NY activist judges allow same sex marriage

[no1tovote4]

well holy shit batman, words of wonder from the caped queer!
now does this crap flow for plain jane hetro's too? can i have 3 wives, of can a woman have 3 husbands?

Yes. So long as everybody is clear about the contractual arrangement and all persons taking part are consenting adults.

 

[Johnney]

Yes. So long as everybody is clear about the contractual arrangement and all persons taking part are consenting adults.

so much for marriage. its people like cl who do shit like that and then want special rights.

 

[no1tovote4]

so much for marriage. its people like cl who do shit like that and then want special rights.

I think his point is that Churches marry people, but the Government shouldn't. If the Government is to sanction relationships they should be contractual agreements, not marriages. If they are contractual agreements then any agreement could be reached with consenting informed adults.

At least I think that is his point. Correct me if I am wrong CL.

 

[CivilLiberty]

I think his point is that Churches marry people, but the Government shouldn't. If the Government is to sanction relationships they should be contractual agreements, not marriages. If they are contractual agreements then any agreement could be reached with consenting informed adults.

At least I think that is his point. Correct me if I am wrong CL.

Exactly. Church marriage and civil contracts are two separate issues.

The point is, the government should not be involved in the church AT ALL.

Thus the religious aspects of marriage should be for the church to decide, and the church alone.

One of the functions off the government, and the judicial arm of same, is to enforce/oversee certain types of contracts. The civil unions contract would apply here. The government's only role then in these unions relates to the legal privileges and responsibilities of these contracts.




A

 

[musicman]

Exactly. Church marriage and civil contracts are two separate issues.

The point is, the government should not be involved in the church AT ALL.

Thus the religious aspects of marriage should be for the church to decide, and the church alone.

One of the functions off the government, and the judicial arm of same, is to enforce/oversee certain types of contracts. The civil unions contract would apply here. The government's only role then in these unions relates to the legal privileges and responsibilities of these contracts.




A

What if these contracts are undertaken in the name of a lifestyle that is demonstrably harmful to society?

 

[Avatar4321]

Exactly. Church marriage and civil contracts are two separate issues.

A

Yeah they are but your problem is there is a clear policy reason not to recognize gay marriage as a civil contract. Contracts will only be recognized and enforceable if there is a benefit to society. There is no benefit to gay marriage or gay unions of any kind. Quite the opposite as has been demonstrated repeatedly. There is no justification religiously or through civil means to recognize gay unions. There never has been and quite frankly there never will be. If anyone thinks you can bypass the democratic system and force this on people from the courts you are in for a shock of your life.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Yeah they are but your problem is there is a clear policy reason not to recognize gay marriage as a civil contract. Contracts will only be recognized and enforceable if there is a benefit to society.

No. Civil contracts are generally only of benefit to the parties involved.

There is no benefit to gay marriage or gay unions of any kind. Quite the opposite as has been demonstrated repeatedly. .

No it hasn't - it has not been demonstrated at all.

There is no justification religiously or through civil means to recognize gay unions. There never has been and quite frankly there never will be. If anyone thinks you can bypass the democratic system and force this on people from the courts you are in for a shock of your life.

Not at all true. While far less common that heterosexual marriage, human history is full of examples of same sex marriage as well.

Regards,

Andy

 

[OCA]

Not at all true. While far less common that heterosexual marriage, human history is full of examples of same sex marriage as well.

Regards,

Andy[/QUOTE]

No its not, no two people opf the same sex have been LEGALLY married up until very recently. Another fallacy you expect us to believe with your smugness.

 

[Johnney]

Originally Posted by Avatar4321
There is no benefit to gay marriage or gay unions of any kind. Quite the opposite as has been demonstrated repeatedly.

No it hasn't - it has not been demonstrated at all.

yes it has. one of the benefits of marriage is having children. not adopting someone elses kids, but having. now dont start yelling that you dont have to be married to have kids, i know this.
homosexuality need to be wiped and and the non-conformist sent to north korea, or some other shit hole like that. we <I>need</I> to get morals back in this country that the fags are forcing down the drain with recklessly with only the furtherment of their own agenda on there minds. damn the children that see two of the same sex holding hands or kissing. damn everyone including your kids when we put gay shows on tv, making gay kid shows. we want to targe them so we can "show" them that we are regular people, but were different. you freaks are different alright. you need severe medication. your a sickness that needs to be dealt with as soon as possible.

 

[Bullypulpit]

yes it has. one of the benefits of marriage is having children. not adopting someone elses kids, but having. now dont start yelling that you dont have to be married to have kids, i know this.
homosexuality need to be wiped and and the non-conformist sent to north korea, or some other shit hole like that. we <I>need</I> to get morals back in this country that the fags are forcing down the drain with recklessly with only the furtherment of their own agenda on there minds. damn the children that see two of the same sex holding hands or kissing. damn everyone including your kids when we put gay shows on tv, making gay kid shows. we want to targe them so we can "show" them that we are regular people, but were different. you freaks are different alright. you need severe medication. your a sickness that needs to be dealt with as soon as possible.

There you go again with the "propagation of the species argument". That argument is worthless...It marginalizes the marriage of conventional couples who cannot have, or choose not to have, children. It is a thouroughly fallacious argumnet and has no real bearing on the issue.

As to shipping anyone anywhere, perhaps you should be one of the first to go...Your views would be right at home in North Korea where good little sheep...er...conformists are desired.

 

[musicman]

There you go again with the "propagation of the species argument". That argument is worthless...It marginalizes the marriage of conventional couples who cannot have, or choose not to have, children.

It does nothing of the kind. Whether a couple can - or wish to - procreate has no bearing on it. Marriage is the societal solemnization of the mating process. It is right; it is in accordance with our design.

A man mating with a man is sick degeneracy. It is slavish lust and self-love - not only worthless to society, but actually harmful and dangerous to it. Somehow, societies have been able to figure this out all through history - even in the days before modern science, technology, and arrogant, educated fools.

Liberals have been proven dramatically, tragicomically wrong on EVERY ONE OF THEIR ATTEMPTS TO RE-ENGINEER SOCIETY. That's not surprising, considering that their very mindset is based in lies (man is perfectible) and arrogance (it is the moral superioity of LIBERALS that will lead us into the new age of brotherhood). I marvel that anyone, anywhere even listens to them anymore. And, of all the things they've been wrong on, homosexual "rights" is the most wrong of all.

What is your response to the fact that homosexuals are (charitably speaking) TEN TIMES more likely - relative to their population numbers - to molest children, Bully? How about their behavior at the outset of the AIDS epidemic (to hell with public safety - we've got an IMAGE to protect!)? Should society live in such mortal dread of being thought "bigotted" that it declines to even protect itself?

 

[CivilLiberty]

No its not, no two people opf the same sex have been LEGALLY married up until very recently. Another fallacy you expect us to believe with your smugness.

False again. For example, Roman emperor Nero was twice legally married to men. In fact, same sex marriage between two men was legal in the Roman Empire until 342 AD. (As I recall the growing influence of the church had something to do with this).

Nevertheless, there are other examples such as the 13th century Greek Orthodox church's "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union". There are plenty of others.

You can't rewrite history to cater to your own viewpoint. And you *may* find this interesting:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html



Regards,


Andy

 

[MissileMan]

What is your response to the fact that homosexuals are (charitably speaking) TEN TIMES more likely - relative to their population numbers - to molest children?

I'll take a shot at this one...you are alleging that all homosexuals are interested in having sex with little boys. Your argument is as ridiculous as saying that all heterosexual males are interested in having sex with little girls. The one factor that those making this argument always leave out is that the studies you are citing also determined that one homo-pedophile had as many as 7 times the number of victims as a hetero-pedophile. When you figure that factor into the equation, the incidence of pedophiles among homosexuals is only slightly higher than in heterosexuals. The bottom line is that those who have sex with children are pedophiles, not homosexuals or heterosexuals.

 

[musicman]

False again. For example, Roman emperor Nero was twice legally married to men. In fact, same sex marriage between two men was legal in the Roman Empire until 342 AD. (As I recall the growing influence of the church had something to do with this).

Nevertheless, there are other examples such as the 13th century Greek Orthodox church's "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union". There are plenty of others.

You can't rewrite history to cater to your own viewpoint. And you *may* find this interesting:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html



Regards,


Andy

Although they comprise only 2-3% of the population, homosexuals account for 25-40% of child molestations. What is your respopnse to that?

 

[MissileMan]

Although they comprise only 2-3% of the population, homosexuals account for 25-40% of child molestations. What is your respopnse to that?

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that 100% of child molestations are committed by PEDOPHILES?

 

[musicman]

I'll take a shot at this one...you are alleging that all homosexuals are interested in having sex with little boys. Your argument is as ridiculous as saying that all heterosexual males are interested in having sex with little girls. The one factor that those making this argument always leave out is that the studies you are citing also determined that one homo-pedophile had as many as 7 times the number of victims as a hetero-pedophile. When you figure that factor into the equation, the incidence of pedophiles among homosexuals is only slightly higher than in heterosexuals. The bottom line is that those who have sex with children are pedophiles, not homosexuals or heterosexuals.

Even if that were true, it would still prove that a homosexual pedophile - BY VIRTUE OF HIS HOMOSEXUALITY - is, statistically and consistently, a more prolific and dangerous predator than his heterosexual counterpart. Doesn't that hint at something inherently harmful and hazardous about homosexuality?

 

[musicman]

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that 100% of child molestations are committed by PEDOPHILES?

Stick your head in the sand if you want to. I refuse. The numbers are a glaring indictment of homosexuality, and if you can't - or won't - see that, I can't help you.

Do you have any kids?

 

[MissileMan]

Stick your head in the sand if you want to. I refuse. The numbers are a glaring indictment of homosexuality, and if you can't - or won't - see that, I can't help you.

Do you have any kids?

I'm not sticking my head in the sand...you are trying to add 1 + 1 and make it equal 5. Homosexuals don't molest children pedophiles do. It doesn't get any more simple to understand than that.

Whether I have kids is immaterial to the fact your argument is based on a false premise, but I have a daughter and 3 grandchildren if you must know.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that 100% of child molestations are committed by PEDOPHILES?

He can't comprehend because he's a dunce. 75% of all child molestations are done by heterosexuals. And gays make up 7% not 2% of the population.

But that's not the point - it's NOT homosexuals that do child molestation, it is PEDOPHILES that do it.

But MORE IMPORTANT: The actual percentage of homosexuals that are PEDOPHILES is: Less than 0.1%

Second, the VAST majority of pedophiles are STRAIGHT.


Idiots.


A

 

[MissileMan]

He can't comprehend because he's a dunce. 75% of all child molestations are done by heterosexuals. And gays make up 7% not 2% of the population.

But that's not the point - it's NOT homosexuals that do child molestation, it is PEDOPHILES that do it.

But MORE IMPORTANT: The actual percentage of homosexuals that are PEDOPHILES is: Less than 0.1%

Second, the VAST majority of pedophiles are STRAIGHT.


Idiots.


A

These kind of responses do not forward your argument at all. The name calling makes you look like an idiot, not the person you are trying to insult.