Homosexual love

[alan1]

There are so many hoops gays have to jump through. It's a shame. No matter how many hoops, it's never "for sure". A judge could rule for the "biological mother or father" at any time. Or even for a brother or sister. It's never 100%,

It's not gays only. Wills get contested all the time, most of the time it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. But, go ahead and pretend it does if that makes you feel better.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Its incompatible with Christianity too. But there are plenty of Christian homosexuals.

Its all in how you interpret it.

There may be fags that proclaim themselves to be Christian, but there are no Christian faggots, period, the homosexual lifestyle is not compatible with bible teaching, therefore a homosexual cannot be Christian, their lifestyle has nil to do with the bible teaching.

If it's incompatible, why do you consider yourself Christian then?

The Bass is no sodomite so you're asking a dumb question, aren't you?

 

[Diuretic]

See my other post about the original point of sanctioning marriage.
Just because the state feels like it belongs in the marriage business doesn't make the state right. Removing that power from the state doesn't require anarchy, it requires people to tell the state to get the fuck out of their personal lives.

Point taken but given that marriage is a legal concept I don't think the state will walk away from it. And nor should it. The whole idea of marriage is to give legitimacy to a union. The problem is that the union is - for the purposes of this discussion - un-necessarily restrictive. It's not so much the state butting out as the state needing to recognise that the "traditional" model may not be the sole definition of marriage any longer.

Just because it is a contract doesn't mean the state needs to sanction it. I can enter into lots of contracts without the state sanctioning them. For example, I have a neighbor that mows my yard. I pay him $25 for that. It is a verbal contract that him and I have agreed to. the state didn't sanction it, has nothing to do with it and cannot tell either of us that we can or cannot do it. It is a legal contract for all intents and purposes. If I pay him $25 and he doesn't mow my yard, I can legally sue him. On the other side, if he mows my yard and I don't pay him, he can sue me. It doesn't require the state to acknowledge it or sanction it. We have court systems for contract violation, we don't need the state to sign off on every contract.

Sorry for being a bit late, I know the thread has moved on but just need to make a point. Contract is a private matter, marriage is a public matter. Marriage has certain obligations and rights which are enforceable by the state. For example, in many jurisdictions a spouse can't be compelled to give evidence against their spouse (with some exceptions).

 

[Diuretic]

It's only a legal matter because the government told you it was.
The state has no business sanctioning marriage, period.

The problem is that the state holds the reins. Legislators are in a position of power even in a liberal democracy. I don't mean the individuals occupying the roles on a temporary basis, I mean the offices themselves. You might think that the state has no business in sanctioning marriage but the fact is that it feels it does. That idea goes back to ancient Rome and no doubt before the Roman Republic. Essentially marriage is the official recognition of a relationship and an awarding of status to the issue of that relationship. Short of pure anarchism that's not going to change any time soon.

The concept of marriage pre-dates ancient Rome by quite a few tick tocks. The meaning and purpose have historically been about retaining ownership of property and had nothing to do with recognizing any relationship by virtue of a consenting agreement. Some Christians will cite Sod + Gom as evidence God denounces homosexuality but they have not done any homework so they totally miss the irony their frame of reference viewed virgin womyn not as people but only property. In their haste to justify their bigotry against gays they accidentally reference institutionalized rape to defend their views.

I usually start from Rome because the books that I have on Roman Law cover marriage quite extensively. It seems from my reading of it that marriage was in Rome a civil legal matter and I don't think religion came into it. I'm not sure of the origins of marriage before then. I also seem to remember that in mediaeval Europe marriage was celebrated in the church for monarchs and nobles while the hoi polloi just shacked up. Exactly how marriage became a Christian sacrament is not know to me but finding out about it would be interesting.

 

[RadiomanATL]

The Bass is no sodomite

Whatever you got to tell yourself to sleep through the night.

 

[JakeStarkey]

RadiomanATL, I think rdean has the right of it, and MM is simply being stubborn at being called on the issue. A POA cannot override the laws of the state where it is issued. rdean (and I agree with him) suggests that MM get a second opinion. That just makes sense.

My POA's were written abiding by the state laws where I live.
Try again dumbass.

Sure. Have a nice day. And do get that second opinion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So show me a state in which giving legal, documentary PoA concerning someone who is medically incapacitated would not hold up in court.

Nope, the original assertion, unproven, belongs to MM. He needs to provide evidence that such a POA supposedly will hold up. Then I can go from there.

As soon as I become medically incapacitated and my POA kicks in, I'll prove it.
Notice how you only hear about people that don't have a medical POA when you look at the news? Terri Schiavo type situations.

Seems you just want to be an obstinate asshole.

Quit projecting your worries onto us. Get a second opinion.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

yes your right

gays were slaves, and endured jim crowe laws that said they cant drink at the same fountation

no wait, they just wanted to get married

youre such a fag enabler

and probably cant take a joke either

A generation or two from now, people will look back and wonder why we denied the civil rights of homosexuals just like we look back 40 years ago and wonder why we denied the civil rights of blacks. Today will be looked at as a prejudiced time in the future because people are fighting against gay rights.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

The Bass is no sodomite

Whatever you got to tell yourself to sleep through the night.

Whatever faggot, anyone who doesn't agree with faggery and doesn't support gay marriage are automatically faggots themselves in your bizarro twisted world, right? Lay the hell off whatever drugs you're talking with your jackass fallacious arguments, you fag supporters are just running out of excuses to defend faggery.

 

[RadiomanATL]

The Bass is no sodomite

Whatever you got to tell yourself to sleep through the night.

Whatever faggot, anyone who doesn't agree with faggery and doesn't support gay marriage are automatically faggots themselves in your bizarro twisted world, right?

Nope. Guys who bugger other guys are.

You qualify.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Whatever you got to tell yourself to sleep through the night.

Whatever faggot, anyone who doesn't agree with faggery and doesn't support gay marriage are automatically faggots themselves in your bizarro twisted world, right?

Nope. Guys who bugger other guys are.

You qualify.

More inane pro-faggot blabbering, you have offered nil evidence to support fag's right to marriage, arguing with you is not an option, so take your trolling to another thread you sausage jockey.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Whatever faggot, anyone who doesn't agree with faggery and doesn't support gay marriage are automatically faggots themselves in your bizarro twisted world, right?

Nope. Guys who bugger other guys are.

You qualify.

More inane pro-faggot blabbering, you have offered nil evidence to support fag's right to marriage, arguing with you is not an option, so take your trolling to another thread you sausage jockey.

Why do you like your salad tossed by other guys?

I'm curious.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Nope. Guys who bugger other guys are.

You qualify.

More inane pro-faggot blabbering, you have offered nil evidence to support fag's right to marriage, arguing with you is not an option, so take your trolling to another thread you sausage jockey.

Why do you like your salad tossed by other guys?

I'm curious.

RadiofagATL is a shirt lifter trolling USMB for gay sex, only problem is you're looking in the wrong direction, this thread is full of pro-sodomites like yourself, why haven't you propositioned your comrades?

 

[RadiomanATL]

More inane pro-faggot blabbering, you have offered nil evidence to support fag's right to marriage, arguing with you is not an option, so take your trolling to another thread you sausage jockey.

Why do you like your salad tossed by other guys?

I'm curious.

this thread is full of pro-sodomites

Well, it wasn't until you showed up.

 

[Harry Dresden]

this thread is full of pro-sodomites

we are just following the Head Sodomite ....the name of Chuckie Bass.....ever hear of him?....

 

[Bass v 2.0]

this thread is full of pro-sodomites

we are just following the Head Sodomite ....the name of Chuckie Bass.....ever hear of him?....

The Head Sodomite[pun intended] is you and radiofag is second in command behind you[again, pun intended].

 

[RadiomanATL]

The Head Sodomite

Yes, we know you are.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

The Head Sodomite

Yes, we know you are.

Tan pis Radiofag, the Bass could never be a sodomite he's God protected, can't say the same for you. Take your taradiddle to another thread.

 

[RadiomanATL]

The Head Sodomite

Yes, we know you are.

the Bass could never be a sodomite

You stick to blowjobs only?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Yes, we know you are.

the Bass could never be a sodomite

You stick to blowjobs only?

Quit projecting and sharing your gay m.o. on a public forum.