FairHooker11 Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 The reason woody, I bring up the religious rites, ( or sham as Heck calls it) is that it has been a part of marriage. Those with religious faith can be married in a church and be married in the eyes of whatever they consider God to be. But if its true that all you folks want is a guarantee of equal rights responsibilities and benefits of actual marriage that can be taken care of by a civil union. So what would be your problem with that compromise? WSS the GLBT agenda want children too. And for the most part, marriage has been an institution for procreation (DUH...) an exclusive benefit to 1 man 1 woman. Civil unions provide all that a gay partnership would ever need for sustainability, does not relegate them to a second class status as suggested elsewhere .(here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 You've got to love Steve. He's not even for the issue he's typing against. But he still types it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 the GLBT agenda want children too. And for the most part, marriage has been an institution for procreation (DUH...) an exclusive benefit to 1 man 1 woman. Civil unions provide all that a gay partnership would ever need for sustainability, does not relegate them to a second class status as suggested elsewhere .(here) So you can't get married with the intent to adopt children? What about women that can't have children or men that can't? I'm pretty sure that "and for the most part" part is a pretty big stretch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 So you can't get married with the intent to adopt children? What about women that can't have children or men that can't? I'm pretty sure that "and for the most part" part is a pretty big stretch... tell me how two men or two women procreate? thats your stretch.... nobody said you could nt adopt, plenty of families do... what is not getting any support is the GLBT agenda acting as if they are providing a sound environment for children, I dont know about you, but this brand of social engineering has not been proven to work yet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 Actually, it has. It's been shown to be just fine. Here's one study. Here's another. Which is what you expect when you see gays as not superior, or inferior, but just other people who happen to have a different orientation than you do. So all of the arguments you've put forth clearly don't work. Obviously, children or the ability to have children is not a condition of heterosexual marriage. And gays often adopt children, or have children themselves. I've got good friends who are lesbians who have children. Lots of people know gay people with children. It's quite common. But that's okay. It's not like we're going to change your mind. Just as long as you acknowledge that you haven't made one valid argument against it yet, I'm happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 So today North Carolina is expected to pass a ban not only same sex marriage, but also civil unions. Here's the text that voters will see on the ballot: "Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State." How would you vote on this and why? good bait job there heck..... I dont live in NC, but Minn will have this on the ballot in the fall. and it is expected to pass the same way. The text will read "Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State." NOT changing the narrative to speak the downtroddens rights or lack thereof .... in other words, it is not about the same sexers... it is about the rest of us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveS Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 Anyone of you chumps who voted no or would vote no want to explain why my sister and her partner should not have the same rights to get married that you enjoy? You think somethings wrong with her? You know she's not a good mom somehow? Is that it? Enlighten me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 Gallup polls on gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 Anyone of you chumps who voted no or would vote no want to explain why my sister and her partner should not have the same rights to get married that you enjoy? You think somethings wrong with her? You know she's not a good mom somehow? Is that it? Enlighten me. I'd like to hear this too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrownIndian Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 I have two questions. 1. Why aren't couples in civil unions not entitled to the same benefits as a married couple? 2. Why do gay people want to have a "marriage"? Why cant they be happy with Civil Union? If gay people get the same benefits as married people, then there is no technical difference between a Civil Union and a Marriage, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 I think I asked that question to the them 3 times now and haven't gotten a straight answer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrownIndian Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 I think I asked that question to the them 3 times now and haven't gotten a straight answer... Perhaps I should have asked the members what their solution to the problem is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 I have two questions. 1. Why aren't couples in civil unions not entitled to the same benefits as a married couple? 2. Why do gay people want to have a "marriage"? Why cant they be happy with Civil Union? If gay people get the same benefits as married people, then there is no technical difference between a Civil Union and a Marriage, correct? Think "separate but equal." Same idea here. They want the same rights, the same title, as everyone else gets. Otherwise known as equality. I'll ask you the same question I asked someone else, and didn't get an answer to: if you don't mind giving them civil unions with the exact same rights as marriage, why would you have a problem calling it marriage instead? Why create a separate but legally equal institution for gay couples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 Perhaps I should have asked the members what their solution to the problem is. Not your questions, ones from before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 If Bunker is anything like the face of the opposition to gay marriage, and people like him often are, then we shouldn't have a hard time winning this one. In due time. I have zero doubt that gay marriage will be the law of the land in 15 years or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 If Bunker is anything like the face of the opposition to gay marriage, and people like him often are, then we shouldn't have a hard time winning this one. In due time. I have zero doubt that gay marriage will be the law of the land in 15 years or less. Bunkers a moron. He got shut down and embarrassed himself in an earlier thread and now I guess he wants to again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 no i had more important things to do than talk aboout yur whining. so if you dont mind stfu ya little bitch You equated "using science to explain your rrasoning" as a negative. If I said something that Retarded I might not respond in that thread anymore either. Bunker, you are a sad, pathetic person. How anyone your age can act the way you do I'll never know. You really just say dumber and dumber things each time you post. If you could give even one remotely reasonable point to support your view I would be amazed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 Thank you for proving my point Good night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 Anyone of you chumps who voted no or would vote no want to explain why my sister and her partner should not have the same rights to get married that you enjoy? You think somethings wrong with her? You know she's not a good mom somehow? Is that it? Enlighten me. at the risk of getting bashed for having my beliefs, I will respond. I respectfully submit to you and/or your sister that in the civil union, apart from the instituion of marriage, a contract can be drawn up and agreed to ( just like the rest of those who use pre-nup agreements) And you / they can live on in the freedoms afforded to you / them as the rest of us enjoy. So get a lawyer.... Remember, the vote was NOT banning the gays, it was FOR traditional marriage. Is that NOT ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 Actually, it has. It's been shown to be just fine. Here's one study. Here's another. Which is what you expect when you see gays as not superior, or inferior, but just other people who happen to have a different orientation than you do. report = blog = bias = skewed (besides being "gay" is a choice) So all of the arguments you've put forth clearly don't work. Obviously, children or the ability to have children is not a condition of heterosexual marriage. And gays often adopt children, or have children themselves. I've got good friends who are lesbians who have children. Lots of people know gay people with children. It's quite common. Good for you .... but quite common? Why are traditional FAMILIES getting the blame on this "end around" attack? But that's okay. It's not like we're going to change your mind. Just as long as you acknowledge that you haven't made one valid argument against it yet, I'm happy. your right dude, You wont change my mind.... And .... "as long as I acknowledge..... drivel" there is NOTHING to argue against. You side with an agenda that is not gonna stop its march. I'm arguing FOR the right to decide what marriage should look like. And guess what??? a whole lotta people seem to agree with me too!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 I wonder if anyone here would be on board with the elimination of any kind of marriage and benefits That way any perceived unfairness related to childbearing, family, love or anything else would be eliminated. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 I think I asked that question to the them 3 times now and haven't gotten a straight answer... But you did get a Straight answer, Woddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 If Bunker is anything like the face of the opposition to gay marriage, and people like him often are, then we shouldn't have a hard time winning this one. In due time. I have zero doubt that gay marriage will be the law of the land in 15 years or less. Try shortly after the November election, Heck. Why do you believe Obama won't do anything about this - nor has he for nearly 4 years - until he achieves second-term status. Like I said, I am tired of this ship. I stated my preference. I also endorse States Rights. You guys can argue, ask and conjole all you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 Try shortly after the November election, Heck. Why do you believe Obama won't do anything about this - nor has he for nearly 4 years - until he achieves second-term status. Like I said, I am tired of this ship. I stated my preference. I also endorse States Rights. DING DING DING DING.... BINGO! You guys can argue, ask and conjole all you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 Try shortly after the November election, Heck. Why do you believe Obama won't do anything about this - nor has he for nearly 4 years - Which begs the question.... If we are not to get an honest on this relatively minor issue why should we expect one on any other matter? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 This is ridiculous stuff, even for this board. John, no one is arguing whether or not North Carolina can do what it did, even though eventually I would suspect that the prevailing view will be that it's unconstitutional to treat gay citizens differently when it comes to marriage. So banging the "state's rights" drum is just a dodge on the actual question. It's not an argument for or against gay marriage. And Steve, Obama's position on gay marriage is a pure political calculation, and everyone knows it. I can't know what's in his mind, but he hardly seems the type who would have any problem with gay marriage. And if you see the lop-sided vote in North Carolina, you can probably guess why his position is what it is. Does he get a medal of courage for it? No, of course not. But there aren't many people who don't understand why he does it, even in the gay community. The numbers aren't there yet in the states he needs to win. But they will be someday soon. But the idea that you seize on a political calculation and from there leap to "how do we believe anything he says?" ...Well, then how do you believe anything any politician says? I shouldn't have to explain to you how politics works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted May 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 In fear of being shamed by the PC crowd, I would only imagine that the poll would be tainted. Looks like you lost the battle. How this will relate in the coming election? IMO: Voters are tired of the liberal bull crap and are not going to take it anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 I wonder what the numbers would be if a civil union were one of those options? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted May 9, 2012 Report Share Posted May 9, 2012 I agree heck. Obama's position is probably disingenuous and a purely political ruse. Why should we expect different from anything he says??? Like you said, you don't have to explain politics to me. But it pisses you off if I call him an empty suit..... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.