1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Same sex Marriage

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Emma Pollard, Feb 22, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #301
    Julian, I think you are getting senile.
    SEMrush
     
    Mia, Nov 21, 2013 IP
    SEMrush
  2. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #302
    I go along and try to forget about when you were fruity mike and not Miss Mia from Italy, just to make you happy. ;):)
     
    gworld, Nov 21, 2013 IP
  3. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #303
    You've confused me with someone else Julian, I'm not Mike. I know who you are you thinking of though. Like I said, you're getting senile. Losing touch, moreso than ever!
     
    Mia, Nov 21, 2013 IP
  4. solid7

    solid7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    51
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    148
    #304
    I think that homosexuality is a birth defect. People are born everyday with androgynous physical features. It's not a stretch of the imagination to think that anomalies in chemical markers that influence things like intelligence and sexuality also may occur. For heaven's sake, the human body is so complex, there are literally BILLIONS of variables that lead up to our formation in utero, and just as many possibilities of something going wrong. So can a person be "born" gay? I would think "wired to be gay" is the more likely term, but yes, not outside the realm of possibility. I don't think it's "natural", (in the "survival of the fittest" sense) but I also don't think it's a thing to suppress or oppress. Just like I don't think that people who have things like Down's Syndrome should be targeted with ire. (that is a case of an obvious chromosome abnormality, and to be fair, science has been looking for a "gay gene" for years)

    That doesn't mean that gay people are bad. It just means they are different. I have never in my life met a gay person who would admit to having "chosen" homosexuality. In fact, most that I know find it to be a bit of an inconvenience, at the very least. (for the reasons being discussed in this thread) But it's a fact of the world that we live in, and there's no point in treating people differently.

    Of course, I'm not gay, so what the hell do I know? Just enough not to judge it too harshly... But I still don't believe in government sanctioned marriage for ANYONE.
     
    solid7, Nov 21, 2013 IP
  5. dean1122

    dean1122 Member

    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    24
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    45
    #305
    No. No Way.
    let us suppose if we have two of the same sex,can they have any kids?
    Marriage is a ceremony between a man and a woman who wish to live together and raise a family in the traditional sense.
     
    dean1122, Nov 21, 2013 IP
  6. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #306
    I understand that you are worried that your macho Latino boyfriend that is calling you Mia sees this, so as you wish I will forget about fruity Mike and will call you Miss Mia from Italy from now on.;):)
     
    gworld, Nov 21, 2013 IP
  7. solid7

    solid7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    51
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    148
    #307
    It's a RELIGIOUS ceremony, which the government somehow involved itself in. For those who are actually religious, it's a sacred rite of passage, for those who are not, it's just an arbitrary concept. Keep the government out of the marriage business, and this argument is over. It can go back to being argued in the religious sector, where most of us will be immune to/insulated from the whole process.

    Personally, I don't really give a damn who wants to call themselves married to what. Marry your dog, or even a tractor, if you like. But don't waste tax dollars having a pedantic argument over what parts get coupled up or rubbed together.

    Personally, I think that we all should worry a little less about how to control other people, and a little bit more about how to control ourselves and our own actions/decisions. Honestly, most people who seem to shout the loudest about things that are wrong with society, seem - oddly enough - to have some pretty big problems of their own. Sometimes, they even have problems that would make other people demand a law... ;)
     
    solid7, Nov 23, 2013 IP
  8. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #308
    Too late. Ordained [by the state] minister, overseeing an event for which a state license was granted.
     
    Obamanation, Nov 23, 2013 IP
  9. solid7

    solid7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    51
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    148
    #309
    It's never too late to right a wrong.
     
    solid7, Nov 23, 2013 IP
  10. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #310
    Its more than the marriage license, or the licensed marriage officiator. Its inheritance law, its tax law, its child custody law. The legal aspects of this "religious" ceremony are interwoven throughout our federal, state, and local laws. It would seem our political leaders found the marriage union/family unit to be a fundamental part of American life since the creation of this country.
     
    Obamanation, Nov 23, 2013 IP
  11. solid7

    solid7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    51
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    148
    #311
    I'm well aware of that, and I hinted on that earlier. It could all be fixed.

    Founding fathers said that the Constitution and government was for the living generation. Thus, they made it able to be modified. I have no problem with changing all of those things. Tax laws can be simplified, divorce courts abolished, and legislation "protecting" marriage can be ended. The way I see it, if religious people want to uphold the "sanctity" of marriage, let them prove that it can be done by freewill, before attempting to impose it on everyone else. If they can't get it right, then don't expect everyone else to. Last time I checked, divorce rates in this country hover around 60% for first time marriages. Single parent homes are at an all time high. And it costs society a lot of money to deal with the burden of marriage and divorce. Our legal system can be put to better use. Like solving criminal matters.

    Marriage is supposed to be a contract, yet there are real repercussions for breaking the tenants, thereof. And that's OK, because even in places where there are penalties for adultery, they tend to be heavy-handed or biased. Who needs that shit? We are experiencing entrophy of humanity, the last thing we need to do is put more garbage in the dump!

    So tell me... What is that "defense of marriage" nonsense doing for us, again??? (I'm not sure I get it)
     
    solid7, Nov 23, 2013 IP
  12. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #312
    Sure. All we would have to do is fundamentally change America. I believe that is the campaign slogan Obama ran on. Turned out not to be so popular.

    Sure. Do you think the votes exist to pass a constitutional amendment removing marriage from all our law books? Given the huge impact on our legal system, wouldn't you have to have a widely accepted and favored alternative to replace two centuries of case law, all ready to go?

    It isn't supposed to be a contract, it is a contract in very real legal terms, no different than a contract you make with a business partner before investing years of labor, intellectual property, and real property. Are you proposing that we also abolish US contract law and business partnerships, or is your proposal to simply make it illegal to have breach of contract clauses on any US contract?

    I happen to agree that our society is far to litigious. I suspect 80% of our labor, personal injury, and medical malpractice suits disputes are bogus. They exist/are allowed because we have trial lawyers drafting laws to keep other trial lawyers (another state licensed business) well fed. Tort reform is badly needed, but not tort removal. Torts are what keep us from settling our differences with violence.

    Entrophy? If entropy is your concern, we now know the earth will be uninhabitable in 2.8 billion years, assuming we don't get hit by an asteroid first (likely). We have fewer years ahead than we do behind. Embrace the horror.

    I gave my view on it a few posts above. No need to repeat myself.

    Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but your take on the matter seems to be much more focused on hatred of the religious than the liberation of some oppressed minority. Of course that is just my opinion as an atheist.
     
    Obamanation, Nov 23, 2013 IP
  13. solid7

    solid7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    51
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    148
    #313
    America is changing, and will change, with or without your tacit approval. Save that thought for a second...

    Case law is case law for a REASON. Because it's based on precedent, not strict and literal reading of the letter. And it changes frequently. Roe V Wade is case law, not Constitutional law, for example. It tipped 200 years of status quo. Am I wrong?

    Now, then. Where is marriage defined in our Constitution? I'd say it's more likely that an amendment could be passed to remove government intrusion into the definition of marriage, than to pass one that actually DEFINES it.

    Like all matters of civics and ethics, there are no patrons left, it seems. Conflict on this issue is inevitable. Let us see what path it takes us down. ;)

    Wow, that makes sense.

    No, I'm suggesting that if people invest themselves into a relationship, it should be held to the same standard as any other contract. There's a lot more at stake when you're dealing with PEOPLE than there is when you're dealing with BUSINESS. It would also make people think harder about entering frivolously into marriage. And at the same time, I don't want to see a return to the past, where people are STUCK in marriages. So rather than go through that bullshit, I say let people call themselves married, if they want, and not give a legal shit. Marriage is just a tax status. We have an established population. There is no excuse for governmental interference in the relationship business, EXCEPT where abuse or violence is present. That's a whole different thing, and it works the same for non-married people, so it's an easy transition.

    I agree, but tort reform begins with removing unnecessary elements. You can't sue for something that isn't a legal entity, or has no legal bearing. Removing government defined marriage has NOTHING to do with tort reform.

    I am talking about the de-evolution of humans. We are more like animals everyday. The smarter we get, the dumber we are. Not a topic for this thread.

    I will not deny that I'm not fond of religious zealotry. There is no problem with beliefs that help improve the world, so long as people realize that their gods ought to be strong enough to make stuff happen without their help. Stick to the freewill of the individual, and we'll all be fine. Start imposing your unfounded beliefs, and I'll be happy to see you go away. The world belongs to those who live in it, until some greater power chooses to reveal themselves.

    On the other hand, I'm not one to jump in and take up a cause. I treat gay people the same as I treat anybody else. I know gay people that I love, and others that I can't stand. I will not go to rallies, I will not hand out fliers, I will not lay down my life for their causes. But I will be compassionate, and offer my friendship, when asked. I will not butt my nose into matters that don't explicitly affect me, because I don't like it when others do that to me. (especially if they can't relate, or don't have all the facts)
     
    solid7, Nov 23, 2013 IP
  14. aidanriley629

    aidanriley629 Banned

    Messages:
    429
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    175
    #314
    Same sex marriage is fine.



    Note: I didn't read the 16 pages of posts prior to writing mine.
     
    aidanriley629, Nov 23, 2013 IP
  15. grpaul

    grpaul Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    221
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    135
    #315
    It's very sad how it's now become "in" to rip apart and piss on everything this country has stood for and what we were created upon.

    If you come from a household with a loving MOTHER and FATHER, you would know what normal is and appreciate the love and values each teach you. Anyone that thinks same sex parents can raise a kid just as good and/or better than a kid in a traditional marriage, truly are kidding themselves.

    I would love it if we could go back to the "normal" America, but we are so far from that now a days, and it pains me.
     
    grpaul, Nov 23, 2013 IP
  16. aidanriley629

    aidanriley629 Banned

    Messages:
    429
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    175
    #316
    What pains me is the fact that it's 2013 and this level of ignorance, intolerance, homophobia etc. still exists. What about single parents? Unwed parents? Families whose mother/father die? Should we take their kid away because they need a mother and a father? Traditional marriage is not everything that this country was built on, come on. These are no longer biblical times.
     
    aidanriley629, Nov 23, 2013 IP
    Bushranger and gworld like this.
  17. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #317
    Sure. And you and I are both dying. Just not today, and hopefully not anytime soon. Save that thought for a second....

    More importantly, where did I claim marriage was defined in the constitution in any of my previous posts. Apparently this straw man was easier to address than my comment?

    So is this you agreeing that the marriage contract is necessary, legal penalties for breach thereof, and all?

    Ok, you lost me. Just above you supported the marriage contract. Here you are back to the idea of a non-binding contract. You also suggesting anyone be able to declare themselves married, which you then equate to a tax status. Mind you, I like the idea of being able to declare myself a member of any tax status I wish. I would opt to be a charity, where the money people give me is not taxed, because the money I spend on blow and hookers is considered a benefit to society. Absolutely no excuse for government interference on a tax status (???).

    Didn't you just make the claim in your last post that all these marriages and divorces(yes one does sue for divorce, making it a tort) were a major cause of congestion in our court system, badly in need of reform?

    I disagree, it is a topic for this thread. I don't think humans are devolving, only Americans. We seem to be working at getting rid of consequence and personal responsibility, vital parts of the evolutionary process. Its a perfect way to find one's self on the unpleasant side of evolution. Before long, we will start referring to the family unit as irrelevant. Just look at how well that is working out in the black community.

    Yeah, it comes across in your post. Its not that you have any well thought out reason for doing away with marriage as we know it. Its just that you hate the religious, and marriage, in your mind, is a "religious" event.

    Perhaps it would be better to forget about marriage altogether and focus on getting rid of all those troublesome and misguided religious people.


    Two questions: 1) What did you find to be homophobic in his post? 2) Do you consider 1776 to be "biblical times"?
     
    Obamanation, Nov 23, 2013 IP
  18. aidanriley629

    aidanriley629 Banned

    Messages:
    429
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    175
    #318
    1. Everything.
    2. That was a few years prior to the separation of church and state so I'll say yes.
     
    aidanriley629, Nov 23, 2013 IP
  19. grpaul

    grpaul Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    221
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    135
    #319
    Wow, my level of ignorance pains you? Please do us all a favor and read what the thread title is.

    Good job.
     
    grpaul, Nov 24, 2013 IP
  20. grpaul

    grpaul Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    221
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    135
    #320
    It's the only way people can make points in today's world. If you disagree with anyone it's either because you are either a homophobe, racist, sexist, or blah blah blah. . .

    Then he goes on to start talking about something that has NOTHING to do with the topic and calls me ignorant. ;-)
     
    grpaul, Nov 24, 2013 IP
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.