Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

[Meister]

Says who?



Ahh, the old slippery slope argument. When you have no real argument against the actual item in question you raise your objections based upon all the potential future issues that could arise, even though you have no real objections to the actual issue at hand. Talk about a weak ass argument. lol

Thanks for proving my point with a lib like yourself. Actually, it is a good point as a liberal judge on the supreme court was also perplexed by my very point.

The point is you have no actual argument. You have no reason why gay marriage is bad, but "it will obviously lead to other terrible things. And this is why we must prevent homosexuals from being able to marry. "

That about sums up your entire flawed piece of shit viewpoint.

No retort on why a liberal judge has an issue that I do?
She must have have a flawed peice of shit view point as me. A liberal judge no less.

 

[RDD_1210]

And there it is, the neg rep. Jesus would be proud of you hypocrite. Hahahahahaha. It's not even a challenge making these dinosaurs expose themselves as the self-centered assholes that they are.

It will be a good day when you and the rest of you dodo's have died off and we can move this country forward.

 

[RDD_1210]

Thanks for proving my point with a lib like yourself. Actually, it is a good point as a liberal judge on the supreme court was also perplexed by my very point.

The point is you have no actual argument. You have no reason why gay marriage is bad, but "it will obviously lead to other terrible things. And this is why we must prevent homosexuals from being able to marry. "

That about sums up your entire flawed piece of shit viewpoint.

No retort on why a liberal judge has an issue that I do?
She must have have a flawed peice of shit view point as me. A liberal judge no less.

Resorting to lying will not make your case any stronger, as much as you think it will.

 

[Meister]

Where did I say that the fact that...

a. Polygamy was practiced thousands of years ago had to have come from the Bible? There are other records that show it was practiced in the Middle East, China, and in Africa?

b. Polygamy practiced today in some Middle Eastern and African countries today was based on something written in the Bible?




Are you denying that polygamy was not practiced by some cultures thousands of years ago? Are you denying that there are countries today which still permit polygamy?



>>>>

I think with my posts, it shows that I'm taking the Biblical standard to my opinion.
Also, in the US it never was recognized....even with the Mormons who had to change their beliefs regarding marriage to comply to federal law.
I could give a rats ass as to the rest of the world in what they do.. WW

Then you're not using logic in your discussion. You say that marriage has been a man and a woman for thousands of years. Yet when it is pointed out that thousands of years ago polygamy was one of the types of marriage that existed, you seem to have an issue.

Then you claim that thousands of years ago marriage was a man and a woman, now that the error is pointed out you referenced the US never recognizing it, but the US wasn't around thousands of years ago.

Just be honest and man up, polygamous marriage was around thousands of years ago and it is still around today.


>>>>

I'm using the Bible and I'm using the United States.....that's what I'm using.
So I'm being honest and consistant and manning up.
You have to use something other than a Judeo-Christian belief and another country to make your point. Not sure what that makes you

 

[rdean]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

Why do so many straights worry about gay marriage when they have a 50% divorce rate? Fix your own mess. Stop worrying about others.

 

[nitroz]

Why can't we all just have equal rights and be done with it?

 

[RDD_1210]

I think with my posts, it shows that I'm taking the Biblical standard to my opinion.
Also, in the US it never was recognized....even with the Mormons who had to change their beliefs regarding marriage to comply to federal law.
I could give a rats ass as to the rest of the world in what they do.. WW

Then you're not using logic in your discussion. You say that marriage has been a man and a woman for thousands of years. Yet when it is pointed out that thousands of years ago polygamy was one of the types of marriage that existed, you seem to have an issue.

Then you claim that thousands of years ago marriage was a man and a woman, now that the error is pointed out you referenced the US never recognizing it, but the US wasn't around thousands of years ago.

Just be honest and man up, polygamous marriage was around thousands of years ago and it is still around today.


>>>>

I'm using the Bible and I'm using the United States.....that's what I'm using.
So I'm being honest and consistant and manning up.
You have to use something other than a Judeo-Christian belief and another country to make your point. Not sure what that makes you

But the Bible has no impact on our laws. Why do you spit on the constitution when it doesn't agree with your narrow minded 18th century views?

 

[Meister]

And there it is, the neg rep. Jesus would be proud of you hypocrite. Hahahahahaha. It's not even a challenge making these dinosaurs expose themselves as the self-centered assholes that they are.

It will be a good day when you and the rest of you dodo's have died off and we can move this country forward.

A whiner because of a neg rep?
"piece of shit point of view", will usually get a neg from me. FYI.

Now suck it up and grow some 'nads and quit your crying about a neg rep.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think with my posts, it shows that I'm taking the Biblical standard to my opinion.
Also, in the US it never was recognized....even with the Mormons who had to change their beliefs regarding marriage to comply to federal law.
I could give a rats ass as to the rest of the world in what they do.. WW

Then you're not using logic in your discussion. You say that marriage has been a man and a woman for thousands of years. Yet when it is pointed out that thousands of years ago polygamy was one of the types of marriage that existed, you seem to have an issue.

Then you claim that thousands of years ago marriage was a man and a woman, now that the error is pointed out you referenced the US never recognizing it, but the US wasn't around thousands of years ago.

Just be honest and man up, polygamous marriage was around thousands of years ago and it is still around today.


>>>>

I'm using the Bible and I'm using the United States.....that's what I'm using.
So I'm being honest and consistant and manning up.
You have to use something other than a Judeo-Christian belief and another country to make your point. Not sure what that makes you

Polygamy in the Bible:

"The first reference to polygamy is found in Genesis 4 in the lineage of Cain. Of Lamech, a descendant of Cain..."

"After the Flood, there are many mentions of polygamous relationships—including among the patriarchs of Israel. Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon all had multiple wives."

What About Polygamy in the Bible? - Answers in Genesis



To deny that polygamy didn't exists thousands of years ago, even in the Bible, and trying to claim that it's always been one man and one woman is dishonest.



>>>>

 

[Meister]

The point is you have no actual argument. You have no reason why gay marriage is bad, but "it will obviously lead to other terrible things. And this is why we must prevent homosexuals from being able to marry. "

That about sums up your entire flawed piece of shit viewpoint.

No retort on why a liberal judge has an issue that I do?
She must have have a flawed peice of shit view point as me. A liberal judge no less.

Resorting to lying will not make your case any stronger, as much as you think it will.

Seems your being less than honest here, which would make you the liar, RDD....but this is typical coming from you.

Sonia M. Sotomayor was the judge that asked the questions.

 

[GHook93]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

If civil unions allow for the partner to get marriage property rights, alimony if that be the case, employer work "spousal" benefits or basically all the rights a spouse in a hetrosexual relationship receives, then they should accept that!

 

[bucs90]

Probably same reason blacks didnt just accept 'separate but equal' and be done with it.

 

[RDD_1210]

And there it is, the neg rep. Jesus would be proud of you hypocrite. Hahahahahaha. It's not even a challenge making these dinosaurs expose themselves as the self-centered assholes that they are.

It will be a good day when you and the rest of you dodo's have died off and we can move this country forward.

A whiner because of a neg rep?
"piece of shit point of view", will usually get a neg from me. FYI.

Now suck it up and grow some 'nads and quit your crying about a neg rep.

I'm just calling you out for the coward that you are. Don't cry because you've been exposed.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how two men marrying each other has any impact on you and your life.

 

[RDD_1210]

No retort on why a liberal judge has an issue that I do?
She must have have a flawed peice of shit view point as me. A liberal judge no less.

Resorting to lying will not make your case any stronger, as much as you think it will.

Seems your being less than honest here, which would make you the liar, RDD....but this is typical coming from you.

Sonia M. Sotomayor was the judge that asked the questions.

Not the questions you asked. Let's stop pretending.

 

[PredFan]

So separate but equal is your answer? I somehow doubt that such a decision will be forthcoming from the SC, but given some of its current members it would not suprise me. Would the right next go after interacial or interfaith marriage? Would you support making the bond between a Christian Bride and her Athiest Husband a Civil Union?

Yes, separate but equal. That's fair. Gay's are separate, that is what they want, but they also want to be equal, and I believe they should be.

Well, at least you have reached the year 1896. I guess that's progress.

"Gay's are separate, that is what they want". Wooooooooooo! That's a winner!

Separate yes. They aren't heterosexual, they don't want to be heterosexual, they want to be separate but they also want to be equal. I believe they shoud be. Why is the concept so difficult for you?

 

[PredFan]

The reason of course isn't about gay rights, but about rubbing it in the faces of the evangelicals. Childish really.

Pred- You're very wrong on this account, I'm afraid. When it comes to the gay people I know (including my sister-in-law), it's not about 'childish' revenge (I mean, come on man). The only time they care about the evangelicals is when they're dumping millions of dollars into preventing them from getting married. Besides that, they really want nothing to do with them.

Her partner goes to work, and she stays home and takes care of the daughter. They go on vacations, celebrate Christmas, and intend to grow old together just like anyone else. So if (God forbid) one of them passes away, why is it such a big deal if they get the same waive on estate tax? What's the big deal if they file joint taxes? And I know you're for equality between civil unions/marriages so we might have much to talk about here.

But finally, what's the big deal if we call that a marriage? Marriage is spending the rest of your life with the person you love; the church should not be able to hold the monopoly on that word. Calling it a "civil union" just seems second rate - administrative even. If people want to call it a marriage, what the heck is the harm? Don't they deserve to have a say on what that word means too?

.


.

You left out my opening statement when I said "not all gays".

 

[PredFan]

All I know is that if some people were saying I was going to burn in the fires of hell forever for liking lobster, I would have a pretty bad attitude toward that kind of religious people.

If those religious people then said I was an asshole for not liking them, and that I was being childish about it, I think that would make me dislike them even more.

If those people then said I wanted more than to be accepted for liking lobster, and that I really was all about bashing religion, I would have to say those people are downright retarded and brought enmity down on themselves.

You worry way too much about what others think.

 

[PredFan]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

So if A=B, then why do you have to call them seperate names? The semantical issue is all on the side of those opposed to same sex marriage. "Make everything exactly the same but call them different names" makes zero logical sense.

It's a compromise. Let the anti-gay marriage people keep the name, let gay people join unions that have all the rights and privileges of marriage.

 

[Meister]

Then you're not using logic in your discussion. You say that marriage has been a man and a woman for thousands of years. Yet when it is pointed out that thousands of years ago polygamy was one of the types of marriage that existed, you seem to have an issue.

Then you claim that thousands of years ago marriage was a man and a woman, now that the error is pointed out you referenced the US never recognizing it, but the US wasn't around thousands of years ago.

Just be honest and man up, polygamous marriage was around thousands of years ago and it is still around today.


>>>>

I'm using the Bible and I'm using the United States.....that's what I'm using.
So I'm being honest and consistant and manning up.
You have to use something other than a Judeo-Christian belief and another country to make your point. Not sure what that makes you

Polygamy in the Bible:

"The first reference to polygamy is found in Genesis 4 in the lineage of Cain. Of Lamech, a descendant of Cain..."

"After the Flood, there are many mentions of polygamous relationships—including among the patriarchs of Israel. Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon all had multiple wives."

What About Polygamy in the Bible? - Answers in Genesis



To deny that polygamy didn't exists thousands of years ago, even in the Bible, and trying to claim that it's always been one man and one woman is dishonest.



>>>>

You are now spinning......Nobody stated that polygamy didn't exist...nobody.
The Bible's definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.

Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God with Adam and Eve. Genesis 2:24 states: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."
First Corinthians 7:2-3 says: "But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband."
Marriage is a permanent bond between a man and woman and is intended to last until death (Romans 7:1-3)

 

[PredFan]

So separate but equal is your answer? I somehow doubt that such a decision will be forthcoming from the SC, but given some of its current members it would not suprise me. Would the right next go after interacial or interfaith marriage? Would you support making the bond between a Christian Bride and her Athiest Husband a Civil Union?

Yes, separate but equal. That's fair. Gay's are separate, that is what they want, but they also want to be equal, and I believe they should be.

Again, if they have the same rights under a civil union whats the fucking problem? Your argument makes no sense and is about semantics, not equality.

We aren't disagreeing.