Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[ArmyCowboy]

Here I was thinking 'conservatives' supported freedom and personal liberty.

So, why are so many trying to prevent homosexuals from having the freedom to marry?

Homosexuals have every freedom to marry. Why do you think otherwise?
But just because they want to marry doesn't mean they can force the rest of us to go along. That would violate our ability to exercise our freedom of conscience, something conservatives believe in. Not that you know a damn thing about conservatism, fobbit.

I know enough about blatant hypocrisy when I see it.

Allowing gays to marry won't change a damned thing in your life.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

As a person who grew up without a father, i have to disagree.


Children need a father.

I'd think a kid would be better off with two loving and not crazy moms that one mom and a crazy dad.

Not to diss your situation in anyway.

How about one sane parent vs two crazy fags? How about anything vs 2 crazy fags?

When all else fails, play the crazy bigot card.

How refrshing.

 

[Katzndogz]

Earlier this month, 11-year-old Grace Evans appeared before a panel of Minnesota lawmakers considering a redefinition of marriage in that state. She testified to the significance of her mother and father and the different contributions each makes to her life.

Then she ended with a simple question: “Which parent do I not need, my mom, or my dad?”

The Same-Sex Marriage Debate Through a Child's Eyes

According to the government, she needs neither. The government is the parent.

 

[bendog]

As a person who grew up without a father, i have to disagree.


Children need a father.

I'd think a kid would be better off with two loving and not crazy moms that one mom and a crazy dad.

Not to diss your situation in anyway.

How about one sane parent vs two crazy fags? How about anything vs 2 crazy fags?

using derogatory terms sort of defines you.... azzhat

 

[legaleagle_45]

The fact is that kids do not need a mother and a father. If they did, it would be illegal to be a single parent. Instead, single women have babies all the time, and no one bats an eye.

Pretty sure that there would not be too many children unless there was both a mother and a father... although clearly they need not be married.

 

[American76Pride]

I see no big deal honestly. However, both sides of the argument are at fault here. Both sides have this obsession with the term marriage, and I think that's what's making the argument heated.

 

[bendog]

I'd think a kid would be better off with two loving and not crazy moms that one mom and a crazy dad.

Not to diss your situation in anyway.

How about one sane parent vs two crazy fags? How about anything vs 2 crazy fags?

When all else fails, play the crazy bigot card.

How refrshing.

yeah.

Personally, it concerns me a bit to use marriage with same sex unions. Not that they're any less valid or meaningful. But, for me there's something useful for the notion that a male parent should not find it socially acceptable to not support his family. Yes, it's sexist. And, yes, same sex couples can have one parent split with no support.

But, I look at the break down in poor, and esp Black, households that Sen Moynihan predicted would occur with LBJ's welfare experiment ... it was a tragic failure.

Marriage, in a religious sense, was God telling men to do the right thing. And, men who didn't weren't given a social pass. They were considered dead beats more so than today.

I've no problem with civil unions and letting individual religions and denominations decide marriage for themselves. I'm an episcopalian and we have blessings, and probably soon a uniform ceremony, for same sex unions.

 

[g5000]

The government does not require you to have children to get married. The government does not require you to have children to file a married tax return.

The government does not require you to have children to collect Social Security survivor's benefits.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

How about one sane parent vs two crazy fags? How about anything vs 2 crazy fags?

When all else fails, play the crazy bigot card.

How refrshing.

yeah.

Personally, it concerns me a bit to use marriage with same sex unions. Not that they're any less valid or meaningful. But, for me there's something useful for the notion that a male parent should not find it socially acceptable to not support his family. Yes, it's sexist. And, yes, same sex couples can have one parent split with no support.

But, I look at the break down in poor, and esp Black, households that Sen Moynihan predicted would occur with LBJ's welfare experiment ... it was a tragic failure.

Marriage, in a religious sense, was God telling men to do the right thing. And, men who didn't weren't given a social pass. They were considered dead beats more so than today.

I've no problem with civil unions and letting individual religions and denominations decide marriage for themselves. I'm an episcopalian and we have blessings, and probably soon a uniform ceremony, for same sex unions.

As long as the same standards are set for heterosexual unions/marriage, I have no problem with that either.

 

[g5000]

Earlier this month, 11-year-old Grace Evans appeared before a panel of Minnesota lawmakers considering a redefinition of marriage in that state. She testified to the significance of her mother and father and the different contributions each makes to her life.

Then she ended with a simple question: “Which parent do I not need, my mom, or my dad?”

The Same-Sex Marriage Debate Through a Child's Eyes

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q]Zach Wahls Speaks About Family - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bendog]

yeah. It seems wierd to me that a priest marries me, but that can land me in civil court with a money judgment against me.

Regardless of the gay angle, it seems mixing apples and oranges.

On the gay side, the problem is that with crazy southern bible states like mine, a gay couple can't enforce property division or child support stuff down here. So, the bible bangers protect kids by not requiring their same sex parents equally support them.

--
No family is perfect, and not all dads will teach how to play catch, and not all moms will teach you how to fix a button, but the question is whether same sex couples are less capable of raising functional children than male/female couples. And, on average, there's no difference. It's not the orientation that matters, it's the craziness or desire to be a good parent that is the difference.

 

[WorldWatcher]

yeah. It seems wierd to me that a priest marries me, but that can land me in civil court with a money judgment against me.

I wouldn't. A priest/rabbi/minister can religiously marry you without a civil component. However when you go to the State and get a Civil Marriage license and the priest then signs acting as an officiant of the government, then you become Civilly Married and that when you can be pulled into court.



>>>>

 

[bendog]

yeah. It seems wierd to me that a priest marries me, but that can land me in civil court with a money judgment against me.

I wouldn't. A priest/rabbi/minister can religiously marry you without a civil component. However when you go to the State and get a Civil Marriage license and the priest then signs acting as an officiant of the government, then you become Civilly Married and that when you can be pulled into court.



>>>>

Well, that's the point. Why should a priest, or any other religious official, have any role in civil court? I don't know any priest who would perform a marriage ceremony if the parents didn't acknowledge civil law responsibility for offspring. But gay and straight couples should look to civil law, and courts, before obtaining any religious blessing.

 

[WorldWatcher]

yeah. It seems wierd to me that a priest marries me, but that can land me in civil court with a money judgment against me.

I wouldn't. A priest/rabbi/minister can religiously marry you without a civil component. However when you go to the State and get a Civil Marriage license and the priest then signs acting as an officiant of the government, then you become Civilly Married and that when you can be pulled into court.



>>>>

Well, that's the point. Why should a priest, or any other religious official, have any role in civil court? I don't know any priest who would perform a marriage ceremony if the parents didn't acknowledge civil law responsibility for offspring. But gay and straight couples should look to civil law, and courts, before obtaining any religious blessing.

Same-sex couples have been getting religious blessings for the Religious Marriages for years.


>>>>

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

Michelle married a gay guy - I think she approves.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ever notice that no matter how many of these bad-things-will-happen-if-gay-marriage-is-made-legal threads these nuts start,

they never actually specify and prove that anything bad will happen?

Why is that?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Ever notice that no matter how many of these bad-things-will-happen-if-gay-marriage-is-made-legal threads these nuts start,

they never actually specify and prove that anything bad will happen?

Why is that?

Because nothing bad* has happened since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been available since 2004.





* The only "bad" things that have happened are a result of Public Accommodation laws which were already on the books, not because of government entities recognizing Civil Marriage between members of the same sex.



>>>>

 

[bendog]

I wouldn't. A priest/rabbi/minister can religiously marry you without a civil component. However when you go to the State and get a Civil Marriage license and the priest then signs acting as an officiant of the government, then you become Civilly Married and that when you can be pulled into court.



>>>>

Well, that's the point. Why should a priest, or any other religious official, have any role in civil court? I don't know any priest who would perform a marriage ceremony if the parents didn't acknowledge civil law responsibility for offspring. But gay and straight couples should look to civil law, and courts, before obtaining any religious blessing.

Same-sex couples have been getting religious blessings for the Religious Marriages for years.


>>>>

True, but my particular church, it led to this well funded subversion

http://www.canticlecommunications.com/Data/Sites/1/docs/following_the_money.pdf

 

[g5000]

Good article....

Why Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

Here are the consequences of legalizing gay marriage for you:

NONE! ZIP! ZERO!

You will not have to suck a dick. Unless you want to. No tanks are going to come and make you.


Here are the consequences of legalizing gay marriage for gays:

They get exactly the same cash and prizes straight married people get from the government.


I know you think every time a gay couple files a married tax return an angel will lose his wings and be sodomized by Satan, but the evidence is still out on that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Here I was thinking 'conservatives' supported freedom and personal liberty.

So, why are so many trying to prevent homosexuals from having the freedom to marry?

Homosexuals have every freedom to marry. Why do you think otherwise?
But just because they want to marry doesn't mean they can force the rest of us to go along. That would violate our ability to exercise our freedom of conscience, something conservatives believe in. Not that you know a damn thing about conservatism, fobbit.

I know enough about blatant hypocrisy when I see it.

Allowing gays to marry won't change a damned thing in your life.

Yesm you are the practicioner of blatant hypocrisy. You want to force your opinions on other people but call names when you're on the receiving end. And when confronted with fact you scuttle into the darkness like the cockroach you are.