Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"homosexuals" cannot have children through "homosexual" choices. At the root of children there remains both an egg and a sperm. And the fact is that two gay males work and both invest and both have social security taken from their paychecks. Each male is entitled to what he contributed. But to suggest that one male is entitled to also collect the social security of his bed buddy upon death, well ---- that is not a proper reason for marriage, nor the appropriate use of social security.
with real marriage, the issue is that the wife often cannot work outside the home, as she must raise the family both her and her husband established through their marriage consummation. And so she may not have the opportunity to be invested in social security. And yet the very reason for their families success may lie fully on the wife's upbringing of that couples children and tending to the home, while her husband works to bring home the bacon.
totally poppy cock above just totasll poppy cock
a "homosexual's " lifestyle is artificial at best. And has little to do with what they produce but what they take upon themselves --- their choice.
poppycock what a bunch of poppycock
prove it mr. Poppycock! You might wish to grow up and quit talking like some high school brat.
To examine the purpose of marriage, you'ds have to go back to when it was first invented. And that was a long time ago. Maybe as far back as cave-man days?
Before marriage became a societal norm, there were three major problems:
1.) Males would often fight over females, sometimes injuring or killing each other. And fights might be repeated over and over - it was never really "won". Extensive carnage and lasting hostility was often the result. Females might also fight over males, but that was less common.
2.) When children were born, often the mother was left to care for and raise the child, sometimes with help from other women, less often from men, and sometimes with no help at all.
3.) As adults reached older ages and physical attractiveness waned, older people were being neglected and abandoned, sometimes starving and/or dying alone with no one to help when they needed help.
Marriage was likely developed to deal with all three of these problems at once. It was made to be permanent, for the rest of the spouses' lives, to eliminate the blody competitions, guarantee multiple participants in the raising of children and support of the family even when the support was a lot less fun than the sex that led to the production of children; and to provide multiple participants in caring for members when they were older and physical attractiveness and usefulness had diminished.
Technically marriage had nothing to do with love. To be more precise, you could have all the love you wanted, whether you were married or not- marriage wasn't necessary for you to love someone, care for them, etc. It was only necessary to KEEP you caring for them, possibly long after you didn't feel like doing it any more.
And that was the difference between societites that had marriage, and those that didn't. Both kinds had loving and caring. But the society with a strongly held marriage custom, had far more caring, namely when one partner maybe didn't feel in love any more.
If we could guarantee that we would ALWAYS feel like loving and caring for a certain partner (and/or children), then marriage would be unnecessary in ANY society - it would add nothing. But millenia of hard experience has shown that more IS needed - and so marriage was designed, to add guarantees where they were clearly needed but, unhappily, often did not exist.
Marriage is not there to help you love each other. For those who love each other, marriage can certainly be more enjoyable and even beautiful. But even in the pre-marriage days (long ago), there were some couples who stayed together all their lives without any legal or societal mandate. Those couples didn't need marriage - they had lots of love and caring without it. And if all couples had been like that, then marriage would never have been invented, or needed. But marriage was invented for the couples whose loving and caring might later disappear, but whose needs and obligations would not.
Marriage is not there to help you love your partner. You can do that fine without it. It's there to keep you together with your partner even if your love later disappears - something that people found over the ages, was grimly necessary.
Keep the real purposes for marriage in mind, when you enter into debates over what it is and what it should be.
If you want to get married in order to show love and dedication to your partner... remember that you don't need marriage to do that. You only need marriage to keep your partner with you - or to keep you with your partner - even if you don't feel you want to be with them any more. THAT is the reason you are getting married. It's the only thing you will have, that you don't have without marriage. It's the only reason marriage is needed at all. And if that reason didn't exist, there probably wouldn't be any such thing as marriage, thousands of years ago or today.
well douche bag, no where did i ever say you have to do what i say ... What i clearly said, is people who are gay don't get the same rights as married people do ... Where you and many like you say that they don't get to have the same married rights as you do ... If anyone here is saying what they can or can't do wwhen they get married that would be you and others douche bag with the same mentality ... I was very clear in what i said ... You went off in lala landagain with the dickishness?
Look dude you are being hostile for no reason.
People dont have to have kids to get married.
You do what you want with your life and quit telling others what to do with theirs mmmkay?
People should have the right to marry ( or civil union) if marriage chaps your ass.
dude you are one f ed up puppy.
I dont care if you never "pop" babies ( kinda glad after talking to you).
People have rights even the people you dont like.
Deal
Marriage is to get some of the other person's stuff if they leave you. Period.
you don't know me enough to make such a stupid statement ... We don't like the idea of being married .. We don't like the idea of wasting our lives on raising children ... If she had ever got pregnant she would with out me asking what do you want to do ... She would have gone to her doctor and aborted it ... I would have been in total agreement with that ... All you are fixated on is popping babies and you calling that being married
you are a worthless excuse for a human being. Deep down inside you know it. You know it but you don't think you can fix it now so you try to pretend and embrace it, but it is just a nihilistic carnival act. Deny it here all you want. Live with it wherever you are. That post of yours was the psychological equivalent of cutting yourself.
you're entitled to you worthless opinion
Before marriage became a societal norm, there were three major problems:
1.) Males would often fight over females, sometimes injuring or killing each other. And fights might be repeated over and over - it was never really "won". Extensive carnage and lasting hostility was often the result. Females might also fight over males, but that was less common.
not a reason today
2.) When children were born, often the mother was left to care for and raise the child, sometimes with help from other women, less often from men, and sometimes with no help at all.
not a reason for gays since they cannot have children naturally together (not getting into adoption or engineered children here)
3.) As adults reached older ages and physical attractiveness waned, older people were being neglected and abandoned, sometimes starving and/or dying alone with no one to help when they needed help.
legal contracts today can be entered into to provide for one another, hospital issues, whatever...
then take away the goodies from others too
poppycock what a bunch of poppycock
prove it mr. Poppycock! You might wish to grow up and quit talking like some high school brat.
aaaaaaah i see you can dish it but you can't take definite sign of a republican
and the poppycock keeps coming ... So seawytch this person is saying that your marriage and you relationship is artificial ... That your not really in love .. Its just you fantasizing ... Imagine that ...
people in this country marry all the time without ever having children.
It is not made Illegal for them to marry
More often than not, the widow and widower have children by previous marriages. And as for those who are infertile, all I can say is may God bless them. My wife and I had trouble conceiving a baby. And in part I blame perhaps the effects of the "pill." My wife had endometriosis. However, we did have OUR baby after much prayer and seeking medical treatment (Insurance coverage and doctor I believe were provided by God). God blessed at least four childless BIBLE couples with a child. None of them were "homosexual."
Little-Acorn said:What is the purpose of marriage?
To examine the purpose of marriage, you'ds have to go back to when it was first invented. And that was a long time ago. Maybe as far back as cave-man days?
people in this country marry all the time without ever having children.
It is not made Illegal for them to marry
More often than not, the widow and widower have children by previous marriages. And as for those who are infertile, all I can say is may God bless them. My wife and I had trouble conceiving a baby. And in part I blame perhaps the effects of the "pill." My wife had endometriosis. However, we did have OUR baby after much prayer and seeking medical treatment (Insurance coverage and doctor I believe were provided by God). God blessed at least four childless BIBLE couples with a child. None of them were "homosexual."
Your 1stnsentence argues is that as long as a gay couple or straight widow and widower have had children before in previous marriages, there is no problem with them getting married. They've done their part by populating already. 2nd sentence is a deflection, you never actually answered about those who are infertile. Should it be illegal for them to marry, yes or no? Your last 2 sentences seem to be saying as long as a couple is a "bible" couple cool, but you don't give a rat's ass about non-bible couples and gays. Very christ-like of you. maybe you need a weeeee bit more praying for guidance.
More often than not, the widow and widower have children by previous marriages. And as for those who are infertile, all I can say is may God bless them. My wife and I had trouble conceiving a baby. And in part I blame perhaps the effects of the "pill." My wife had endometriosis. However, we did have OUR baby after much prayer and seeking medical treatment (Insurance coverage and doctor I believe were provided by God). God blessed at least four childless BIBLE couples with a child. None of them were "homosexual."
Your 1stnsentence argues is that as long as a gay couple or straight widow and widower have had children before in previous marriages, there is no problem with them getting married. They've done their part by populating already. 2nd sentence is a deflection, you never actually answered about those who are infertile. Should it be illegal for them to marry, yes or no? Your last 2 sentences seem to be saying as long as a couple is a "bible" couple cool, but you don't give a rat's ass about non-bible couples and gays. Very christ-like of you. maybe you need a weeeee bit more praying for guidance.
God had nothing to do with Homosexuality except allowing man to invent it. 1st A gay relationship is not the foundation marriage was founded on. And the former married couple has already proven that they can live heterosexually. 2nd Infertile couples don't know/imagine they are infertile until after marriage. And infertility is not always permanent. Who knows? 3rd I do care about non religious, unsaved couples ---- otherwise I wouldn't bother to reponsed or care to debate the issue. And that is very Christ-like even if I do say so myself.
then take away the goodies from others too
what goodies.....? except for the older folks.....nobody is counting on social security anymore...
No one has refuted any of them in 70-plus posts. Nothing but the usual insults, smears, vague denials, and frantic attempts to change the subject. So it looks like people DO buy them.Little-Acorn said:To examine the purpose of marriage, you'ds have to go back to when it was first invented. And that was a long time ago. Maybe as far back as cave-man days?
Before marriage became a societal norm, there were three major problems:
1.) Males would often fight over females, sometimes injuring or killing each other. And fights might be repeated over and over - it was never really "won". Extensive carnage and lasting hostility was often the result. Females might also fight over males, but that was less common.
2.) When children were born, often the mother was left to care for and raise the child, sometimes with help from other women, less often from men, and sometimes with no help at all.
3.) As adults reached older ages and physical attractiveness waned, older people were being neglected and abandoned, sometimes starving and/or dying alone with no one to help when they needed help.
Marriage was likely developed to deal with all three of these problems at once. It was made to be permanent, for the rest of the spouses' lives, to eliminate the blody competitions, guarantee multiple participants in the raising of children and support of the family even when the support was a lot less fun than the sex that led to the production of children; and to provide multiple participants in caring for members when they were older and physical attractiveness and usefulness had diminished.
Technically marriage had nothing to do with love. To be more precise, you could have all the love you wanted, whether you were married or not- marriage wasn't necessary for you to love someone, care for them, etc. It was only necessary to KEEP you caring for them, possibly long after you didn't feel like doing it any more.
And that was the difference between societites that had marriage, and those that didn't. Both kinds had loving and caring. But the society with a strongly held marriage custom, had far more caring, namely when one partner maybe didn't feel in love any more.
If we could guarantee that we would ALWAYS feel like loving and caring for a certain partner (and/or children), then marriage would be unnecessary in ANY society - it would add nothing. But millenia of hard experience has shown that more IS needed - and so marriage was designed, to add guarantees where they were clearly needed but, unhappily, often did not exist.
Marriage is not there to help you love each other. For those who love each other, marriage can certainly be more enjoyable and even beautiful. But even in the pre-marriage days (long ago), there were some couples who stayed together all their lives without any legal or societal mandate. Those couples didn't need marriage - they had lots of love and caring without it. And if all couples had been like that, then marriage would never have been invented, or needed. But marriage was invented for the couples whose loving and caring might later disappear, but whose needs and obligations would not.
Marriage is not there to help you love your partner. You can do that fine without it. It's there to keep you together with your partner even if your love later disappears - something that people found over the ages, was grimly necessary.
Keep the real purposes for marriage in mind, when you enter into debates over what it is and what it should be.
If you want to get married in order to show love and dedication to your partner... remember that you don't need marriage to do that. You only need marriage to keep your partner with you - or to keep you with your partner - even if you don't feel you want to be with them any more. THAT is the reason you are getting married. It's the only thing you will have, that you don't have without marriage. It's the only reason marriage is needed at all. And if that reason didn't exist, there probably wouldn't be any such thing as marriage, thousands of years ago or today.
Caveman days? The rest of your post made very little sense, unless people buy your premises
then take away the goodies from others too
what goodies.....? except for the older folks.....nobody is counting on social security anymore...
The legal protections given to married people you fool
a pretty dumb one I would say
I'm dumb because I don't think marriage is only about the cash and prizes? You go with that.
yes a pretty dumb one ... I was very clear ... when you other dies, and the tax man come an tells you to move out of the house that you live in because the title belongs to your others family ... the other are saying they own it ... where those CASH and prises as you called them ARE NOW GONE... some poeple are just dense in the head when it come to law... this isn't about romamntic devotions ... its about the law ... its about what you and your partner worked for all your lives for many years ... just to watch some fool in her family take it away from you ... .. OR YOU PAYIING HALF TO THE OTHERS FAMILY ON WHAT YOUR OTHER OWNED ...I HOPE YOU LOSE ALL OF YOUR CASH AND PRISES, AS YOU CALL IT ... THE CASH AND PRISES YOU BOTH PUT TOGETHER AFTER MANY YEARS WORKING ON IT... SO WHEN THE INEVITABLE HAPPENS, AND YOU ARE TOLD TO GIVE UP ALL YOUR CASH AND PRISES BECAUSE THATS THE LAW.... THEN YOU WILL SAY HUMMMMMMM I SHOULD HAVE LISTEN TO THAT ARROGANT SON OF A BITCH TRYING TO GET EQUAL RIGHT FOR ALL AND NOT JUST ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN ...IDIOT
what goodies.....? except for the older folks.....nobody is counting on social security anymore...
The legal protections given to married people you fool
so it really IS all about the bennies.....
civil unions can solve that problem....
