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

[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.

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.

I think you just need to go back and read my posts and figure out what I believe.....they would be the reasons that it would cause impact on my life.

 

[Misty]

Liberals don't care about gays or gay marriage. They just use it as another political platform.

 

[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.

Well, the DOMA kind of prevents that. I agree that the answer to the problem is to let straights keep the "marriage" name and give "Civil Unions" every right and privilege legally, that married couples have.

If we go to "civil unions" for civil marriages...that will be for gays AND straights who go to the court house. Plus changing all the laws and statues, federal, state, and local that use the term marriage in them.

Hey! Finally got a rational argument to the proposal. I agree that it would be easier to have marriage mean both hetero and homosexual marriage. At least you wouldn't have to rewrite as many laws. My proposal has always been a compromise between the extremes on both sides of the issue.

If we'd have done it instead of DOMA, we'd have save untold millions of dollars and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

 

[PredFan]

Lets put the issue on the national ballot let both sides make there case and have the people vote on it.

You should not be able to vote on what rights others are allowed to have


Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

I wish you lefties would remember this fact.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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)

You are the one that claimed that marriage was between a man and a woman and when called on it cited the Bible and judeo-christian history. The fact is that the Bible has polygamy in it and therefore is part of that history, that's not spin.

Genesis 4:19–25
Then Lamech said to his wives:
“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech!
For I have killed a man for wounding me,
Even a young man for hurting me.
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”

>>>>

 

[Meister]

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.

Well, the DOMA kind of prevents that. I agree that the answer to the problem is to let straights keep the "marriage" name and give "Civil Unions" every right and privilege legally, that married couples have.

If we go to "civil unions" for civil marriages...that will be for gays AND straights who go to the court house. Plus changing all the laws and statues, federal, state, and local that use the term marriage in them.

I too, have no problem with this.

 

[PredFan]

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

That is what the OP is suggesting.

 

[PredFan]

Liberals don't care about gays or gay marriage. They just use it as another political platform.

This too.

 

[Meister]

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)

You are the one that claimed that marriage was between a man and a woman and when called on it cited the Bible and judeo-christian history. The fact is that the Bible has polygamy in it, that's not spin.

Genesis 4:19–25
Then Lamech said to his wives:
“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech!
For I have killed a man for wounding me,
Even a young man for hurting me.
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”

>>>>

I didn't deny that the Bible didn't acknowledge that there was polgamy.
The Bible had defined a marriage was my point.
good grief!

View attachment $Unbearable[1].bmp

 

[WorldWatcher]

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)

You are the one that claimed that marriage was between a man and a woman and when called on it cited the Bible and judeo-christian history. The fact is that the Bible has polygamy in it, that's not spin.

Genesis 4:19–25
Then Lamech said to his wives:
“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech!
For I have killed a man for wounding me,
Even a young man for hurting me.
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”

>>>>

I didn't deny that the Bible didn't acknowledge that there was polgamy.
The Bible had defined a marriage was my point.
good grief!

Correct, and when the Bible cites a man having multiple wives - that is part of the Biblical definition of marriage (at least at that time). If you are going to cite the Bible as a source, please don't cherry-pick.

Good grief!


>>>>

 

[Meister]

You are the one that claimed that marriage was between a man and a woman and when called on it cited the Bible and judeo-christian history. The fact is that the Bible has polygamy in it, that's not spin.

Genesis 4:19–25
Then Lamech said to his wives:
“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech!
For I have killed a man for wounding me,
Even a young man for hurting me.
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”

>>>>

I didn't deny that the Bible didn't acknowledge that there was polgamy.
The Bible had defined a marriage was my point.
good grief!

Correct, and when the Bible cites a man having multiple wives - that is part of the Biblical definition of marriage (at least at that time). If you are going to cite the Bible as a source, please don't cherry-pick.

Good grief!


>>>>

(at least at the time)?
Please cite the early explicit definition of a marriage using defining language like I did with my examples, WW.
"Multiple Wives" is not defining

 

[Meister]

Cain's children multiplied outside of the knowledge of God. In the story of one of his descendants—Lamech—we have the first example in Scripture of the practice of marrying more than one wife—polygamy.

Then Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah (Genesis 4:19).

It is fitting that polygamy originated with the godless descendants of Cain. As with all the other instances of polygamy in the Old Testament, the practice is recorded, but not condemned. In fact, we find no direct prohibition to polygamy.

Though practiced, polygamy has always been against the original purpose of marriage that God ordained in the Garden of Eden. God specifically told the kings of Israel that they were not to multiply wives
Blue Letter Bible - Help, Tutorials, and FAQs

 

[WorldWatcher]

I didn't deny that the Bible didn't acknowledge that there was polgamy.
The Bible had defined a marriage was my point.
good grief!

Correct, and when the Bible cites a man having multiple wives - that is part of the Biblical definition of marriage (at least at that time). If you are going to cite the Bible as a source, please don't cherry-pick.

Good grief!


>>>>

(at least at the time)?
Please cite the early explicit definition of a marriage using defining language like I did with my examples, WW.
"Multiple Wives" is not defining

Now who's spinning.


Fact remains that thousands of years ago polygamy was a valid form of marriage and it was even documented in the Bible and remains so today in various countries around the world.


>>>>

 

[flacaltenn]

Why can't you drop your ridiculous prejudices? Especially when it has absolutely ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, 0.00% impact on you and your life.

Why?

I'm not being prejudice, you didn't even read my fucking posts, I said amend civil unions to give them full legal rights, but to leave marriage alone.

I read your post. Which part of allowing gays being able to be "married" affects anything with you or your life?

Back to the OP for an explanation.. Government makes redefinations of common terms every day.. What is poor? What is legal? What is fair?

Prostitution or waterboarding doesn't affect me in any way -- but I reserve the right to weigh in and caution my government to not offend my sensibilities. Unless you want to assert that it's merely grammatical redirection and that a gay marraige has a husband and wife and is intended to sanction pro-creation --- you ARE stretching the bounds of "meaning" --- biblical or otherwise. Just like the qualifications for Pairs Skating in the Olympic has a meaning and a tradition...

OVERWHELMING support for gay relationships to be blessed with equal protections under the law -- calling it marraige --- not so much.. Don't queer it up by INSISTING on calling a blow job -- a massage...

 

[g5000]

Multiple wives, concubines, all kinds of freaky shit in the Bible.

 

[bendog]

But they had no bans on jaw bones of asses. Swing away.

And moses did this ethnic cleansing thing, but kept the girls 13 and younger.

 

[g5000]

King David takes a mistress and tries to get her husband killed in battle. He feels bad about it later, but he does not abdicate.

Governor Mark Sanford actually used this as his excuse for not resigning when he was caught cheating on his wife! And now he's trying to run for Congress!

Newt Gingrich. Cheated on his first wife, then divorced her. Married his mistress, then cheated on HER! Divorced her, and married the next mistress.

Senator Vitter, dressing up in diapers with hookers.

Senator Ensign takes a mistress, then tries to bribe her and her parents with campaign money to keep it all quiet.

Bill Clinton, fucking everything that casts a shadow, getting blowjobs in the oval office.

Senator Wide Stance Craig, getting blowjobs in public men's rooms.

Senator John "Two Americas" Edwards. Getting his mistress pregnant while running for President. Turns out there were two John Edwards.


These are the people redefining marriage, folks. They are the ones ripping the institution down.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Separate schools and drinking fountains were a "compromise" too. How did that work out?

 

[flacaltenn]

King David takes a mistress and tries to get her husband killed in battle. He feels bad about it later, but he does not abdicate.

Governor Mark Sanford actually used this as his excuse for not resigning when he was caught cheating on his wife! And now he's trying to run for Congress!

Newt Gingrich. Cheated on his first wife, then divorced her. Married his mistress, then cheated on HER! Divorced her, and married the next mistress.

Senator Vitter, dressing up in diapers with hookers.

Senator Ensign takes a mistress, then tries to bribe her and her parents with campaign money to keep it all quiet.

Bill Clinton, fucking everything that casts a shadow, getting blowjobs in the oval office.

Senator Wide Stance Craig, getting blowjobs in public men's rooms.

Senator John "Two Americas" Edwards. Getting his mistress pregnant while running for President. Turns out there were two John Edwards.


These are the people redefining marriage, folks. They are the ones ripping the institution down.

All that too.. These people you're spotlighting are evil BECAUSE we have a rigid definition of marraige and know when that contract has been violated...

 

[Seawytch]

Why is it nobody is doing anything to "get Gubmint out of marriage" like they say they want to and only talk about it when "the gheys" want in?