please tell me i didnt need the :sarcasm: tag
oh, sorry.
in that instance it might have been of some small assistance.

carry on.

and the difference between you outright trying to be hostile toward Christians/religious folk, and them being against homosexual marriage is exactly what?
how does this put you on the higher ground?

Lol, dude. He made a joke about the Founding Fathers being married to Scientologists. I made a joke about them being married to people from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We. Are. Not. Talking. About. Christians. This is not hostility. I'm not calling Christians being "disgusting" like some other people have called gays in this thread. I don't find Christians disgusting. This is more a joke about Scientologists than anyone else.

Relax.

Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya;
Kum bay ya, the Lord, kum bay ya;
Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya,
O Lord, kum bay ya.
Someone's laughing, Lord, kum bay ya;
Someone's laughing, Lord, kum bay ya;
Someone's laughing, Lord, kum bay ya,
O Lord, kum bay ya.
Someone's crying, Lord, kum bay ya;
Someone's crying, Lord, kum bay ya;
Someone's crying, Lord, kum bay ya,
O Lord, kum bay ya.
Someone's praying, Lord, kum bay ya;
Someone's praying, Lord, kum bay ya;
Someone's praying, Lord, kum bay ya,
O Lord, kum bay ya.
Someone's singing, Lord, kum bay ya;
Someone's singing, Lord, kum bay ya;
Someone's singing, Lord, kum bay ya,
O Lord, kum bay ya.

By the way,, how much trouble would it be to provide a link proving that T.J and G.W (not Bush) were Zorastrian?

best I can show is that T.J was not.

The Christians conspiracy has deleted all records of their previous beliefs

The Christians conspiracy has deleted all records of their previous beliefs

All the way to the top
I will take this

All the way to the top
I will take this

Stand up and get out
There are cameras about
Thank the Magistrand

Through the Bushes they Rove
To the Bohemian Grove
They explode Boaz and Jachin

A pyramid, obelisk, M-I6, flying discs
It’s the same old tricks to me
And though the All Seeing Eye
Is penetrating our minds
I shall let the people see


I shall reveal your conspiracy

I shall reveal your conspiracy
Your conspiracy


Below the Dome of the Rock
They talk with Enlil
They kill and steal to make the deal
To break the seventh seal
Thirteen steps to the launch pad and Sinai
Submarines crawling and hiding underneath the ice
And from deep underground
The Ancients will be found
There is no Heaven or Hell
Only Majority Twelve
And from the moon base this race
will face their biggest surprise
when we open our eyes


I shall reveal your conspiracy
I’m climbing the Tower of Babel

I shall reveal your conspiracy
I gather my Soldiers for battle

I shall reveal your conspiracy
I’m climbing the Tower of Babel

I shall reveal your conspiracy
Your conspiracy

Annunaki Illuminati
Annunaki Illuminati


I shall reveal your conspiracy
I’m climbing the Tower of Babel

I shall reveal your conspiracy
I gather my Soldiers for battle

I shall reveal your conspiracy
I’m climbing the Tower of Babel

I shall reveal your conspiracy
I gather my Soldiers for battle

All the way to the top
I will take this

All the way to the top
I will take this

Why wait? Move now.

Guess your tag line is right, can't fix stupid. "Cause the last child is still in school". She'll finish here. At least the schools are good in Calvert.

And bcp is right... it isn't the decision on gays... Not my issue, I don't really care... Find it funny they have to reciprocate when it meets their agenda, that's all... it's the stupid voters in the state putting Hoyer, Cardin and that troll Mikulski back in, as well as the rest of State legislators that makes one realize Maryland isn't worth saving...

Sex has more than one connotation, gender does not, but......I agree that's another discussion.

The problem with suggesting interracial marriage and same-gendered unions are simply discussing demographics is that it removes the idea that marriage is one man, one woman. It defines marriage as "whatever the hell I feel like calling it today" to suggest that two people of the same gender being marriaged is akin to two people of different skin tone being married. A (pick a color) man marrying a different color woman is still a man and a woman being married. So, these things really don't matter. I can see how it's easily confused. After all, if someone suggested they didn't hire a white person for a job or a black person for a job because of their skin color, we'd both feel that was discrimination. But, if I told you I didn't hire a man to be a surrogate mother, that's not really discrimination, is it? Because, the position requires a female. Similarly, not being allowed to marry based on skin color is just plain idiotic discrimination, but changing the concept of what marriage actually is based on gender is something else entirely.

The reason that it comes to mind for so many people is that it is a group that historically was not allowed to marry. People couldn't justify the reasoning for that prohibition, so the law was changed. Do you see the similarity now?

Something I'm sure the studies of the few states that allow for same-gendered unions, and the other countries that allow it, will show us in a few generations.

When we relaxed divorce laws, making divorce much, much, much easier, divorce rates went up greatly. So, the idea hold conceptually that being allowed to "marry" (or, be in civil unions) would raise the rate of monogamy.

You keep making this point, what law was changed in the 60's that made divorce easier? as far as I knew it was more an attitude change that was responsible.

Yep, everyone deserves equal rights. In 50 years child molesters and sheep fuc*ers will be fighting for "equal rights." Society needs to draw the line somewhere. I can't believe we, as a society, think two gay men should be able to get MARRIED! WTF!!!

I think child molesters and sheep f****** is illegal. I don't see where they are are the same thing as two beautiful adult lesbians experiencing what every guy on this site would surely pay to see.

In my opinion, there are a few effects:
Dilutes the meaning of "marriage" by adding new unions it includes
Dilutes the meaning of the union between two same gendered individuals, by calling their relationship something it is not
"Slippery slopes" to adding in consensual, adult incest and polygamy as "marriage", since every argument used in favor of same gendered unions being redefined as "marriage" applies to those unions as well
Will lead, over generations, to a lower societal standard and regard for what marriage is, which leads to worse parenting and more crime. This is evidenced in divorce becoming easy to obtain in the 1960's, lowering the societal regard for marriage, and the result increase in single parent homes, which is a strong contributing factor into most crime statistics and school problems. For the simple minded Nuck (not you, mAlice), this does not equate same gendered unions with divorce, it is used to show another example of how lowering the regard marriage is given effects society at large


So what about civil unions? Would that be acceptable?

The reason that it comes to mind for so many people is that it is a group that historically was not allowed to marry. People couldn't justify the reasoning for that prohibition, so the law was changed. Do you see the similarity now?

I've always seen the similarity.

The fatal flaw in the comparison, though, is that blacks and whites were prohibited from marrying each other based on race. But, no one is denied the right to marry someone based on sexual orientation. Many, many homosexuals have been married.

They simply need to marry someone that fits the definition of married if they want state recognition.

See, the state's rules on marriage aren't about what your sexual orientation is. The state's requirements for marriage are that it be only two people total, of opposite genders, of sufficient age, willing to marry, and not already too closely related.

See, this is why the analogy of the surrogate mother makes sense here. It is not discrimination to say that a man may not be a surrogate mother - it is simply impossible for a man to fit that role based on gender. It is not discrimination to say two people of the same gender may not be married - it is simply impossible for two men (or two women) to fit that role based on being the same gender. Now, one can choose a white, red, yellow, brown, or black (did I leave anyone out?) woman, who meets whatever criteria that person desires, to be their surrogate mother, just as someone can choose whomever they desire to be their spouse. But, gender is a requirement if one wants that union to receive state perks.

The problem with the comparrison to interracial marriage is, interracial marriage was about marriage, but same gendered unions are not about marriage but an entirely different type of relationship.

You keep making this point, what law was changed in the 60's that made divorce easier? as far as I knew it was more an attitude change that was responsible.

No, it was the change to basically a no-fault divorce. Wiki has a good synopsis. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_in_the_United_States)

So what about civil unions? Would that be acceptable?

Yep. Made several posts in this thread in support of civil unions.

I don't know what the difference other than semantics are. In any case, it's my opinion that homosexuality is not a choice. I have read information on both sides, and I don't think it's clearly defined. The APA saw fit to removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders in 1973, so that to me indicates there is not something wrong with them, but who they are.

You keep making this point, what law was changed in the 60's that made divorce easier? as far as I knew it was more an attitude change that was responsible.

Because prior to the 70's, the only reasons for allowing a divorce was Abuse, Crimes, or Adultery (probably a few other significant reasons). In the late 60's early 70's, Divorce laws were softened to allow Divorce due to lesser reasons (irreconcilable differences). Prior to the 70's, people still got divorced, they either committed a grievous relationship damage, or you got a lawyer to lie that the other party did. After the 70's you didnt have to lie anymore.

The problem with Mis_Representations allegation, easier divorces harmed marriage, is that he/she thinks people jump into marriage now without due dilligence. Hey, he/she might be right, but that doesnt weaken the institution of Marriage. It has strengthened it.

Lets take the same cluster of 20 couples, and display them prior to the softening, and afterwards.

Prior to the 70's

15 couples get engaged for marriage in a year

5 stay "single"

Couples 1-4 realize, right off, marriage isnt for them and drop the engagement

Now there are 11 engaged couples

Couples 5-7 end it after month 6

8 engaged couples

Couples 8-10 end it after 9 months

5 engage couples

Couples 11-15 make it to wedding day

5 married couples

Couple 12 has an adultry but works through it
Couple 13 has an adultry and gets a divorce

4 married couples after a year



After the 70's

15 couples get engaged for marriage in a month. Why not Divorce is easy now! :yahoo:

5 stay "single"

Couples 1-4 realize, right off, marriage isnt for them and drop the engagement

Now there are 11 engaged couples

Couples 5-15 make it to wedding day

11 married couples

Couples 5-6 end it after month 6

9 Married couples

Couples 7-8 end it after 9 months

7 Married couples

Couple 9 has an adultry but works through it
Couple 10 has an adultry and gets a divorce

6 married couples after a year


The fallacy of Mis_Representations argument is those that would have stayed married, before the 70's softening, would still stay married after the softening. But now you have others willing to give it a try, and making it. Strengthening marriage.

Let alone this is all related to Heteros'. If Mis_Representations argument is the softening hurt marriages, then its Hetero's fault. No justification for punishing Homo's for something they cant even participate in.

I don't know what the difference other than semantics are. In any case, it's my opinion that homosexuality is not a choice. I have read information on both sides, and I don't think it's clearly defined. The APA saw fit to removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders in 1973, so that to me indicates there is not something wrong with them, but who they are.

I would agree it's not a choice, but that's not definative - just likely speculation.

There are significant differences other than semantics. I've posted about many of them throughout this thread.

Because prior to the 70's, the only reasons for allowing a divorce was Abuse, Crimes, or Adultery (probably a few other significant reasons). In the late 60's early 70's, Divorce laws were softened to allow Divorce due to lesser reasons (irreconcilable differences). Prior to the 70's, people still got divorced, they either committed a grievous relationship damage, or you got a lawyer to lie that the other party did. After the 70's you didnt have to lie anymore.

The problem with Mis_Representations allegation, easier divorces harmed marriage, is that he/she thinks people jump into marriage now without due dilligence. Hey, he/she might be right, but that doesnt weaken the institution of Marriage. It has strengthened it.
Let alone this is all related to Heteros'. If Mis_Representations argument is the softening hurt marriages, then its Hetero's fault. No justification for punishing Homo's for something they cant even participate in.

Of the almost infinite number of problems with your assertions, the easiest one to help you understand the error of your ways is that the idea that people are married does not, in and of itself, imply the perception of "marriage" as an institution is either strengthened nor weakened. Just because the numbers go up or down does not change how people view it.

When you muck with the definition, providing the same special treatment to more and more and more (because, certainly there is no difference for polygamists than same-gendered unions, since no one can answer a difference in argument) things that you call marriage, you weaken what people perceive of as "marriage", and weaken the importance given to the institution in general.

If merely more makes it stronger, I'll trade you 5 pesos for every dollar you have, 'cuz you'll have more (they must be stronger since you have more).

Geez, why so angry? I must ask you - why are you practically frothing at the mouth at all times? Let's try to break these down one at a time.
It's not anger dear lady. It's my heartfelt concern for you! It's a life or death situation and YOU'RE the one drowning here!

See, there's your problem. Not everyone in this country believes in the Bible, and of those who do, not everyone agrees with your interpretation of it. Not everyone takes it literally.
This is exactly why there had to be a standard for truth. Your personal opinion, Nucklesack's flawed sources, tom88's jaded ideas and Toxick's lukewarmness, etc., will all be thrown out on Judgment Day. You can disagree with all this but it doesn't change the truth. YOU WILL STAND BEFORE THE JUDGE ONE DAY. He will toss out EVERY "source" that you folks call "facts" and say there's only one "fact book" that matters.
I won't keep beating you up with this because you don't want to hear it but I still have to tell you the facts whether you say they apply to you or not.

West Point and other institutions that are funded by the government are subject to anti-discrimination laws. Churches are not funded by the government. So again, your argument = invalid.
So why can't girls join the Boy Scouts?
Why can't churches speak their minds (politically) without the fear of their tax exempt rights being revoked?
So to use your own words: "again, your argument = invalid".

Just because some of the "Founding Fathers" were religious does not mean that the country was founded on religion. TJ and Ben Franklin were opposed to organized religion, while Patrick Henry was strongly in favor of it. Religion is only mentioned in the Constitution when it talks about what is not allowed. The Bible, Christ, Christianity - none of this is in the Constitution.
Deny it all you want but you couldn't be more wrong. I guess you simply ignore the Declaration of Independence too?

Ever think that perhaps politicians stay closeted because closed-minded people like you would refuse to vote for them?
Glad to be of assistance...You haven't seen closed mindedness yet but one day you will.

If you consider him a nut, what part of his statements do you believe in? Do you believe that the earthquake was brought on by a pact with devil?
I surely do. Look at Hollywood, look at San Francisco, then look at all the financial & moral failings there, then look at all their catastrophies. The Bible speaks of all these things but I don't expect you to see them because you have your "deny glasses" on, but they're most certainly there.

Possibly, but generous estimates but the gay population around what, 7%? And that's assuming that entire 7% is admitting that to themselves and living a homosexual lifestyle. Thanks to people like you damning them to hell with every breath, a lot of them will probably still be afraid. That's my job!
And honestly, how many gay people engaging in inappropriate acts have you seen down here? Southern Maryland is not exactly a mecca for gay people. I have never seen a gay couple even holding hands in public around here, let alone engaging in some omg horrifying geigh sex that you seem to think will be occurring left and right if gay marriage is legalized.
You have to get out more to see them. I've seen many KIDS (under 18) do it right in front of me! And, so what if it isn't happening right in your front yard? It's still happening and it's wrong! Our opinion doesn't matter. There is a God and we'll all give an account to Him one day. Believe it or not darling...
Any other points you'd like to make?
Yes. Why would people "not approve of your marriage"?

When we relaxed divorce laws, making divorce much, much, much easier, divorce rates went up greatly. So, the idea hold conceptually that being allowed to "marry" (or, be in civil unions) would raise the rate of monogamy.
Yep! Legalize marijuana and watch it's use increase. Lower the ages of drinking & smoking and watch their use go up. Allow same sex marriages and watch spouse & child abuse, AIDS, immorality, perversion & medical costs "go through the roof". Only blind liberals won't see this.
Last time i checked we're not the Chinese, seeding clouds for the Olympics. In otherwords no one "controls" the weather, not even Al Gore.
Well thats not entirely true, the Moon and Solar activities do, but i think you were asking more for some sort of conscious entity.
Right; no HUMAN controls the weather. Who controls the Moon & Solar activities? Go ahead; argue us right back to God. (Give up yet)? :howdy:

That would be the Democrats. Now they have an agenda of economic slavery

...............:buddies:

At least the dikes can file jointly now in MD. Clarification plz: I see lesbians wear wedding rings on their right ring finger; is this because this is an untraditional marriage?

I don't know what the difference other than semantics are. In any case, it's my opinion that homosexuality is not a choice. I have read information on both sides, and I don't think it's clearly defined. The APA saw fit to removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders in 1973, so that to me indicates there is not something wrong with them, but who they are.
If you were to guess at the people that worked at the APA and did the study and wrote the changes into the manual, would you guess that there might be a high number of gays involved in that department?
Would you think that there would be a higher than average number of gays in that department now at the APA protecting that decision.

just curious.

Like I said, I dont care what they do, just dont call it marriage or connect it to my daily life in any way by force.

If you were to guess at the people that worked at the APA and did the study and wrote the changes into the manual, would you guess that there might be a high number of gays involved in that department?
Would you think that there would be a higher than average number of gays in that department now at the APA protecting that decision.

just curious.

Like I said, I dont care what they do, just dont call it marriage or connect it to my daily life in any way by force.

No, not really. I don't know that there are a lot of psychiatrist or psychologist who are gay. I have heard people in the service industry, travel agents, flight attendants, wait staff are gay, I have never heard that about people in psychology. Do you have some actual information to that, or is it speculation because of their decision? I know changes to the dsm require comprehensive research and peer review. I doubt it's changed as easy as a bunch of queens sitting around saying lets make it better for us fella's.

"Marriage", in reference to a relationship status, is one consenting, of age male, with one consenting, of age female, who are not too closely already related in some other fashion.

Yes, I would agree we could have differing views, but one of these views has been held in western society for hundreds if not thousands of years, and any other has not.

Oh really? What is "of age" in Western Society?

To me, it's much more than semantics. I use the analogy of semis and motorcycles for a reason - there are many differences in what it takes to obtain and retain these licenses. Differences in what you have to do when you have them. Because, as similar as they are (both just driving vehicles on the road), they are also different, and are treated differently because of the potential impact they have on society at large.

So, no, it's not JUST semantics.

WTF. This analogy makes no sense. You need a different license and need to different things to retain these licenses because of the difficulty in operating each vehicle. Tell me how being a woman in love with a woman is different than being a man in love with a woman other than the gender of your partner?

Already established, as the state benefits currently are provided. In my opinion, they establish the core of the stability in society. As the status of "marriage" goes, so goes society. The last 40 years should easily demonstrate that presumption (and, yes, it is admittedly a presumption, as no direct link to a societal norm can really be established).

Or......maybe 40 years ago our government sent our children into a country for the wrong reasons. Then, on our college campuses the intellects became enraged about the war and took it out on our brave soldiers rather than our government. All the while, when this war started, our president was a known womanizer.... Maybe that had a little to do with the instability of the country. Let’s move ahead 10 years. Now we have a president in office who is a thief, anti-Semite and a liar. He intentionally obstructs justice. Let’s not forget twenty years later, we have a president who lies under oath. Sure all of these things can be blamed on the divorce rate...you are so right. Oh wait....ding ding ding...none of these presidents were divorced now were they? hmmmmmmm.

Your blaming the current problems of society on divorce is nonsensical. Please show me the evidence as to how this is true. I think society moved in this direction because it lost a little faith in government rather than people decided to get divorced. There are plenty of people in history who came from a single parent household who did just fine!

Maryland Politics - Gansler: Effective immediately Md. recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2010/02/gansler_marylands_high_court_l.html)

It looks like our Attorney General has made the law for us.

I didnt know he had the authority to do this.

What does this really mean?

No, not really. I don't know that there are a lot of psychiatrist or psychologist who are gay. I have heard people in the service industry, travel agents, flight attendants, wait staff are gay, I have never heard that about people in psychology. Do you have some actual information to that, or is it speculation because of their decision? I know changes to the dsm require comprehensive research and peer review. I doubt it's changed as easy as a bunch of queens sitting around saying lets make it better for us fella's.
I basically lived at the APA for about a month a few years back.
I have a real good idea of (at least at that time) the preference of a good deal of those involved in these matters.

and Im not discounting their findings, Im only wondering if the same exact finding would have been found if the research was done by people with possibly a little less dog in the fight.

Oh really? What is "of age" in Western Society?As previously stated, it varies state to state, but generally it is in the middle teens.

WTF. This analogy makes no sense. You need a different license and need to different things to retain these licenses because of the difficulty in operating each vehicle. Tell me how being a woman in love with a woman is different than being a man in love with a woman other than the gender of your partner?If you can't figure that out, come talk to me when you're no longer a virgin.

Or......maybe 40 years ago our government sent our children into a country for the wrong reasons. Then, on our college campuses the intellects became enraged about the war and took it out on our brave soldiers rather than our government. All the while, when this war started, our president was a known womanizer.... Maybe that had a little to do with the instability of the country. Let’s move ahead 10 years. Now we have a president in office who is a thief, anti-Semite and a liar. He intentionally obstructs justice. Let’s not forget twenty years later, we have a president who lies under oath. Sure all of these things can be blamed on the divorce rate...you are so right. Oh wait....ding ding ding...none of these presidents were divorced now were they? hmmmmmmm.

Your blaming the current problems of society on divorce is nonsensical. Please show me the evidence as to how this is true. I think society moved in this direction because it lost a little faith in government rather than people decided to get divorced. There are plenty of people in history who came from a single parent household who did just fine!

Your speaking of individuals - anecdotal evidence. I'm speaking of statistics.

Do you doubt the statitical claim that single parent homes generate more criminals, more poverty, and are disproportionately represented on the welfare doles? How about disproportionately represented in the high school dropout statistics?

No, no, no. They were strict adherents to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I found my MPD..



** sung to the tune.. "I want my MTV!!**

I think child molesters and sheep f****** is illegal. I don't see where they are are the same thing as two beautiful adult lesbians experiencing what every guy on this site would surely pay to see.
Homosexual relations were illegal up until a certain time. see how that works?
oh and just for clarification, I can honestly say that I would not pay to see two women going at it. Of course, I can also honestly say I would not pay to see a woman and a guy going at it.

So what about civil unions? Would that be acceptable?
The Majority of the "homophobes" here have agreed that if two people share in the expense of buying their home, paying their bills etc... they should then be afforded the same tax and legal protections in the control of those assets and the say in medical decisions regardless of their sexual status.
So the way I see it, the option to get what they say they want is there, but since they are so demanding that it be called marriage, and considered equal to a male/female traditional marriage, I can only assume that there is reason in their mind not to take the civil union over a marriage.
I would agree it's not a choice, but that's not definative - just likely speculation.

There are significant differences other than semantics. I've posted about many of them throughout this thread. if you take all the things that go with marriage and call it any other name, the end result is that they gain the same benefits that they would have if it were called marriage.
Civil unions are certainly the way to go here.

Homosexual relations were illegal up until a certain time. see how that works?



No, I don't see how that works. At one point, it was illegal for a woman to vote, a black person and white person marriage, flying a kite in the city limits of Baltimore. There are still sodomy laws which apply to homosexuals and consenting hetrosexuals.

Laws change because they are wrong! What point were you attempting to make?

I think people should mind their own business when it comes to same sex marriages, if they are married they should focus on their own and if not married they should keep their noses out of other people's relationships.

Period.

oh and just for clarification, I can honestly say that I would not pay to see two women going at it. Of course, I can also honestly say I would not pay to see a woman and a guy going at it.


Everyone should have at least one video in their collection.

Everyone should have at least one video in their collection.

:smoochy::love::yahoo::high5:


:needanewoneforourcollection:

Everyone should make at least one video on their vacation.

:faint:

:faint:

:lol:

Everyone should have at least one video in their collection.
I dont want to see no mans tool flopping around on my tv screen

I dont want to see no mans tool flopping around on my tv screen



Wrong kind of video

Wrong kind of video
sorry.
since I can only base these things on my own personal experience,,,,

I think people should mind their own business when it comes to same sex marriages, if they are married they should focus on their own and if not married they should keep their noses out of other people's relationships.

Period.So, you can put your nose in theirs, but they can't in the legislative process?

So, you can put your nose in theirs, but they can't in the legislative process?

Explain how I am putting my nose into thiers?

More importantly explain why you have the right to put your nose into anyones marriage?

Explain how I am putting my nose into thiers?

More importantly explain why you have the right to put your nose into anyones marriage?

I don't feel I have the right to put my nose in anyone's marriage, therefore I don't tell others where to place their focus.

This isn't about anyone's individual marriage, this is about what constitutes "marriage", for a legal definition.

Again, any two or more people can live together or apart, however they choose, and call their relationship whatever they want. This is about what the state will recognize when asked to recognize, and what privileges and responsibilities that recognition confers upon those who ask.

I am starting to suspect that me neibor is gay. what should I do about this?

I am starting to suspect that me neibor is gay. what should I do about this?

Mind your own business :shrug:

I am starting to suspect that me neibor is gay. what should I do about this?
Take him a nice casserole:smoochy:

I am starting to suspect that me neibor is gay. what should I do about this?

introduce him to your "funny" uncle:love:

I am starting to suspect that me neibor is gay. what should I do about this?
Ask him for a date?

I am starting to suspect that me neibor is gay. what should I do about this?

Ask him for house decorating ideas:killingme

I am starting to suspect that me neibor is gay. what should I do about this?

Put on your Richard Simmons outfit, the one you keep in the back of the closet (no pun there eh?), and go over and be neighborly

Put on your Richard Simmons outfit, the one you keep in the back of the closet (no pun there eh?), and go over and be neighborly
And bring him a fruit cake to welcome him to the community.

I don't feel I have the right to put my nose in anyone's marriage, therefore I don't tell others where to place their focus.

This isn't about anyone's individual marriage, this is about what constitutes "marriage", for a legal definition.

Again, any two or more people can live together or apart, however they choose, and call their relationship whatever they want. This is about what the state will recognize when asked to recognize, and what privileges and responsibilities that recognition confers upon those who ask.

In lexicography, words have been updated in accordance to the status quo and in the past several years the many major dictionaries have either dropped gender specifications, or supplemented them with secondary definitions to include gender-neutral language or same-sex unions. As for laws, it is a matter of updating to meet the modern day demands.
Not all laws are for the best interest of the community anymore because they were created during different times, things have changed, people have changed and many laws are outdated or inapplicable.
In Maryland alone:
1. You may not curse inside the city limits.

In Virginia
1. Not only is it illegal to have sex with the lights on, one may not have sex in any position other than missionary.
2. If one is not married, it is illegal for him to have sexual relations.
3. You may not have oral or anal sex.

In Delaware
1. It is illegal to wear pants that are “firm fitting” around the waist.
2. Alcohol may not be served in nightclubs if dancing is occurring on the premises at the same time.

In Washington
1. No person may walk about in public if he or she has the common cold.
2. All lollipops are banned.
3. A law to reduce crime states: “It is mandatory for a motorist with criminal intentions to stop at the city limits and telephone the chief of police as he is entering the town.

Chief Justice Roberts denied (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/9A0807.pdf) a stay application yesterday which sought to prevent the D.C. same-sex marriage law from taking effect today.

So, if I understand correctly, and unless I'm missing something, same-sex couples can now get married (i.e. in the eyes of the government) in D.C.

Chief Justice Roberts denied (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/9A0807.pdf) a stay application yesterday which sought to prevent the D.C. same-sex marriage law from taking effect today.

So, if I understand correctly, and unless I'm missing something, same-sex couples can now get married (i.e. in the eyes of the government) in D.C.
After a mandatory 3 day cooling off period.:dye:

In lexicography, words have been updated in accordance to the status quo and in the past several years the many major dictionaries have either dropped gender specifications, or supplemented them with secondary definitions to include gender-neutral language or same-sex unions. As for laws, it is a matter of updating to meet the modern day demands.I'm good with same-gendered unions.

However, "marriage" - in legal terms - means but one thing. Anything else would, by definition, dilute that meaning, and provide the "benefits" where no beneficial result can (nor has been) demonstrated.

So, it is not "updating", it is actually changing for either the better or the worse. Given that it could be either, it is prudent to do the studies and determine the actual effects, and provide the benefits accordingly. Anything else would simply be irresponsible.

I'm good with same-gendered unions.

However, "marriage" - in legal terms - means but one thing. Anything else would, by definition, dilute that meaning, and provide the "benefits" where no beneficial result can (nor has been) demonstrated.

So, it is not "updating", it is actually changing for either the better or the worse. Given that it could be either, it is prudent to do the studies and determine the actual effects, and provide the benefits accordingly. Anything else would simply be irresponsible.
Can you explain your reasoning here, I just don't see it.

I'm good with same-gendered unions.

However, "marriage" - in legal terms - means but one thing. Anything else would, by definition, dilute that meaning, and provide the "benefits" where no beneficial result can (nor has been) demonstrated.

So, it is not "updating", it is actually changing for either the better or the worse. Given that it could be either, it is prudent to do the studies and determine the actual effects, and provide the benefits accordingly. Anything else would simply be irresponsible.

For now it means one thing because at the time that what was the only thing considered acceptable. Things and times are now different. This can be changed.

I have to ask why would we have to do a study on the actual effects? What sort of study would be needed?

For now it means one thing because at the time that what was the only thing considered acceptable. Things and times are now different. This can be changed.
I have to ask why would we have to do a study on the actual effects? What sort of study would be needed?
Well God's laws haven't changed but that's not a topic for most people on here so I'll leave it alone for now.
Speaking of studies, I just heard yesterday that, because of the new ruling in DC, a number of companies are immediately making provisions NOT to cover any new spouses (straight or same sex) for their medical benefits. They said: "their present employees and spouses are still covered but any new ones will not be covered as of today". Thanks you sick puppies! (I told this to Looney_Tourist but she wouldn't believe it).
There are a number of other "side effects" or consequences to this sick behavior but to mention them wouldn't change anyone's mind about them.

Well God's laws haven't changed but that's not a topic for most people on here so I'll leave it alone for now.
Speaking of studies, I just heard yesterday that, because of the new ruling in DC, a number of companies are immediately making provisions NOT to cover any new spouses (straight or same sex) for their medical benefits. They said: "their present employees and spouses are still covered but any new ones will not be covered as of today". Thanks you sick puppies! (I told this to Looney_Tourist but she wouldn't believe it).
There are a number of other "side effects" or consequences to this sick behavior but to mention them wouldn't change anyone's mind about them.

Geez, dude. Obsessed much? Why are you constantly mentioning me?

I believe you're referring to the DC Archdiocese decision. I have heard of absolutely zero other places doing such a thing. So you're blaming gay people for a poor decision, rather than criticizing the church itself for making that decision. To stop offering benefits to ALL new spouses, gay or straight, is stupid in my opinion as well as hypocritical, but it's their right to do so. Catholics also believe in not using birth control and not having premarital sex, but do they grill their employees on that before offering benefits? Of course not.

They also ended their foster care program because they didn't want to place foster kids with gay people. So much helping the poor, eh?

Geez, dude. Obsessed much? Why are you constantly mentioning me?

I believe you're referring to the DC Archdiocese decision. I have heard of absolutely zero other places doing such a thing. So you're blaming gay people for a poor decision, rather than criticizing the church itself for making that decision. To stop offering benefits to ALL new spouses, gay or straight, is stupid in my opinion as well as hypocritical, but it's their right to do so. Catholics also believe in not using birth control and not having premarital sex, but do they grill their employees on that before offering benefits? Of course not.

They also ended their foster care program because they didn't want to place foster kids with gay people. So much helping the poor, eh?
since gay "marriage" is not real, there will be many cases of false claims for coverage.
and you seem to be blaming the Church for moving in a way that their hands were forced. To offer coverage to the gays as such would be basically condoning the behaviour, their beliefs do not allow for that, so, they now have a choice, go against Gods wishes, or end coverage for spouses.
Ending coverage is the only option they have.

Not placing a child into the care of homosexual couples is in the childs best interest for many reasons. If the law is going to force them to adopt out to couples regardless, they have no choice but to end the program completely.

Its not the churches fault, its the fault of the homosexuals demanding they are allowed in and have the same respect given normal couples in the Church.

getting "married" is not the end of their quest.

Can you explain your reasoning here, I just don't see it.

There are two ingredients to "marriage" - one man, one woman.

If you start adding ingredients (like, one man, one man; or, two men, one woman; or any other combination that meets all of the same arguments same-gendered unions), then you will have a lower concentration of "one man, one woman". It will be below 100%. Thus, the concept that has been of marriage, the one that's been the norm for several hundred years, would be diluted.

Well God's laws haven't changed but that's not a topic for most people on here so I'll leave it alone for now.
Speaking of studies, I just heard yesterday that, because of the new ruling in DC, a number of companies are immediately making provisions NOT to cover any new spouses (straight or same sex) for their medical benefits. They said: "their present employees and spouses are still covered but any new ones will not be covered as of today". Thanks you sick puppies! (I told this to Looney_Tourist but she wouldn't believe it).
There are a number of other "side effects" or consequences to this sick behavior but to mention them wouldn't change anyone's mind about them.

What companies? You've heard of a number of them so it should be easy to mention a few of them

Can you explain your reasoning here, I just don't see it.

Its easy, by allowing Gays to Marry, you are encouraging more marriages.

More Marriages = Bad

For now it means one thing because at the time that what was the only thing considered acceptable. Things and times are now different. This can be changed.

I have to ask why would we have to do a study on the actual effects? What sort of study would be needed?

It can be changed, but I've seen no reason to change it.

It would be appropriate to study the effects on society as that is the appropriate way to determine if something is worthy of governmental encouragement.

Its easy, by allowing Gays to Marry, you are encouraging more marriages.

More Marriages = Bad

How are more marriages "bad"? :confused:

since gay "marriage" is not real, there will be many cases of false claims for coverage.
and you seem to be blaming the Church for moving in a way that their hands were forced. To offer coverage to the gays as such would be basically condoning the behaviour, their beliefs do not allow for that, so, they now have a choice, go against Gods wishes, or end coverage for spouses.
Ending coverage is the only option they have.

Not placing a child into the care of homosexual couples is in the childs best interest for many reasons. If the law is going to force them to adopt out to couples regardless, they have no choice but to end the program completely.

Its not the churches fault, its the fault of the homosexuals demanding they are allowed in and have the same respect given normal couples in the Church.

getting "married" is not the end of their quest.

Yes, getting married is NOT the end, the geighs actually want to be treated like human beings! Egads.

And no, this is not about members of the church making demands. This is employees of the diocese, which runs all kinds of social programs. They're not parishioners knocking down the door of the church demanding a Catholic wedding.

Yes, children are much better off living in group homes than being able to live with a caring foster parent. And what, it's unsafe for them to live with gay people but safe to live with straight people? There are criminals on both sides, we don't have to look any farther than the Bowman trial to see what can happen.

Yes, getting married is NOT the end, the geighs actually want to be treated like human beings! Egads.How is allowing homosexuals the exact same rights and privileges (ie, being allowed to marry anyone of the opposite gender, of sufficient age, willing, and not currently too closely related) as heterosexuals not treating them as humans?

How is allowing homosexuals the exact same rights and privileges (ie, being allowed to marry anyone of the opposite gender, of sufficient age, willing, and not currently too closely related) as heterosexuals not treating them as humans?

Sorry, I wasn't really referring to what you were saying, just him. Even though I disagree with your distinction between marriage and unions (I just don't see the point in differentiating them, it's all semantics to me) you obviously don't think they're the scum of the earth, and are capable of having a civil discussion.

Yes, getting married is NOT the end, the geighs actually want to be treated like human beings! Egads. how are they not being treated as human beings?

And no, this is not about members of the church making demands. This is employees of the diocese, which runs all kinds of social programs. They're not parishioners knocking down the door of the church demanding a Catholic wedding. yet. and just not so many years ago, they only wanted the right to probe each other without it being illegal, of course at that time, it was said they would never try to challenge the marriage laws.
the forcing of churches is coming, just wait, I bet within two months you hear about some lawsuit against some church that refuses to engage in this social experiment.
Ill go so far as to say that gays will be claiming the churches that wont marry them should lose their tax exempt status. even if it does take charity money away from the Churces work.

Yes, children are much better off living in group homes than being able to live with a caring foster parent. And what, it's unsafe for them to live with gay people but safe to live with straight people? There are criminals on both sides, we don't have to look any farther than the Bowman trial to see what can happen.
And yes, children are much better off living in a group home than being placed with two daddies or two mommies.
I didnt mention danger or an unsafe environment, those are your words, is there something you would like to share with the class that causes you to mention a danger to the children?

how are they not being treated as human beings?

yet. and just not so many years ago, they only wanted the right to probe each other without it being illegal, of course at that time, it was said they would never try to challenge the marriage laws.
the forcing of churches is coming, just wait, I bet within two months you hear about some lawsuit against some church that refuses to engage in this social experiment.
Ill go so far as to say that gays will be claiming the churches that wont marry them should lose their tax exempt status. even if it does take charity money away from the Churces work.


And yes, children are much better off living in a group home than being placed with two daddies or two mommies.
I didnt mention danger or an unsafe environment, those are your words, is there something you would like to share with the class that causes you to mention a danger to the children?

There is no federal protection for gay people against discrimination, and less than half of states have such protections. So in the majority of this country it's perfectly legal not to hire someone or to deny housing to someone because of their sexual orientation. In Florida they're not allowed to adopt children. The new governor of Virginia just signed an executive order removing sexual orientation from their anti-discrimination laws. Need I go on?

I'll certainly take that bet. There is no way that churches will be forced to do what you're saying.

If you honestly believe that a kid is better off with no one then with a couple who will love and care for him/her, than I feel sorry for you. Truly, I do.

As far as your last statement goes...not going dignify that with a response.

There is no federal protection for gay people against discrimination, and less than half of states have such protections. So in the majority of this country it's perfectly legal not to hire someone or to deny housing to someone because of their sexual orientation. In Florida they're not allowed to adopt children. The new governor of Virginia just signed an executive order removing sexual orientation from their anti-discrimination laws. Need I go on?

I'll certainly take that bet. There is no way that churches will be forced to do what you're saying.

If you honestly believe that a kid is better off with no one then with a couple who will love and care for him/her, than I feel sorry for you. Truly, I do.

As far as your last statement goes...not going dignify that with a response.
actually, federal employees are protected from discrimination based on sexaul prefrence.
Same goes for maryland government employees, and as a matter of fact, that protection extends to private employers.
so since we are discussing a Maryland issue, your first point is wrong.
two, I think you will end up losing that bet on the churches, its coming, you can bet on that. they wont be happy with marriage, they will then move to force people to actually recognize it as such. when its not. If I was wrong, they would have gone for the civil union that has been pretty much accepted by all,, except them.
no need to feel sorry for me. I am confident in my thoghts that a child would be better off in a group home than with a gay couple. many reasons for this, and actually, physical harm was not on my list, again, thats your fear that you brought out. I imagine that you wont respond because it forced you to see something you would rather not admit, or you would rather forget.
and while we are at it, when did I say they were scum of the earth in this thread?

What companies? You've heard of a number of them so it should be easy to mention a few of them

The only company I can find in a quick google search is DC Catholic Charities. Just my opinion here but I am not thinking many non religious based companies in DC will follow suit.


D.C. Catholic Charity Drops Spouse Coverage Over Gay Law -- Politics Daily (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/03/d-c-catholic-charity-drops-spouse-coverage-over-gay-law/)

The only company I can find in a quick google search is DC Catholic Charities. Just my opinion here but I am not thinking many non religious based companies in DC will follow suit.


D.C. Catholic Charity Drops Spouse Coverage Over Gay Law -- Politics Daily (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/03/d-c-catholic-charity-drops-spouse-coverage-over-gay-law/)
I dont think there will be enough companies faced with the issue to actually create any great epidemic.
at least for awhile.

but you can bet that company lawyers have been searching for the way around it for at least a few weeks now.

There are two ingredients to "marriage" - one man, one woman.

If you start adding ingredients (like, one man, one man; or, two men, one woman; or any other combination that meets all of the same arguments same-gendered unions), then you will have a lower concentration of "one man, one woman". It will be below 100%. Thus, the concept that has been of marriage, the one that's been the norm for several hundred years, would be diluted.

your stating an opinion as the basis for your argument.

your stating an opinion as the basis for your argument.
when it comes to this subject, who isnt?

I'm good with same-gendered unions.

However, "marriage" - in legal terms - means but one thing. Anything else would, by definition, dilute that meaning, and provide the "benefits" where no beneficial result can (nor has been) demonstrated.

So, it is not "updating", it is actually changing for either the better or the worse. Given that it could be either, it is prudent to do the studies and determine the actual effects, and provide the benefits accordingly. Anything else would simply be irresponsible.

when it comes to this subject, who isnt?

I assumed since they were providing a "definition" that they had some backing.

your stating an opinion as the basis for your argument.What part was opinion?

I said that "marriage" has been seen in western culture for centuries as between one man and one woman who are old enough, not too closely related, etc. And, I further stated that if you add other ingredients to that mix, it would dilute the definition (which is kind of the definition of diluting - changing the concentration of something to a lower level than currently exists).

So, what part is opinion?

I would say that is "opinion" (and, very unfounded) to suggest that a same gendered union is "the same" as an opposite gendered union, and to therefore decree that it deserves teh same benefits from the government. Nowhere have I seen that proven, other than through people's opinions.

I do not, and have repeatedly said I do not, suggest that that union is either lessor nor better - just different. That is not opinion, it is documentable fact.

I assumed since they were providing a "definition" that they had some backing.

Since, for centuries, the concentration of marriages recognized by the states has been 100% one male-one female. Now, and suggested in the future, that concentration would drop to below 100%.

That's dilution (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dilute).

actually, federal employees are protected from discrimination based on sexaul prefrence.
Same goes for maryland government employees, and as a matter of fact, that protection extends to private employers.
so since we are discussing a Maryland issue, your first point is wrong.
two, I think you will end up losing that bet on the churches, its coming, you can bet on that. they wont be happy with marriage, they will then move to force people to actually recognize it as such. when its not. If I was wrong, they would have gone for the civil union that has been pretty much accepted by all,, except them.
no need to feel sorry for me. I am confident in my thoghts that a child would be better off in a group home than with a gay couple. many reasons for this, and actually, physical harm was not on my list, again, thats your fear that you brought out. I imagine that you wont respond because it forced you to see something you would rather not admit, or you would rather forget.
and while we are at it, when did I say they were scum of the earth in this thread?

Federal employees are protected, yes. But there exists no federal protection for everyone, it's only employees of the government. States can therefore make their own laws on it. Yes, Maryland does have those protections, but more than half of the states do not.

Obviously your suspicion regarding churches is just that - suspicion. Only time will tell, but I highly doubt it. As I said before, I cannot storm into a Catholic church and demand to be married be a priest, since I'm not Catholic and don't fit their guidelines in other ways. This won't change.

A lot of people don't want gay couples to adopt/foster because of that old ridiculous fear that gay man = child molester, or that being raised by a gay couple = gay child. I do not share this fear. You don't have to share a thought to be aware of it, so don't imply that I subscribe to this theory just because I've heard of it, or experienced it. So this is my polite way of saying hey...stop implying that I was molested by a gay aunt or something. I wasn't, and if I had been, don't you think that's a bit personal and inappropriate?

I apologize if either of these are not among your reasons. For the life of me I cannot figure out why you think a child is better off alone in the system rather than being raised in a house, so what is on your list?

What part was opinion?

I said that "marriage" has been seen in western culture for centuries as between one man and one woman who are old enough, not too closely related, etc. And, I further stated that if you add other ingredients to that mix, it would dilute the definition (which is kind of the definition of diluting - changing the concentration of something to a lower level than currently exists).

So, what part is opinion?

I would say that is "opinion" (and, very unfounded) to suggest that a same gendered union is "the same" as an opposite gendered union, and to therefore decree that it deserves teh same benefits from the government. Nowhere have I seen that proven, other than through people's opinions.

I do not, and have repeatedly said I do not, suggest that that union is either lessor nor better - just different. That is not opinion, it is documentable fact.

A definition is a thorough description of the meaning of a word, you've narrowed the scope to fit your argument.

A definition is a thorough description of the meaning of a word, you've narrowed the scope to fit your argument.

Since, for centuries, the concentration of marriages recognized by the states has been 100% one male-one female. Now, and suggested in the future, that concentration would drop to below 100%.

That's dilution (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dilute).help?

Geez, dude. Obsessed much? Why are you constantly mentioning me?
I believe you're referring to the DC Archdiocese decision. I have heard of absolutely zero other places doing such a thing. So you're blaming gay people for a poor decision, rather than criticizing the church itself for making that decision. To stop offering benefits to ALL new spouses, gay or straight, is stupid in my opinion as well as hypocritical, but it's their right to do so. Catholics also believe in not using birth control and not having premarital sex, but do they grill their employees on that before offering benefits? Of course not.
They also ended their foster care program because they didn't want to place foster kids with gay people. So much helping the poor, eh?
You shouldn't come into a PUBLIC forum and make comments if you don't want to be quoted. I don't "obsess" with anyone I haven't seen. :howdy:
Yes and I agree with the church's decision!
So tell me Lonely; Which GUY gets called MOMMY? Which GIRL gets called Daddy? I guessing that (by your comments) you're geigh???
My old employer, Verizon will be next. The recently gave medical benefits to employees with same sex partners so as to keep their customer base and keep out of big public protests. Immediately after that change, Verizon talked about ending medical benefits for all retirees first, then gradually, their employees! Every employer sees what's happening. Try to follow this:
The additional strain that these people will cause is more than many businesses want to endure. Their option? Drop MEDICAL coverage for all employees. (Are you paying attention)? Next, people will have to sign up under Obamacare, the government controls us more because of liberals who are ok with same sex unions. Then you will be told what to say, do, wear, drive, work, eat, etc., and the devil is in the details...Do you still NOT SEE!
And you can't undo the past. What good will "grilling them" do? I'm a Christian but I've had premarital sex. It's forgiven and done with; so should I never be hired in a church because of my past?
Yes, getting married is NOT the end, the geighs actually want to be treated like human beings! Egads.
Yes, children are much better off living in group homes than being able to live with a caring foster parent. And what, it's unsafe for them to live with gay people but safe to live with straight people? There are criminals on both sides, we don't have to look any farther than the Bowman trial to see what can happen.
You say they are NOT treated like human beings? I know straight people who are picked on much worse than most gays.
"Caring foster parent"? The kids are starting off with a disadvantage, right off the bat, that goes against NATURE itself! Wake up!!
your stating an opinion as the basis for your argument.
quote=bcp; when it comes to this subject, who isnt?
ME!
You know where my "opinion" comes from but I'll leave it out of this thread for now....J/K..."Honor your Father & Mother" sounds like male & female to me.
So what's next? Men & women wanting their marriage to their dog, cat, ferret, hamster, etc., to be recognized too?

help?
Sorry I can't come up with the proper word to describe an observed fact. By recognizing same sex marriages already, the definition of marriage includes same sex unions.

ME!
You know where my "opinion" comes from but I'll leave it out of this thread for now....J/K..."Honor your Father & Mother" sounds like male & female to me.
So what's next? Men & women wanting their marriage to their dog, cat, ferret, hamster, etc., to be recognized too?
but you're delusional, so your opinion doesn't really help the cause.

Federal employees are protected, yes. But there exists no federal protection for everyone, it's only employees of the government. States can therefore make their own laws on it. Yes, Maryland does have those protections, but more than half of the states do not. since we are talking about Maryland, I really dont care about the rest of the states as far as this argument goes. By the way, did you know that there is no actual wording to protect the rights of the white male in the constitution? we have no protection to our rights. Minorities, yes, Women, yes. handicap, yes. White guy that is healthy? no.

Obviously your suspicion regarding churches is just that - suspicion. Only time will tell, but I highly doubt it. As I said before, I cannot storm into a Catholic church and demand to be married be a priest, since I'm not Catholic and don't fit their guidelines in other ways. This won't change. trust me, if not the church then a religious school, or religious owned medical center etc.. these people are not going to be happy once they find out that the paper that falsly states they are married is not accepted as such by everyone.

A lot of people don't want gay couples to adopt/foster because of that old ridiculous fear that gay man = child molester, or that being raised by a gay couple = gay child. I do not share this fear. You don't have to share a thought to be aware of it, so don't imply that I subscribe to this theory just because I've heard of it, or experienced it. So this is my polite way of saying hey...stop implying that I was molested by a gay aunt or something. I wasn't, and if I had been, don't you think that's a bit personal and inappropriate? and some think that it can be damaging to a childs growth to live in this type of situation. even without the molestation from the play house adults living there.
as far as your personal life, I never implied such a thing, you are the one that keep sharing bit by bit. And yes, I would think that it would be a bit personal for someone to try and pry that information from you. but if you are willing to share, there really is nothing I can do to stop you.

I apologize if either of these are not among your reasons. For the life of me I cannot figure out why you think a child is better off alone in the system rather than being raised in a house, so what is on your list?
being raised in a house is not what the child needs. The child needs to be raised by a legitimate family. Yes, they are better off with foster parents, one male, one female.

but you're delusional, so your opinion doesn't really help the cause.
interesting.
One that follows the Bible, a book that has led man for thousands of years, one the tells of our creator, and how he wants us to live,,, is delusional.. yet, someone that thinks man and man where designed to work together in certain intiimate ways is not?

interesting.
One that follows the Bible, a book that has led man for thousands of years, one the tells of our creator, and how he wants us to live,,, is delusional.. yet, someone that thinks man and man where designed to work together in certain intiimate ways is not?
The following can indicate a delusion:

The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force. Check
That idea appears to exert an undue influence on his or her life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent. Check
Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief. Check
There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly. Check
An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility. Check
The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural and religious background.
The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of his or her psyche. Check
The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs. (Matthew Ludgate)
Individuals who know the patient will observe that his or her belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.How many markers would you think are required to make the diagnosis

The following can indicate a delusion:

The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force. Check
That idea appears to exert an undue influence on his or her life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent. Check
Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief. Check
There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly. Check
An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility. Check
The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural and religious background.
The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of his or her psyche. Check
The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs. (Matthew Ludgate)
Individuals who know the patient will observe that his or her belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.How many markers would you think are required to make the diagnosis
You can check everyone of them for the gay crowd.
thank you for finally bringing some proof as to who might be more delusional than the other.

Me and LeValley have decided on a June date........:love:

:yahoo:

Me and LeValley have decided on a June date........:love:

:yahoo:

cool. When will my invite be here?

Im thinking that His and His public bath towels are in order here.

cool. When will my invite be here?

Im thinking that His and His public bath towels are in order here.

You will be my best man...wear something cute....:buddies:

You will be my best man...wear something cute....:buddies:
always a brides maid,,,,,,

always a brides maid,,,,,,

:roflmao:

You can check everyone of them for the gay crowd.
thank you for finally bringing some proof as to who might be more delusional than the other.
Kind of a broad brush, but I'll concede that there are more than a few.

A definition is a thorough description of the meaning of a word, you've narrowed the scope to fit your argument.

You bet your dippy he did. Marriage used to allow marriages in-family, it was redefined. Marriage used to allow kids to be married, it was redefined. Marriage used to prevent interracial marriages, it was redefined. Marriage is still arranged (in other societies) and was in the US, it was redefined in the US. Marriage used to be for the purpose of procreation, it was redefined.

Long and short of this all...imo,...people will do what they want to do, and what they do, I really don't care....gave up on that a long time ago. You and your heart are the only things to listen to......carry on.

what's wrong with the law? It's about time. The old timers who oppose this are the same ones who oppose(d) minorities and integration. Everyone in theis country deserves equal rights. Things change, and sometimes those things make some people uncomfortable- get over it.

This is just something to infest the message boards until everybody realizes 1) that is doesn't hurt THEM and 2) people will eventually get tired of talking about something they can't change.

As far as I am concerned, legalizing gay marriage/"alternative lifestyle unions" ; or whatever else you might want to call them; does not effect ME, and if you are secure enough in your own masculinity or femininity, you shouldn't have to worry about 'being drafted' to 'the other team.' And really folks, WHO does this REALLY hurt?

interesting.
One that follows the Bible, a book that has led man for thousands of years, one the tells of our creator, and how he wants us to live,,, is delusional.. yet, someone that thinks man and man where designed to work together in certain intiimate ways is not?
Other books and Teachings existed long before Italians book, why should we use the young upstart?

Chairman Mao's Little Red book is the second most sold book, should we weave some of his teachings in too?

Italians Book is not followed by the majority of the people* in the world, should we throw his subjective book out, and choose from one of theirs instead?

Italians book doesnt represent the intentions of the Founding Fathers, should we ignore what they envisioned and become the next Taliban?

Nature existed long before Moses chewed mushrooms, and Christians decided to bastardize the Jewish belief. Since propogation is not a requirement of Marriage, why should Italians delusions override someones inalienable rights to marry whom they love?

*while Christianity maybe the biggest religion, more people do not believe in Christianity

This is just something to infest the message boards until everybody realizes 1) that is doesn't hurt THEM and 2) people will eventually get tired of talking about something they can't change.

As far as I am concerned, legalizing gay marriage/"alternative lifestyle unions" ; or whatever else you might want to call them; does not effect ME, and if you are secure enough in your own masculinity or femininity, you shouldn't have to worry about 'being drafted' to 'the other team.' And really folks, WHO does this REALLY hurt?

Well to be fair, a Message or Forum boards purpose is to participate in discussions.

So tell me Lonely; Which GUY gets called MOMMY? Which GIRL gets called Daddy? I guessing that (by your comments) you're geigh???
My old employer, Verizon will be next. The recently gave medical benefits to employees with same sex partners so as to keep their customer base and keep out of big public protests. Immediately after that change, Verizon talked about ending medical benefits for all retirees first, then gradually, their employees! Every employer sees what's happening. Try to follow this:
The additional strain that these people will cause is more than many businesses want to endure. Their option? Drop MEDICAL coverage for all employees. (Are you paying attention)? Next, people will have to sign up under Obamacare, the government controls us more because of liberals who are ok with same sex unions. Then you will be told what to say, do, wear, drive, work, eat, etc., and the devil is in the details...Do you still NOT SEE!
And you can't undo the past. What good will "grilling them" do? I'm a Christian but I've had premarital sex. It's forgiven and done with; so should I never be hired in a church because of my past?

You say they are NOT treated like human beings? I know straight people who are picked on much worse than most gays.
"Caring foster parent"? The kids are starting off with a disadvantage, right off the bat, that goes against NATURE itself! Wake up!!

ME!
You know where my "opinion" comes from but I'll leave it out of this thread for now....J/K..."Honor your Father & Mother" sounds like male & female to me.
So what's next? Men & women wanting their marriage to their dog, cat, ferret, hamster, etc., to be recognized too?

With each post you show how unhinged you are. If there are two dads, then they're both called "Dad". Is that really so hard to figure out? I'm not gay - don't you think I'd be saying "we" or "us" - but I can sympathize with them. Obviously if something isn't a problem for you, you're not interested.

Yes, it's all a conspiracy by Obama. You're right. Perhaps a few companies will drop medical coverage for spouses, but the vast, vast majority will simply adapt. We're talking about around 7% of the population here, and not all of them will get married, just like not all of straight people will get married. The sky will not drop out of the sky, but you've clearly convinced yourself it will. Do you yell at the kids to get off your lawn and stop listening to the rap music, too?

Pretty big leap to assume that we'll soon be told what to wear and what to say. There was a big push in the 1990s to ban "saggy pants" and even bra straps, but saner heads prevailed and people realized it was ridiculous. Were you so worried then as well, or is this just because everything frightens you today because Obama is in office, and you've convinced yourself we're going to be the next socialist state?

Lol, you know straight people who are picked on more than gay people..for being straight? I have never in my life seen/heard a person picked on for being straight. Obviously anyone can be ridiculed, but not for being heterosexual. Logic fail.

Goes against nature? You are aware that homosexual activity occurs among other animals, right? In things as small as bed bugs and as large as lions and giraffes.

Comparing love between two humans with love for a pet is just insulting. You're just a bully who will continue to seethe at all the "changes" around you and spit nails at everyone who's different. Have fun with that.

since we are talking about Maryland, I really dont care about the rest of the states as far as this argument goes. By the way, did you know that there is no actual wording to protect the rights of the white male in the constitution? we have no protection to our rights. Minorities, yes, Women, yes. handicap, yes. White guy that is healthy? no.


Yes, the plight of the white male. Must be tough. And you're actually wrong anyway. Anti-discrimination laws don't say "no discrimination against women and minorities." The Civil Rights act language states:

"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"

You're covered. Males, females are covered. White, black - covered.

Yes, the plight of the white male. Must be tough. And you're actually wrong anyway. Anti-discrimination laws don't say "no discrimination against women and minorities." The Civil Rights act language states:

"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"

You're covered. Males, females are covered. White, black - covered.
Im right and you know it.

I see no difference in preference for minority or women, or preference based on ones sexual preference/choice.

Im right and you know it.

I see no difference in preference for minority or women, or preference based on ones sexual preference/choice.

Right about...what? Anti-discrimination laws say you can't discriminate based on sex, race, religion, etc. So you're automatically covered. What are you arguing, exactly?

Right about...what? Anti-discrimination laws say you can't discriminate based on sex, race, religion, etc. So you're automatically covered. What are you arguing, exactly?
well, affirmative action requirements over-ride that now dont they.

Honestly, if you have no clue what you are talking about, you should really just not open yourself up to the public like you do.

well, affirmative action requirements over-ride that now dont they.

Honestly, if you have no clue what you are talking about, you should really just not open yourself up to the public like you do.

Right, you argued that there are no protections for white men. I proved you wrong, but I'm the one who doesn't know what she's talking about. Okay, then.

And no, affirmative action programs do not negate anti-discrimination laws. They're used to try and balance out the playing field and attract people to jobs/colleges in which they are underrepresented.

Veterans, women, minorities, etc. have all benefited from these programs. So, however, have white males. Many colleges today have sex ratios as high as 60-40 female, so males have been given preferential treatment when applying to some schools, particularly the smaller liberal arts schools, so that the balance can be shifted. I have no problem with this at all.

USATODAY.com - Colleges remain cautious in handling gender diversity (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-10-19-male-college-side_x.htm)

The Miscellany News - Commission examines gender ratio, admissions of universities (http://www.miscellanynews.com/2.1576/commission-examines-gender-ratio-admissions-of-universities-1.2061876)

Sorry I can't come up with the proper word to describe an observed fact. By recognizing same sex marriages already, the definition of marriage includes same sex unions.Given that this entire discussion is over whether that is appropriate or not, I was justifying part of my reason for not agreeing with it being proper.

Bn74YHUxLK4

I did manage to find this, but it isn't from the press conference that he had after releasing the OAG.

but you're delusional, so your opinion doesn't really help the cause.
I have an idea: "visualize whirled peas" and then tell us all who'se delusional. You haven't a tenth of a clue as to how wrong you are on this issue.
You bet your dippy he did. Marriage used to allow marriages in-family, it was redefined. Marriage used to allow kids to be married, it was redefined. Marriage used to prevent interracial marriages, it was redefined. Marriage is still arranged (in other societies) and was in the US, it was redefined in the US. Marriage used to be for the purpose of procreation, it was redefined.
Really? I haven't seen any changes in the "Book" regarding marriage? Until there are changes there, marriage still stands as a man & a woman.
Keep digging son...
Other books and Teachings existed long before Italians book, why should we use the young upstart?
But God was before them all. There are many pretenders but only one contender. It's not your time to see this though.

Italians Book is not followed by the majority of the people* in the world, should we throw his subjective book out, and choose from one of theirs instead?
Italians book doesnt represent the intentions of the Founding Fathers, should we ignore what they envisioned and become the next Taliban?
The majority of people aren't going to Heaven so they don't follow it.
It most certainly did! The Founding Fathers did NOT say anything that overrides God's Word so you can't rightfully say that. Now Obama's a different story. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution and he hasn't.

Since propogation is not a requirement of Marriage, why should Italians delusions override someones inalienable rights to marry whom they love? *while Christianity maybe the biggest religion, more people do not believe in Christianity
It's their choice.
With each post you show how unhinged you are. If there are two dads, then they're both called "Dad". Is that really so hard to figure out? I'm not gay - don't you think I'd be saying "we" or "us" - but I can sympathize with them. Obviously if something isn't a problem for you, you're not interested.
Both called dad :faint: Now I know why tigers eat their young...

You're right. Perhaps a few companies will drop medical coverage for spouses, but the vast, vast majority will simply adapt. We're talking about around 7% of the population here, and not all of them will get married, just like not all of straight people will get married. The sky will not drop out of the sky, but you've clearly convinced yourself it will.
That's 7% more than there was before and it''s called the "straw that broke the camels back".
The sky itself might not drop but something might fall out of it...

Pretty big leap to assume that we'll soon be told what to wear and what to say. There was a big push in the 1990s to ban "saggy pants" and even bra straps, but saner heads prevailed and people realized it was ridiculous. Were you so worried then as well, or is this just because everything frightens you today because Obama is in office, and you've convinced yourself we're going to be the next socialist state?
Now you're comparing ant hills to mountains. You need to get away from the liberal news media (FOX included). You need to study history and see how socialism almost got started under FDR in the 1930's. All the signs are there, cupcake. Obama & the Nazi want their health care package passed even thought MOST of the American people made it clear they DON'T want it! That's the beginnings of socialism. The government, little by little, gains control over one entity after another. The last entity will be you.

Goes against nature? You are aware that homosexual activity occurs among other animals, right? In things as small as bed bugs and as large as lions and giraffes. Comparing love between two humans with love for a pet is just insulting.
You are nuts! Why do you compare what animals do to what humans do? We're not the animals! Logic fail back at you baby!!:yahoo:
well, affirmative action requirements over-ride that now dont they.
Honestly, if you have no clue what you are talking about, you should really just not open yourself up to the public like you do.
Ever notice how they're not allowed to discriminate against race in hiring but they're allowed to "affirmate" by race when hiring? (Affirmative action)

For those that care, State Senator Dyson is one of the sponsors of a bill (http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/bills/sb/sb0852f.pdf) currently in the Senate that would specify that same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions are not valid in Maryland.

I doubt that it will make it into law though, as a similar bill (http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/bills/hb/hb0090f.pdf) in the House was reported (http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/billfile/hb0090.htm) unfavorably by the Judiciary committee.

For those that care, State Senator Dyson is one of the sponsors of a bill (http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/bills/sb/sb0852f.pdf) currently in the Senate that would specify that same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions are not valid in Maryland.

I doubt that it will make it into law though, as a similar bill (http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/bills/hb/hb0090f.pdf) in the House was reported (http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/billfile/hb0090.htm) unfavorably by the Judiciary committee.
So much for This_Misrepresentations argument about whether all rights and benefits are obtainable.

So much for This_Misrepresentations argument about whether all rights and benefits are obtainable.
so, exactly what does that mean?
I think the big question is how the federal government looks at it right now as far as taxes and other things that go with it.

I have an idea: "visualize whirled peas" and then tell us all who'se delusional. You haven't a tenth of a clue as to how wrong you are on this issue.

I did, and it's still you. For what it's worth, I am going to be terribly disappointed when they put you in the room next to JPC wearing an "I love me" coat.

So much for This_Misrepresentations argument about whether all rights and benefits are obtainable.

Name one right that is not attainable.


I'll wait :tap:

Now you're comparing ant hills to mountains. You need to get away from the liberal news media (FOX included). You need to study history and see how socialism almost got started under FDR in the 1930's. All the signs are there, cupcake. Obama & the Nazi want their health care package passed even thought MOST of the American people made it clear they DON'T want it! That's the beginnings of socialism. The government, little by little, gains control over one entity after another. The last entity will be you.

You are nuts! Why do you compare what animals do to what humans do? We're not the animals! Logic fail back at you baby!!:yahoo:

Ever notice how they're not allowed to discriminate against race in hiring but they're allowed to "affirmate" by race when hiring? (Affirmative action)
True sign of an extremist...Fox News is considered liberal. Right.

Remember? You brought it up. Being gay "goes against nature" is what you said. And newsflash: Humans are animals.

Name one right that is not attainable.


I'll wait :tap:

Well that's a good question. There are a whole slew of benefits married couples get, but so far I've been unable to find a list of which ones would also be applied to civil unions.

But I thought this was interesting, since you mentioned studies on what benefits gay marriage would have.

The Congressional Budget Office did a study in 2004 and decided that legalizing it "would improve the budget's bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years". This is because while there would be an increase in money spent on Social Security and Federal Health Benefits, that would be offset by decreased expenses for Medicaid, Medicare, and Supplemental Security Income. I'm no tax expert, so this is from the Wiki summary, but the links to that and the actual report are here:

Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#cite_note-cbo1-38)

Congressional Budget Office - The Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5559)

Well that's a good question. There are a whole slew of benefits married couples get, but so far I've been unable to find a list of which ones would also be applied to civil unions. But, the question wasn't about benefits. It was about rights.But I thought this was interesting, since you mentioned studies on what benefits gay marriage would have.

The Congressional Budget Office did a study in 2004 and decided that legalizing it "would improve the budget's bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years". This is because while there would be an increase in money spent on Social Security and Federal Health Benefits, that would be offset by decreased expenses for Medicaid, Medicare, and Supplemental Security Income. I'm no tax expert, so this is from the Wiki summary, but the links to that and the actual report are here:

Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#cite_note-cbo1-38)

Congressional Budget Office - The Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5559)I don't have time to go into the links right now, but I'm curious if they took into account the reduced taxes - AND - what percentage of people they thought this would actually effect.

But, the question wasn't about benefits. It was about rights.I don't have time to go into the links right now, but I'm curious if they took into account the reduced taxes - AND - what percentage of people they thought this would actually effect.

They did, they estimated that .6 percent of adults would marry, although they admitted that the number was not certain. The quote from the Wiki summary says:

"This result reflects an increase in net government revenues (increased income taxes due to marriage penalties more than offsetting decreased tax revenues arising from postponed estate taxes). Marriage recognition would increase the government expenses for Social Security and Federal Employee Health Benefits but that increase would be more than made up for by decreased expenses for Medicaid, Medicare, and Supplemental Security Income."

And when one group of Americans is given the right to do something that is denied to another group, then they are being denied their rights as Americans. There are many, many federal benefits that these people are prohibited from getting because of their sexual orientation. So yes, they are being denied a right to get married and reap those benefits while others can.

And when one group of Americans is given the right to do something that is denied to another group, then they are being denied their rights as Americans. There are many, many federal benefits that these people are prohibited from getting because of their sexual orientation. So yes, they are being denied a right to get married and reap those benefits while others can.Again, there is no sexual orientation requirement for marriage, as it is currently defined in DOMA nor the vast majority of the states. Again, I can point to you many, many people who are homosexuals who have been married.

No one's rights are being denied based on sexual orientation.

Again, there is no sexual orientation requirement for marriage, as it is currently defined in DOMA nor the vast majority of the states. Again, I can point to you many, many people who are homosexuals who have been married.

No one's rights are being denied based on sexual orientation.

Right, yes - they can marry a member of the opposite sex. We've all seen how well that works out!

What "dilutes" or takes away the "sanctity" of marriage more: Two people of the same gender who love each other making it official, or a gay man marrying a gay woman strictly for the federal benefits?

The whole rights conversation can be concluded just as soon as we are pointed to the place in the constitution that specifically covers the "rights" of marriage, and any other benefits that come with it.

until then, it must be considered a privilege.

I don't need government approval or a permit to claim a right, but I do need them both for most privileges.

So, go ahead and prove that a RIGHT is being denied, a right that is listed in the constitution and I will have no choice but to hold my nose on the subject and get in line fighting for those RIGHTS as listed in the constitution to be evenly applied.

Of course if we decide that a privilage is equal to a right, I do have a blind cousin that would love nothing more than to get his drivers license.

Right, yes - they can marry a member of the opposite sex. We've all seen how well that works out!Actual results may vary....

Do marrriages have to end happy for it to be marriage?

This is not to suggest I am in favor of unhappy marriages. I am trying to merely keep the conversation on the law.What "dilutes" or takes away the "sanctity" of marriage more: Two people of the same gender who love each other making it official, or a gay man marrying a gay woman strictly for the federal benefits?Well, diluting or taking away the sanctity of marriage are two very different things.

Having marriage mean anything other than the traditional (centuries of western culture) meaning would dilute the meaning. Having people marry for other than ultruistic reasons would reduce the sanctity. However, the law is not about the sanctity of marriage, so I don't see the point of the question.

Right, yes - they can marry a member of the opposite sex. We've all seen how well that works out!

What "dilutes" or takes away the "sanctity" of marriage more: Two people of the same gender who love each other making it official, or a gay man marrying a gay woman strictly for the federal benefits?

I saw a video portraying this. It was from a protest and two woman who had been together for decades were denied a license so the one asked if she where to request one with some random stranger would she be able to get one and it was yes as long as it was the opposite gender.
So a gay man stood up and volunteered to get a license with her. It was just kind of sad how you can marry a complete stranger you just met and that is OK but two adults who love each other would 'dilute' it.

Actual results may vary....

Do marrriages have to end happy for it to be marriage?

This is not to suggest I am in favor of unhappy marriages. I am trying to merely keep the conversation on the law.Well, diluting or taking away the sanctity of marriage are two very different things.

Having marriage mean anything other than the traditional (centuries of western culture) meaning would dilute the meaning. Having people marry for other than ultruistic reasons would reduce the sanctity. However, the law is not about the sanctity of marriage, so I don't see the point of the question.

Because this entire thread you've been arguing just that: Diluting the meaning of marriage. You say you're completely in favor of offering the exact same benefits for civil unions, you just don't want to call it marriage because it would dilute the meaning of marriage.

"But, it is fact that it would dilute the meaning of the word marriage. This is why I, personally, am in favor of civil unions, or some other name being provided."

"Changing that definition to include same-gendered relationships would, by definition, dilute the meaning."

"When you muck with the definition...you weaken what people perceive of as "marriage", and weaken the importance given to the institution in general."

But then you argue that gay people can marry, just to members of the opposite sex, and that the argument is the law and not about the sanctity or dilution of marriage. Which is it?

You also said:

"As for tax benefits, I've repeatedly said that I've yet to see the studies that suggest what you're suggesting - that there is a societal gain similar to that of marriage. Perhaps the studies will prove to say just that, if not more. We won't know, of course, until those studies are done on the generations that follow where same-gendered unions have been legalized."

And there has been a study by the CBO as I referenced in a previous post. There would be a net gain of federal money. Not a hugely significant amount, but a gain nonetheless. To say nothing about the increase in business for wedding planners, bakers, etc.

That's 7% more than there was before and it''s called the "straw that broke the camels back".


Lol right, homosexuality is entirely a modern invention. It certainly didn't exist in ancient Greece, long before any of today's major religions came along!

Because this entire thread you've been arguing just that: Diluting the meaning of marriage. You say you're completely in favor of offering the exact same benefits for civil unions, you just don't want to call it marriage because it would dilute the meaning of marriage.

But then you argue that gay people can marry, just to members of the opposite sex, and that the argument is the law and not about the sanctity or dilution of marriage. Which is it?Well, I didn't say the law is not about the sanctity or dilution of marriage, I said the law is not about the sanctity of marriage, and that sanctity and dilution are two different things.

Diluting what marriage means will have, by all reasonable measures, an effect on how marriage is viewed, and therefore on the social results (more crime, more welfare recipients, etc.). This is, of course, opinion, but well reasoned opinion from a myriad of social studies on other reductions in the governmental enforcement of government recognized marriages.You also said:

"As for tax benefits, I've repeatedly said that I've yet to see the studies that suggest what you're suggesting - that there is a societal gain similar to that of marriage. Perhaps the studies will prove to say just that, if not more. We won't know, of course, until those studies are done on the generations that follow where same-gendered unions have been legalized."

And there has been a study by the CBO as I referenced in a previous post. There would be a net gain of federal money. Not a hugely significant amount, but a gain nonetheless. To say nothing about the increase in business for wedding planners, bakers, etc.And, that study shows the monetary gain, given whatever assumptions they used. I do not dispute it.

Did it take into account how, after a few generations, this dilution of the concept of marriage may effect society at large, and the potential social and economic results of that change? As you can see, what you quoted me as saying discussed the societal changes, not the potential monetary changes.

Lol right, homosexuality is entirely a modern invention. It certainly didn't exist in ancient Greece, long before any of today's major religions came along!
Slavery was considered ok back in ancient Greece, should we question the decision to do away with that also?

Slavery was considered ok back in ancient Greece, should we question the decision to do away with that also?

You must have failed the analogy portion of the SAT. He said that the 7% of Americans who are gay was "7% more than we used to have", as if suddenly they've been created out of nothing because now they have more rights than they did years ago. Homosexuality has been around for centuries upon centuries.

Well, I didn't say the law is not about the sanctity or dilution of marriage, I said the law is not about the sanctity of marriage, and that sanctity and dilution are two different things.

Diluting what marriage means will have, by all reasonable measures, an effect on how marriage is viewed, and therefore on the social results (more crime, more welfare recipients, etc.). This is, of course, opinion, but well reasoned opinion from a myriad of social studies on other reductions in the governmental enforcement of government recognized marriages.And, that study shows the monetary gain, given whatever assumptions they used. I do not dispute it.

Did it take into account how, after a few generations, this dilution of the concept of marriage may effect society at large, and the potential social and economic results of that change? As you can see, what you quoted me as saying discussed the societal changes, not the potential monetary changes.

Well we're kind of talking in circles here. Frankly I don't think you've really shown us how .6% of the American population (less than 2 million people) marrying will change society in the slightest. You haven't shown that crime will increase, that there will be more welfare recipients, etc. Just because there may be a correlation between children of single mothers and crime does not mean that it has anything to do with gay marriage at all. That is more an issue of poverty, and really has zero relationship to letting those 2 million people marry.

I saw a video portraying this. It was from a protest and two woman who had been together for decades were denied a license so the one asked if she where to request one with some random stranger would she be able to get one and it was yes as long as it was the opposite gender.
So a gay man stood up and volunteered to get a license with her. It was just kind of sad how you can marry a complete stranger you just met and that is OK but two adults who love each other would 'dilute' it.

Yep, it's sad and completely ludicrous.

Right, yes - they can marry a member of the opposite sex. We've all seen how well that works out!

What "dilutes" or takes away the "sanctity" of marriage more: Two people of the same gender who love each other making it official, or a gay man marrying a gay woman strictly for the federal benefits?

Its interesting that he brings up the DOMA and then claims there are no rights denied. Especially when DOMA states there are numerous Rights and Benefits given to Married couples, that will not be extended to Unrecognized Gay Marriages.

He's even been called on this before, and pointed to where DOMA states this, but he must have "forgot"

Well we're kind of talking in circles here. Frankly I don't think you've really shown us how .6% of the American population (less than 2 million people) marrying will change society in the slightest. You haven't shown that crime will increase, that there will be more welfare recipients, etc. Just because there may be a correlation between children of single mothers and crime does not mean that it has anything to do with gay marriage at all. That is more an issue of poverty, and really has zero relationship to letting those 2 million people marry.

Why are those mothers single? What percentage of children were raised by single parents >40 years ago, and how has that trend changed? What was the catalyst to that change?

Now, when you find the catalyst, you will find the corrolation of which I speak.

Why are those mothers single? What percentage of children were raised by single parents >40 years ago, and how has that trend changed? What was the catalyst to that change?

Now, when you find the catalyst, you will find the corrolation of which I speak.

What you're saying is MEANINGLESS! The fact that people have more children out of wedlock than 40 years ago has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage!

There are a myriad of reasons for this. People are getting married at much later ages than they used to. It's more socially acceptable to be a single parent than it once was. But how is the fact that people are choosing not to marry, or to marry later, correlate at all to what we're talking about? If you're in favor of more marriages and less single parents, then why are you against gay marriage?

Its interesting that he brings up the DOMA and then claims there are no rights denied. Especially when DOMA states there are numerous Rights and Benefits given to Married couples, that will not be extended to Unrecognized Gay Marriages.

He's even been called on this before, and pointed to where DOMA states this, but he must have "forgot"

Heh, you're like a forum watchdog. I like it.

Its interesting that he brings up the DOMA and then claims there are no rights denied. Especially when DOMA states there are numerous Rights and Benefits given to Married couples, that will not be extended to Unrecognized Gay Marriages.

He's even been called on this before, and pointed to where DOMA states this, but he must have "forgot"

If you're going to talk with me, talk with me.

If you're going to talk to me via others around me, continue to look like a fool all on your own.

What you're saying is MEANINGLESS! The fact that people have more children out of wedlock than 40 years ago has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage!

There are a myriad of reasons for this. People are getting married at much later ages than they used to. It's more socially acceptable to be a single parent than it once was. But how is the fact that people are choosing not to marry, or to marry later, correlate at all to what we're talking about? If you're in favor of more marriages and less single parents, then why are you against gay marriage?Why is it more socially acceptable? What changed the social norms of centuries?

Heh, you're like a forum watchdog. I like it.He's a fool, not a watchdog.

He brings up that he demonstrated to me that DOMA specifically allows one state from not recognizing another state's "marriage" if it chooses not to. I did not contradict that.

But, he hasn't the balls to call ME out on it, just jump in the background like a fox terrier on crack. Don't take him seriously on anythying except gun laws - he's fairly good on that.

Why is it more socially acceptable? What changed the social norms of centuries?

A lot of things have changed over the years. People don't get married right out of high school anymore. More people go to college than before. People don't want to settle down as early as they did. Things have changed, the country's evolved. The teen pregnancy rate hasn't skyrocketed since the 1950s; it's actually lower now than it was then. Perhaps it's more noticeable now because those unfortunate teens back then used to get married at 16, where now they don't. Of course we do have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the developed world, which is embarrassing.

But you're trying to tie things together that don't fit.

He's a fool, not a watchdog.

He brings up that he demonstrated to me that DOMA specifically allows one state from not recognizing another state's "marriage" if it chooses not to. I did not contradict that.

But, he hasn't the balls to call ME out on it, just jump in the background like a fox terrier on crack. Don't take him seriously on anythying except gun laws - he's fairly good on that.

Thanks for the tip, but I can make up my own mind.

A lot of things have changed over the years. People don't get married right out of high school anymore. More people go to college than before. People don't want to settle down as early as they did. Things have changed, the country's evolved. The teen pregnancy rate hasn't skyrocketed since the 1950s; it's actually lower now than it was then. Perhaps it's more noticeable now because those unfortunate teens back then used to get married at 16, where now they don't. Of course we do have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the developed world, which is embarrassing.

But you're trying to tie things together that don't fit.

You answered why people marry older, not why it's socially acceptable to be a single parent.

Why is it socially acceptable to be a single parent? What changed in our culture that says single parenthood is not the humiliating thing it used to be (for those other than widows)?

You're trying to ignore the trees to look at the forrest.

You answered why people marry older, not why it's socially acceptable to be a single parent.

Why is it socially acceptable to be a single parent? What changed in our culture that says single parenthood is not the humiliating thing it used to be (for those other than widows)?

You're trying to ignore the trees to look at the forrest.

And you're desperately trying to link facts together and find causation where there is none.

It's more socially acceptable just like a lot of things are. Things change over the years and we become more open. Look at the idea of interracial dating. In 1900 it was unthinkable and illegal. People would be killed in the 1950s for winking at a member of the opposite race. It's acceptable now because things evolve. Women couldn't vote, now they can. We as a country evolve every year.

It's more socially acceptable because what are we going to do? Shame people everyday? Some people choose to be single parents, some make mistakes and have no choice. Should we really stare at and mock those men/women for having a different lifestyle?

It's also out there more than it used to be. I distinctly recall the uproar when Murphy Brown, a fictional character, decided to become a single mother. Now there are a lot more movies/TV shows that have single parents. The #1 comedy on TV, the awful, awful "Two and a Half Men" has a single father as one of the main characters. Sarah Palin trotted her pregnant, unmarried teen daughter on stage at the Republican convention in 2008. It's more acceptable because it's talked about more openly than it used to be.

And while I say MORE acceptable than it used to be, it's still not accepted by a lot of people. Many still look down on them and criticize.

But still, this entire conversation has zero to do with gay marriage. Why should gay people who love each other and want to get married just like straight people be punished for this perceived dilution of marriage that you claim has occurred over the last 50 years? They had nothing to do with that.

Thanks for the tip, but I can make up my own mind.

You'd think Brainiac would realize i have him on Ignore

You answered why people marry older, not why it's socially acceptable to be a single parent.

Why is it socially acceptable to be a single parent? What changed in our culture that says single parenthood is not the humiliating thing it used to be (for those other than widows)?

You're trying to ignore the trees to look at the forrest.
I'm going to take a swing at this one. It isn't so much more socially acceptable as financially possible. If the government wasn't making it profitable for single mothers to have kids, it would stop.

Thanks for the tip, but I can make up my own mind.

As you make it up, ask him what exactly it is that is symbolized (http://forums.somd.com/4079026-post75.html) by a president signing an appropriations bill. See, I think (and the constitution thinks, and the law makers think, and reality shows...) it sybolizes a bill becoming a law. Nuck thinks it's just a symbolic gesture with no meaning.

And you're desperately trying to link facts together and find causation where there is none. No, you're just not accepting the link.

Divorce laws were loosened, divorces became more rampant and therefore socially acceptable, which led to a lot more single parents raising kids, which led to a lot more crime, welfare, school dropout, etc.

The cause was the loosening of the divorce laws, which directly, socially, changed the view of marriage in society.

By diluting what constitutes the concept of "marriage", it is reasonable to assume there would be unforeseen negative social results. Because it's already happened when "marriage" was devalued by the government previously.It's more socially acceptable just like a lot of things are. Things change over the years and we become more open. Look at the idea of interracial dating. In 1900 it was unthinkable and illegal. People would be killed in the 1950s for winking at a member of the opposite race. It's acceptable now because things evolve. Women couldn't vote, now they can. We as a country evolve every year.And, the social acceptence of races has mostly led to good things. The social acceptence of the equality of women has mostly led to good things.

The social degradation of marriage has mostly led to bad things.It's more socially acceptable because what are we going to do? Shame people everyday? Some people choose to be single parents, some make mistakes and have no choice. Should we really stare at and mock those men/women for having a different lifestyle? No, not my suggestion at all.
It's also out there more than it used to be. I distinctly recall the uproar when Murphy Brown, a fictional character, decided to become a single mother. Now there are a lot more movies/TV shows that have single parents. The #1 comedy on TV, the awful, awful "Two and a Half Men" has a single father as one of the main characters.Actually, he shares custody with the boys mother. No single parenthood per se. But, it does show how socially acceptable divorce has become........Sarah Palin trotted her pregnant, unmarried teen daughter on stage at the Republican convention in 2008. It's more acceptable because it's talked about more openly than it used to be. And, what did she say is the reason she had premarital sex? Oh yeah, it was more socially acceptable now.But still, this entire conversation has zero to do with gay marriage. Why should gay people who love each other and want to get married just like straight people be punished for this perceived dilution of marriage that you claim has occurred over the last 50 years? They had nothing to do with that.Because you're choosing to not see the causation where it exists.

The link is that the act of degrading the strength of the concept of marriage (the whole reason for governmental recognition of the concept in the first place) causes social problems - and, calling more things marriage will degrade the strength of the concept of marriage.

You'd think Brainiac would realize i have him on Ignore

Then, actually ignore me. Don't respond to my posts via other people. Unless you're a hypocrit.

I'm going to take a swing at this one. It isn't so much more socially acceptable as financially possible. If the government wasn't making it profitable for single mothers to have kids, it would stop.

I would say it is both. When the government subsidizes something, one generally gets more of it.

Again, that was the point in providing tax incentives to be married.

Then, actually ignore me. Don't respond to my posts via other people. Unless you're a hypocrit.
Here you go

Here you go

Thank you. :cheers:

Thank you. :cheers: Im only here to help. :buddies::buddies::killingme

Here you go

Thanks you tool :killingme.

I (typically) dont respond to his posts, i usually respond to what someone else posts to him

But since this is a discussion board i'm free to respond to whatever the hell i want.

Thanks you tool :killingme.

I (typically) dont respond to his posts, i usually respond to what someone else posts to him

But since this is a discussion board i'm free to respond to whatever the hell i want.

As am I. Guess that makes your comment that you think I can't figure out you claim to have me on ignore pretty stupid, huh?

I would say it is both. When the government subsidizes something, one generally gets more of it.

Again, that was the point in providing tax incentives to be married.

I'm going to disagree with this statement, the government subsidizes something to meet someones personal agenda.

I'm going to disagree with this statement, the government subsidizes something to meet someones personal agenda.

You disagree with me agreeing with you? :lmao: You gave the reason, I gave the effect, but we are saying the same thing on that part of the issue.

However, just because you and I pay for single parents to raise their children doesn't make it more socially acceptable. Changing society's reverence for marriage and parenthood was required, first.

You disagree with me agreeing with you? :lmao: You gave the reason, I gave the effect, but we are saying the same thing on that part of the issue.

However, just because you and I pay for single parents to raise their children doesn't make it more socially acceptable. Changing society's reverence for marriage and parenthood was required, first.

The biggest "good" that comes out of marriage is financial stability for the couple and any subsequent children they may have. The actual institution doesn't provide all the societal benefits you claim. It's the fact two earners = more money.

We "pay" for single parents to raise their children (this is bullsh-- by the way) because a country filled with kids in total poverty is not a good thing. Those kids who grow up with no food and no money will become adults. And then you'll complain about all the criminals we have and why won't someone take care of this? Well, if we had done something to help them as children...

The biggest "good" that comes out of marriage is financial stability for the couple and any subsequent children they may have. The actual institution doesn't provide all the societal benefits you claim. It's the fact two earners = more money. Two earners is a recent invention.

However, financial stability is not just good for the couple, but for their neighbors - for society at large. And, the commitment to that stability is also a benefit to society at large.

Again, same-gendered unions may offer the same benefits, and therefore be rewarded with the same tax advantages. Or, they may not. As of right now, we just don't know. What we DO know is that those involved in same-gendered relationships have been shown to not revere monogamy the same way the bulk of those in opposite gendered relationships historically have. This means they are not as stabilizing on the society at large. Until such time as different data is available, that's the best thing out there to determine the effect on society of same gendered relationships.
We "pay" for single parents to raise their children (this is bullsh-- by the way) because a country filled with kids in total poverty is not a good thing. Those kids who grow up with no food and no money will become adults. And then you'll complain about all the criminals we have and why won't someone take care of this? Well, if we had done something to help them as children...Significantly reduce welfare to single parents, and see if it's bull#### that we pay for single parents to raise their children.

I didn't have those children - they are not my responsibility. "Do something" about them as children implies the parentSSSS should do something, not me. My kids were taken care of by ME.

I did, and it's still you. For what it's worth, I am going to be terribly disappointed when they put you in the room next to JPC wearing an "I love me" coat.
Nope. You'll be terribly disappointed when the God you deny hands you your a$$ on a silver platter and says: See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya"... Then what Einstein? Sooo smart but sooo mistaken. I actually feel bad for you my friend.
True sign of an extremist...Fox News is considered liberal. Right.
Remember? You brought it up. Being gay "goes against nature" is what you said. And newsflash: Humans are animals.
"Extremist" is a compliment to me actually, so thanks darling!
I now see another side of your issue. Since (you think) we're animals, we should act and behave like them? Kinda throws our ability to reason right out the window. We're creatures of habit and instinct then...Sux to have your mindset.
Lol right, homosexuality is entirely a modern invention. It certainly didn't exist in ancient Greece, long before any of today's major religions came along!
It's been around since the time of Abraham BUT THAT STILL DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!

It's more socially acceptable just like a lot of things are. Things change over the years and we become more open. Look at the idea of interracial dating. In 1900 it was unthinkable and illegal. People would be killed in the 1950s for winking at a member of the opposite race. It's acceptable now because things evolve. Women couldn't vote, now they can. We as a country evolve every year.
The reason I don't get into DEEP factual discussions is that this is a settled issue! Why waste all this memory space with meaningless rantings? Right now you're in the dark. One day you won't be and will forever wonder why you wasted all those years arguing about a settled issue.
Now, I shall not continue to argue with a blind person but I will say this: There was never a mandate against inter racial marriages from God's point of view. This was man made, so this "evolving" was a good thing. Same sex unions were always forbidden by God and will be punished and dealt with accordingly very soon regardless of what ANY human thinks.

It's more socially acceptable because what are we going to do? Shame people everyday? Some people choose to be single parents, some make mistakes and have no choice. Should we really stare at and mock those men/women for having a different lifestyle?
Answer: YES! Shame people everyday because it is wrong! This will cause them to hopefully wake up and wise up! Enabling them only makes them worse. Cut back welfare and watch how many people get off the couch and try to find work. Again, no need for deep conjecture here. God made the guidelines for a perfect society; mankind went against them and the result is a corrupt and hell bound society.
From your mindset, should the police stop fighting crime because it still happens even after court dates, fines and imprisonments?

It's also out there more than it used to be. I distinctly recall the uproar when Murphy Brown, a fictional character, decided to become a single mother. Now there are a lot more movies/TV shows that have single parents. The #1 comedy on TV, the awful, awful "Two and a Half Men" has a single father as one of the main characters. Sarah Palin trotted her pregnant, unmarried teen daughter on stage at the Republican convention in 2008. It's more acceptable because it's talked about more openly than it used to be.
Wonderful! Use TV shows as our standard for morality...

Why should gay people who love each other and want to get married just like straight people be punished for this perceived dilution of marriage that you claim has occurred over the last 50 years? They had nothing to do with that.
"Nothing to do with it"??? :faint:
Now to answer your question as to why they should be punished: GOD forbade it. See how easy that was? Again, just because someone (anyone) doesn't believe in Him doesn't negate their day in court with Him. I'm done warning you.

Two earners is a recent invention.

However, financial stability is not just good for the couple, but for their neighbors - for society at large. And, the commitment to that stability is also a benefit to society at large.

Again, same-gendered unions may offer the same benefits, and therefore be rewarded with the same tax advantages. Or, they may not. As of right now, we just don't know. What we DO know is that those involved in same-gendered relationships have been shown to not revere monogamy the same way the bulk of those in opposite gendered relationships historically have. This means they are not as stabilizing on the society at large. Until such time as different data is available, that's the best thing out there to determine the effect on society of same gendered relationships.Significantly reduce welfare to single parents, and see if it's bull#### that we pay for single parents to raise their children.

I didn't have those children - they are not my responsibility. "Do something" about them as children implies the parentSSSS should do something, not me. My kids were taken care of by ME.

Okay, two earners or one person at home and one at work so there's not a huge childcare bill.

That's my point about kids whose parents don't have a lot of money, or are single earners. Yeah they're not your responsibility at all, but they could be your PROBLEM one day when they're adults. It's cheaper for us to try and tackle this kind of problem when they're younger rather than wait for them to grow up and become potential criminals. It's just smarter policy.

Nope. You'll be terribly disappointed when the God you deny hands you your a$$ on a silver platter and says: See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya"... Then what Einstein? Sooo smart but sooo mistaken. I actually feel bad for you my friend.

"Extremist" is a compliment to me actually, so thanks darling!
I now see another side of your issue. Since (you think) we're animals, we should act and behave like them? Kinda throws our ability to reason right out the window. We're creatures of habit and instinct then...Sux to have your mindset.

It's been around since the time of Abraham BUT THAT STILL DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!

The reason I don't get into DEEP factual discussions is that this is a settled issue! Why waste all this memory space with meaningless rantings? Right now you're in the dark. One day you won't be and will forever wonder why you wasted all those years arguing about a settled issue.
Now, I shall not continue to argue with a blind person but I will say this: There was never a mandate against inter racial marriages from God's point of view. This was man made, so this "evolving" was a good thing. Same sex unions were always forbidden by God and will be punished and dealt with accordingly very soon regardless of what ANY human thinks.

Answer: YES! Shame people everyday because it is wrong! This will cause them to hopefully wake up and wise up! Enabling them only makes them worse. Cut back welfare and watch how many people get off the couch and try to find work. Again, no need for deep conjecture here. God made the guidelines for a perfect society; mankind went against them and the result is a corrupt and hell bound society.
From your mindset, should the police stop fighting crime because it still happens even after court dates, fines and imprisonments?

Wonderful! Use TV shows as our standard for morality...

"Nothing to do with it"??? :faint:
Now to answer your question as to why they should be punished: GOD forbade it. See how east that was? Again, just because someone (anyone) doesn't believe in Him doesn't negate their day in court with Him. I'm done warning you.

See how...east that was? You're right, it was very east.

The reason talking to you is pointless is because you refute everything with "because God said so". It seems like everyone else just ignores you now, so I think I'll do the same.

See how...east that was? You're right, it was very east.

The reason talking to you is pointless is because you refute everything with "because God said so". It seems like everyone else just ignores you now, so I think I'll do the same.
Is that all you have? A spelling check? :nono:
I'm sorry that you were raised to be anti God but one day you'll see that everything in life is about us relating to Him. Love ya baby! See you back here on Monday...

Nope. You'll be terribly disappointed when the God you deny hands you your a$$ on a silver platter and says: See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya"... Then what Einstein? Sooo smart but sooo mistaken. I actually feel bad for you my friend.


Of our two scenarios, I get the better end of the stick. If you're right I may be disappointed and in hell, but I'm still here. If I'm correct, you get to lay in a box and rot (after having wasted all that time). So don't feel to bad for me.

Of our two scenarios, I get the better end of the stick. If you're right I may be disappointed and in hell, but I'm still here. If I'm correct, you get to lay in a box and rot (after having wasted all that time). So don't feel to bad for me.

lol... I'll start by saying I am a heathen, but your 'better' end of the stick cracked me up...

Let me get this straight...

1) If he is right, you will fry for eternity knowing fully well that it was your fault. Endless pain and torment.

2) If you are right, death is the end, no afterlife, just stop. So he won't even 'know' that he was wrong, he'll just be gone. End of thought. No regrets.

And you think 1) is better? :doh:

Okay, two earners or one person at home and one at work so there's not a huge childcare bill.

That's my point about kids whose parents don't have a lot of money, or are single earners. Yeah they're not your responsibility at all, but they could be your PROBLEM one day when they're adults. It's cheaper for us to try and tackle this kind of problem when they're younger rather than wait for them to grow up and become potential criminals. It's just smarter policy.

I agree that it's better to fix the problem of single parenthood before it becomes a problem. Therefore, fixing what makes divorce and/or non-marriage with kids in the first place. Therefore, not devaluing the concept of marriage.

lol... I'll start by saying I am a heathen, but your 'better' end of the stick cracked me up...

Let me get this straight...

1) If he is right, you will fry for eternity knowing fully well that it was your fault. Endless pain and torment.

2) If you are right, death is the end, no afterlife, just stop. So he won't even 'know' that he was wrong, he'll just be gone. End of thought. No regrets.

And you think 1) is better? :doh:

But at least I'm there to enjoy it. Besides, how bad can hell be, I've been to Detroit.

lol... I'll start by saying I am a heathen, but your 'better' end of the stick cracked me up...

Let me get this straight...

1) If he is right, you will fry for eternity knowing fully well that it was your fault. Endless pain and torment.

2) If you are right, death is the end, no afterlife, just stop. So he won't even 'know' that he was wrong, he'll just be gone. End of thought. No regrets.

And you think 1) is better? :doh:
You see what I'm dealing with??????? Good observation!

But at least I'm there to enjoy it. Besides, how bad can hell be, I've been to Detroit.
I heard that Hell is going to be ItalianScallions voice on a loud speaker, 24/7 with the off button 2 feet out of your reach...:evil:
Ready to change yet? :howdy:

I heard that Hell is going to be ItalianScallions voice on a loud speaker, 24/7 with the off button 2 feet out of your reach...:evil:
Ready to change yet? :howdy:

I see your point, but as far as you go, I may think you're a loon, but you don't really annoy me.:buddies:

I heard that Hell is going to be ItalianScallions voice on a loud speaker, 24/7 with the off button 2 feet out of your reach...:evil:
Ready to change yet? :howdy:
well damn.
heading back to church for the second service today.
need to load up just in case.:killingme

gawd this thing still going on? tell you what, when God tells us this is bad then fine, but the bible was written by too many people over too long of a time span, and altered too many times for me to give heart to it.
Ten commandments were spoken by God and that is what I will go by

well damn.
heading back to church for the second service today.
need to load up just in case.:killingme

Just saw a news clip regarding the gay marriages in DC. It's enough to gross you out.

gawd this thing still going on? tell you what, when God tells us this is bad then fine, but the bible was written by too many people over too long of a time span, and altered too many times for me to give heart to it.
Ten commandments were spoken by God and that is what I will go by
How do you know that the 10 Commandments haven't been changed?
Anyhow, He did tell us. You just chose not to listen.
The Bible needs no human approval. What's in it is what we will be held accountable for. Not just the 10 Commandments.
Part of it's credibility is exactly in what you said about many people writing it. The fact that it was written by @ 40 different people, living in many different time periods, many from different countries and speaking different languages BUT every one wrote about the exact same theme: God's loving relationship to His creation.
And btw, the true Bible message hasn't been altered. Translated into hundreds of languages, yes. And yes, some versions have man's personal input added to them but we know which ones have been tampered with and we avoid them. The problem is that humans have changed and that's why God is angry with many of them.
Back on topic; the reason why America is falling is not only because of Democrats but because of anyone who pushes agendas that go against God's agenda. Hey cutie; find a good version and read it. You'll be amazed at how "same" it has remained. Use the New International Version (NIV). Surprisingly easy to read. :buddies:

Having marriage mean anything other than the traditional (centuries of western culture) meaning would dilute the meaning.




Does anyone else think that this incessant "diluting the meaning" is, like, the worst argument against gay marriages ever?




Does anyone who supports gay marriages care - AT ALL - if the concentration of marriage is 100% heterosexuals? It seems to me that if you're arguing in favor of gay marriages, you are ACTIVELY IN FAVOR of diluting it.


I WANT the meaning diluted.

Does anyone else think that this incessant "diluting the meaning" is, like, the worst argument against gay marriages ever?

I WANT the meaning diluted.I thought I had provided (http://forums.somd.com/4209722-post312.html) the meaning a couple of times (http://forums.somd.com/4209879-post329.html)....

But, anyway, the argument isn't against same gendered unions - hell, I'm for civil unions. The argument is against devaluing the concept of marriage, which adding to the meaning of "marriage" would do.

You would do well to try and understand the argument prior to judging it.

Does anyone else think that this incessant "diluting the meaning" is, like, the worst argument against gay marriages ever?
Especially when he uses the actions of Hetero's (who can get married) as his justification for why it would be bad to let Gay's (who can not) married.

It is an illogical argument.

Letting Gays get married, will dilute the instution. We know this because of Heteros that have {Fill in the Blank}.
Does anyone who supports gay marriages care - AT ALL - if the concentration of marriage is 100% heterosexuals? It seems to me that if you're arguing in favor of gay marriages, you are ACTIVELY IN FAVOR of diluting it.
No and that is the fallacy of his argument. Allowing Gays to marry will have no effect on Hetero marriages. Hetero's are still free to "dilute" the institution as they see fit
I WANT the meaning diluted.
The definition (or meaning) has been defined this way (after numerous revisions) for years and years

I thought I had provided (http://forums.somd.com/4209722-post312.html) the meaning a couple of times (http://forums.somd.com/4209879-post329.html)....

But, anyway, the argument isn't against same gendered unions - hell, I'm for civil unions. The argument is against devaluing the concept of marriage, which adding to the meaning of "marriage" would do.

You would do well to try and understand the argument prior to judging it.



Well, gee whiz, when you reiterate the same argument three times, it makes a lot more sense. I must be some kinda rube!



(:sarcasm:)



I understand your argument. My point is that your argument of preventing dilution is not a persuasive argument to those who want it diluted.





And as for devaluing the concept of marriage, in many circles (take one look at Hollywood marriages for instance) the concept is a joke anyway. The fact that Bert and Bruce get married has exactly ZERO effect on the concept of, say, my marriage.

Well, gee whiz, when you reiterate the same argument three times, it makes a lot more sense. I must be some kinda rube!



(:sarcasm:)



I understand your argument. My point is that your argument of preventing dilution is not a persuasive argument to those who want it diluted.





And as for devaluing the concept of marriage, in many circles (take one look at Hollywood marriages for instance) the concept is a joke anyway. The fact that Bert and Bruce get married has exactly ZERO effect on the concept of, say, my marriage.Your last sentence proves you don't get it.

It's not about your marriage, or my marriage, or any particular marriage today. It's about the societal view of marriage as an institution in the future.

But, since you want to discuss it (I thought this thread died long ago), what is the societal advantage to diluting the concept of marriage? I ask that because we give tax benefits to those things we deem as a societal advantage, like charities and two person of opposite gender marriages etc. So, to dilute the meaning of marriage, where is the societal advantage?

Especially when he uses the actions of Hetero's (who can get married) as his justification for why it would be bad to let Gay's (who can not) married.

It is an illogical argument.

Letting Gays get married, will dilute the instution. We know this because of Heteros that have {Fill in the Blank}.

No and that is the fallacy of his argument. Allowing Gays to marry will have no effect on Hetero marriages. Hetero's are still free to "dilute" the institution as they see fit

The definition (or meaning) has been defined this way (after numerous revisions) for years and yearsYou've continued to prove you have serious comprehension issues (what is the symbolism of a president signing a bill into law, again?).

Here, you make it so obvious it's embarrassing to watch you.

Your last sentence proves you don't get it.

It's not about your marriage, or my marriage, or any particular marriage today. It's about the societal view of marriage as an institution in the future.

But, since you want to discuss it (I thought this thread died long ago), what is the societal advantage to diluting the concept of marriage? I ask that because we give tax benefits to those things we deem as a societal advantage, like charities and two person of opposite gender marriages etc. So, to dilute the meaning of marriage, where is the societal advantage?

Let's kick this one around a bit, let's have a few for instances and see if the purpose is in fact to benefit society, or if it just fits a personal agenda and is disguised as a societal benefit.

Let's kick this one around a bit, let's have a few for instances and see if the purpose is in fact to benefit society, or if it just fits a personal agenda and is disguised as a societal benefit.

Okay, I'm game.

Churches. Home ownership via deductions for interest on the loan and upgrades to the home. Homeless shelters. Red Cross. Salvation Army. Fraternal organizations.

Let's see, what else is tax exempt, or has reduced taxes......

Medical insurance bought or supplemented by an employer. Military support groups. Meals on Wheels. Extra tax exempt status of education expenses. Tax deductions for those costs incurred due to employment (uniforms, etc.)....

It's late, and I'm going sherely off the top of my head here. Anything there seem inappropriately encouraged by tax benefits?

I'm sure there are things out there that are either illegal, inappropriate, or could be deemed as not beneficial to society. Unions, the Florida exemption to the proposed tax status with regards to the Senate's version of Obama's health care insurance takeover - er, reform bill.... But, on the whole, I think it's fair to say that when something receives a tax benefit, it's for the better.

The one that bothers me is the discriminatory tax structure that punishes success disproportionately, punishes whites and males disproportionately, and punishes earning income vice being wealthy disproportionately - but that's the whole tax structure, not really tax benefit status.

How do you know that the 10 Commandments haven't been changed?
Anyhow, He did tell us. You just chose not to listen.
The Bible needs no human approval. What's in it is what we will be held accountable for. Not just the 10 Commandments.
Part of it's credibility is exactly in what you said about many people writing it. The fact that it was written by @ 40 different people, living in many different time periods, many from different countries and speaking different languages BUT every one wrote about the exact same theme: God's loving relationship to His creation.
And btw, the true Bible message hasn't been altered. Translated into hundreds of languages, yes. And yes, some versions have man's personal input added to them but we know which ones have been tampered with and we avoid them. The problem is that humans have changed and that's why God is angry with many of them.
Back on topic; the reason why America is falling is not only because of Democrats but because of anyone who pushes agendas that go against God's agenda. Hey cutie; find a good version and read it. You'll be amazed at how "same" it has remained. Use the New International Version (NIV). Surprisingly easy to read. :buddies:


No more than you know what is in the bible is correct. But countless recollections all say that the ten commandent were the word of God.
translation IS altering.

Prove to me that God is angry.

Do not call me cutie.

And the bible is a collection of stories nothing more to me.

Prove any of what you said and I would be more than willing to listen.

No more than you know what is in the bible is correct. But countless recollections all say that the ten commandent were the word of God.
translation IS altering.

Prove to me that God is angry.

Do not call me cutie.

And the bible is a collection of stories nothing more to me.

Prove any of what you said and I would be more than willing to listen.
Again with the demeaning terminology IS?

No more than you know what is in the bible is correct. But countless recollections all say that the ten commandent were the word of God.
translation IS altering.

Prove to me that God is angry.

Do not call me cutie.

And the bible is a collection of stories nothing more to me.

Prove any of what you said and I would be more than willing to listen.

I wonder if any of these religious zealots have ever considered that maybe, just maybe God created homosexuals different than hetrosexuals to see how we would treat our fellow man?

What froglips doesn't understand is that this will bring us one step closer to gay marriages being legal and performed in Md. That will bring us all closer to the wrath of God just as we see happening in California.
Don Dwyer(R) is going to try to have Gaynsler impeached for this "opinion".
Sure froglips; only something for us "old timers" to worry about...:smack:

OMG (emphasis on the blasphemy!) It never ceases to amaze me how narrow-minded some people can be. This is to all of you who oppose gay marriage:
Why do you even care if it's legal in the first place? To those of you that cite religious reasons... If God doesn't approve of gay people then answer me this: Does your "religion" (and I use that term loosely) not state that people are made in God's likeness? That being said, why would God "make" gay people if it's a sin? Maybe God is gay! :faint:
Perhaps you should spend less time worrying about what everyone else is doing (granted you must be perfect to be so judgmental) and contemplate this: If "God is love" then maybe you should stop being such a HATER! :biteme:

OMG (emphasis on the blasphemy!) It never ceases to amaze me how narrow-minded some people can be. This is to all of you who oppose gay marriage:
Why do you even care if it's legal in the first place? To those of you that cite religious reasons... If God doesn't approve of gay people then answer me this: Does your "religion" (and I use that term loosely) not state that people are made in God's likeness? That being said, why would God "make" gay people if it's a sin? Maybe God is gay! :faint:
Perhaps you should spend less time worrying about what everyone else is doing (granted you must be perfect to be so judgmental) and contemplate this: If "God is love" then maybe you should stop being such a HATER! :biteme:

My sister rocks!

OMG (emphasis on the blasphemy!) It never ceases to amaze me how narrow-minded some people can be. This is to all of you who oppose gay marriage:
Why do you even care if it's legal in the first place? To those of you that cite religious reasons... If God doesn't approve of gay people then answer me this: Does your "religion" (and I use that term loosely) not state that people are made in God's likeness? That being said, why would God "make" gay people if it's a sin? Maybe God is gay! :faint:
Perhaps you should spend less time worrying about what everyone else is doing (granted you must be perfect to be so judgmental) and contemplate this: If "God is love" then maybe you should stop being such a HATER! :biteme:
lets see.
God gay? I doubt it, other wise he would have made all men gay, and Joseph would have given birth to Jesus instead of Mary giving birth.
God said to love the sinner, but he never said to love the sin or even accept the sin. He did however give people the free wil to do as the wish

lets see.
God gay? I doubt it, other wise he would have made all men gay, and Joseph would have given birth to Jesus instead of Mary giving birth.
God said to love the sinner, but he never said to love the sin or even accept the sin. He did however give people the free wil to do as the wish

Just curious, since so many of you on here are "God" experts maybe you can answer a question I've never been able to have answered before: If God created the universe, then man, THEN animals... where did dinosaurs come from? I remember asking a priest this in Catholic school (yep I went for 8 years and I'm STILL repressing!) and he blew me off. I suspect because he lacked an answer to my question!

Also, the God being gay concept isn't too hard to fathom. Wasn't Mary after all the "virgin mother of God"? You say miraculous conception... I say maybe he just wasn't interested... to-may-to / to-mah-to!

For the record... I [heart] homosexuals. The rest of you are missing out! Considering they are regularly bombarded with haters like on this thread, it's amazing that those I know are still among the most kind-hearted and loving peeps I've ever met. :smooch: I'll party in hell with my homo pals way before I wait in line at your golden gates!!

I'll party in hell with my homo pals way before I wait in line at your golden gates!!
I suspect that is how it will go.

by the way, since you are such a science expert, can you tell me where the earth and all that came from? I mean, I know they have these theories about hydrogen and particals, etc... but,, then where did the hydrogen come from or the particles.

I guess we all hold on to a belief with faith that something can be created from nothing.

I wonder if any of these religious zealots have ever considered that maybe, just maybe God created homosexuals different than hetrosexuals to see how we would treat our fellow man?

If God created everything, and is all so powerful and know what is going to happen before it happens, then I agree, he created them.

I do not agree with them saying things happen because God gave us free will, that is contradicting the fact that God Knows all because free will changes at the spur of the moment.

God gave us the ability to love, and if two women, or two men are so in love with each other and want to make a legal commitment, or a commitment in front of God, then let them. If they think it is going against God, then let God deal with them.

Just curious, since so many of you on here are "God" experts maybe you can answer a question I've never been able to have answered before: If God created the universe, then man, THEN animals... where did dinosaurs come from? I remember asking a priest this in Catholic school (yep I went for 8 years and I'm STILL repressing!) and he blew me off. I suspect because he lacked an answer to my question!


See, here is where we have issue. You want to try and ask questions about the Bible, but you have NEVER opened it yourself.
let me try to help you.

In the Beginning,,

in order but to keep from confusing you, we will start with day 4.

Day 4 God created from the waters creatures and birds.
Day 5 God created Cattle, Creeping things, And beasts, (your basic land animals)
Day 6 MAN
Day 7 He rested.

so, now that you realize you grabbed your talking points from someone else who never actually had the energy to check on what they were saying, it becomes clear that MAN certainly came AFTER the dinosaurs and not before as your talking points so wrongly indicate.

only real question might be,,, how long was a day.

although, it was described that the time between light and dark was a day.

Could be a day to God might be a bit longer than a day to us.

Now that I have cleared up that little issue for me, could you please explain how something was created by nothing with no outside influence as would be indicated in your blind fantasy?

If God created everything, and is all so powerful and know what is going to happen before it happens, then I agree, he created them.

I do not agree with them saying things happen because God gave us free will, that is contradicting the fact that God Knows all because free will changes at the spur of the moment.

God gave us the ability to love, and if two women, or two men are so in love with each other and want to make a legal commitment, or a commitment in front of God, then let them. If they think it is going against God, then let God deal with them.

There are a few threads on this..and at the risk of starting a long convo...just because you change your mind doesn't mean that God didn't know that you would. That argument doesn't hold in the "free will" vs "pre determined" debate.


edit: I like your last line:buddies:

If they think it is going against God, then let God deal with them.
And if you read closely you will see that almost everyone agrees with that.
However, for me to accept it as normal and give my approval would not be in accordance with Gods will. As a matter of fact, it would be equal to me beating someone up simply because they chose to be Gay. Love the sinner hate the sin type thing.

I wont back it, and I wont accept it as real or natural, and I would never give a yes vote if it ever came up for one.
But, once their choice is made, I wont beat them, I just wont acknowlege it as acceptable.

I dont see the problem here.

God gave us the ability to love, and if two women, or two men are so in love with each other and want to make a legal commitment, or a commitment in front of God, then let them. If they think it is going against God, then let God deal with them.


:yeahthat:

[quote=TrueSOMDGirl;4218678]

God gave us the ability to love, and if two women, or two men are so in love with each other and want to make a legal commitment, or a commitment in front of God, then let them.quote]
Who is stopping them?
Im not,
I have never disrupted a homosexual marriage.

I suspect that is how it will go.

by the way, since you are such a science expert, can you tell me where the earth and all that came from? I mean, I know they have these theories about hydrogen and particals, etc... but,, then where did the hydrogen come from or the particles.

I guess we all hold on to a belief with faith that something can be created from nothing.

Funny you should mention the "science expert" angle. My husband and I were talking about this thread over lunch (I told him how relieved I am that since we are a man and woman in a straight marriage we will surely get into heaven - whew!) :sarcasm: He started talking about some scientific angles to this argument and I said "Baby you should get in on this thread". He will so you better know your stuff because he is VERY smart and he loves anything related to space, the universe, science... oh and he is also a fan of gays (then again he's with me so I know he has good taste in people!!!)

I think it's a "convenient" theory to believe that the whole world and everything in it emerged from God simply saying "let it be" and I believe in the scientific viewpoints to the extent that there is proof to contradict that theory. But I have no interest in arguing over it. We are here and however we got here, and regardless what "religion" we practice while we are here, what sexuality, what color, sex or race, I think that if we are "good people" then it doesn't matter if there is a heaven or hell, or reincarnation, or just nothing. If you do believe in heaven how could you believe someone, who was a wonderful person by every sense of the word except for their sexuality, would be denied access? Does it matter that not everyone in the world beleives in YOUR God and YOUR religion? It doesn't to me!

Your last sentence proves you don't get it.


If by "don't get it" you mean, "Don't agree with you", then yes I don't get it.

I understand your point. I understand your argument.

I simply don't accept your premise to begin with.




It's not about your marriage, or my marriage, or any particular marriage today. It's about the societal view of marriage as an institution in the future.


I said "my marriage", as an example. I actually meant any and all marriages.

I actually couldn't care less about the societal view of marriage as a whole. You seem to put a great deal of stock in this. I put almost none.



But, since you want to discuss it (I thought this thread died long ago), what is the societal advantage to diluting the concept of marriage?


This is another premise I do not accept. I do not see that there needs to be a societal advantage.

I would rather see equality and liberty - unless there is a demonstrable disadvantage to the dilution of marriage.


I ask that because we give tax benefits to those things we deem as a societal advantage, like charities and two person of opposite gender marriages etc.


If that's the argument, then I would argue get rid of all tax benefits based on unions altogether. I didn't get married for a tax-cut, and I don't know anyone who did.

I'm not saying that there are not people who did, but I would wager that this "incentive" has very little to do with most people's decisions to spend their life with a partner.


So, to dilute the meaning of marriage, where is the societal advantage?

Don't care.

See, here is where we have issue. You want to try and ask questions about the Bible, but you have NEVER opened it yourself.
let me try to help you.

In the Beginning,,

in order but to keep from confusing you, we will start with day 4.

Day 4 God created from the waters creatures and birds.
Day 5 God created Cattle, Creeping things, And beasts, (your basic land animals)
Day 6 MAN
Day 7 He rested.

so, now that you realize you grabbed your talking points from someone else who never actually had the energy to check on what they were saying, it becomes clear that MAN certainly came AFTER the dinosaurs and not before as your talking points so wrongly indicate.

only real question might be,,, how long was a day.

although, it was described that the time between light and dark was a day.

Could be a day to God might be a bit longer than a day to us.

Now that I have cleared up that little issue for me, could you please explain how something was created by nothing with no outside influence as would be indicated in your blind fantasy?


Perhaps, in your excitement to express those deep thoughts you neglected to read the part of my post that says I went to a Catholic school for 8 years. In case you didn't know, they teach you all about Catholicism, how God (allegedly) created man, animal, etc and I have also read the Bible a couple of times. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your facts are incorrect because you may have been taught the story differently, but this is how it was taught to me: God created Adam, who was bored so he then created animals to be Adam's companion. Adam named all of the creatures and was still lonely so God took his rib and created a woman in his likeness - Eve. Now to throw in a little "science", it's a proven fact that dinosaurs existed long before humans. So, again I will ask, where did they come from? The Bible does not in fact mention these creatures.

I would like to add that some might argue your beliefs of how we came about would, in fact, be the "fantasy". Maybe it happened like this.... On the 6th day God said "Abracadabra... let there be man!!! Ooops how'd that lesbian get in there?" :yikes:

Perhaps, in your excitement to express those deep thoughts you neglected to read the part of my post that says I went to a Catholic school for 8 years. In case you didn't know, they teach you all about Catholicism, how God (allegedly) created man, animal, etc and I have also read the Bible a couple of times. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your facts are incorrect because you may have been taught the story differently, but this is how it was taught to me: God created Adam, who was bored so he then created animals to be Adam's companion. Adam named all of the creatures and was still lonely so God took his rib and created a woman in his likeness - Eve. Now to throw in a little "science", it's a proven fact that dinosaurs existed long before humans. So, again I will ask, where did they come from? The Bible does not in fact mention these creatures.

I would like to add that some might argue your beliefs of how we came about would, in fact, be the "fantasy". Maybe it happened like this.... On the 6th day God said "Abracadabra... let there be man!!! Ooops how'd that lesbian get in there?" :yikes:



OMG. :killingme



1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth wasa formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” 7So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8God called the expanse “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
20And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth,b and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.
28God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) We have a religion forum. I say that we take most of this party over there.

2) Not all Religious Zealots are against gay marriage. I'll beat your ass with a bible faster than anyone, but I'm politically in favor of gay marriage.

3) A lot of the "zingers" by you anti-God people are not helping the argument, and are hitting unintended targets, and I'd personally appreciate it if we could tone down the disrespect just a notch.

kthxbai

If by "don't get it" you mean, "Don't agree with you", then yes I don't get it.

I understand your point. I understand your argument.

I simply don't accept your premise to begin with.If you think it's about anyone's marriage in particular, you don't get it.I said "my marriage", as an example. I actually meant any and all marriages.But, that's got nothing to do with my argument, so why discuss individual's marriages?I actually couldn't care less about the societal view of marriage as a whole. You seem to put a great deal of stock in this. I put almost none.Then you don't understand the importance. Or you disagree that there is an importance. Either way, it's the basic issue of my argument - that the reason for marriage to be recognized by the state is to provide it with certain tax benefits, and the reason behind those tax benefits is the overall societal stability that marriage, as centuries of definition have provided, provides that stability. Calling something else marriage would erode the perception people have of "marriage", as a concept, which - historically - has led to crime, welfare, and overall misery. If that's not important to you, then, on that we can disagree.This is another premise I do not accept. I do not see that there needs to be a societal advantage.Then, why do we provide it a tax benefit?I would rather see equality and liberty - unless there is a demonstrable disadvantage to the dilution of marriage.I have provided that, based on historical actions that have reduced the overall public's view of marriage.If that's the argument, then I would argue get rid of all tax benefits based on unions altogether. I didn't get married for a tax-cut, and I don't know anyone who did. I'd be willing to discuss that argument - to dissolve any benefits at all, and allow everyone to simply live as they please without seeking governmental recognition of their living status. Provided that "live as they please" includes allowing people to not accept someone else's living status in terms of private jobs, rental agreements, etc.I'm not saying that there are not people who did, but I would wager that this "incentive" has very little to do with most people's decisions to spend their life with a partner.
You're probably right.Don't care.Clearly. I do. I live here.

I have no intention of disrespecting anyone my comments were directed at those that infused a religious reasoning behind their disdain for gay marriage, or homosexuality in general. Their argument is that according to their beliefs it is a sin so to argue the issue involves religious discussion. I agree though it is not my intent to get into "all that" because we are all different and that's what makes the world go 'round. I have no desire to try and convince anyone that my beliefs are supreme and I much prefer when others do me the same courtesy. Bottom line is all people deserve love and respect... well except for those dirty rotten gays I mean... :shrug: What? I'm just trying to be agreeable?

I have to say I can't believe someone actually compared gays to a "sheep f*cker" - which by the way is a head-scratcher in itself because WHO DOES THAT? :twitch: Did God make sheep or are they gay too? I'm confused...

If you think it's about anyone's marriage in particular, you don't get it.


:rolleyes:

Fine - whatever, dude.


the reason for marriage to be recognized by the state is to provide it with certain tax benefits, and the reason behind those tax benefits is the overall societal stability that marriage, as centuries of definition have provided, provides that stability.


And yet you're willing to support those same benefits in "civil unions"....

You just don't want to call them marriages.



At which point I will submit it's a mere semantic distinction again.



Calling something else marriage would erode the perception people have of "marriage", as a concept, which - historically - has led to crime, welfare, and overall misery.


Historically?

F'rinstance?




Addendum: I will not consider "Sodom and Gomorrah" valid answers.

I do. I live here.

Are you arguing that I don't live here, then?

I just don't see how keeping outdated traditions alive provides any societal benefit. Particularly when those traditions are puritanical, exclusionary, intolerant or otherwise promoting inequality.

Since my hubby's account is still processing, he requested that I post something for him so that those inquiring how the earth was made will have an educational opportunity to learn just that. There's a little show on the Science Channel called "How the Earth was Made". UNCANNY I know!!! (I told you he loves this stuff!!) :love: Cute AND smart and straight... I'm a lucky gal!

:rolleyes:

Fine - whatever, dude. You can try and get it, or feel this way - your call, of course :buddies:And yet you're willing to support those same benefits in "civil unions"....

You just don't want to call them marriages.



At which point I will submit it's a mere semantic distinction again.I have stated that the one I would not provide is the only one not attainable in other ways - the tax benefits of marriage. That makes it a clear distinction.

Now, once studies are done of the areas where it is currently legal, and they can demonstrate that it makes a difference to society, then it is entirely appropriate to apply the appropriate tax benefits as well.Historically?

F'rinstance?Really? Do I need to go through the whole weakening of divorce laws in the '60's, which led to more crime, welfare, reduced education, lower living standards, etc., thing AGAIN?Are you arguing that I don't live here, then? No, that you should probably care.I just don't see how keeping outdated traditions alive provides any societal benefit. Particularly when those traditions are puritanical, exclusionary, intolerant or otherwise promoting inequality.So, we can agree to discuss letting anything go.... polygamy, incest, etc. Anything that people want to do, short of harming children.

Addendum: I will not consider "Sodom and Gomorrah" valid answers.When have you seen me use religion as an argument in this case?

You can try and get it, or feel this way - your call, of course


I've told you that I get it.

You insist that I do not get it - implying that if I would only get it, I would agree with you.

I have no intention of continuing this line of the conversation.

I get it. Accept it or don't. I really don't care.


I have stated that the one I would not provide is the only one not attainable in other ways - the tax benefits of marriage. That makes it a clear distinction.

This is an extremely ambiguous statement. One what? Benefit?

And if you're cool with all the other benefits being attainable in other ways, and simply offering Civil Unions the single benefit that is not, then it's still a semantic argument but with a heaping helping of bureaucratic bull#### on the side.

Now, once studies are done of the areas where it is currently legal, and they can demonstrate that it makes a difference to society, then it is entirely appropriate to apply the appropriate tax benefits as well.


So - by, what? 2045? If the homo's haven't destroyed society by then we'll cut them some slack and call their unions marriages?

How magnanimous.

I say we go the other route: Let them call their union's marriages, and after a few decades of studies, if you can demonstrate that it has a negative impact on society, we 86 the concept.


Really? Do I need to go through the whole weakening of divorce laws in the '60's, which led to more crime, welfare, reduced education, lower living standards, etc., thing AGAIN?

You don't need to do a thing you don't want to.

Sorry that I haven't been hanging on your every word since the topic was introduced. That was terribly inconsiderate of me, and I have missed the way you've proven that the American malaise in the latter half of the 20th century was caused completely by the devaluation of the institution of marriage.


If I had caught that argument I would have pointed out that this constitutes a "data point", and does not necessarily prove anything. Now if you can also prove that the Rome fell because of the dilution of marriage, Ancient Egypt fell because of the dilution of marriage, The Mayan Civilization vanished because of the dilution of Marriage, The Mongolian Empire, Akkadia, Babylon, Nubia - or anything like that then you would have something.

Siting the 20th Century United States as your proof is not historical proof. Particularly since there are so many other factors that can be sited as reasons the country has fallen into the crapper. Not the least of which was the fallout from FDR's abortion of a presidency, along with the proliferation of the perception that The Constitution was merely an obstacle to be overcome rather than the sacrosanct heart and soul of the government.


So, we can agree to discuss letting anything go.... polygamy, incest, etc. Anything that people want to do, short of harming children.

We can discuss anything you want.

I will probably only respond favorably to things which are equivalent to two consenting adults engaged in a committed relationship, which are not proven to be a detriment to society.

When have you seen me use religion as an argument in this case?



That was a joke.

This is an extremely ambiguous statement. One what? Benefit? Yes, there is only one benefit to governmental recognition of your relationship that is not attainable in other, less convenient ways, and that's taxes.And if you're cool with all the other benefits being attainable in other ways, and simply offering Civil Unions the single benefit that is not, then it's still a semantic argument but with a heaping helping of bureaucratic bull#### on the side.No, it's a difference of stature.So - by, what? 2045? If the homo's haven't destroyed society by then we'll cut them some slack and call their unions marriages?

How magnanimous.

I say we go the other route: Let them call their union's marriages, and after a few decades of studies, if you can demonstrate that it has a negative impact on society, we 86 the concept.That wouldn't be the prudent, nor historically normal, way we do things.Sorry that I haven't been hanging on your every word since the topic was introduced. That was terribly inconsiderate of me, and I have missed the way you've proven that the American malaise in the latter half of the 20th century was caused completely by the devaluation of the institution of marriage.No, that's not my point, nor did I mean to suggest that you hang on my every word. I've simply stated it so many times that if you're discussing this with me I presume you've already read it.

Much of the crime, welfare, lack of education - all the things that go with poverty - can be directly attributed to single parent homes. Single parent homes can be shown to drastically increase in the late '60s. The situation which made it more common was a weakening of divorce laws.

Now, weakening divorce laws, in my opinion, was a direct affront to the concept of the value of the institution of marriage. It did not attack any one marriage, no individual marriage, but rather the concept of the institution of marriage. Diluting the meaning would, in my opinion, be the same thing, and thus lead to a predictable lowering of American's standards of living even more.Citing the 20th Century United States as your proof is not historical proof. Particularly since there are so many other factors that can be sited as reasons the country has fallen into the crapper. Not the least of which was the fallout from FDR's abortion of a presidency, along with the proliferation of the perception that The Constitution was merely an obstacle to be overcome rather than the sacrosanct heart and soul of the government.
You're speaking in bigger terms (and I agree with most of what you're saying, too). I'm speaking merely of the concept of marriage.We can discuss anything you want.

I will probably only respond favorably to things which are equivalent to two consenting adults engaged in a committed relationship, which are not proven to be a detriment to society.Why would you limit it to two adults? Vrai would apparently say that you want a nanny state telling you who you may and may not love :lol: And, what relationships are a proven detriment to society? Would the proliferation of a deadly disease make that cut?

Much of the crime, welfare, lack of education - all the things that go with poverty - can be directly attributed to single parent homes.

I disagree. I blame a lot of these problems on the gays and homos.

I disagree. I blame a lot of these problems on the gays and homos.

:lmao:

I still say that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all (Hetero or Homo). It's not their job. :shrug:

Correct. And it has nothing to do with "rights"; marriage is not a right, it is an event, which government uses to make money (license fees) and accepts as a shortcut to a legal contract. And uses it powers to restrict in accordance with the prejudices of one or more groups over the prejudices of another group or other groups, which have changed it the past and will again in the future. Government should not recognize, or restrict, any "marriage", and if any "spouses" want the contractual limitations, benefits, obligations, etc. that are now associated with "marriage", they should hire lawyers and establish their own contract acceptable to all involved parties.

Much of the crime, welfare, lack of education - all the things that go with poverty - can be directly attributed to single parent homes. Single parent homes can be shown to drastically increase in the late '60s. The situation which made it more common was a weakening of divorce laws.

And also the spread of promiscuity - which, honestly, cannot be regulated.

I don't necessarily equate single parent homes with divorce. I equate it to children being born out of wedlock, which is a result of increased sexual activity - particularly among teens - thanks to the "if it feels good, do it" mentality, and the flight of one of the parents.

And I believe that both of these concepts grew in strength along with the expansion of the entitlement mindset.



Incidentally, I don't think that allowing gays to marry each other will affect single-parent homes significantly - at least percentage-wise.


Now, weakening divorce laws, in my opinion, was a direct affront to the concept of the value of the institution of marriage. It did not attack any one marriage, no individual marriage, but rather the concept of the institution of marriage. Diluting the meaning would, in my opinion, be the same thing, and thus lead to a predictable lowering of American's standards of living even more.

You have a very good point here - although, I still disagree that allowing gays to marry will devalue marriage.


Dilute - yes.

Devalue - no.

Dilute does not equal devalue.



Making divorce so readily available may devalue marriage (arguably perhaps, but I'll accept this concept on its own merit), but allowing gays to marry may dilute the 100% hetero concentration, but I disagree that it would devalue the institution at all.

I believe that the value of marriage, as an institution, is not a zero sum game.


Why would you limit it to two adults?


Frankly - because of the exploitation that introduces into the mix. If there were no tax-breaks for being married - or if you only got one for your first marriage - then I'm all for harems. If you get a tax break for each wife (or husband) you have, you have opened up a loophole for supreme exploitation.

However, historically, there is no societal detriment that can be attributed to polygamy.



(Although, personally, I can't see how a fellow can possibly stand to be around all those women after their cycles are synced up. But then again, I can't see how a guy can look at another guy's schlong and want to feel it anywhere in or on their person)

Vrai would apparently say that you want a nanny state telling you who you may and may not love

And I would tend to agree with her.


And, what relationships are a proven detriment to society?

Incestuous ones. Inbreeding is not pretty.

And also the spread of promiscuity - which, honestly, cannot be regulated.

I don't necessarily equate single parent homes with divorce. I equate it to children being born out of wedlock, which is a result of increased sexual activity - particularly among teens - thanks to the "if it feels good, do it" mentality, and the flight of one of the parents.

And I believe that both of these concepts grew in strength along with the expansion of the entitlement mindset.I believe it all goes hand in hand, but I do admit there are other mitigating circumstances.Incidentally, I don't think that allowing gays to marry each other will affect single-parent homes significantly - at least percentage-wise.I'm hoping you're kidding here, too, and realize I'm not suggesting it would.You have a very good point here - although, I still disagree that allowing gays to marry will devalue marriage.


Dilute - yes.

Devalue - no.

Dilute does not equal devalue.



Making divorce so readily available may devalue marriage (arguably perhaps, but I'll accept this concept on its own merit), but allowing gays to marry may dilute the 100% hetero concentration, but I disagree that it would devalue the institution at all.

I believe that the value of marriage, as an institution, is not a zero sum game.I agree dilute does not always mean devalue, but how could you dilute the concept of marriage without devaluing it?Frankly - because of the exploitation that introduces into the mix. If there were no tax-breaks for being married - or if you only got one for your first marriage - then I'm all for harems. If you get a tax break for each wife (or husband) you have, you have opened up a loophole for supreme exploitation.

However, historically, there is no societal detriment that can be attributed to polygamy.



(Although, personally, I can't see how a fellow can possibly stand to be around all those women after their cycles are synced up. But then again, I can't see how a guy can look at another guy's schlong and want to feel it anywhere in or on their person)No tax advantage. If we're getting the government out, we're getting the government out.

You can't really have it both ways - valuing that which provides social benefit and that which does not equally. The only way is to demonstrate a lack of value for both, or, as you say, the situation would be ripe for exploitation. Like, for example, if you have a room mate in college, and your room mate's dad got fired or laid off, and now your buddy has no health insurance. But, you do. So, you can get "married" (since I'm assuming there would still be no sexual orientation clause for marriage) so that your buddy gets insurance.

Yes, I know, that happens now with opposite gendered individuals, too.And I would tend to agree with her.So, no limits (outside of harming children)?Incestuous ones. Inbreeding is not pretty.If it's consentual? Seems any prohibition would be a slippery slope to allowing ANY prohibition, y'know?

I agree dilute does not always mean devalue, but how could you dilute the concept of marriage without devaluing it?

Removing an unnecessary constraint is not a devaluation.



No tax advantage. If we're getting the government out, we're getting the government out.

:shrug: I'm cool with that.

I didn't get married for a tax-cut, and I introduce my children to people, not my little tax-deductions.


You can't really have it both ways - valuing that which provides social benefit and that which does not equally.

I'm going to ignore this argument from here on out.

I've already told you it is my opinion that gay marriage does not need to prove that it has a societal benefit to be viewed as equal. It should be proven that there is a societal detriment for it to be viewed as inequal.

Nothing you've said has convinced me otherwise, so circling back to this argument really doesn't tell me very much.

The only way is to demonstrate a lack of value for both, or, as you say, the situation would be ripe for exploitation. Like, for example, if you have a room mate in college, and your room mate's dad got fired or laid off, and now your buddy has no health insurance. But, you do. So, you can get "married" (since I'm assuming there would still be no sexual orientation clause for marriage) so that your buddy gets insurance.

Yes, I know, that happens now with opposite gendered individuals, too.

You present an argument, and then completely destroy it.

The defense has no questions y'honor.


If it's consentual? Seems any prohibition would be a slippery slope to allowing ANY prohibition, y'know?


Well.. since you keep harping on societal benefits, I will presume that you would agree with me that allowing something that has a demonstrable detriment to society is wrong.

I will also presume that we don't need to quibble about there being a demonstrable detriment to society in unfettered inbreeding.





I submit comparing gay marriage and incestuous marriage is comparing apples and deformed mute little mangoes with webbed-feet and extra fingers.

Unless you provide demonstrable evidence that gay marriage is a detriment.

Ok, I have not read this entire thread; however may I ask a question?

How much do you think "peer pressure" has, or has had to to do with young people experimenting with homosexuals?

Growing up, with my neighborhood pals, there weren't any gays in our bunch.

Could it be, that the crowd you mingled with, as you advanced with in your younger years have had an effect on your sexual orientation? We all wanted to "fit in" with the group - the people we thought of as our friends.

How much of an influence would that have made in your outlook on life and your sexual preferences?

I wonder if any of these religious zealots have ever considered that maybe, just maybe God created homosexuals different than hetrosexuals to see how we would treat our fellow man?
God didn't create homosexuals. If He did, he wouldn't have made rules against their lifestyle CHOICE nor would He have destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah.
OMG (emphasis on the blasphemy!) It never ceases to amaze me how narrow-minded some people can be. This is to all of you who oppose gay marriage:
Why do you even care if it's legal in the first place? To those of you that cite religious reasons... If God doesn't approve of gay people then answer me this: Does your "religion" (and I use that term loosely) not state that people are made in God's likeness? That being said, why would God "make" gay people if it's a sin? Maybe God is gay! :faint:
Perhaps you should spend less time worrying about what everyone else is doing (granted you must be perfect to be so judgmental) and contemplate this: If "God is love" then maybe you should stop being such a HATER! :biteme:
Great! Another Einstein newbie. First off; Welcome! Second, read my answer in the post above this one. :shrug:
Being made in God's likeness has nothing to do with how people turn out later in life.
The entire problem today is that you detest God, so anything He's against, you're for! YOU are the ones who have the mindset problems, not us. We're not narrow minded, you're hedonistic, anything goes minded. God said that it's wrong, period, end of story and that isn't going to change EVER.
Again with the demeaning terminology IS?
You also need a rectal cranial-otomy. Since when is "cutie" demeaning? What the hell is happening to all you uptight people on here lately???????? Call me cutie all day long; it's just a freakin word!! :cds:
Just curious, since so many of you on here are "God" experts maybe you can answer a question I've never been able to have answered before: If God created the universe, then man, THEN animals... where did dinosaurs come from? I remember asking a priest this in Catholic school (yep I went for 8 years and I'm STILL repressing!) and he blew me off. I suspect because he lacked an answer to my question!
I'll party in hell with my homo pals way before I wait in line at your golden gates!!
Watch what you ask for Punkin. You will get your wish. Hell is NO party; that I can assure you.
The Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs by name but Job speaks possibly of them in chapter 40 & 41 (Leviathan). It speaks of large animals possibly dinosaurs but it doesn't have to mention every animal for them to exist. Mankind lives with many huge animals today so why should living among dinosaurs have been any different?

Ok, I have not read this entire thread; however may I ask a question?

How much do you think "peer pressure" has, or has had to to do with young people experimenting with homosexuals?

Growing up, with my neighborhood pals, there weren't any gays in our bunch.

Could it be, that the crowd you mingled with, as you advanced with in your younger years have had an effect on your sexual orientation? We all wanted to "fit in" with the group - the people we thought of as our friends.

How much of an influence would that have made in your outlook on life and your sexual preferences?Just my personal opinion, but I believe peer pressure has virtually zero to do with orientation.

God didn't create homosexuals. If He did, he wouldn't have made rules against their lifestyle CHOICE nor would He have destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah.
Took you long enough, been biting at the bit waiting to post that one havent ya?
The Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs by name but Job speaks possibly of them in chapter 40 & 41 (Leviathan). It speaks of large animals possibly dinosaurs but it doesn't have to mention every animal for them to exist. Mankind lives with many huge animals today so why should living among dinosaurs have been any different?
Please tell me your saying Man lived with Raptors and T-Rexes

Removing an unnecessary constraint is not a devaluation.No, but redefining the parameters to include more things is.:shrug: I'm cool with that.

I didn't get married for a tax-cut, and I introduce my children to people, not my little tax-deductions.It's one way to go.
I'm going to ignore this argument from here on out.

I've already told you it is my opinion that gay marriage does not need to prove that it has a societal benefit to be viewed as equal. It should be proven that there is a societal detriment for it to be viewed as inequal.

Nothing you've said has convinced me otherwise, so circling back to this argument really doesn't tell me very much.This is clearly a point of opinion on process. You would include polygamy and same gendered roles as equals, I would not - not until shown they are. It's a more cautious approach, where as yours is more inclusive. To such, I would ask why have marriage at all - but we've already gone over that and determined we're each willing to discuss simply abolishing state recognition of marriage.You present an argument, and then completely destroy it.

The defense has no questions y'honor.Ah, but I didn't destroy it. I suggested that there is corruption already out there (being honest and all), and being more "inclusive" would simply increase the chance for corruption unnecessarily.Well.. since you keep harping on societal benefits, I will presume that you would agree with me that allowing something that has a demonstrable detriment to society is wrong.

I will also presume that we don't need to quibble about there being a demonstrable detriment to society in unfettered inbreeding.I believe there is a detriment, but I also equally believe there's no need to quibble about there being a demonstratable detrimine to society in dropping the barrier of one man, one woman for a partial definition of marriage.

If it's just two people loving each other, why should their ability to have kids effect whether or not government recognizes their marriage? Isn't that a basic argument in favor of same-gendered unions?I submit comparing gay marriage and incestuous marriage is comparing apples and deformed mute little mangoes with webbed-feet and extra fingers.

Unless you provide demonstrable evidence that gay marriage is a detriment.I don't believe they're comparable. Nor do I believe that comparing same gendered unions to opposite gendered unions is any closer to apple/apple than gay and incest. :shrug:

Italian Scallion said: "God didn't create homosexuals...... The entire problem today is that you detest God, so anything He's against, you're for! YOU are the ones who have the mindset problems, not us. We're not narrow minded, you're hedonistic, anything goes minded. God said that it's wrong, period, end of story and that isn't going to change EVER. Watch what you ask for Punkin. You will get your wish. Hell is NO party; that I can assure you."



Ok....
First off thank you for the complement ("Einstein") I appreciate it. I wouldn't compare myself to Einstein but I will say: I am so smart (S-M-R-T!) Now I understand you probably won't "get" that because I don't think God would approve of you watching "The Simpsons" :wah:
Now, if God didn't make gay people then where did they come from? Perhaps God only made the people that you approve of and everyone else is a pod... or maybe that sheds light on the theory of evolution. God made the good people and the evil homosexuals evolved from cave dwellers. How unfortunate they had to "come out" eventually...
So tell me, when were you in hell and how do you know it's so bad? Clearly you possess the ability to go back in time and hear God's word first-hand and also to propel into the future and observe my fiery demise. Very impressive. I would argue however that I don't despise your God or anyone else's I despise organized religion because every one thinks it's better than all the others and what does it matter? You can believe whatever you want but don't shove those beliefs down my throat. That's why there is hate and extremism in this world. Does your God applaud when religious protestors boycot an American soldier's funeral and claim that he or she died because gay people exist in the world? I sincerely doubt it. This is what is really sad with the world, not that there are gay marriages (an expression of love) or people that don't believe in your God or any God. To each his own.

Ok, I have not read this entire thread; however may I ask a question?

How much do you think "peer pressure" has, or has had to to do with young people experimenting with homosexuals?

Growing up, with my neighborhood pals, there weren't any gays in our bunch.

Could it be, that the crowd you mingled with, as you advanced with in your younger years have had an effect on your sexual orientation? We all wanted to "fit in" with the group - the people we thought of as our friends.

How much of an influence would that have made in your outlook on life and your sexual preferences?

I am not sure it works that way. Growing up you might have had many people who were gay but because of society or the fact they prefer to keep what goes on in their bedroom behind closed doors they kept a low profile.

God didn't create homosexuals. If He did, he wouldn't have made rules against their lifestyle CHOICE nor would He have destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah.

Great! Another Einstein newbie. First off; Welcome! Second, read my answer in the post above this one. :shrug:
Being made in God's likeness has nothing to do with how people turn out later in life.
The entire problem today is that you detest God, so anything He's against, you're for! YOU are the ones who have the mindset problems, not us. We're not narrow minded, you're hedonistic, anything goes minded. God said that it's wrong, period, end of story and that isn't going to change EVER.

You also need a rectal cranial-otomy. Since when is "cutie" demeaning? What the hell is happening to all you uptight people on here lately???????? Call me cutie all day long; it's just a freakin word!! :cds:

Watch what you ask for Punkin. You will get your wish. Hell is NO party; that I can assure you.
The Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs by name but Job speaks possibly of them in chapter 40 & 41 (Leviathan). It speaks of large animals possibly dinosaurs but it doesn't have to mention every animal for them to exist. Mankind lives with many huge animals today so why should living among dinosaurs have been any different?


First off, I never said cutie was demeaning, I simply asked you not to call me that. You read into it more that was needed to be.

Second of all, and this is my opinion and no one elses, it is up to God to worry about this in the end...not you or anyone else.


Show me actual in the hand proof other than folklore that God destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah. Not hearsay..proof.

And why doesn't the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs by name??? They mention everything else.

As I read through all these post about this subject, one thing has clearly stood out. Obviously, everyone has differences of opinion and different interpretations of what the Bible says. But isn’t that exactly what the Bible is? It’s just a person’s interpretation. What bothers me so much is that people will read the Bible and then spin the words to make their point. Just let me say, I don’t believe in a higher being, but I would NEVER judge anyone for believing. To me that is just wrong!:cds: So what makes people judge, hate, or even look down to others just cause they found someone they love and want to announce their unity just like a man and a woman do? I know....its called discrimination!!! Just like back in the day with black people, white people wouldn’t let them vote, use the same bathroom, basically not have the same rights as white people because they were different! Wow, kind of seems a little similar to what the religious fanatics are saying about gay-marriage.

Now this in reference to the comment about man living with dinosaurs......REALLY?!?!:lalala:

Impossible! I don’t even know where to start with that! So you think man was on this earth 100 million years ago with the dinosaurs? So how did man survive the asteroid that killed all the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago?

Now I do have a question. Does the Bible approximate how old the earth is?

No, but redefining the parameters to include more things is.

I'll agree that this is dilution.

I disagree that it is devaluation.


I suggested that there is corruption already out there (being honest and all), and being more "inclusive" would simply increase the chance for corruption unnecessarily.

There is nothing to suggest that this is an accurate prediction.



Nor do I believe that comparing same gendered unions to opposite gendered unions is any closer to apple/apple than gay and incest. :shrug:


Alrighty then. I guess there's nothing left to say about that then.

I'll agree that this is dilution.

I disagree that it is devaluation.Why? What is there to suggest that reducing the meaning of marriage would NOT devalue it? If the value is in meaning, and you dilute the meaning, how is that not devaluing the meaning?There is nothing to suggest that this is an accurate prediction.Actually, the only thing to go on is other issues that have devalued the societal perception of marriage.

Again, I think that it is conceivable that it could be a good thing. Why not let the countries that have it as a generally acceptable practice go through the social experimentation before we reward an action we have no reason to reward at this point. I mean, even if my prediction is WRONG, we can correct for it in the future. Once we reward it, it'd be awfully hard to remove that reward.Alrighty then. I guess there's nothing left to say about that then.Well, maybe there is.......

What do you see as the similarities to make it apple/apple?

So Tilted, I wonder if the AG would also answer in the affirmative if a Senator asked for an opinion on whether Concealed Carry Permits issued in other States had to be honored in Maryland? Especially since this is a Right protected by the Constitution. If McDonald is decided in our favor, would this be a good inquiry to make of the AG and could it possibly be answered in the affirmative? :elaine:

I think if McDonald is affirmed through the P&I clause of Ammendment XIV section 1, the AG would have no choice but to say Maryland would have to recognise all other States CCW permits. :starcat:

How 'bout getting "Shall Issue" passed in Maryland FIRST? THEN worry about reciprocity.

Why? What is there to suggest that reducing the meaning of marriage would NOT devalue it? If the value is in meaning, and you dilute the meaning, how is that not devaluing the meaning?Actually, the only thing to go on is other issues that have devalued the societal perception of marriage.

I guess that's it, right there.

I don't think the value of marriage is in the meaning (or the perception). Which is why I often dismiss the civil union vs. marriage thing as semantic fluff. The value, to me, is in the commitment and the love the institution represents - regardless of the accoutrements found in the pants of the participants.

It's not about family building.

It's not about benefits to society.

It's the bonding of 2 life partners.


What do you see as the similarities to make it apple/apple?

2 people pledging faithfulness to one another = 2 people pledging faithfulness to one another.

I would even put my seal of approval on incestuous unions if there weren't such obvious genetic repercussions within such unions.








Ew. I feel all creepy for saying that.

To believe that gay marriages would "devalue" anything is ridiculous. Straight people devalue marriage better than anyone because they've had plenty of years of practice. Look at the divorce rate! The institution of marriage is flawed and there's not much sacred about it these days with the random shotgun weddings, drunk forgotten Vegas nuptuals that get annulled the next morning, marrying for money instead of love, or for a greencard... People get married for all sorts of reasons (tax benefits?!) so you can't argue it should be between a man and a woman. It's kind of like a business venture if you think about it! I'm married and love my husband but marriage doesn't put the love between us. But if 2 people, men, women, whatever, want all those other "perks" then why not let them get married to?

Those that protest gay marriage are so hypocritical... how can you judge anyone for anything when you yourselves are inherently flawed individuals? Some here have called homosexuality a sin and stated that God disapproves of gay people. But what about all the other things God disapproves of? Were you all virgins until married? Do you never say curse words, gossip about your neighbor, lust after someone, tell a lie? :nono: Maybe gay people can all just go to confession, say some Hail Marys and repent then everyone will be perfectly acceptable to you and your high standards!

How 'bout getting "Shall Issue" passed in Maryland FIRST? THEN worry about reciprocity.

Sorry.....Pushrod and I got :offtopic:

I guess that's it, right there.

I don't think the value of marriage is in the meaning (or the perception). Which is why I often dismiss the civil union vs. marriage thing as semantic fluff. The value, to me, is in the commitment and the love the institution represents - regardless of the accoutrements found in the pants of the participants.

It's not about family building.

It's not about benefits to society.

It's the bonding of 2 life partners.But, again, you're talking about the value two people put on their marriage, without regards (you specifically say without regards) to the view society places on it.

I'm trying to think of it in the bigger picture. The societal stabilizing features of marriage are family building; that leads to stable employment, home ownership, lower crime, community involvement, etc., etc.2 people pledging faithfulness to one another = 2 people pledging faithfulness to one another.

I would even put my seal of approval on incestuous unions if there weren't such obvious genetic repercussions within such unions. But, the only difference between the incestuous and the same gendered then would be children. Oh, wait, no - neither can have healthy kids.

There's actually more similarity between the incestuous and the same gendered than any other comparison, then.

But, again, why limit it to two? And, if you saw stats that showed, on average, there's 8 times the chance that those people who would be likely to join same-gendered unions do not believe in faithfulness, would that change your opinion?Ew. I feel all creepy for saying that.:lmao:

But, again, you're talking about the value two people put on their marriage, without regards (you specifically say without regards) to the view society places on it.

We've been through all this.


But, again, why limit it to two?

We've been through all this.


And, if you saw stats that showed, on average, there's 8 times the chance that those people who would be likely to join same-gendered unions do not believe in faithfulness, would that change your opinion?


No.

I would believe the stats are flawed or skewed.

I would even put my seal of approval on incestuous unions if there weren't such obvious genetic repercussions within such unions.


Ew. I feel all creepy for saying that.

I wonder how much of the "genetic" stuff is based on the "icky" factor?

There was a documentary, on TLC(?), of a brother and sister trying to get married, during the course of the documentary, a discussion about Genetic defomaties was brought up. Supposedly the chances for deformaties is no greater for a brother and sister, than for 2 unrelated schmoes (never researched to validate the claim).

It was a common practice, during days of old (and before marriage was redefined), for blood relatives to get married. Typically in cases of royalty, keeping the bloodline pure and all.

And it is a common practice in Animal Husbandry. While this can also lead to deformaties, your also talking about multiple generations down the line all breeding within the same genetic pool. Deformaties dont (typically) occur in a one off situation at any greater amount than non-related breeding.

It was a common practice, during days of old (and before marriage was redefined), for blood relatives to get married. Typically in cases of royalty, keeping the bloodline pure and all.

The way I understand it, hemophilia and other genetic defects were prevalent in many of those bloodlines.

The way I understand it, hemophilia and other genetic defects were prevalent in many of those bloodlines.

Could be, but I wonder how much of that was due to inbreeding vs just passing a genetic anomoly that would be passed if they werent banging their own sister.

Note for the mentally challenged, i am not condoning incest, i dont desire an incestous relationship, nor are my relatives related to each other.

We've been through all this.We have, and we're looking at it from two points of view.We've been through all this.We have, and agree that we either need to accept that there are reasonable limits, or there should be no limits whatsoever (with the exception of harming children). The difference is, right now, whether to allow consenting incest, if I'm not mistaken on our point of agreements.No.

I would believe the stats are flawed or skewed.Duke Law (http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?15+Duke+J.+Gender+L.+&+Pol%27y+127#H1N6) says there is reason enough in the stats to justify not allowing marriage and/or adoption by gays.

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html)says that a study done by San Francisco State University says it's 50/50 at best whether a homosexual couple finds monogamy important. According to The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1994), that number is about 80-85% for straight couples (that means EVER having had an extra-marital affair). So, 2.5-3.5 times, not 8 like I exaggerated. But, when taking in length of marriage as a concept (again, stabilizing factors), Advance Data, National Center for Health Statistics (May 31, 2001) says that heterosexuals have about a 50% chance of going over 20 years, but in the "Largest Gay Study Examines 2004 Relationships," GayWire Latest Breaking Releases, Gay and Lesbian Consumer Census--Gay Market Research (http://www.glcensus.org), only about 5% of gay relationships last more than 20 years.

So, the differences are more than semantics. The effect on society is more than just "2 people pledging faithfulness to one another = 2 people pledging faithfulness to one another".

If that's all it were, I'd be okay with it. It's not, so I'm not.

Took you long enough, been biting at the bit waiting to post that one havent ya?
Please tell me your saying Man lived with Raptors and T-Rexes
No and Yes.

1) Now, if God didn't make gay people then where did they come from?
2) So tell me, when were you in hell and how do you know it's so bad? Clearly you possess the ability to go back in time and hear God's word first-hand and also to propel into the future and observe my fiery demise. Very impressive.
3) You can believe whatever you want but don't shove those beliefs down my throat. That's why there is hate and extremism in this world.
4) Does your God applaud when religious protestors boycot an American soldier's funeral and claim that he or she died because gay people exist in the world?
1) A choice they made, at some point in their life, due to their childhood upbringing.
2) Thank you! God tells us about Hell in the Bible.
3) You haven't seen "shoving those beliefs down your throat" yet. Wait until the muslims take over...
4) My God HATES what Westboro Baptist people are doing and so do I.

Show me actual in the hand proof other than folklore that God destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah. Not hearsay..proof.
And why doesn't the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs by name??? They mention everything else.
You want me to take you to the place where they WERE? God destroyed the 2 cities. There's nothing left there to see. What proof would you believe? You're a skeptic by your own admission.
The Bible doesn't mention computers or cars either...It doesn't need to mention everything. Some words used back then have been changed today so who knows what dinosaurs were called? Leviathan is the closest word I know of.

1) But isn’t that exactly what the Bible is? It’s just a person’s interpretation. What bothers me so much is that people will read the Bible and then spin the words to make their point. Just let me say, I don’t believe in a higher being, but I would NEVER judge anyone for believing. To me that is just wrong!:cds: So what makes people judge, hate, or even look down to others just cause they found someone they love and want to announce their unity just like a man and a woman do? I know....its called discrimination!!! Just like back in the day with black people, white people wouldn’t let them vote, use the same bathroom, basically not have the same rights as white people because they were different! Wow, kind of seems a little similar to what the religious fanatics are saying about gay-marriage.
2) Now this in reference to the comment about man living with dinosaurs......REALLY?!?!:lalala:
3) Impossible! I don’t even know where to start with that! So you think man was on this earth 100 million years ago with the dinosaurs? So how did man survive the asteroid that killed all the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago?
Now I do have a question. Does the Bible approximate how old the earth is?
1) You cannot accept and understand the Bible since you don't believe in God. Trust me on this. The Bible is NOT just one person's interpretation. It's God's instruction manual for ALL human life. And you're right; people DO put their own twist on what it says, but that's wrong. There are ways for Christians to read and understand this book but many of them didn't learn them.
Racism is very different than homosexuality. God destroyed entire cities and people's because of homosexuality but they're both very wrong.
2) Why is it hard to believe that?
3) Man DID walk with dinosaurs. They weren't all man eaters or viscious. And asteroid didn't wipe out the dinosaurs. They went extinct just like other species did.
The Bible time frame indicates that we've been around for about 6,000-7,000 years but it does not directly say this. It could be older or younger but it makes absolutely no difference what we believe about the age of the earth.
My personal opinion is that we live on a young earth because I can't even fathom how mankind could have been here for b(m)illions of years and not have come into the age of technology sooner...unless Democrats were in charge.

No and Yes.

3) Man DID walk with dinosaurs. They weren't all man eaters or viscious. And asteroid didn't wipe out the dinosaurs. They went extinct just like other species did.


Oh wow hubby is gonna have a field day with this one!!! :banana:

It's really easy to judge others for how they live their lives but that doesn't mean that everyone who is different than yourself is wrong. It's so common to hear people argue that homosexuality is a choice. So tell me, why in the world would anyone choose to be something they are not when it practically guarantees them a life of hardship and rejection by not just random strangers and gay-haters but often (sadly) by their own families?

Religious people often say that it is up to God to judge so isn't it a bit hypocritical that you yourself are so adamant about judging as well? If you are told to love all people because "God is in all people" then that means flaws and all. And wouldn't God be disappointed that you "hate" your fellow man because they are different than you? The Bible used to say "an eye for an eye" but now you believe in "turning the other cheek".

It doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is (however ridiculous and profoundly stupid it may be - now that is just MY opinion!) because none of us knows the truth as to how we got here, whether or not there is a God, what happens when we die... it's all speculation. However, there is factual evidence of things like dinosaurs existing before humans, how old the earth actually is, when man is estimated to have appeared on the earth, evolution... Like everyone else, I can merely interpret this information, as well as listen to the fairy tales that "POOF" we just appeared out of nowhere, but the bottom line is no one really knows! It is shocking that so many people insist their beliefs are correct. You mention the Muslim faith... so if they are wrong (or any other faith for that matter) then you really believe they would burn in hell for it? If you're raised one faith you often stay with that faith because that's the one you are taught is the "right one". Is it your fault that you were never taught Christianity and aren't aware that is (allegedly) the "right one"? :confused:

No and Yes.

1) A choice they made, at some point in their life, due to their childhood upbringing.
2) Thank you! God tells us about Hell in the Bible.
3) You haven't seen "shoving those beliefs down your throat" yet. Wait until the muslims take over...
4) My God HATES what Westboro Baptist people are doing and so do I.

You want me to take you to the place where they WERE? God destroyed the 2 cities. There's nothing left there to see. What proof would you believe? You're a skeptic by your own admission.
The Bible doesn't mention computers or cars either...It doesn't need to mention everything. Some words used back then have been changed today so who knows what dinosaurs were called? Leviathan is the closest word I know of.

1) You cannot accept and understand the Bible since you don't believe in God. Trust me on this. The Bible is NOT just one person's interpretation. It's God's instruction manual for ALL human life. And you're right; people DO put their own twist on what it says, but that's wrong. There are ways for Christians to read and understand this book but many of them didn't learn them.
Racism is very different than homosexuality. God destroyed entire cities and people's because of homosexuality but they're both very wrong.
2) Why is it hard to believe that?
3) Man DID walk with dinosaurs. They weren't all man eaters or viscious. And asteroid didn't wipe out the dinosaurs. They went extinct just like other species did.
The Bible time frame indicates that we've been around for about 6,000-7,000 years but it does not directly say this. It could be older or younger but it makes absolutely no difference what we believe about the age of the earth.
My personal opinion is that we live on a young earth because I can't even fathom how mankind could have been here for b(m)illions of years and not have come into the age of technology sooner...unless Democrats were in charge.

I am very offended that you can sit here and say to me that I can’t understand the Bible because I don’t believe in God. I used to believe in a higher power. I actually taught Sunday school to little kids. But I broke away because after reading books beside the Bible, there was OVERWELMING :shocking: evidence that contradicted what the Bible says. So it sparked an interest, and as they say, the rest is history.

I look at everything with an open mind; maybe you should take that advice. I am all about people having there own opinion, as my wife will be the first to attest to that!:buttkiss: But if you come in here with one agenda to try and change people beliefs, I am sorry to say you are wasting your breath.

OK, now to the dinosaurs and asteroids! Do you realize there is actual proof of the asteroid that hit the earth 65 million years ago! You can’t dispute that, AT ALL! They have found dinosaur bones, and using carbon dating has dated those bones to over 100 million years old! So doesn’t that throw a huge wrench into your story that the earth is only 6.000 to 7,000 years old? See this is the great thing about science, you can’t argue with it, it has no agenda; it just is what it is! Now the church will have you believe things that they can’t prove, and when they can’t explain something, oh its faith! How convenient. The church can’t prove anything, but the very first thing that they say when someone mentions evolution and the creation of the universe with the "Big Bang", they all want proof! Sounds very contradicting and un-Christian to me! But that MY opinion!

I look at everything with an open mind; maybe you should take that advice. I am all about people having there own opinion, as my wife will be the first to attest to that!:buttkiss:

The church can’t prove anything, but the very first thing that they say when someone mentions evolution and the creation of the universe with the "Big Bang", they all want proof!

Yes baby you are very open-minded and you always put up a very good argument to state your case (even though I'm always right!) :angel:

I wonder if people would feel differently if perhaps they had more exposure to other people's lifestyles, thus a greater understanding of them. I think most of the people that disapprove of homosexuals, or anyone they think is wrong, is because they are different and to these narrow-minded individuals anything that is different couldn't possibly be acceptable. The world is changing people! Homosexuality has been around for ages and is not a new concept, nor is it a learned behavior. I won't say there aren't those that experiment because they can but that's their prerogative and I don't judge them and you shouldn't either. Who knows maybe you would like it!!!
I believe that homosexuality is an inborn quality that is not produced by anything learned in life or any "choices" made by that person. It's a shame that so many generations felt the need to hide who they were because it took this long for perceptions to change. I think the evolvement of gay rights and gay pride is monumental in projecting our society forward and I will continue to support it. You may think it's in a bad direction but I argue that it is not. We are becoming more accepting of each other's differences overall and no matter how many people protest gays or whomever else you feel the need to hate on, they are not going anywhere so like it or not you might as well get used to the idea! Like Obama says "It's time for a change". No wonder you aren't a fan...
:thewave: <----- A rainbow for all my gay peeps!!! HAHA!

Sounds very contradicting and un-Christian to me! But that MY opinion!

What for it....

Did I mention we have a Religion forum where it is much more On-Topic to tell Christians how closeminded and hypocritical they are, or try to convince people that Satan buried dinosaur bones to trick us all.



Two doors down on the left.


Thanks! :howdy:

Did I mention we have a Religion forum where it is much more On-Topic to tell Christians how closeminded and hypocritical they are, or try to convince people that Satan buried dinosaur bones to trick us all.



Two doors down on the left.


Thanks! :howdy:

I didn't bring religion into the conversation that's just the scapegoat justification some people chose to use for why they think homosexuality is wrong. I won't be visiting the religious forum because I am not a hater and don't feel the need to make everyone else agree with my beliefs. :1bdz:

It's really easy to judge others for how they live their lives but that doesn't mean that everyone who is different than yourself is wrong.
Have you ever applied any of this to yourself?

Did I mention we have a Religion forum where it is much more On-Topic to tell Christians how closeminded and hypocritical they are, or try to convince people that Satan buried dinosaur bones to trick us all.



Two doors down on the left.


Thanks! :howdy:
I havent gone through and vetted this, but have you verified that it was the Christ Punchers that brough Religion into this topic?

My impression was that it was one of the "Faithfull" that brought Religion into the argument. (yeppers Post 7)

I didn't bring religion into the conversation


Which is why my comment was not directed at you specifically.



I won't be visiting the religious forum because I am not a hater and don't feel the need to make everyone else agree with my beliefs. :1bdz:

:rolleyes: Clearly.

I havent gone through and vetted this, but have you verified that it was the Christ Punchers that brough Religion into this topic?

My impression was that it was one of the "Faithfull" that brought Religion into the argument. (yeppers Post 7)



My finger wasn't being pointed at one group.


The thread drifted into religion. I do not know, nor care, who started it. I merely suggested moving the discussion - as it is now - to an appropriate forum.

Have you ever applied any of this to yourself?

Hmmm... nope come to think of it I just like to say things that sound good in the moment. Is that an actual question? I'm not the one being judgmental here. I simply said that all people deserve compassion and understanding and you don't have to agree with what someone does but you shouldn't make them feel wrong for being different than yourself.
If you're referring to my disdain for the religious element, I don't argue that anyone else is wrong for their beliefs either. However, I do despise when other people force their beliefs down your throat yet they have no interest in opening their minds to any other possibilities. Fine... doesn't matter to me! But I don't advertise my beliefs and if I get into a conversation with family or friends about any of that I think it's interesting to hear everyone's opinion. We could all be wrong why not just accept that some things work for some people and not for others. Same w/lifestyle choices! Homosexuals, blacks, whites, tall, short, fat, skinny... what does it matter? We are all people and no matter how we got here or why we're here I believe on some deeper level we are all the same. Often the disapproval we have for others is a projection of something about ourselves that we don't like and we see in them or maybe it's a learned behavior. But we have the power to change how we see the world and not just to accept what we are told. You have yourself a nice Friday now! :kiss:

My finger wasn't being pointed at one group.


The thread drifted into religion. I do not know, nor care, who started it. I merely suggested moving the discussion - as it is now - to an appropriate forum.

The discussion should stay here. The religious aspects would probably do better in the religious forums.

You want me to take you to the place where they WERE? God destroyed the 2 cities. There's nothing left there to see. What proof would you believe? You're a skeptic by your own admission.
The Bible doesn't mention computers or cars either...It doesn't need to mention everything. Some words used back then have been changed today so who knows what dinosaurs were called? Leviathan is the closest word I know of.



So you are saying just because someone wrote something down, it must be true???

The bible does not mention cars or computers?? But why not? if God knows all and everything that happens before it happens then why not mention them??

Or better question why has the bible stopped? Why has it not continue to grow? Where are the miracles of past time?

AND you are guessing now..and twisting the words to fit what you want it to fit..exactly what I was saying about alteration.

Did I mention we have a Religion forum where it is much more On-Topic to tell Christians how closeminded and hypocritical they are, or try to convince people that Satan buried dinosaur bones to trick us all.



Two doors down on the left.


Thanks! :howdy:

Your right, this isnt the place. I do appologize but it needed to be said. But I am done now. :buddies:

I am very offended that you can sit here and say to me that I can’t understand the Bible because I don’t believe in God. I used to believe in a higher power. I actually taught Sunday school to little kids. But I broke away because after reading books beside the Bible, there was OVERWELMING :shocking: evidence that contradicted what the Bible says. So it sparked an interest, and as they say, the rest is history.

I look at everything with an open mind; maybe you should take that advice. I am all about people having there own opinion, as my wife will be the first to attest to that!:buttkiss: But if you come in here with one agenda to try and change people beliefs, I am sorry to say you are wasting your breath.

OK, now to the dinosaurs and asteroids! Do you realize there is actual proof of the asteroid that hit the earth 65 million years ago! You can’t dispute that, AT ALL! They have found dinosaur bones, and using carbon dating has dated those bones to over 100 million years old! So doesn’t that throw a huge wrench into your story that the earth is only 6.000 to 7,000 years old? See this is the great thing about science, you can’t argue with it, it has no agenda; it just is what it is! Now the church will have you believe things that they can’t prove, and when they can’t explain something, oh its faith! How convenient. The church can’t prove anything, but the very first thing that they say when someone mentions evolution and the creation of the universe with the "Big Bang", they all want proof! Sounds very contradicting and un-Christian to me! But that MY opinion!

It is good to read your post. I do believe in God though..but not the bible..