I was wrong

To think that marriage as a legal term is foolish. It is a Godly way of uniting man and woman together.

What is next, a person wants to marry their child, or the living room fireplace?

Marriage is sacred, GAY people are not, they try to get a way by the choice they make, not by what they were intended to be.

I think Gays will end up in hell to tell you all the truth.

I think you will end up in hell.

When you two get there, will you try to send a message back to let us know which of you was right?
 
yes i am in favor of gay marriage

But you are in favor of marriage?
To repeat the concern of a previous poster, why must it be called "marriage"?

That's what I said until recently. I reasoned that since polls showed most Americans supported civil unions but opposed same sex marriage, why not respect the feelings of those who believed only a union between a man and a woman should be called marriage and settle for civil unions instead of taking such a hard ass position and insisting on calling gay unions marriages?

Respect. That's why they want it to be called marriage. Even if a civil union carried all the rights and benefits of marriage, calling it a civil union would still signify that the union was less than a heterosexual marriage. And why should we show this respect even if we don't feel it? For the same reason we talk about black people or African American people now instead of colored people, respect for other people's feelings.
 
It won't get you respect it will get you fear and hatred. That's what always happens when extraordinarily small majorities try to push their views down everyone else's throat.
 
It won't get you respect it will get you fear and hatred. That's what always happens when extraordinarily small majorities try to push their views down everyone else's throat.

I'm pretty sure no one would rope you and drag you to the wedding, so the expense of a toaster isn't a problem for you or "everyone else." Hard as it is to credit, "everyone else" weren't too interested in your ceremony either.
 
It won't get you respect it will get you fear and hatred. That's what always happens when extraordinarily small majorities try to push their views down everyone else's throat.

Well, that's one reason why I am opposed to the courts deciding this issue instead of state legislatures or Congress. Legislative action requires a public debate, perhaps a national debate, and by the time it would pass, most people would be convinced it was the right thing to do. I'm old enough to remember all the bitterness that surrounded the passage of the 1964 civil rights act and the 1965 voting rights act. Had the courts decided this issue, as the Supreme Court began trying to do in 1954 Brown v. Board of Education, I believe that bitterness would still be so strong that we couldn't have elected a black president.

The kind of extended debate that would be necessary would make it clear that the kind of marriage we are talking about is civil marriage not religious marriage, so people who object to it on religious grounds would have time to get used to the idea that same sex civil marriage has nothing to do with religion. A public debate shows respect for those who object to gay marriage as well as those who support it, and everyone has a chance to have his/her questions answered.
 
To think that marriage as a legal term is foolish. It is a Godly way of uniting man and woman together.

What is next, a person wants to marry their child, or the living room fireplace?

Marriage is sacred, GAY people are not, they try to get a way by the choice they make, not by what they were intended to be.

I think Gays will end up in hell to tell you all the truth.

God (and Jesus) didn't differentiate at all. Why would gays be picked to go to hell?
 
It won't get you respect it will get you fear and hatred. That's what always happens when extraordinarily small majorities try to push their views down everyone else's throat.

Well, that's one reason why I am opposed to the courts deciding this issue instead of state legislatures or Congress. Legislative action requires a public debate, perhaps a national debate, and by the time it would pass, most people would be convinced it was the right thing to do. I'm old enough to remember all the bitterness that surrounded the passage of the 1964 civil rights act and the 1965 voting rights act. Had the courts decided this issue, as the Supreme Court began trying to do in 1954 Brown v. Board of Education, I believe that bitterness would still be so strong that we couldn't have elected a black president.

The kind of extended debate that would be necessary would make it clear that the kind of marriage we are talking about is civil marriage not religious marriage, so people who object to it on religious grounds would have time to get used to the idea that same sex civil marriage has nothing to do with religion. A public debate shows respect for those who object to gay marriage as well as those who support it, and everyone has a chance to have his/her questions answered.

I agree with your second paragraph, but not the first. The reason only state legislation governing gay marriages doesn't work is because of the various OTHER laws within each state regarding "married" couples. For example, if a gay couple marries in Vermont, adopts a child, and ultimately split up (yeah, they're also human in that respect), if they have moved to another state that doesn't recognize their Vermont marriage, the problem becomes custody of the child and which "state" law prevails.

Although I think gay couples would like to have "respect," for the most part they know they won't get a rousing approval from a good many people and they adjust to that. What does concern them are things like the hospitalization or death of a partner and the inability to be recognized as the next of kin in many states, which would not be an issue if there were federal laws governing equality.
 
No one is saying they can't become wed just that we'd prefer it not be called marriage.

The Feds definitely. It isn't the job of the federal government or the federal courts to tell the individual states what they can and cannot do in that regards. Prior to Roe v. Wade 38 states allowed abortion in the case of Rape, incest, or threat to the mother's life.

Define torture.

O.k. Gary, chew on this one for a moment...

The Social Security Act of 1935 (federal law) specifically defines marriage as between a man and a woman, thereby denying spouse and divorced spouse disability and retirement benefits to gay couples who otherwise meet the relationship requirements even in states that acknowledge and license gay marriage, yet declaring yourself homosexual does not lower your FICA taxes one iota.

I will be disgustedly impressed with anyone who can spin that as other than blatant discrimination.

-Joe
 
excuse me, they want marriage for all the benefits hetero's have.
Then is it safe to say that you accept hetero couples begging the state for permission marry??

What in hell is "conservative" about that??

By that, I am assuming you recognize that the state has absolutely no business getting involved in marriage whatsoever.

I disagree with homosexual marriage, I abhor the state getting involved in marriage at all.
It's ironic that homosexual's would say they want the government to stay out of the bedroom, then ask the government to sanction homosexual marriage. Does anybody else see the disconnect there?

It's about equal opportunity.

Sally and Suzy are sisters with different tastes in mates. Sally marries Alan and Suzy marries Gwendolyn (in Massachusetts). 35 working years later Gwendolyn and Alan are tragically killed starting the bar-b-q grill at a family reunion.

Sally and Suzy head into their friendly neighborhood Social Security Office where Sally gets signed up for monthly widows benefits and receives the joke lump sum death benefit, based on Alan's well funded work record.

Although Gwendolyn had even better earnings and contributed even more to the system than Alan, all Suzy gets that 'look' that gay women sometimes get.

You tell me... Did We, The People create a contribution based social safety net that treats those sisters equally, with out regard to race, religion, creed, color or national origin in the intended spirit behind those impressive sounding words?

Shame on us.

-Joe
 
Last edited:
Then is it safe to say that you accept hetero couples begging the state for permission marry??

What in hell is "conservative" about that??

By that, I am assuming you recognize that the state has absolutely no business getting involved in marriage whatsoever.

I disagree with homosexual marriage, I abhor the state getting involved in marriage at all.
It's ironic that homosexual's would say they want the government to stay out of the bedroom, then ask the government to sanction homosexual marriage. Does anybody else see the disconnect there?

It's about equal opportunity.

Sally and Suzy are sisters with different tastes in mates. Sally marries Alan and Suzy marries Gwendolyn (in Massachusetts). 35 working years later Gwendolyn and Alan are tragically killed starting the bar-b-q grill at a family reunion.

Sally and Suzy head into their friendly neighborhood Social Security Office where Sally gets signed up for monthly widows benefits and receives the joke lump sum death benefit, based on Alan's well funded work record.

Although Gwendolyn had even better earnings and contributed even more to the system than Alan, all Suzy gets that 'look' that gay women sometimes get.

You tell me... Did We, The People create a contribution based social safety net that treats those sisters equally, with out regard to race, religion, creed, color or national origin in the intended spirit behind those impressive sounding words?

Shame on us.

-Joe

Another reason that I also don't think the government has any business forcing people to pay social security. I didn't build that construct, and I disagree with its premise and how it works.
 
By that, I am assuming you recognize that the state has absolutely no business getting involved in marriage whatsoever.

I disagree with homosexual marriage, I abhor the state getting involved in marriage at all.
It's ironic that homosexual's would say they want the government to stay out of the bedroom, then ask the government to sanction homosexual marriage. Does anybody else see the disconnect there?

It's about equal opportunity.

Sally and Suzy are sisters with different tastes in mates. Sally marries Alan and Suzy marries Gwendolyn (in Massachusetts). 35 working years later Gwendolyn and Alan are tragically killed starting the bar-b-q grill at a family reunion.

Sally and Suzy head into their friendly neighborhood Social Security Office where Sally gets signed up for monthly widows benefits and receives the joke lump sum death benefit, based on Alan's well funded work record.

Although Gwendolyn had even better earnings and contributed even more to the system than Alan, all Suzy gets that 'look' that gay women sometimes get.

You tell me... Did We, The People create a contribution based social safety net that treats those sisters equally, with out regard to race, religion, creed, color or national origin in the intended spirit behind those impressive sounding words?

Shame on us.

-Joe

Another reason that I also don't think the government has any business forcing people to pay social security. I didn't build that construct, and I disagree with its premise and how it works.

I don't know man... it is a pretty cool insurance program for if you get disabled after working for a few years, and a very successful retirement program for people who understand it's supposed to be a supplement to personal savings and investments, assuming of course you and your spouse meet all the legal definitions. Even if you aren't a very good saver / investor it guarantees something, and the premiums aren't outrageous - How many Americans wish their income taxes had an exemption on contributions for earnings over $102,000, and still expected to pretty much get their money's worth for their input?

Considering how little is broken, wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to fix the bridge we have than try to replace it?

-Joe
 
Last edited:
It's about equal opportunity.

Sally and Suzy are sisters with different tastes in mates. Sally marries Alan and Suzy marries Gwendolyn (in Massachusetts). 35 working years later Gwendolyn and Alan are tragically killed starting the bar-b-q grill at a family reunion.

Sally and Suzy head into their friendly neighborhood Social Security Office where Sally gets signed up for monthly widows benefits and receives the joke lump sum death benefit, based on Alan's well funded work record.

Although Gwendolyn had even better earnings and contributed even more to the system than Alan, all Suzy gets that 'look' that gay women sometimes get.

You tell me... Did We, The People create a contribution based social safety net that treats those sisters equally, with out regard to race, religion, creed, color or national origin in the intended spirit behind those impressive sounding words?

Shame on us.

-Joe

Another reason that I also don't think the government has any business forcing people to pay social security. I didn't build that construct, and I disagree with its premise and how it works.

I don't know man... it is a pretty cool insurance program for if you get disabled after working for a few years, and a very successful retirement program for people who understand it supposed to be a supplement to personal savings and investments, assuming of course you and your spouse meet all the legal definitions. Even if you aren't a very good saver / investor it guarantees something, and the premiums aren't outrageous - How many Americans wish their income taxes had an exemption on contributions for earnings over $102,000, and still expected to pretty much get their money's worth for their input?

Considering how little is broken, wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to fix the bridge we have than try to replace it?

-Joe

I'm just being consistent.
The government has NO business getting involved in marriage, and it has no business getting involved in my retirement plan.
 
Last edited:
Another reason that I also don't think the government has any business forcing people to pay social security. I didn't build that construct, and I disagree with its premise and how it works.

I don't know man... it is a pretty cool insurance program for if you get disabled after working for a few years, and a very successful retirement program for people who understand it supposed to be a supplement to personal savings and investments, assuming of course you and your spouse meet all the legal definitions. Even if you aren't a very good saver / investor it guarantees something, and the premiums aren't outrageous - How many Americans wish their income taxes had an exemption on contributions for earnings over $102,000, and still expected to pretty much get their money's worth for their input?

Considering how little is broken, wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to fix the bridge we have than try to replace it?

-Joe

I'm just being consistent.
The government has business getting involved in marriage, and it has no business getting involved in my retirement plan.

Fair enough. If you are in business for yourself you can still keep your contributions to a minimum, assuming you are not making so much money that it can't be stored in business assets. Just make sure you put a little away for a rainy day (disability) and a sunny day (retirement) 'cause your benefit at full retirement age is not going to be impressive.

-Joe
 
I don't know man... it is a pretty cool insurance program for if you get disabled after working for a few years, and a very successful retirement program for people who understand it supposed to be a supplement to personal savings and investments, assuming of course you and your spouse meet all the legal definitions. Even if you aren't a very good saver / investor it guarantees something, and the premiums aren't outrageous - How many Americans wish their income taxes had an exemption on contributions for earnings over $102,000, and still expected to pretty much get their money's worth for their input?

Considering how little is broken, wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to fix the bridge we have than try to replace it?

-Joe

I'm just being consistent.
The government has business getting involved in marriage, and it has no business getting involved in my retirement plan.

Fair enough. If you are in business for yourself you can still keep your contributions to a minimum, assuming you are not making so much money that it can't be stored in business assets. Just make sure you put a little away for a rainy day (disability) and a sunny day (retirement) 'cause your benefit at full retirement age is not going to be impressive.

-Joe

Do you want to derail this into a SS discussion? :eusa_angel:
 
Why should I defend it Joe? It's clearly wrong. Tell your congressmen to amend the damn law it shouldnt be that hard to do. The Dems have a clear majority. Have it include civil unions and specifiy that civil unions can be between any two consenting adults.
 
I'm just being consistent.
The government has business getting involved in marriage, and it has no business getting involved in my retirement plan.

Fair enough. If you are in business for yourself you can still keep your contributions to a minimum, assuming you are not making so much money that it can't be stored in business assets. Just make sure you put a little away for a rainy day (disability) and a sunny day (retirement) 'cause your benefit at full retirement age is not going to be impressive.

-Joe

Do you want to derail this into a SS discussion? :eusa_angel:

How do you derail a thread on a Government Insurance proposal by discussing Social Security? :eusa_whistle:

-Joe
 
Fair enough. If you are in business for yourself you can still keep your contributions to a minimum, assuming you are not making so much money that it can't be stored in business assets. Just make sure you put a little away for a rainy day (disability) and a sunny day (retirement) 'cause your benefit at full retirement age is not going to be impressive.

-Joe

Do you want to derail this into a SS discussion? :eusa_angel:

How do you derail a thread on a Government Insurance proposal by discussing Social Security? :eusa_whistle:

-Joe

Oops.....:redface:

Wrong thread. :eusa_shifty:

Never mind. :salute:
 

Forum List

Back
Top