Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 16 17 Next

Topic: Labeling Pro-Marriage Groups as 'Hateful' Must End
massagetrade Joined Thu 02/22/07 Posts: 8505	Sun 08/26/12 11:48 AM
but marriage includes SEX, and they have that privilege already they want the 'privilege' of having the government sanction and support their sexual choice and the government has no reason or obligation to do so,,, It's not about sex. You just said so yourself - they can already have sex. They are not trying to get the government to support their sexual choice. You could say that they are trying to get the government to support their RELATIONSHIP choices. There is a big difference - one which religionists sometimes have trouble seeing because they are so fixated on the sex. Its almost like religionists have a fetish. But I feel it would be more accurate to say that they are trying to stop the government from being used as an agent of persecution against them by the religious people.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Sun 08/26/12 12:00 PM
What if we go back to days of 'separate but equal' shenanigans. You didn't answer my question. You cant make it equal if it isnt equal. It doesnt work. If people in civil unions have the same government benefits that people in marriages have, then somehow that's not equal? Because one group is permitted to call it 'marriage' while the other is not. thats stupid... ah. thanks for clearin that up. well, if you remember what started the gays wanting "equal rights" was all about the benefits they would receive as a married couple... now your saying it is just about a word? sometimes i wonder if people are just arguing just to argue...by what you said there, this debate would be pointless...

CeriseRose Joined Mon 08/02/10 Posts: 6220	Sun 08/26/12 12:00 PM
but marriage includes SEX, and they have that privilege already they want the 'privilege' of having the government sanction and support their sexual choice and the government has no reason or obligation to do so,,, It's not about sex. You just said so yourself - they can already have sex. They are not trying to get the government to support their sexual choice. You could say that they are trying to get the government to support their RELATIONSHIP choices. There is a big difference - one which religionists sometimes have trouble seeing because they are so fixated on the sex. Its almost like religionists have a fetish. But I feel it would be more accurate to say that they are trying to stop the government from being used as an agent of persecution against them by the religious people. "religionists" are not the only ones who support heteralsexual marriage.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 08/26/12 12:02 PM
seems like gay people are equally selfish, wishing everyone else to CONFORM to their view of man on man and woman on woman being EQUAL to the male female bonding that creates life,,,, This is why sterile people should not get married. If you are sterile, and incapable of creating that bond which creates life, then your marriage is not equal to a real, proper, hetero, child-producing marriage. but 'children' are not a consideration for same sex couples, since by their own argument, not all hetero couples will have kids or can have kids take the children that one may or may not have out of cohsideration with marriage contracts and you open the door to allowing consentual incestuous relationship, and hundreds of years from now, they will see the long term effects of children with NO definable foundation but instead with sister moms and brother dads and uncle dads and aunty moms and the such then explain to them that it was worth it so that some CONSENTING ADULTS could brainwash a whole society in believing it should be embraced as NO DIFFERENT Than a family with a mother , father, siblings, and a clear foundational TREE to relate to,,,

singmesweet Joined Mon 07/28/08 Posts: 26661	Sun 08/26/12 12:03 PM Edited by singmesweet on Sun 08/26/12 12:25 PM
The love is not the same as it is physical pleasure only, they cannot create a child. Who are you to judge what I believe and to try and force me to believe in your immorality? My love with a woman can produce a child and has been defined as such for thousands of years. LBGT people are an abomination to the Lord and an aberration of nature as even wolves will tear a “gay” wolf to shreds. What you do in your privacy is yours, Yeah, I stood with the hundreds of thousands with Chick-fil-a on Wednesday, not the paltry handful on Friday. Marriage was defined in the Bible a long time ago, since when do you predate the Bible? Allowing same sex to marry sends the message it is normal, which it is not, to young people. Why do you try to corrupt the minds of young people? When LGBT can marry, marriage will be a sham. So anyone who cannot create a child (there are straight people who cannot) can't have the same love you do? Their love means less than yours does because you could possibly create a child? Why? What about those who choose not to have children? Does their love mean less as well? Also, keep in mind that just because someone stands up for gay rights like I do, doesn't mean we're all gay. Do you think I'm gay simply because I stand up for their equal rights? Good to know I disgust you because I think for myself, rather than what the bible tells me to think. And apparently you think people like me should not be allowed to marry? Because I stand up for equal rights? #1 Answer the questions. You said you think so therefore don't play dumb. Who are you to judge what I believe and to try and force me to believe in your immorality? Marriage was defined in the Bible a long time ago, since when do you predate the Bible? Why do you try to corrupt the minds of young people by pretending an abnormal act is a normal act when it goes against nature itself? #2 Quit trying to put your pseudo beliefs and assumptions in others mouths. #3 "I think for myself" apparently new age groupspeak for "I haven't any morals." So, when are you going to champion bestiality rights? They are people too who love their "partner." How come you aren't championing them? #4 Now I got to go till tomorrow, try to answer the questions this time. 1. You can have whatever beliefs you want. You are free to do so just as others are free to believe differently. What immorality do I have? How am I trying to corrupt the minds of young people? 2. You do the same. 3. We're talking about consenting adult humans, not animals. Bestiality has nothing to do with the discussion. 4. I answered your questions. Now perhaps you'll actually answer the questions I asked in the previous post. Can you tell us why you attack people who believe differently than you do? Does your religion tell you that's what you're supposed to do? Are you supposed to put them down for not believing the same way? You have attacked me and assumed I am gay simply for disagreeing with you. You have been completely disrespectful. I'd hate to see how you attack someone who is actually gay.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 08/26/12 12:03 PM
ahhh, lovely I posted before reading this entire thing if it is coming down to RELIGION, than let each religious group validate whatever unions they wish as THEY Define them should not be a government issue,,,,, the government is not to be concerned with RELIGION or RELIGIOUS BELIEF,, last I checked it can be concerned with SOCIETY though, which starts with future lives and the foundation they are offered,,,,,that HAS to start with a man and woman,,,,by biological LAW.... last I checked, marriage was not invalidated upon failure to reproduce. Therefore it is not the issue. it is an issue, since ability to reproduce is DEPENDENT upon the gender and that ability(creation of more citizens) becomes an issue with great SOCIAL IMPACT and that DEPENDENCY on upholding some commitment in t hose reiationships,, even though they do not ALWAYS produce children, therefore has a great SOCIAL IMPACT as well,,,, it is also an issue since marriage IS invalidated by a failure to have a sexually monogomous relationship,, which has far more socially reaching consequences amongst heterosexuals who are CREATING LIFE or at RISK of creating life,, than it is for homosexuals who can never create it (With each other) the sexual element and expectation of MARRIAGE is the issue that keeps it from being something that is the same for 'same sex' as it is for 'opposite sex' because 'same sex' carry NO RISK of creating life and their behavior in their bedroom has no RISK of any impact beyond their bedroom,,,, in other words, there is NO reason to encourage, support, or EQUATE it with heterosexual activity,,, It terms of the ability to create life, homosexual sex is equal to sex between sterile people. There, I just equated them. its also equal to sex between a consenting and non consenting adult (rape) or a pubescent age child and an adult, or an incestuous relationship but all that is irrelevant to the point being made about how MARRIAGE Is a significant institution to encourage and support as a FOUNDATION for children, families, communities, and societis

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 08/26/12 12:05 PM
but marriage includes SEX, and they have that privilege already they want the 'privilege' of having the government sanction and support their sexual choice and the government has no reason or obligation to do so,,, It's not about sex. You just said so yourself - they can already have sex. They are not trying to get the government to support their sexual choice. You could say that they are trying to get the government to support their RELATIONSHIP choices. There is a big difference - one which religionists sometimes have trouble seeing because they are so fixated on the sex. Its almost like religionists have a fetish. But I feel it would be more accurate to say that they are trying to stop the government from being used as an agent of persecution against them by the religious people. and the government can support their 'relationship' choice and that of any adults in any 'relationship' (sexual or non sexual) with a 'civil union

CeriseRose Joined Mon 08/02/10 Posts: 6220	Sun 08/26/12 12:17 PM
ahhh, lovely I posted before reading this entire thing if it is coming down to RELIGION, than let each religious group validate whatever unions they wish as THEY Define them should not be a government issue,,,,, the government is not to be concerned with RELIGION or RELIGIOUS BELIEF,, last I checked it can be concerned with SOCIETY though, which starts with future lives and the foundation they are offered,,,,,that HAS to start with a man and woman,,,,by biological LAW.... last I checked, marriage was not invalidated upon failure to reproduce. Therefore it is not the issue. it is an issue, since ability to reproduce is DEPENDENT upon the gender and that ability(creation of more citizens) becomes an issue with great SOCIAL IMPACT and that DEPENDENCY on upholding some commitment in t hose reiationships,, even though they do not ALWAYS produce children, therefore has a great SOCIAL IMPACT as well,,,, it is also an issue since marriage IS invalidated by a failure to have a sexually monogomous relationship,, which has far more socially reaching consequences amongst heterosexuals who are CREATING LIFE or at RISK of creating life,, than it is for homosexuals who can never create it (With each other) the sexual element and expectation of MARRIAGE is the issue that keeps it from being something that is the same for 'same sex' as it is for 'opposite sex' because 'same sex' carry NO RISK of creating life and their behavior in their bedroom has no RISK of any impact beyond their bedroom,,,, in other words, there is NO reason to encourage, support, or EQUATE it with heterosexual activity,,, It terms of the ability to create life, homosexual sex is equal to sex between sterile people. There, I just equated them. Sterility is not always final. There have been quite a few reversals in the reproduction outcome of those who have been labeled sterile. Those miracles are highly possible. No man has ever been pregnant.

singmesweet Joined Mon 07/28/08 Posts: 26661	Sun 08/26/12 12:52 PM
What about those couples who choose not to have children? Do you guys have issues with them, too?

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 08/26/12 01:23 PM Edited by msharmony on Sun 08/26/12 01:25 PM
What about those couples who choose not to have children? Do you guys have issues with them, too? nope but even those who 'choose' not to can mess up and have them anyhow,,, but I say for relationships between consenting adults where children have no BIOLOGICAL possibility of being the fruit of their relations we provide a contractual agreement that bestows all the 'legal rights' and expectations of a marriage EXCEPT fot the sexual expectation,,,,and we dont just stop at those people choosing to make sex part of their personal expectation, but those who have no desire to have sex meaning ANY consenting adults, family or friends, wishing to enter into a UNITED life of assets and responsibilities...

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48928	Sun 08/26/12 01:36 PM
How about a remedy to this dispute. Let a civil union be purely a civil institution that provides government benefits but no religious benefits. Let a marriage be purely a religious institution that provides religious benefits but no government benefits. If people just want government benefits, then they can obtain a civil union. If people just want religious benefits, then they can obtain a marriage. If people want both government benefits and a religious benefits, then they can obtain both a civil union and a marriage. Let marriages that occur before a certain date be grandfathered in to have both government benefits and religious benefits.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 08/26/12 01:41 PM
How about a remedy to this dispute. Let a civil union be purely a civil institution that provides government benefits but no religious benefits. Let a marriage be purely a religious institution that provides religious benefits but no government benefits. If people just want government benefits, then they can obtain a civil union. If people just want religious benefits, then they can obtain a marriage. If people want both government benefits and a religious benefits, then they can obtain both a civil union and a marriage. Let marriages that occur before a certain date be grandfathered in to have both government benefits and religious benefits. logical, Id support it,,,so long as the civil union had absolutely NO regard to sexual activity,,,

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48928	Sun 08/26/12 01:46 PM
How about a remedy to this dispute. Let a civil union be purely a civil institution that provides government benefits but no religious benefits. Let a marriage be purely a religious institution that provides religious benefits but no government benefits. If people just want government benefits, then they can obtain a civil union. If people just want religious benefits, then they can obtain a marriage. If people want both government benefits and a religious benefits, then they can obtain both a civil union and a marriage. Let marriages that occur before a certain date be grandfathered in to have both government benefits and religious benefits. logical, Id support it,,,so long as the civil union had absolutely NO regard to sexual activity,,, The legal description of a civil union would not have to mention sexual activity.

singmesweet Joined Mon 07/28/08 Posts: 26661	Sun 08/26/12 01:55 PM
How about a remedy to this dispute. Let a civil union be purely a civil institution that provides government benefits but no religious benefits. Let a marriage be purely a religious institution that provides religious benefits but no government benefits. If people just want government benefits, then they can obtain a civil union. If people just want religious benefits, then they can obtain a marriage. If people want both government benefits and a religious benefits, then they can obtain both a civil union and a marriage. Let marriages that occur before a certain date be grandfathered in to have both government benefits and religious benefits. Why should those who are not religious have to get a civil union instead? Many straight couples are not religious, yet they get married.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48928	Sun 08/26/12 02:00 PM
How about a remedy to this dispute. Let a civil union be purely a civil institution that provides government benefits but no religious benefits. Let a marriage be purely a religious institution that provides religious benefits but no government benefits. If people just want government benefits, then they can obtain a civil union. If people just want religious benefits, then they can obtain a marriage. If people want both government benefits and a religious benefits, then they can obtain both a civil union and a marriage. Let marriages that occur before a certain date be grandfathered in to have both government benefits and religious benefits. Why should those who are not religious have to get a civil union instead? Many straight couples are not religious, yet they get married. They get married for government benefits. Take the government benefits away from marriages, and see what happens.

singmesweet Joined Mon 07/28/08 Posts: 26661	Sun 08/26/12 02:02 PM
How about a remedy to this dispute. Let a civil union be purely a civil institution that provides government benefits but no religious benefits. Let a marriage be purely a religious institution that provides religious benefits but no government benefits. If people just want government benefits, then they can obtain a civil union. If people just want religious benefits, then they can obtain a marriage. If people want both government benefits and a religious benefits, then they can obtain both a civil union and a marriage. Let marriages that occur before a certain date be grandfathered in to have both government benefits and religious benefits. Why should those who are not religious have to get a civil union instead? Many straight couples are not religious, yet they get married. They get married for government benefits. Take the government benefits away from marriages, and see what happens. I see no reason to not allow non religious people to marry.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48928	Sun 08/26/12 02:29 PM
How about a remedy to this dispute. Let a civil union be purely a civil institution that provides government benefits but no religious benefits. Let a marriage be purely a religious institution that provides religious benefits but no government benefits. If people just want government benefits, then they can obtain a civil union. If people just want religious benefits, then they can obtain a marriage. If people want both government benefits and a religious benefits, then they can obtain both a civil union and a marriage. Let marriages that occur before a certain date be grandfathered in to have both government benefits and religious benefits. Why should those who are not religious have to get a civil union instead? Many straight couples are not religious, yet they get married. They get married for government benefits. Take the government benefits away from marriages, and see what happens. I see no reason to not allow non religious people to marry. If they can obtain a civil union that provides government benefits, then why would they also want a marriage that provides nothing but religious benefits? Why would non-religious people want religious benefits?

singmesweet Joined Mon 07/28/08 Posts: 26661	Sun 08/26/12 02:38 PM
Today, many non religious people get married. I see no reason to deny that simply because you believe it should only be for religious people.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48928	Sun 08/26/12 02:46 PM Edited by Dodo_David on Sun 08/26/12 02:48 PM
Today, many non religious people get married. I see no reason to deny that simply because you believe it should only be for religious people. What if they get married because they have no other option that would provide them with government benefits? I am suggesting a way for couples to obtain the government benefits without any religious involvement. If such an option existed, then why wouldn't non-religious couples go for that option - especially if the religious option does not provide government benefits? I am suggesting a "separation of church and state" scenario. By the way, in my suggested remedy, couples could obtain both a civil union and a marriage if they choose to do so.

massagetrade Joined Thu 02/22/07 Posts: 8505	Sun 08/26/12 02:55 PM Edited by massagetrade on Sun 08/26/12 02:55 PM
but marriage includes SEX, and they have that privilege already they want the 'privilege' of having the government sanction and support their sexual choice and the government has no reason or obligation to do so,,, It's not about sex. You just said so yourself - they can already have sex. They are not trying to get the government to support their sexual choice. You could say that they are trying to get the government to support their RELATIONSHIP choices. There is a big difference - one which religionists sometimes have trouble seeing because they are so fixated on the sex. Its almost like religionists have a fetish. But I feel it would be more accurate to say that they are trying to stop the government from being used as an agent of persecution against them by the religious people. "religionists" are not the only ones who support heteralsexual marriage. "support heterosexual marriage" As if denying homosexuals marriage is 'supporting heterosexual marriage'. It isn't. Heteros can get married all they want, our right to marry is not at all effected by homosexual marriage. Unless you are worried you might lose someone to the other side. As far as your point - technically you are right, but effectively...come on, really! How many non-religionists are really that strongly against gay marriage? You might know a handful personally, but looking at our whole society, this really is about religiously motivated bigotry. Most of the non-religious community either doesn't care or supports gay marriage.