Gay Marrige

Gay Marrige

Do you think that gay citizens should be able to get married?

Originally posted by BernG:

And you will be found guilty and appropriately sentenced.

What does appropriate entail?

Well, don't many public behaviors (behaviours, UK) fall under the rubric of "Things I'm Comfortable With"? Consider all of the consensual public acts that might be so repulsive to so many people that they'd be outlawed. Who gets to make the rules?
.........................................
Frenzie, is there such a thing as public appropriateness?

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by BernG:

And you will be found guilty and appropriately sentenced.

What does appropriate entail?

Appropriate by law.

That doesn't mean the law is always correct. If someone is having sex in the bushes and no one notices except for some cop who is looking looking in the bushes just to catch someone in the act, would it then be appropriate?

First time offense a $500 to $1000 fine. However, disorderly conduct can result in up to six months in jail. I was in the local court for a violation and they tried three cases of public lewdness. Their lewdness was at a highway rest stop bathroom where children were present. The judge looked at their cases and since it was a first offense fined them $500 plus court costs.

I assume for the second or more offenses, the fine would go up with maybe jail time (jail - is usually community service for minor offenses).

However, they always do end up with a criminal record, which does not exactly enhance your employment prospects. And depending on your local community newspaper, your offense may be reported for all to read in the local "Crime Blog."

I ask to you Why shouldnot ? first of all. Its a right of Human. being to live as they want to live. sexuality is diffrent thing. when straight (Normal)men have right to choose his partner. then gay or lezbian have too. They are also a part of society. It not mean that i m gay. I just trying to explain they are also human

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Frenzie, is there such a thing as public appropriateness?

I don't think so. I was just checking Bern's outlook, which seems sarcastic after his comment above.

Now that clears it up.

All those -ing words and the boy forgot 'arguing' and (fill in the blank).

i may have four girls who constantly watch cartoons, which i dont mind, but sesame street?? just one request...please...no barney!!!

Just for you, Toga!

Hey now. I still watch Sesame Street. And my toddler loves Elmo.

But I do agree about Barney. To the tune of the I Love You song:

I hate him
He hates me
I chased Barney up a tree
With a .45 Magnum and shot him in the head
Aren't you happy Barney's dead?

Originally posted by Jaybro:

I don't bash homosexuals, but I do need help with this one. Is there any kind of consenting activity that might be beyond the pale? If so, why?

So you are making the claim that what you are seeing here is exclusive homosexual behavior?

Originally posted by prd3:

Originally posted by Jaybro:

I don't bash homosexuals, but I do need help with this one. Is there any kind of consenting activity that might be beyond the pale? If so, why?

So you are making the claim that what you are seeing here is exclusive homosexual behavior?

Nah, he's alright.

(jaybro puzzled again)

this im not even gonna touch.

please afraid of God.... Man and woman may be couple and married..... other all relation in marriage is sin.....

Originally posted by handsomekhan:

please afraid of God....

im not afraid of God

Ken Mehlman, former RNC chairman, announces he is a homosexual.

no doubt bush is really kicking himself in the ass on this one
"I HIRED A FUTURE HOMOSEXUAL. WHERE DID I GO WRONG??!!"

Originally posted by Virusboy:

no doubt bush is really kicking himself in the ass on this one
"I HIRED A FUTURE HOMOSEXUAL. WHERE DID I GO WRONG??!!"

Perhaps in not realising that a future homosexual is also a current homosexual?

Although he might be considered a coward for implicitly supporting the repression of gays in the past, the fact that he's come out under his own steam and for something he believes in, rather than some kind of shameless sex scandal, deserves some respect.

Originally posted by handsomekhan:

please afraid of God.... Man and woman may be couple and married..... other all relation in marriage is sin.....

This would include surrogate births?

As Jesus?

*raises eyebrow at string*
why'd you go there?

Originally posted by string:

Originally posted by handsomekhan:

please afraid of God.... Man and woman may be couple and married..... other all relation in marriage is sin.....

This would include surrogate births?

As Jesus?

Open mindedness: 4,599,781 Stupid people: 0

Gaydalism

Originally posted by TroyMclure:

Gaydalism

I'm not sure myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

Absolute nonsense then?

Originally posted by string:

Originally posted by handsomekhan:

please afraid of God.... Man and woman may be couple and married..... other all relation in marriage is sin.....

This would include surrogate births?

As Jesus?

I think he means something like friendship, which is clearly disallowed in marriage. I've been wrong before, however.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by string:

Originally posted by handsomekhan:

please afraid of God.... Man and woman may be couple and married..... other all relation in marriage is sin.....

This would include surrogate births?

As Jesus?

I think he means something like friendship, which is clearly disallowed in marriage. I've been wrong before, however.

It's hard to tell when the person telling us to live our lives can barely speak

Originally posted by TroyMclure:

Gaydalism

I hereby declare the creation of the term "Gaydalism", and propose an initial definition:

Gaydalism: a political and/or social system where bigots (mostly religious fundamentalists) treat homosexuals as sub-human and deny them basic and equal human rights.

We could probably flesh out the definition some more. It could be to homosexuality what the terk "Racism" is to skin color.

Another thing the definition might include is how proponents of Gaydalism publicly and privately hold beliefs about human sexuality, and falsely conclude that homosexuality is wrong, and help in creating a social environment where homosexuals are excluded and/or persecuted.

Originally posted by prd3:

Originally posted by TroyMclure:

Gaydalism

I hereby declare the creation of the term "Gaydalism", and propose an initial definition:

Gaydalism: a political and/or social system where bigots (mostly religious fundamentalists) treat homosexuals as sub-human and deny them basic and equal human rights.

We could probably flesh out the definition some more. It could be to homosexuality what the terk "Racism" is to skin color.

Another thing the definition might include is how proponents of Gaydalism publicly and privately hold beliefs about human sexuality, and falsely conclude that homosexuality is wrong, and help in creating a social environment where homosexuals are excluded and/or persecuted.

would GOD treat them as Equal?......

Originally posted by Virusboy:

would GOD treat them as Equal?

Well, if the Judea-Christian God made us all, he obviously should, since it's been widely identified that it's as much genetics as it is choice.

Moderator edit: This comment was removed for breaching our terms of service.

Originally posted by Ictfreein4o:

going against the plan of God that is gay marriage definition

Who are you to tell us the plan of God?

Originally posted by MConor:

Originally posted by Ictfreein4o:

going against the plan of God that is gay marriage definition

Who are you to tell us the plan of God?

+1

also id like to add if GOD had made us in his image would he be the same way?........

Originally posted by Ictfreein4o:

will judged by the almighty.

I'm afraid you'll have to wait on Jaybro.
He usually has a lot on his plate these days.

Men not on my side coz i wuld want to carry my baby just like the way i look

I have always objected to queers having hijacked the word "gay". In a short lifetime it has went from a nice word indicating a happy spirit to something very much else. Barvershop Quartettes could once sing 'Woofenpoofs assembled with their glasses raised on high' without a snigger or mock raised eye. Damnable. Now 'Gaydalism' is neing suggested here as another adjective.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

I have always objected to queers having hijacked the word "gay".

Did you know that before it came to applied to homosexuals, the word pretty much referred to all sexual situations outside the straight one man-one woman mainstream; ie swingers, fetishists, etc. It referring to "happy" was the anomaly.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

also id like to add if GOD had made us in his image would he be the same way?........

Man made Jehovah in his than primitive, bronze-age image thousands of years ago. Hence the tribal laws became morphed into God's laws. Most of those laws are pretty silly now; I mean you can't wear a shirt made of two kinds of material

Originally posted by rjhowie:

I have always objected to queers having hijacked the word "gay". In a short lifetime it has went from a nice word indicating a happy spirit to something very much else. Barvershop Quartettes could once sing 'Woofenpoofs assembled with their glasses raised on high' without a snigger or mock raised eye. Damnable. Now 'Gaydalism' is neing suggested here as another adjective.

Given that the language has hit the million word mark, I'm willing to give this word over without a snigger or a guffaw.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

I have always objected to queers having hijacked the word "gay". In a short lifetime it has went from a nice word indicating a happy spirit to something very much else. Barvershop Quartettes could once sing 'Woofenpoofs assembled with their glasses raised on high' without a snigger or mock raised eye. Damnable. Now 'Gaydalism' is neing suggested here as another adjective.

FYI:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/517/how-did-gay-come-to-mean-homosexual

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/517/how-did-gay-come-to-mean-homosexual

Ah, so that confirms what I was saying.

s. As early as 1637 the Oxford English Dictionary gives one meaning as "addicted to social pleasures and dissipations. Often euphemistically: Of loose and immoral life" — whence, presumably, the term "gay blade." In the 1800s the term was used to refer to female prostitutes; to "gay it" meant "to copulate."

By 1935 the word "geycat," meaning a homosexual boy, had found its way into print, giving a clue as to the direction things were starting to go. Sure enough, by 1955 "gay" had acquired its present meaning, as P. Wildeblood notes in Against Law: "Most of the officers had been "gay' … an American euphemism for homosexual." Actually, gays had probably been using the term among themselves long before.

I just didn't know they have been using that far back.

Damnable Presbyterians trying to hijack the language!

And a bit of psuedo-intellectual dancing going on but which still points to what I say that over a time (and emphasised by Forum replies)the word HAS been morphed to mean something vastly different. In my youth and onwards the word had no such poof connotations still. The vast majority of mainstream people had no problem with the word 'gay'. Even when I first heard that Wiffenpoofs song first sung in an event those sigging it could not have been further from queerdom. It is still damnable that the phrase has been hijacked so warble on. If ever there was a lobby and lifestyle that wants to prefer over everyone else it's that weird lot and their fellow travellers here. But there again queerrs have always been supported by those that see themselves as so clever (yawn).

Originally posted by rjhowie:

he word HAS been morphed to mean something vastly different.

Indeed it has! The word now has a much tamer meaning than in the past.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

he vast majority of mainstream people had no problem with the word 'gay'

And still don't.Only silly , language abusing Scottish Presbyterians do.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

And a bit of psuedo-intellectual dancing going on but which still points to what I say that over a time (and emphasised by Forum replies)the word HAS been morphed to mean something vastly different. In my youth and onwards the word had no such poof connotations still.

Wrong. You were just ignorant of it.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

The vast majority of mainstream people had no problem with the word 'gay'.

And they still don't. It appears that the only thing that has changed is that you now do have a problem with the word.

What word best describes fear of words?

Logophobia?

Symptoms of Logophobia - Fear of words:
breathlessness, excessive sweating, nausea, dry mouth, feeling sick, shaking, heart palpitations, inability to think clearly, a fear of dying, becoming mad or losing control, a sensation of detachment from reality or a full blown anxiety attack.

You are not the only one to suffer from this phobia. Most sufferers are surprised to learn that they are far from alone in this surprisingly common, although often unspoken, phobia.

Logophobia is an intense fear of something that poses no actual danger. While adults with Logophobia realize that these fears are irrational, they often find that facing, or even thinking about facing, the feared situation brings on a panic attack or severe anxiety.
http://www.phobia-fear-release.com/logophobia.html

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

What word best describes fear of words?

Logophobia?

What's the word for the fear of being logophobic?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

And a bit of psuedo-intellectual dancing going on but which still points to what I say that over a time (and emphasised by Forum replies)the word HAS been morphed to mean something vastly different.

This should be no great surprise, since it's a characteristic feature of language.

'Silly' meant 'blessed' in Old English. There are thousands of such changes in all modern languages.

Were I to call you a "silly old man," it would be in that sense.

johnnysaucepn?

Silly and nice, perhaps?

It doesn't seem to matter anymore as the institution doesn't seem to have any morale commitment anymore anyway. I would do away with it and allow it to become a purely religious sacrament, for those so inclined.

A wonderful example of fence sitting there!

I think the statistics bear me out. It is nothing more than a revenue getter and a real moneymaker for lawyers. If I were a younger man I would not be in a hurry to enter into a contract knowing I had less than a 50% chance of having a success. Having been married for 47 years I fully support the idea of marriage between a man a woman. or if one belongs to a gay church go for it, I could care less. Make your own bed .
What is the difference married or not. Do you have any pangs about bedding a young thing after a nice dinner? Probably not. I hope I have clarified my position. being as I haven't been back long I thought I would try and act with what little class I have. However those who know me are aware that is most difficult.
I certainly wouldn't want you ,of all people, wondering at my fence setting.,or wonder if ole den would answer a question honestly and frankly.

Originally posted by USDen77:

I think the statistics bear me out. It is nothing more than a revenue getter and a real moneymaker for lawyers. If I were a younger man I would not be in a hurry to enter into a contract knowing I had less than a 50% chance of having a success. Having been married for 47 years I fully support the idea of marriage between a man a woman. or if one belongs to a gay church go for it, I could care less. Make your own bed .

Not sure whether you mean marriage in general is a revenue getter, or gay marriage particularly?

And when you say 50% success rate, how do you define a success in marriage?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by USDen77:

I think the statistics bear me out. It is nothing more than a revenue getter and a real moneymaker for lawyers. If I were a younger man I would not be in a hurry to enter into a contract knowing I had less than a 50% chance of having a success. Having been married for 47 years I fully support the idea of marriage between a man a woman. or if one belongs to a gay church go for it, I could care less. Make your own bed .

Not sure whether you mean marriage in general is a revenue getter, or gay marriage particularly?

And when you say 50% success rate, how do you define a success in marriage?

As a revenue getter any marriage, the fools can marry a horse as far as I am concerned.

A 50 % success rate is my conservative estimate of marriages that don't end in divorce if you accept the principal that government should be involved. As I have already stated The Gov should not be involved. I don't care how much common law you quote me. Times change.
I think I was quite clear. Do you ever do anything except ask questions. I will check back and see if you have posted a opinion. If you didn't I will block you . I remember you from the last time and the memories are not too good.

hey you are history I like it
The hell with it I blocked you anyway...what ever that means.

Originally posted by USDen77:

As I have already stated The Gov should not be involved.

The Church should be even less involved. Marriage is between two individuals — or more, I suppose.

Originally posted by USDen77:

I think I was quite clear. Do you ever do anything except ask questions. I will check back and see if you have posted a opinion. If you didn't I will block you . I remember you from the last time and the memories are not too good.

As clear as used coffee grounds.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

The Church should be even less involved. Marriage is between two individuals — or more, I suppose.Originally posted by USDen77:

That is up to your Church , if you don't agree move on.....hell start your own church just for you and yours.

"As clear as used coffee grounds."

What didn't you understand Frenzie

Originally posted by USDen77:

That is up to your Church , if you don't agree move on.....hell start your own church just for you and yours.

I can agree with that, but then we're using the term "religious" rather liberally.

Originally posted by USDen77:

"As clear as used coffee grounds."

What didn't you understand Frenzie

It's clear now, but I agreed with johnnysaucepn's questions. The topic's about gay "marrige", not marriage in general.

I think Gays should be allowed to marry have a family through Adoption or whatever means necessary. There are too many children crying out for a decent home and I know a lot of gay people and they all seem to have the same love to give to children as normal people, only its by 2 people of the same gender as opposed to a male and a female~

Originally posted by USDen77:

That is up to your Church , if you don't agree move on.....hell start your own church just for you and yours.

I agree. I don't think it's the any level of government's business who consenting adults choose to marry. However, by the same token, it's not the government's business who churches choose to marry together. A judge, on the other hand, is a civil servant and shouldn't be allow to reject the same-sex marriage on purely religious grounds.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

I agree. I don't think it's the any level of government's business who consenting adults choose to marry. However, by the same token, it's not the government's business who churches choose to marry together. A judge, on the other hand, is a civil servant and shouldn't be allow to reject the same-sex marriage on purely religious ground

As I said the government shouldn't be involved

Opinions only!
No questions!
No attempts to understand allowed!
All opinions must be unclearly stated in the vaguest terms possible!
Any attempt to clarify such opinions will be treated as the contemptible act of a snivelling commie!

Originally posted by alteccomputerspecialist:

I think Gays should be allowed to marry have a family through Adoption or whatever means necessary. There are too many children crying out for a decent home and I know a lot of gay people and they all seem to have the same love to give to children as normal people, only its by 2 people of the same gender as opposed to a male and a female~

In my Church we don't allow a sacrament of marriage for gays. However all who attend are warmly received. Their children if adopted are baptized at their request.
The last part,my opinion is Lesbians, generally, make better caregivers.That is just me.
In any free country,as far as I am concerned, Freedom of Religion is a must. It is self interest for me. If I didn't have it I would move out.

My Church is in division over poof clergy right now and a loooming division internally looks like coming. If they keep going the way heading I wil be jumping pews.

On the lesbians. I know one (only one) and she used to take quite a shine to me which was surprising knowing her history. I did muse that this was a new condundrum if I was going to attract queer women. The crosses one bears regarding women. On Thursday took a post graduate lovely young woman for lunch and her smile and hug said it all. Charisma, charisma a lifetime story waiting for a book.......

Originally posted by rjhowie:

My Church is in division over poof clergy right now and a loooming division internally looks like coming. If they keep going the way heading I wil be jumping pews.

Is that a euphemism for something, RJ?

The crosses one bears regarding women.

And vice versa.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

My Church is in division over poof clergy right now and a loooming division internally looks like coming. If they keep going the way heading I wil be jumping pews.

On the lesbians. I know one (only one) and she used to take quite a shine to me which was surprising knowing her history. I did muse that this was a new condundrum if I was going to attract queer women. The crosses one bears regarding women. On Thursday took a post graduate lovely young woman for lunch and her smile and hug said it all. Charisma, charisma a lifetime story waiting for a book.......

All are welcome

Well you can be as you like but I have no wish for a porgrom against them but i am not going to be part of a give in to everyhting queers or lesbians want or demand.

you are so wrong there johnnysaucepn re vice-versa regarding the long line of women in my life - and they still appear. Do i suspect a kind of cover for jealousy? Another thing I have a cross for!

I think you are overcompensating a tad there Mr rjhowie, it sounds like a classic case of Freudian reaction-formation if you ask me?

No I am not inclined to hide behind any slip, rection or anything else. If womanhood finds me an interesting pursuit and I in return treat them lke Princesses then we are all content.....

Originally posted by rjhowie:

you are so wrong there johnnysaucepn re vice-versa regarding the long line of women in my life - and they still appear. Do i suspect a kind of cover for jealousy? Another thing I have a cross for!

Not at all - I have ladies swooning at my feet all the time. Well, once. Last Monday, specifically.

It was a very crowded train.

The fact is, right from the onset, two opposite sex where created to form others and anything outside this practise becomes a wrong practise

Originally posted by Tagasin:

The fact is, right from the onset, two opposite sex where created to form others and anything outside this practise becomes a wrong practise

You're right. God hates amoeba. And bonobos. And dolphins. By the way, you do know that it's not marriage that creates the babies, don't you?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by Tagasin:

The fact is, right from the onset, two opposite sex where created to form others and anything outside this practise becomes a wrong practise

You're right. God hates amoeba. And bonobos. And dolphins. By the way, you do know that it's not marriage that creates the babies, don't you?

Don't forget about aphids. The vile, vile bisexual, transsexual creatures. God hates aphids with a fiery passion.

Once, I was invited for an amoebas marriage. Unfortunately I couldn't be present, the bonobos marriage lasted for three days.

Swooning, johnnysaucepn? Sounds like a knee-jerk to me being an expert. I prefer to be able to converse with my legion of admirers. Falling down because they're emotionally retarded doesn't appeal. But hey to be reasonable - get what you can!

I have no need for such desperate floozies, for I shall be wed upon the turn of the next season.

They call him Roofie Howie in those establishments for a reason

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Don't forget about aphids. The vile, vile bisexual, transsexual creatures. God hates aphids with a fiery passion.

Very slow, here at MyOpera… So, I'd add: Leave us not forget the obvious, that nature seems to prefer the mechanism she implemented, for each species.
Of course, all this anthropomorphizing muddies the water considerably.

Originally posted by Tagasin:

The fact is, right from the onset, two opposite sex where created to form others and anything outside this practise becomes a wrong practise

Dude, you forgot about snails & earthworms. Or does god hate them as well? God seems to be full of hate, I bet he's a member of the BNP.

Originally posted by Macallan:

They call him Roofie Howie in those establishments for a reason

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Very slow, here at MyOpera… So, I'd add: Leave us not forget the obvious, that nature seems to prefer the mechanism she implemented, for each species.
Of course, all this anthropomorphizing muddies the water considerably.

Not really - discussions about God are all about anthropomorphising. God the Father, God the Shepherd, God the Designer.
I've always been an advocate of not ascribing human qualities such as Love, Hate, Jealousy or Forgiveness to a conceptual God.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

I've always been an advocate of not ascribing human qualities such as Love, Hate, Jealousy or Forgiveness to a conceptual God.

Well, god begs to differ:

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:
for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the
iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and
fourth generation of them that hate me;"

~ Exodus 20:5, (King James Bible)

Sounds a bit like deity insecurity to me.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

On the lesbians. I know one (only one) and she used to take quite a shine to me which was surprising knowing her history.

I have to ask this, but do you think she mistook you for another woman? Were you wearing a dress or something at the time? I'm just curious.

Open day at the asylum again.

Originally posted by Spongg:

Originally posted by rjhowie:

On the lesbians. I know one (only one) and she used to take quite a shine to me which was surprising knowing her history.

I have to ask this, but do you think she mistook you for another woman? Were you wearing a dress or something at the time? I'm just curious.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Open day at the asylum again.

I'll take that as a 'yes'

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by Spongg:

Originally posted by rjhowie:

On the lesbians. I know one (only one) and she used to take quite a shine to me which was surprising knowing her history.

I have to ask this, but do you think she mistook you for another woman? Were you wearing a dress or something at the time? I'm just curious.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Open day at the asylum again.

I'll take that as a 'yes'

Well both you and Macallan seem to be well aquainted with asylums so I bow to your experience even if you feel embarrased at you reason for being experts.

That's pretty good line there, Mr. Howie. It still doesn't change the fact that the state doesn't have any right to tell consenting adults that they can't get married.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Well both you and Macallan seem to be well aquainted with asylums so I bow to your experience even if you feel embarrased at you reason for being experts.

Even if we were inmates at an asylum, we would be able to answer simple questions. Which apparently you can't. If you make accusations, you should be able to back them up. Or am I just playing word games again?

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

That's pretty good line there, Mr. Howie. It still doesn't change the fact that the state doesn't have any right to tell consenting adults that they can't get married.

That is what is wrong the state should not be able to tell them they can get married. The state should get put of marriage business.

Originally posted by USDen77:

That is what is wrong the state should not be able to tell them they can get married. The state should get put of marriage business.

Even cousins? Brothers and sisters? How about the under 12s? Should consenting adults people be able to marry their dogs?

Marriage is an union between a man and a woman, recognized by the state, if civilian and by the church, if religious. And nothing else.
It has two cumulative conditions, being between man and woman and being recognized by either state or church. If just one of those conditions are not present, bye bye marriage.

Failing the first condition, an union between two persons of the same sex is whatever they want to call it but certainly not a marriage.
Same happens if the second condition fails, which, surprisingly (or not), seems not to bother the "liberated" minds...

The simple reason for things being the way they are is called one thousand years of western civilization considering Family as the fundamental cell of society, therefore attributing to the formal man and woman relationship a particular status. Changing this is a retrocession and a failure, not any conquest. Luckily, many western states, churches and citizens still understand it.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

many western states, churches and citizens still understand it.

It should be a sacrament of Church only. Just my opinion.
As I have stated it has become joke to better than half of the participants..
Changing the status happens every day.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

The simple reason for things being the way they are is called one thousand years of western civilization considering Family as the fundamental cell of society, therefore attributing to the formal man and woman relationship a particular status.

I believe that the referenced Western culture refers to this as argumentum ad antiquitatem, although saying just that might suggest that the premise were correct. On the one hand, the 16th century was not a millennium ago — time might seem to fly when the Church flails and tries to meddle, but no more than 5 centuries have passed on either the Gregorian or the Julian calendar since it decided to stick its nose so deeply in such decidedly private affairs; on the other hand, the (extended) family has been the "fundamental cell of society" since before we could be properly called homo sapiens sapiens. Because of your emphasis on a union between a man and a woman you seem to be actually referring to the nuclear family, which hasn't been anywhere close to being the "fundamental cell of society" until the 18th century, if not until the late 19th or the early 20th century.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Changing this is a retrocession and a failure, not any conquest. Luckily, many western states, churches and citizens still understand it.

Understand what? The need to meddle in private affairs? The need to keep orphaned children away from a happy familyteh ebil gays? The need to stack even more sorrow on the widow(er) if their partner dies because they can't access their joint assets because they weren't properly married? I don't think it's a false dichotomy to say that you're either opposed to equality or you're hung up on a stupid word.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Marriage is an union between a man and a woman, recognized by the state, if civilian and by the church, if religious. And nothing else.

Then the state is wrong. Marriage is a union between two people. Long-term pair bonding, and a spoken commitment by the participants, has existed in such forms long before being codified by a state - and in most cases, it's solely the influence of churches that have ensured the exclusion of same-sex couples.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

The simple reason for things being the way they are is called one thousand years of western civilization considering Family as the fundamental cell of society, therefore attributing to the formal man and woman relationship a particular status. Changing this is a retrocession and a failure, not any conquest. Luckily, many western states, churches and citizens still understand it.

What classifies as 'family'? Being able to have children? Then what of the couples that no interest whatsoever in having children, or are incapable of having children? What of those that adopt? If a gay couple can look after a child just as well as a straight couple, then why shouldn't they be allowed to formalise their family structure?

I think I'll weigh in on Belfrager's side here, possibly for different reasons, but nevertheless on his side.

I have no objection to Gays. Lesbians or any combination of folk wanting to have a long lasting relationship in which they commit exclusively to each other. If the latter is present then I don't have objections to them having a state which is called, say, Partnership and that they be accorded some rights normally given to Married Couples. I say "some" not because I have a lot of things in mind that they should not share but because I don't want to imply automatic sanction to some subtlety which is not known to me. So, for example, they should be able to have the inheritance thing sorted and rights related to separation and other things that can happen to estrange two people.

But what I object to is the use of the word "Married" which I consider solely the domain of man and woman. I see the desire to use to word "Married" as simply the initial debating device to make the argument for equal rights to some form of partnership.

I am married and happily too, and see no reason to share that word with some other state.

On the matter of churches, and them being "required" to perform a "partnership ceremony" (to coin a phrase) , I don't think they should be required to so so if that is not within their beliefs. Civil ceremonies can do the business, with some other ceremony done by an institution, or club or church that agrees with or tolerates the persuasions of the couple involved.

But not "Marriage".

Originally posted by string:

I don't think they should be required to so so if that is not within their beliefs

I don't think we are disagreeing, unless if it that you feel must have a civil ceremony. I think the same things could be accomplished with a civil contract, as far as the couple is concerned. The state should just opt out of all things associated with marriage. I have been married 48 years and I can't think of one thing the state has done for me. They have laws to screw singles and other laws to screw married. Somehow people think the state has to be involved to further the species...... Right Possibly the state has done something I don't know about. I would bet whatever it is I could do the same thing myself.In any event I haven't missed it.

How do you feel about more than one wife??

More than one wife? You must be mad.

In some places the norm is to have a civil partnership formalised which is then "blessed" by a marriage ceremony in a church. I am suggesting an extension of that is appropriate for the subject at hand.

You have a weird idea of "State" denn as if it is something disconnected with the population and individuals; think of "community" rather than "State" and follow the logic through to the function of the "State".

Originally posted by string:

ore than one wife? You must be mad.

I didn't say I was in favor of that and yes some have said I was a little mad.

What I am saying the norm, what you call, is wrong. Using community I end up in same place.
At one time I raised GSH pointers and I never had to get them married to reproduce. They hunted as good. The only thing was I had to pay for OFFICIAL papers to prove what they were. And of course a license. I guess we will have to have OFFICIAL papers to indicate if they are Homo or not. They will be accredited, guaranteed. And they can pay a fee to government. If I am a genuine Heterosexual I will .maybe, have to, possibly, pay a higher fee.

All this is about is they, same gender couples, want,the fact that to be accepted by everyone that it is normal. It is purely A political agenda.
A free thinking man,even madd, must accept that fact that it is normal to be Homosexual. Because the government, community,says so.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I believe that the referenced Western culture refers to this as argumentum ad antiquitatem,

Argumentum ad veritas, that's the correct name...

Originally posted by Frenzie:

On the one hand, the 16th century was not a millennium ago — time might seem to fly when the Church flails and tries to meddle, but no more than 5 centuries have passed on either the Gregorian or the Julian calendar since it decided to stick its nose so deeply in such decidedly private affairs; on the other hand, the (extended) family has been the "fundamental cell of society" since before we could be properly called homo sapiens sapiens. Because of your emphasis on a union between a man and a woman you seem to be actually referring to the nuclear family, which hasn't been anywhere close to being the "fundamental cell of society" until the 18th century, if not until the late 19th or the early 20th century.

And these words are called historical revisionism under rainbow light.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

[...] or you're hung up on a stupid word

So stupid that you want it to be applied to those you are defending...

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

What of those that adopt? If a gay couple can look after a child just as well as a straight couple, then why shouldn't they be allowed to formalise their family structure?

About children adoption by homosexual couples: Since when adopting is a right of adults?? Be adopted is a right of children!. Children that, not being possible to live with their family, do have the right to happiness by having adults that can substitute, at the best possible way, the role of mother and father they can't have.
No children should be subject to social experiments for satisfying someone's ego.

Originally posted by USDen77:

All this is about is they, same gender couples, want,the fact that to be accepted by everyone that it is normal. It is purely A political agenda.
A free thinking man,even madd, must accept that fact that it is normal to be Homosexual. Because the government, community,says so.

Whereas all the laws making life harder for homosexuals were implemented without the involvement of politics.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I believe that the referenced Western culture refers to this as argumentum ad antiquitatem,

Argumentum ad veritas, that's the correct name...

I don't know what the Latin antonym of that is, but the veracity is abysmal. Regardless, if it were true it'd be an appeal to tradition, but in lieu of that it's an appeal to fictional tradition.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

On the one hand, the 16th century was not a millennium ago — time might seem to fly when the Church flails and tries to meddle, but no more than 5 centuries have passed on either the Gregorian or the Julian calendar since it decided to stick its nose so deeply in such decidedly private affairs; on the other hand, the (extended) family has been the "fundamental cell of society" since before we could be properly called homo sapiens sapiens. Because of your emphasis on a union between a man and a woman you seem to be actually referring to the nuclear family, which hasn't been anywhere close to being the "fundamental cell of society" until the 18th century, if not until the late 19th or the early 20th century.

And these words are called historical revisionism under rainbow light.

None of that has anything to do with gay marriage. For almost all intents and purposes, two modern-day married homosexuals with children are a nuclear family. Besides, I neglected to mention that the nuclear family hasn't been particularly more prevalent than married couples without children or unmarried people since the 1980s, so really you should be glad that gay people are contributing to your idealized unit of social cohesion.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

[...] or you're hung up on a stupid word

So stupid that you want it to be applied to those you are defending...

I don't care one iota what word is used.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

About children adoption by homosexual couples: Since when adopting is a right of adults?? Be adopted is a right of children!. Children that, not being possible to live with their family, do have the right to happiness by having adults that can substitute, at the best possible way, the role of mother and father they can't have.
No children should be subject to social experiments for satisfying someone's ego.

Assuming that were true, the logical conclusion would be that stable heterosexual parents should get precedence. Doing anything else would leave orphaned children without a home. But I guess anything's better than teh ebil gays.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Whereas all the laws making life harder for homosexuals were implemented without the involvement of politics.

What,Old laws against sodomy. Politics paid a part in that.

Homosexuals were not even a topic while I was growing up. We were the silent generation
ex. We had a town supervisor, a very good supervisor. He was Homo. it was fine until he started picking up young male hitchhikers......That was against the law to have sex with a minor. What was wrong about that. It was mind your own business thing.

Now ,the brainwashed, politically correct crowd, wants to brainwash my grandson in Kindergarten that it is just a normal sexual behavior. No matter how you come down on the thing. that is not right thing to do. They never pointed out to me the benefits of being a heterosexual at that age.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

About children adoption by homosexual couples: Since when adopting is a right of adults?? Be adopted is a right of children!. Children that, not being possible to live with their family, do have the right to happiness by having adults that can substitute, at the best possible way, the role of mother and father they can't have.
No children should be subject to social experiments for satisfying someone's ego.

Good stuff......

Originally posted by USDen77:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Whereas all the laws making life harder for homosexuals were implemented without the involvement of politics.

What,Old laws against sodomy. Politics paid a part in that.

My point precisely. But given what I've written in this topic, do you really think I'm talking about laws against sodomy?

Originally posted by USDen77:

It was mind your own business thing.

Sure. Always. Mind your own business is exactly what I keep repeating.

Originally posted by USDen77:

Now ,the brainwashed, politically correct crowd, wants to brainwash my grandson in Kindergarten that it is just a normal sexual behavior. No matter how you come down on the thing. that is not right thing to do. They never pointed out to me the benefits of being a heterosexual at that age.

I rather doubt they're talking about sexual behavior in Kindergarten. Equating homosexuality with sexual behavior is rather silly regardless; I don't spend most of my heterosexual life either thinking about intercourse or actually doing it, so why would homosexuals?

Perhaps I misunderstood your position on some things...sorry

Point one... This purely a political move to make heterosexuals accept homosexuality

Point two.....and the government should not be involved in Marriage ,period.

Point three....It shouldn't be part of curriculum of even middle schools.

As you know NY is involved in the debate now. I think it is being reviewed for passage now. The above is my opinion and I doubt it will change.

START******************************************************************************************
Let's forbid marriage between overweight people. Been overweight is sick, it should not be allowed THOSE people to reproduce, we need to think about continuity of our kind. And I don't want THOSE people to share same term "marriage couple" with me (tall, blond, blue eyes) and my beautiful-hot-slim-sexy wife. That's gross.
But hey, I'm educated "liberal" (WANNABE). I really don't hate anyone. It's just..... they shouldn't parade around like that. For Christ's sake, my children will think that being overweight is normal and stop taking care about health/eating habits. If they choose to live like that, then they need to keep it in privacy of their own home.
Even the Holy Bible teach us that gluttony is one of Cardinal Sins. Amen.
****************************************************************************** END OF STUPIDITY!!!

Of course, the above part is idiotic, disgusting, chauvinistic, nazi-oriented... (don't know how to say it right, I'm not very good in English ).
Last Saturday, there was first gay pride in Split (Dalmatia region, country Croatia), beautiful city where I lived for couple of years while studying.
200 gay activist, 600 policeman, 10 000 anti-gay protesters. photo gallery youtube vid

ironically, same day , in Rome (Italy- just across Adriatic sea, look on google maps where is Split, Croatia) there was also gay pride.
video no policeman, no incidents


Ohh and THE Pope was in Croatia...week before pride gallery

Originally posted by lambda00:

nazi-oriented... (don't know how to say it right, I'm not very good in English )

Bigoted?

Originally posted by lambda00:

ironically, same day , in Rome (Italy- just across Adriatic sea, look on google maps where is Split, Croatia) there was also gay pride.

I think you mean coincidentally. At least I see nothing ironic about it.

Where in the Bible does it say the US federal or state government should regulate ,marriage......of any sort. get real. Cry baby...why don't you just go and do your thing. Nobody gives a sh--

yea, they are all over trying to impose their ways. You are calling the wrong people Nazi's. I didn't watch your video's probably more left wing peaceful get together. We have them here all the time.. You know going around breaking windows etc. ..and calling the right troublemakers. What a bunch of crap heads.

There can always be argument I suppose for and against marriage hwowver i would say to USDen77 that we have been aware for some time that in practice where there are marriage families they sem to have greater stickability. Those against marriage might get uptight but that is a salient point practically. In the other direction I did come across a couple I knew in community work where he took up with a divorced woman and her 3 children without getting married. She was a loose cannon but in their case things became more settled and for several years a degree of continuity. However it was knocked asunder when he took off (!). I know that can happen in any situation before someone starts a diatribe!

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I think you mean coincidentally.

No, I meant ironically... While our Good Catholic's (TM), and they declaring them self like that, throwing stones and yelling "kill the fags ... in Jasenovac with them", in Rome people having fun. And we all know that Rome majority are Buddhist's.

Originally posted by USDen77:

yea, they are all over trying to impose their ways. You are calling the wrong people Nazi's.

Don't know what or who you think Nazi's are (Disney cartoon characters?!?), but here, aggressors and butchers from World War 2, are called Nazi.
During the WW2, Croatia was quisling country, ruled by political party called Ustase with the leader Ante Pavelic. Their symbol was capital letter U, and they were butchers killing everyone who was different in nationality, political views, religion, sexuality .....
Now, why I'm digging that from past?
Well today (last 20 years, with arriving of democracy), many Croats idealizing those Ustase, Ante Pavelic, and their politic.
They are not some isolated groups, like stupid teenagers who wants to be original or something, this is a common way of thinking in here. On weddings, amongst other song, there is required part with songs that glorify Ustase, Ante Pavelic, Jure and Boban (black legion commanders) and their killings. Many Facebook profiles have U or Pavelic graphic as avatars or raised right hand (hail !!). It is a common thing here.

what that got to do with gay marriage ? ... During the ww2 (and before and after!!!) Catholic Church was big supporter of Ustase. Same thing is today, priests doing Mass for Ante Pavelic and other Ustase leaders, want to equalize crimes that commies did with the crimes that Ustase regime did (before commies).
They need attention, they need polarization and they need enemy. Why? Because of the money. In ex regime, they didn't have any income from state budget. Now (democracy) they getting 100 mil. dollars a year + contracts with the state (lead by nationalist party) that are above Constitution. 100 mil. is not big money for you, but we are small country, 4,5 mil ppl. And the Pope love us now very much.
For instance, Slovenia, our neighbor, member of EU and also ex Yugoslavia republic, is not giving any money to church. All religions are equal.

What their going to sell people now, in time when scientists almost every day have some breakthrough ?
... Heaven and Hell? ...Second Coming?
Their gonna establish them self as keeper of "holly matrimony between man and the woman" ...easy money, as always.
Church didn't invent marriage. And left wing here is common sense.

edit: and the gays are easy target to get political points (here). They didn't raised their voices against crimes that Croatian army did in last war (91' - 95'), but marriage between two guys or girls..... ahhh that's a sin!!!
Today, there is a new gay pride in Zagreb, Croatia capital. And last week we end up negotiation (long process) with EU to become one of EU members. awww

Originally posted by lambda00:

Don't know what or who you think Nazi's are (Disney cartoon characters?!?), but here, aggressors and butchers from World War 2, are called Nazi.
During the WW2, Croatia was quisling country, ruled by political party called Ustase with the leader Ante Pavelic. Their symbol was capital letter U, and they were butchers killing everyone who was different in nationality, political views, religion, sexuality .....

You brought it up pal.....oh thanks for history lesson .....hear Jaybro...he will send you a medal.

yea it has to be church's fault., if not then just deviates of nature I guess.

Originally posted by string:

But what I object to is the use of the word "Married" which I consider solely the domain of man and woman. I see the desire to use to word "Married" as simply the initial debating device to make the argument for equal rights to some form of partnership.

But why is it that you see it as the domain of man and woman? What is it about that state that means it can only be man plus woman? Or to put it another way, what makes a marriage a marriage?

I am married and happily too, and see no reason to share that word with some other state.

Nobody's asking you to share the word with some other state - they're asking you to allow other people to share in exactly the same state. How would you have felt if you couldn't make the same commitment to your wife that other couples could make to each other?

Originally posted by USDen77:

I think the same things could be accomplished with a civil contract, as far as the couple is concerned.

Indeed. I brought up a similar point of yours with a gay friend of mine. Why is the state involved in marriage in the first fucking place (my language can be coarser than yours...) And he brought up points about how marriage ensures certain rights, ie inheritance, hospital visitation rights, etc. Now his point was that a partner (talking about gay or straight) could die suddenly before you can draw up such a contract. My counter argument is that if you have time to arrange a wedding, you have time to draw up a contract and take it to a notoriety. I do understand why people would want to go through the ceremony, though.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Indeed. I brought up a similar point of yours with a gay friend of mine. Why is the state involved in marriage in the first fucking place (my language can be coarser than yours...)

You can easily turn that point around. Why would you think marriage (at least the part in which the state is involved) is anything other than a certain type of civil contract?

As it is, civil contracts and marriage are only (potentially) equal in some places on earth, and where they are it's generally much easier to remove parity from said civil contracts than to make changes to turn marriage back*. Additionally, gay marriage does not mean adding anything to the law. It means simplifying the law by removing an exception. Giving civil contracts feature parity tends to require adding to laws. Your idea requires a complete overhaul of all kinds of legal systems, which might perhaps be preferable, but is probably much harder to achieve if only due to international laws.

* Besides, such feature parity only exists in some US states and even then I'm not sure if it's true parity or merely approaching parity sufficiently for it not to matter in most cases.

Leaving aside the marriage/partnership distinction, it's worth mentioning that, if they want, people can enter into a non-formalised living arrangement. Presumably more than two people could. But formalisation, be it in Church or Civil Office, bestows certain rights and obligation on the couple in return for them avowing their commitment to the union.

That is certainly the role of Government in that it protects children, bestows inheritance rights, and other rights. This it does in a way that casual liaisons do not.

The State has certainly got just not a right, but a duty to get involved.

If individuals do not want to formalise their union, they don't have to; they don't have to access those rights and responsibilities that go with the formalised marriage. I don't see any conflict with individual freedom in this matter.

It's spelled "marriage"

@aefields
where did homo gone from your description?

Originally posted by USDen77:

yea it has to be church's fault., if not then just deviates of nature I guess.

No, it's the Teletubbies. They have big influence on forming the society.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

(my language can be coarser than yours...

I wasn't trying.

Originally posted by lambda00:

No, it's the Teletubbies. They have big influence on forming the society

O'Rielly for president.

Originally posted by lambda00:

END OF STUPIDITY!!!

Why don't you follow your own words?

To lead must follow!

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Why don't you follow your own words?

well...thats ur philosophy...I've just pointed out


Marriage office:
-hello
-hello
-me and my girlfriend would like to get married...
-Ohh, well you are seem fine, but she..... she's got some extra pond's... I'm sorry, I will have problems with authority. But!!!... here is some "Holy Extra Fast Fat Burner" juice and "Blessed chocolate bar's" for only $99.99. She'll be slim in no time.... God Bless You!!!

Meanwhile, New York Senate set to approve gay marriage

Originally posted by USDen77:

I wasn't trying

I wonder if I could write a whole story, with a coherent plot, decent character development, somewhat of a good, etc using just profanity?

well i have to say is if two people really love one another what is the problem.everybody deserves to be happy right.

Gay marriage legal in New York State after Senate passes historic bill 33-29

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Gay marriage legal in New York State after Senate passes historic bill 33-29

Sold out by republicans.Well the idea of anal sex is repulsive to some of us old guys. You young fellows have at it.

No profanity. But that is the story

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Originally posted by USDen77:

I wasn't trying

I wonder if I could write a whole story, with a coherent plot, decent character development, somewhat of a good, etc using just profanity?

I'm sure you could

Originally posted by USDen77:

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Gay marriage legal in New York State after Senate passes historic bill 33-29

Sold out by republicans.Well the idea of anal sex is repulsive to some of us old guys. You young fellows have at it.

No profanity. But that is the story

How many gay couples, about to get married, asked you, personally, for anal sex lately?
Or is that more like wishful thinking form the closet?

The tide of human freedom is gradually rolling is towards human freedom (in part meaning any TP srewball the GOP ends up nominating will not get elected.) Tea Party monkey asses, you hold back the the tide, brah.

Can we watch the language here?

The Tea Party is all about economic issues, it's the old Moral Majority and similar which would have fits with gay marriage - if you can call it that. For some of us, marriage is supposed to be about raising a family, and any couple (or group if you like) living together not intending to do so shouldn't really be considered "married". Okay, a gay couple could adopt - or might have children from a previous straight marriage - but otherwise they wouldn't qualify. (And yes, I'd exclude straight couples who intend not to have children.)

I have no problem with having gay relationships on a comparable footing with straight relationships, but that's not supporting "gay marriage".

[/quote]
"How many gay couples, about to get married, asked you, personally, for anal sex lately?
Or is that more like wishful thinking form the closet? [/quote]"

Is that a proposition ?

Originally posted by USDen77:

Sold out by republicans.Well the idea of anal sex is repulsive to some of us old guys. You young fellows have at it.

What on earth has anal sex got to do with anything? If you think that's the be-all and end-all about gay sex, let alone gay marriage, then you're badly misinformed.

Does BSDM turn your stomach too? Do you think that straight couples that engage in BDSM sex should not be allowed to get married either?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by USDen77:

Sold out by republicans.Well the idea of anal sex is repulsive to some of us old guys. You young fellows have at it.

What on earth has anal sex got to do with anything? If you think that's the be-all and end-all about gay sex, let alone gay marriage, then you're badly misinformed.

In his case it's more like willfully ignorant.

Originally posted by USDen77:

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Gay marriage legal in New York State after Senate passes historic bill 33-29

Sold out by republicans.Well the idea of anal sex is repulsive to some of us old guys. You young fellows have at it.

No profanity. But that is the story

Proof that you just can't keep a persistent poster down through banning.

Originally posted by USDen77:

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Gay marriage legal in New York State after Senate passes historic bill 33-29

Sold out by republicans.Well the idea of anal sex is repulsive to some of us old guys. You young fellows have at it.

No profanity. But that is the story

ino this is a bit late. just dont log in anymore, please everytime i read your post an innocent child offs themselves due to your stupidity.

Sad isn't it?

Originally posted by USDen77:

aww you killed another one

You do know better than to quote stuff like that VB, it makes you as guilty as he is ...

Let Liberty & Justice have at it...if it floats that boat that is!

I think same sex marriage is fine, & should be legalized.....for women only.

Why, because they can give birth naturally---procreate naturally once a donation is secured, & their relationships are more culturally acceptable.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

I think same sex marriage is fine, & should be legalized.....for women only.

Why, because they can give birth naturally---procreate naturally once a donation is secured, & their relationships are more culturally acceptable.

Uh, yes. Natural. Competely natural. Right.

Originally posted by sgunhouse:

You do know better than to quote stuff like that VB, it makes you as guilty as he is ...

its more or less i forgot how to quick quote so i really just quoted the whole thing.

Originally posted by sgunhouse:

olunteer
Posts: 58544

You do know better than to quote stuff like that VB, it makes you as guilty as he is

Guilty of what tell ? Having a opinion that goes against the brainwashed politically correct world we live in. Oh my .How dare I.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Proof that you just can't keep a persistent poster down through banning.

I left on my the own.. What ever would possess me to do that.

Well now johnnysaucepn re for women only and the mutter about it being challenged satirically as normal. Kind of equates with male to male queerdom. One each is the score!