarried couples, and gay/lesbian couples.

 

[AllieBaba]

I have no problem with homosexuals finding churches to marry them.

I do have a problem with forcing the majority of Americans, who do not want to change the definition of marriage, who do not want to change the basic concept of nuclear family, to accept what is an extremist agenda.

And that's what it comes down to. If you just want to get married, find a pastor who will do it.

But that's not what this is about. This is about a tiny minority trying to force a majority to concede a point. Nobody is being hurt because we refuse to vote for civil homosexual marriages. It's not a violation of anyone's rights. Rights are based on the Bible, and nowhere in the Bible does God tell us that the state has to marry homosexuals upon demand, and pretend they're the bedrock of our society.

We remain a nation that counts the (normal) family as the bedrock...one man, one woman, some sort of faith, and some kids.

I know the Agenda is there......believe me....I live within miles of the "Gay Mecca".

I believe that this is a double edged sword.....rights arent to be "Granted" by the state.....they are Unalienable....from birth. They are fighting to be granted rights at the cost of certain peoples religious rights. (typical liberal actions)

The State should have no hand in the (Marriage , Death , birth , private ownership , schooling , healthcare etc. etc. etc.) buisiness.

End the states control or knowledge of these....and the problem goes away.

I've no problem with that. Except it will never happen.

 

[Sunni Man]

Allowing homos to adopt children is the worst form of child abuse.

These kids will have mental and emotional problems for life.

 

[AllieBaba]

You want to make sure your other half inherits everything, get a will. I'm all for that. I do think though, that if you've been living with someone, married or not, for years, when they pass, YOUR wishes should be carried out before their blood relatives wishes. Not sure how to do that legally other than with a will.

I think it's decidedly unfair that many corporations now offer health insurance to gay couples but not to unmarried heterosexual couples. How is that fair? How about we make it per "household" instead of "family"?

I think that it should all be equitable between married, unmarried couples, and gay/lesbian couples.

Why? It's a fact that unmarried couples and gay/lesbian couples are not as stable or as healthy as married couples, and the children have a much more difficult time navigating life as the children of such parents.

 

[Againsheila]

I know a heck of a lot of Christian white foster homes who want to adopt their foster kids, and those kids aren't all white and perfect, in fact I think they are all special needs and yes, they've had to jump through major legal hoops to get the kids they have. Why should it be different for a gay couple? Truth is, I think heterosexual married couples should have first choice when it comes to adopting kids, followed by gay couples and then single parents...and that's based on research of what's best for the kids.

I may have misinterpreted your statement. Do you think that Christian white married couples should be able to adopt first?

I stated it badly, I think heterosexual married couples should be able to adopt first, then gay couples, then single parents. It's best for a child to have a mother and father figure, absent that, two parents are always better than one.

I was angry at the attack against Christian white married couples and the idea that they only want perfect babies. It's a myth, perpetrated by a society that for a long time wouldn't let a white couple adopt a child of color. Thankfully, we are passed that now.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

However....you have failed to tell me how two dudes bumping uglies or two chicks chowing box are violating your rights.

The Bass has never said two faggots having sex is violating his rights, what the Bass said was that two gays marrying violates the sacrament of marriage, marriage is a sacred act whereby a man leaves his mother and father and clings to his wife and the two become one flesh. To change this sacred act by bending to the will and pressure of militant gay activists and their far left leaning co-conspirators is defilement. This is the main reason why militant faggot activists mostly target churches and religious people and their harrassment interferes with people's freedom of religion

 

[necritan]

However....you have failed to tell me how two dudes bumping uglies or two chicks chowing box are violating your rights.

The Bass has never said two faggots having sex is violating his rights, what the Bass said was that two gays marrying violates the sacrament of marriage, marriage is a sacred act whereby a man leaves his mother and father and clings to his wife and the two become one flesh. To change this sacred act by bending to the will and pressure of militant gay activists and their far left leaning co-conspirators is defilement. This is the main reason why militant faggot activists mostly target churches and religious people and their harrassment interferes with people's freedom of religion

That is your religious based interpretation of what ""Marriage" is. To me....marriage means...."two joined to become one" plus whatever agreement they have set up as far as vows and such.

The fact is.....you hate gays. And because of that....you dont want them around....at all.

For every group...there are acttivists.

I am a 2nd amendment activist......not all gun owners are though. There are gay activists too....not all gays are "Militant" activists.

Like I've said before.....if gays want to have freedom to do what they please....they should de-politicize marriage....that should be there goal.

In fact....the more things we de-politicize...the more freedoms all of us will have. But that will sadly not occur....because to many rely on there Nanny government to help them...and the government will always fail them...always.

 

[Sunni Man]

I am also 100% for the 2nd Amendment.

But last time I looked, there wasn't a Faggot Amendment