| Author | Message | ||
     Hootowl |
Is she pretty? | ||
| J2blue |
You guys can talk yourselves into some pretty crazy points of view. I am quiet aware of the shorter life span and the multiple wives due to death in child birth, I know my family history pretty well. And it is true that patriarchal polygamy was a widely accepted and widely practiced form of marriage in the old world. And no matter how you approach the bible it has story after story about the problems and conflicts inherent in those arrangements. It also has numerous examples of monogamous couples. So I don't think my facts are skewed because of that. Rich men and Kings always liked to fill the ranks with more than one wife. Procreation, both from a religious point of view, and a mere secular point of view, is the main point. That is why Europeans are dying off, and the American population is on the brink. You are sadly mistaken about the total number of people and the reproduction rate. If it were not for illegal and legal immigration currently coming in, then the American population is set to take a 10% to 15% sudden drop in population in just a few decades. As the reproduction rate among us continues to decline than there will likely be a large decline over the next 100 years. If we follow Europe's pattern then the vacuum will be filled with immigrants at a rate no one knows or can predict, other than to say they will most likely have a much higher reproduction rate. Raising the chicks that hatch, so to speak is equally important, for obvious reasons. Perhaps the only way people will finally understand is if we allow them to collectively destroy what we have, or what's left of it. And that is why I'm in favor of getting the government completely out of the marriage game. Let the core of believers take care of themselves and they will be the ones who survive into the future. It is a reason, a very darn good one. (Message edited by j2blue on March 28, 2013) | ||
| 99savage |
Now that our little friends on the Left have stripped "marriage" of any meaning beyond straight up hedonism it ceases to be of any utility to the larger society and there is no reason to give it any standing in government. - Nothing against hedonism, it's why males of my generation got married given the likely outcome of such activities. - Have been saying since redefining marriage was first proposed, "get the state out of the redefined institution". - Announce that on a date certain all existing marriages will be annulled. Those wishing to establish long term, or for that matter short term, relationships can work with their attorney, or go to "Legal Zoom", or trust that their clergy person is competent to draw up and file a contract. "Equal rights" for all; homosexuals happy; clergy happy; attorneys happy; I'm happy, that this has not been proposed until now speaks of ill will on behalf of the homosexual community. - Very shortly this is going to get really dicey. Very soon, I mean tomorrow soon, non-homosexual individuals of the same sex will "marry" in lieu of forming partnership. - They will continue their normal, hetro, mating proclivities, but will use marriage as as a method of insuring a business partnership. - Simpler, faster & cheaper that drawing up all the legal papers to form a partnership. - I know this is going to happen because when I was 18 I was cynical enough to do it. | ||
| Blake |
Good discussion. Well said Savage! Kowski, There is a blatant fallacy in your premise, your analogy to racially based discrimination. You're pretending that homosexual unions are the same as heterosexual unions with only superficial differences. That's simply false. It just isn't an honest argument to make. Racial discrimination is based on nothing but cultural difference and superficial differences in appearance. Homosexual couples are an entirely different genus than heterosexual couples and they have no right to force us to view their unions as equivalent. They are not. Simple. If the nation has an interest in promoting security, then it absolutely has an interest in supporting marriage and family. Families with a mother and father are by far the optimum means for raising successful generation of Americans. 70% of felons come from other than families with a mother and father. If the nation has an interest in providing for health and happiness then it has an interest in supporting marriage and family. Take a guess which children are healthier and happier versus which commit the majority of teen suicide? If the nation has an interest in education, then it surely has an interest in supporting marriage and family. Care to guess which children achieve the higher graduation rates and college degrees versus which drop out more? Redefining the meaning of marriage is nothing but a selfish act by those who can't simply live their lives as they see fit, but must force others to support and affirm their behavior as though it were just as favorable and beneficial to society as that of a traditional family. It's a selfish lie. Marriage is a naturally physically complimentary, and potentially procreative committed joining of male and female. With its exceptionally unique traits and vital procreative potential, and its standing for most successfully raising up future generations of successful, healthy, happy Americans, why ought it not be afforded special recognition? Because homosexuals get their feeling hurt on account of they are different??? | ||
| Buellinmke |
90% of felons in American prisons are Christian. See how that works? I don't care what kind of magic mumbo jumbo you believe in - you're free to believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on others rights. The constitution protects me from Christianity, Islam, Satanism and every other religious fairy tale that has ever been imagined. Stop trying to force your religion on the citizens of this fine country. If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran where your beliefs can be validated. This thread is evidence of why and how the Republicans will never win a national election ever again. You want to be on the wrong side of history? Go for it. | ||
| 99savage |
Odd, don't see religion mentioned anyplace! | ||
| Cityxslicker |
It is against religion..... because you are not bringing new sheep into the flock ..... it is all about herding and branding - not much more Let them get married and in six to 18 months they will discover a new trend - gay divorce. the lawyers must be positively creaming themselves over the droves of new cases through the courts. I honestly don't give a frig what they do. *now if they would give me the same f'kn courtesy - that would be great. sick and f'n tired of 'equal' rights always being : Some animals are more equal than others. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
How about if we redefine the meaning of citizen... to automatically include all people from any bordering country?? | ||
| Aesquire |
Savage, I'd simply offer the Civil partner contract and grandfather the old marriage contracts. I emphasize that any "new" forms of partnership have an explicit prenup agreement on property and offspring. Also a means to mutually revise as needed. ( after all Jean ( yeah, she's cute ) might want to add a "wife" or "husband" to the team to maximize security and stability. The existing marriage law structure has a long tradition to serve as an example, both good and bad. That's for the practical side. For the "political" side, It has been said that the pushing of homosexual rights has in small part its roots in leftist subversion. That the Eugenics concepts popular with the "progressive" movement are used to weaken the affected countries national spirit, and breed an inferior foe. ( this reasoning, please understand, is from the viewpoint of the leftist, and viewed with alarm by those few who actually bother to read the lefts manuals for subversion ) Maybe. I don't know this to be a big factor anymore in destroying America by making us all freaks and divided. The leftists are kicking freedoms butt by running it into the ground with Euro-style social democratic programs. The tiny number of hippie freaks and gays isn't going to mess us up anymore, eh? Further, from a political view, the leftists are able to paint with broad strokes the R's as fuddy duddy uptight old farts. Working, too. It will really torque me off to lose my right to free speech, bear arms, and possess property ( have you seen what ELSE these jerks are doing in Brussels, D.C. and Albany? ) because the R's can't deal with a sex issue. While we argue about mostly non existent tax breaks and the inevitable rise in insurance premiums when we have to share the load of health insurance with a tiny fraction of our population, private health insurance is going into semi-fascist paradigms with control in the Gov's hands, vast wealth in the insurance executives hands, and us paying for the whole mess. Plus, illegal immigrants are going to distort the socialist state far more than a handful of gays & polygamists. From a morality side? I'll go Wiccan on that one. And it harm no one, do as you please. Remember. Government interference in your life ranges from... None of your business. None of your damn business. No wonder you want to take my gun. | ||
| Aesquire |
City, had a Paralegal girl friend, ( her profession, not our status ) They've been doing gay divorce for years. 2 people share a space, a house, pets, furniture... As Dolly Parton says, "Why should we be the only ones that suffer?" | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
"Let them get married and in six to 18 months they will discover a new trend - gay divorce. " likely true that some would, in fact, rush into marriage and then realize it was a mistake. No different from heterosexual couples who marry. Homosexuals are no different than anyone else, they just choose to love people of the same sex - big deal Start thinking of people more in terms of who they are and not WHAT they are. I truly don't understand why people are upset over this. Think about it - if two homosexuals are in love and in a relationship and want to marry, how will that actually affect your life? Will your pay decrease? Will you lose your job? Will your spouse leave you? Your car break down? Im just trying to figure out what would go wrong if this happens. Now on the flip side, if they are given these options, you'll have a bunch of American citizens that are happier in their lives, with no negative effect on yours. They want to have family visitation with their loved ones. How does that hurt you? They want to pay extra money each month to their insurance provider so their loved one is also covered by insurance....ok. These people just want to have the same benefits as the rest of us who can currently legally marry. | ||
| Buellkowski |
Blake, why do you suppose anti-miscegeny laws arose in the first place? Because their proponents believed that interracial unions were immoral, perverted, contrary to God's will, and a threat to the ruling class's "purity". The comparison I made is apt, IMO. If anti-miscegeny laws were unanimously found by the SCOTUS to violate the 14th Amendment, guess what that probably means for anti-gay marriage laws? | ||
| M1combat |
Holy Cow. Blake... Marriage as you see it SHOULD be afforded special recognition. So give it that. Go get married by a priest/minister/whatever that will present your marriage to God like you feel is the way it should be done. I'm all for it. Marriage as a homosexual person sees it should be afforded whatever recognition that person deems it deserves. If they see it as simply a legal status that protects them and/or their spouse in the unfortunate event that they get a divorce then let them go to a judge and have that judge present it to the government like they feel it should be done. Should NO ONE aside from people who see marriage as the same thing you do be allowed to get married? Why single out the gays? What about the athiest? The sterile couple? Why does it affect you? You love your wife? Seriously... think about how much you love your wife and how much anguish you would feel if you lost her. There ARE people who feel that way about people of the same sex. God created those people too yes? Is it your place to judge people? Which sin is the worst one? Which sin can you get into heaven after having committed and which will forever bar the door? Which of God's children does He not love? Hate is not a Christian value and is most certainly not taught in the Bible. This is coming from man... not God. There is no reason to not let the gays marry each other and face God afterwords just like we all will. I wish them good luck with that... I feel they will need it. I will not, however, hate them. (Message edited by M1Combat on March 29, 2013) (Message edited by M1Combat on March 29, 2013) | ||
| Cityxslicker |
really - they are going to do as they wish; however they wish. Government 'laws' or decisions will not change their behavior. You can not legislate someone to be hetro any more than you can legislate any other behavior; it is nothing more than the culling of the herd, and a distraction for what the F%ck they are up to. So while every talking media head was prattling about gay marriage - what did they pass on gun rights and food/crop 'protection'? it is about CONTROL. F#ck them - and by them I mean ever damn meddling mealy minded progressive gerimandering miscreant whether they are elected, appointed, or self annointed. | ||
| Crackhead |
Here is a simple answer. Leave marriage to religious institutions and remove any federal recognition. The government will have civil unions as the basis for determining taxes (higher tax rate for joint unions), and such. I don't believe our insurance will cost any more if gays are allowed to marry due to both partners usually working full time jobs. The percent of both partners working full time (thus separate health insurance) is higher for unions that do not have children. | ||
| Sifo |
I don't care what kind of magic mumbo jumbo you believe in - you're free to believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on others rights. The constitution protects me from Christianity, Islam, Satanism and every other religious fairy tale that has ever been imagined. Stop trying to force your religion on the citizens of this fine country. Given that just a bit over 100 years ago, the government wasn't involved in marriage at all, It's a dishonest argument to complain about any religious organization complaining about the government redefining marriage. The problem isn't religion intruding into government. The problem is government intruding into religion. This is exactly what the first amendment was meant to protect us from. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
M1combat - great post. | ||
| Sifo |
Just wanted to back what I said about government intrusion into the religious institution of marriage... http://www.alimonyreform.org/content/articles/How% 20Did%20Government%20Get%20Involved%20in%20Marriag e.pdf
It's a not too long, kind of interesting read that has nothing at all to do with the current issue of gay marriage. It makes the history clear though. The government is intruding upon religion. Why is it not surprising to see who supports this and who doesn't? | ||
| Sifo |
One more question. Why did the progressives spend decades convincing women that they don't need to get married, but now are spending so much energy convincing gays that they have to get married? Get the government out of the marriage business and all these problems simply dissolve. Think about it. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
"Why did the progressives spend decades convincing women that they don't need to get married, but now are spending so much energy convincing gays that they have to get married? " people are talking homosexuals into marriage? | ||
| Sifo |
I see you've hone in on my, admittedly poorly phrased and weakest point. I guess my main point about government intrusion into religion is pretty rock solid. | ||
| Slaughter |
From Slaughter's random thought generator: Government is again/still/always into social engineering. It is entertaining to observe social engineering as it evolves into a blood sport. Some social engineering is good, some bad. As in two oxen fighting, the problem depends on whose ox is being gored (stretching the allegory) If you're a man and are worried about it, I'd suggest you not ask a man to marry you. There is still a marriage penalty in the tax code. Sunny have no intention of becoming a "breeding pair" and until death will continue to live in sin. We have contracts where required. It's all the others in our lives that heap expectations on us. We're going to hell just as surely as are the soon-to-be-married gays. Are we somehow shirking our responsiblities as breeders? Should we be donating genetic material and implanting into a host mother? Seems that'd be our duty? | ||
| Buellkowski |
Sifo, of course you realize that there are a number of Christian churches that perform, bless, and recognize same-sex marriages. The government is not forcing them to do so. | ||
| Hybridmomentspass |
"I see you've hone in on my, admittedly poorly phrased and weakest point" that was your weakest point? cause that was the bulk of your post... "One more question. Why did the progressives spend decades convincing women that they don't need to get married, but now are spending so much energy convincing gays that they have to get married? Get the government out of the marriage business and all these problems simply dissolve. Think about it." | ||
| Sifo |
Sifo, of course you realize that there are a number of Christian churches that perform, bless, and recognize same-sex marriages. The government is not forcing them to do so. Of course I realize that. That should be up to them to decide. The problem comes into play when that marriage causes tax dollars to flow from a person who doesn't believe in gay marriage to the person who is in a gay marriage. Just a single example of that would be survivor benefits in the Social Security system. Take the government out of marriage and any church can do as they please. Add government and you then have to make sure that marriage as defined by the government is a completely vanilla version that doesn't conflict with anyone's religious beliefs. I have no doubt that back when the government was reaching into the realm of this previously religious institution, assurances were given that it would never be changed into something that would be offensive to anyone. Yet here we are. | ||
| Sifo |
cause that was the bulk of your post... Yes. A post that started with the phrase "One more question", and was posted right after my main point. No problem though. I accept your conceding the point. | ||
| Aesquire |
The problem is government intruding into religion. For many, the Government, IS their religion. The DHS bought 1 1/2 + billion rounds of ammo illegal to use on enemy combatants. Not practice ammo, cop killer ammo. Baby killer ammo, Wife killer ammo. Refuses to discuss it with Congress. In that context, with the number 1 terrorist threat according to the folk who bought enough ammo to kill every person in the country, being folk who like limited government, I'm not worried about 2 guys getting hitched. This is really a distraction from them screwing you in multiple ways. There just are not enough homosexuals to make a difference, except in Theater. 20+ million illegals on your dime vs. a few dozen folk collecting survivor benefits from a program that's already broke? I think you're missing the real problem. | ||
| Jim_cullen |
Reminds me of the days when we heard "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was going away and some here predicted big trouble. Well DADT is gone and from everything I've seen, we still have a functioning military. But a couple things in this thread caught my eye. "Look it up on google" (paraphrased). Because if its on the internet, it MUST be true, right? And did he really say homosexuals are a different genus? I must have missed that in my Biology 101 course. And Bio 102. And 201, 202, 206, 211; several courses in the 300 series and a bunch more 400 level courses. Plus the post-graduate work. Jeez | ||
| Xb9er |
You mean Fox News is not an academic journal? Ah crap! You want the govt to get out of marriage? I don't want to hear the complaints when you don't get that tax break. Stop acting like straight people don't get divorces. Happens all the time. Could happen to you too I like the post about Christians judging people. The way some of you "Christians" talk about the gays should get you a straight shot ticket to hell. Then you wonder why people hate us Christians? Could it be because the majority of us are Hippocrates? (Message edited by XB9er on March 29, 2013) | ||
| Reindog |
Stop with the marriage tax break already. There is a marriage tax penalty if both people work. Two individuals earning income tend to pay less aggregate tax than a married couple earning the same amount. Blomos have a tendency to be DINKs so they will be penalized like the rest of us schlubs. |
