Prop 8 overturned!

[EE_]

Good news! Does this mean anyone can marry anyone or anything?
Brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, goats, sheep?

[iOWNme]

Asking the .gov for 'permission' of who you can and cannot marry is the problem, not what someone chooses to do with their lives.

Gays are being used like cannon fodder. They will usher in 'legal' (License) marriages for all sexes. More control and money from the sheep that are oh so willing to give it.....


I do not Judge anyone, they will be judged later.

[Apparition]

Considering that the issue of marriage isn't addressed in the US Constitution, it is therefore a state issue.

I honestly wouldn't encourage same-sex marriage but I don't really seem to care so much about what two consenting adults do in their private lives so long as they're not forcefully imposing and/or requiring others to accept it.

[mightymanx]

Asking the .gov for 'permission' of who you can and cannot marry is the problem, not what someone chooses to do with their lives.

Gays are being used like cannon fodder. They will usher in 'legal' (License) marriages for all sexes. More control and money from the sheep that are oh so willing to give it.....


I do not Judge anyone, they will be judged later.


Quoted for truth.

[EE_]

I don't care what two consenting adults do either, as long as they are not permitted to tap into their mate's pension, social security, medical/medicaid, or tax exemptions.

[mightymanx]

I don't care what two consenting adults do either, as long as they are not permitted to tap into their mate's pension, social security, medical/medicaid, or tax exemptions.


I agree if you also mean stopping it for Male/female marrages as well.

Property rights should be up to the person along with who visits you on hospitals etc.

If I want to give all my worldly possessions to a potted plant who is the government to tell me no.

[mamboni]

I don't care what two consenting adults do either, as long as they are not permitted to tap into their mate's pension, social security, medical/medicaid, or tax exemptions.


But that's the cynical and dirty little secret impetus behind this entire gay marriage movement - it's for the benes baby! Ironically, the joke is on the homos: let them get married and think they are getting over on the rest of us. They will get financially rousted by the sundry marriage taxes, restrictions and legal extortions just like the rest of us hetero dopes who got married by the state!!! ;D :boohoo ;D :boohoo Just wait until the first high profile gay divorce. I'd give my left testicle to see that arrogant bloated fop Elton John get shaken down for everything he's worth by a bitter simpering ex-lover in a high profile gay divorce.

If only I knew then what I know now!!! Yes, let the homos marry eachother - misery loves company!!!

[Skirnir]

The legal construct of marriage is onerous, the ecclesiastical construct of marriage is prudish at best, but to each their own.

[EE_]

Property rights are the rights of the property owner.
Getting married to tap benefits is another story.

I guess a grandaughter could marry a grandmother to get benefits and when grandma dies, the grandaughter could still collect grandmas pension and social security, No?

[BrewTech]

"Marriage" needs to cease being a state issue. Problem solved (like most other problems).

[Apparition]

"Marriage" needs to cease being a state issue. Problem solved (like most other problems).


I concur 100%.

[EE_]

"Marriage" needs to cease being a state issue. Problem solved (like most other problems).


I agree! That would take the benefits and entitlements out of the picture.
Then anyone could do as they please.
What about pensions?

[BrewTech]

"Marriage" needs to cease being a state issue. Problem solved (like most other problems).


I agree! That would take the benefits and entitlements out of the picture.
Then anyone could do as they please.
What about pensions?



Isn't that what wills are for?

[StackerKen]

"Marriage" needs to cease being a state issue. Problem solved (like most other problems).


I also Agree.

But the fact that some judge feels he can go against the will of the people, Bothers me

[oldmansmith]

The state should stay the hell out of marraige, that was a religious institution. I wouldn't be married if it wasn't for the sainted Mrs. Old's insistance on it...it has kept me monogamous for 20 years....

People should be able to name whomever they want as their "partner" and legal beneficiary; their wife, father, son, friend, etc. I'm not so sure about goats...

[Skirnir]

Goats must be allowed to be beneficiaries as well! That's...species discrimination!

[oldmansmith]

Goats must be allowed to be beneficiaries as well! That's...species discrimination!


Well then call me a specieist, guilty as charged. I just don't think that sea cucumbers have the same rights as men...

[EE_]

No one wants to take a stab at pensions?
When a spouse dies, who should be allowed to continue to collect half or all of the pension of the deceased?

[BrewTech]

"Marriage" needs to cease being a state issue. Problem solved (like most other problems).


I also Agree.

But the fact that some judge feels he can go against the will of the people, Bothers me


The will of the people in this case is misguided. Were marriage not a state issue, the will of the people would be a moot point.

One of the biggest threats to individual liberty is "majority rule", especially when the majority is generally clueless.

That said, I do get your point.

[iOWNme]

"Marriage" needs to cease being a state issue. Problem solved (like most other problems).


I also Agree.

But the fact that some judge feels he can go against the will of the people, Bothers me


If the Judge is upholding the Law (im not saying this case), i would sure hope he WOULD go against the will of the people. (Democracy = Mob Rules = No Rule of Law) I say: F the will of the people. Especially when it comes to my private property, private finances and all of my privacy in general. I dont care how many of them have the illusion that they have the right to dictate my life. It matters not.

It is very easy to get caught up in what the people want. Under the Rule of Law the .gov is bound by the same Rule of Law you and I are.

Marriage is a divine Right that is to be decided amongst those involved. The .gov and the Mob can just keep their hands out of it. It is between the consenting people and the Creator. It is NOT to be decided by the State. NOT to be arbitrated in CONgress. It is NOT to be decided in the courts. NOT to be decided by the 'will of the people' either.

It is to be decided in the individual conscience of each individual and their Creator.

[StackerKen]

Im not too savvy on this stuff But it seems to me there are only a few choices.

(1) Majority rules (the people)

(2) Government rules (dictator)

(3) The folks with all the money rule?

Shoot I don't know.

But I think the U.S.Constitution starts out with "We the people"

and when the Peoples reps quit representing them and their will....Its time for them to go. (2nd amendment)

[BrewTech]

Im not too savvy on this stuff But it seems to me there are only a few choices.

(1) Majority rules (the people)

(2) Government rules (dictator)

(3) The folks with all the money rule?

Shoot I don't know.

But I think the U.S.Constitution starts out with "We the people"

and when the Peoples reps quit representing them and their will....Its time for them to go. (2nd amendment)


"We The People" means each individual person. It does NOT mean that 51% get to tell the other 49% how to live their lives.

Government is supposed to exist to ensure the minority, or individuals, retain their natural rights to life, lberty, and property, in spite of what the mob may believe.

I know. It's a crazy concept that many can't relate with... individuals being left alone to live their lives, and other people going along with and letting them do it. Pure nuttiness!

[Skirnir]

Im not too savvy on this stuff But it seems to me there are only a few choices.

(1) Majority rules (the people)

(2) Government rules (dictator)

(3) The folks with all the money rule?

Shoot I don't know.

But I think the U.S.Constitution starts out with "We the people"

and when the Peoples reps quit representing them and their will....Its time for them to go. (2nd amendment)


"We The People" means each individual person. It does NOT mean that 51% get to tell the other 49% how to live their lives.

Government is supposed to exist to ensure the minority, or individuals, retain their natural rights to life, lberty, and property, in spite of what the mob may believe.

I know. It's a crazy concept that many can't relate with... individuals being left alone to live their lives, and other people going along with and letting them do it. Pure nuttiness!


There are at least two who agree:

Democracy passes into despotism. -Plato

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. - Franklin

[StackerKen]

"We The People" means each individual person. It does NOT mean that 51% get to tell the other 49% how to live their lives.


I agree

I also agree that natural rights to life, lberty, and property, Should be protected no matter what.

What we have now isn't working very well.

So what's the solution?

[EE_]

I wish you guys would clear up this pension thing for me.
I might have a very very old granfather about to croak with a great pension, to marry.
I want a check damn it!...just like all the fags and dykes want.

[StackerKen]

I wish you guys would clear up this pension thing for me.
I might have a very very old granfather about to croak with a great pension, to marry.
I want a check damn it!...just like all the fags and dykes want.


I don't think "they" allow you to marry a family member EE

[StackerKen]

I have always like this Quote

Mankind, when left to themselves, are unfit for their own government.
George Washington

[BrewTech]

I want a check damn it!...just like all the fags and dykes want.


It's not just the fags and dykes, EE_ ...how many heteros do you think decide to sign that contract for the supposed tax breaks? I've known more than a few in my life.

[EE_]

I want a check damn it!...just like all the fags and dykes want.


It's not just the fags and dykes, EE_ ...how many heteros do you think decide to sign that contract for the supposed tax breaks? I've known more than a few in my life.


Yes, that is how the system is set up at present.
Now we will have to add many more sponging for profit to the mix.
I think we will all have to add to the kitty to make this work?

[StackerKen]

Im going to go ahead and say it.

While I agree that the state should stay out of marriage and other things as well,

I believe that God invented marriage.
And I believe that God intended for marriage to be between a one Man and one Woman.

I think that is what most people in this country believe also.
That is why when ever it is put to a vote the outcome is the same.

I say screw the Judges that think they know better than God.

[EE_]

I wish you guys would clear up this pension thing for me.
I might have a very very old granfather about to croak with a great pension, to marry.
I want a check damn it!...just like all the fags and dykes want.


I don't think "they" allow you to marry a family member EE


Why not? Please explain why one is wrong and not the other?
Incest has been around as long as homosexuality. All perfectly normal :sarc:
So has beastiality for that matter.

[StackerKen]

I wish you guys would clear up this pension thing for me.
I might have a very very old granfather about to croak with a great pension, to marry.
I want a check damn it!...just like all the fags and dykes want.


I don't think "they" allow you to marry a family member EE


Why not? Please explain why one is wrong and not the other?
Incest has been around as long as homosexuality. All perfectly normal :sarc:
So has beastiality for that matter.


EE I think you know why "I think" those things are wrong.

Thats not to say, I think the government should tell folks they can't do them.

I Just don't think the government should reward folks for doing them.

[Desolation LineTrimmer]

Once gay marriage becomes a constitutional right then so will gay adoption rights, and since gays cannot produce life like heterosexuals there will be lots of gay partners wishing to adopt. They will flood the market, and there will be no discriminating allowed. Two gay men will be legally equal to a man and a woman, even though objectively there is no equality. Instead of a mommy some little boy or girl will get a queen. It's wrong.

[Skirnir]

The gays already adopt en masse, and it is already legal for them to adopt in many states. Frankly, I do not see what the big thing is.

[StackerKen]

It isn't the way it is suppose to be.

Its not natural

It is certainly not Ideal for two men to raise a child.

It is best for a child to have a mother and a father.


Thats what the big deal is

[Desolation LineTrimmer]

The gays already adopt en masse, and it is already legal for them to adopt in many states. Frankly, I do not see what the big thing is.


I don't think homosexuals can sue when heterosexual couples are given favor over them in adoption. But they will should they be constitutionally declared equal to heterosexual couples, which is the crux of the matter anyway: heterosexuality and homosexuality are not equivalent. Heterosexuals create life. Homosexuals, while they may be okay waiters, cannot create life by their union.

[Fudup]

What I don't understand is the argument that the Gays were absent some priviledge that everyone else had. They could marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else under the law, they had (and have) the same priviledges as anyone, they lacked nothing. The want marriage laws expanded to same sex, fine, go for a referendum and see how the sheeple vote. The whole "right" of marriage or the fact they were missing out on something that everyone else had but them, is just a farce of idiotic proportions.

[BrewTech]

The gays already adopt en masse, and it is already legal for them to adopt in many states. Frankly, I do not see what the big thing is.


I don't think homosexuals can sue when heterosexual couples are given favor over them in adoption. But they will should they be constitutionally declared equal to heterosexual couples, which is the crux of the matter anyway: heterosexuality and homosexuality are not equivalent. Heterosexuals create life. Homosexuals, while they may be okay waiters, cannot create life by their union.


Yes, and a hetero's ability to create new taxpayers to feed the beast is why they get the breaks for registering their relationship with the state.

Got it.

[Skirnir]

It isn't the way it is suppose to be.

Its not natural

It is certainly not Ideal for two men to raise a child.

It is best for a child to have a mother and a father.


Thats what the big deal is


I had two mothers since my father was a pussy. I'm surprised he did not pop out farting perfume.

That said, why is it best? To determine, one must first define what is good parenting. I propose that the tree be known by its fruits: children who are not predisposed to crime, and are vigilant in their studies may be considered good fruits as are their parental units.

[Desolation LineTrimmer]

The gays already adopt en masse, and it is already legal for them to adopt in many states. Frankly, I do not see what the big thing is.


I don't think homosexuals can sue when heterosexual couples are given favor over them in adoption. But they will should they be constitutionally declared equal to heterosexual couples, which is the crux of the matter anyway: heterosexuality and homosexuality are not equivalent. Heterosexuals create life. Homosexuals, while they may be okay waiters, cannot create life by their union.



Yes, and a hetero's ability to create new taxpayers to feed the beast is why they get the breaks for registering their relationship with the state.

Got it.


People are more than simply creatures to be taxed. You must be aware of this, and parents don't get a financial "break". Children are enormously costly, which is another reason normal couples deserve the marriage honorarium.

[StackerKen]

It isn't the way it is suppose to be.

Its not natural

It is certainly not Ideal for two men to raise a child.

It is best for a child to have a mother and a father.


Thats what the big deal is


I had two mothers since my father was a pussy. I'm surprised he did not pop out farting perfume.

That said, why is it best? To determine, one must first define what is good parenting. I propose that the tree be known by its fruits: children who are not predisposed to crime, and are vigilant in their studies may be considered good fruits as are their parental units.


Just off the top of my (uneducated) head I would say it is best for a child to have a mother and a father because men and women are very different and both have unique qualities that a child needs to be well rounded.

It is the way God (or nature if you prefer) Intended it.

[Skirnir]

It isn't the way it is suppose to be.

Its not natural

It is certainly not Ideal for two men to raise a child.

It is best for a child to have a mother and a father.


Thats what the big deal is


I had two mothers since my father was a pussy. I'm surprised he did not pop out farting perfume.

That said, why is it best? To determine, one must first define what is good parenting. I propose that the tree be known by its fruits: children who are not predisposed to crime, and are vigilant in their studies may be considered good fruits as are their parental units.


Just off the top of my (uneducated) head I would say it is best for a child to have a mother and a father because men and women are very different and both have unique qualities that a child needs to be well rounded.

It is the way God (or nature if you prefer) Intended it.



Exposure to both genders is already present, although the lack of male authority figures for lesbian adoptees due to the lack of male teachers could cause trouble later. Then again, if mommy #2 wears camo around the house, that may not be an issue.

[Desolation LineTrimmer]

It isn't the way it is suppose to be.

Its not natural

It is certainly not Ideal for two men to raise a child.

It is best for a child to have a mother and a father.


Thats what the big deal is


I had two mothers since my father was a pussy. I'm surprised he did not pop out farting perfume.

That said, why is it best? To determine, one must first define what is good parenting. I propose that the tree be known by its fruits: children who are not predisposed to crime, and are vigilant in their studies may be considered good fruits as are their parental units.


You don't hold much respect for your "pussy" father, why then would you want two effeminate parents? If you could somehow separate children so that gay children went with gay couples then I would probably agree with you, all other things being equal, but straight boys are better served by straight parents. Gay boys famously don't get along with their straight fathers. It works the other way too. The reason gay boys don't get along with the fathers is that the fathers don't know how to relate to the boys, not being effeminate themselves. There is a lack of communication and empathy. The whole gay culture is abnormal and hard to relate to unless you are gay yourself.

[BrewTech]

The gays already adopt en masse, and it is already legal for them to adopt in many states. Frankly, I do not see what the big thing is.


I don't think homosexuals can sue when heterosexual couples are given favor over them in adoption. But they will should they be constitutionally declared equal to heterosexual couples, which is the crux of the matter anyway: heterosexuality and homosexuality are not equivalent. Heterosexuals create life. Homosexuals, while they may be okay waiters, cannot create life by their union.





Yes, and a hetero's ability to create new taxpayers to feed the beast is why they get the breaks for registering their relationship with the state.

Got it.


People are more than simply creatures to be taxed. You must be aware of this, and parents don't get a financial "break". Children are enormously costly, which is another reason normal couples deserve the marriage honorarium.


Why should the state care whether couples have kids or not, if "people are more than simply creatures to be taxed"... So what if they are expensive? Why should the state (other people) assume a portion of the cost of reproduction through tax breaks if there is no direct benefit to the state?

Why should anyone get a tax break because they are involved in a narrowly-defined interpersonal relationship?

[Skirnir]

It isn't the way it is suppose to be.

Its not natural

It is certainly not Ideal for two men to raise a child.

It is best for a child to have a mother and a father.


Thats what the big deal is


I had two mothers since my father was a pussy. I'm surprised he did not pop out farting perfume.

That said, why is it best? To determine, one must first define what is good parenting. I propose that the tree be known by its fruits: children who are not predisposed to crime, and are vigilant in their studies may be considered good fruits as are their parental units.


You don't hold much respect for your "pussy" father, why then would you want two effeminate parents? If you could somehow separate children so that gay children went with gay couples then I would probably agree with you, all other things being equal, but straight boys are better served by straight parents. Gay boys famously don't get along with their straight fathers. It works the other way too. The reason gay boys don't get along with the fathers is that the fathers don't know how to relate to the boys, not being effeminate themselves. There is a lack of communication and empathy. The whole gay culture is abnormal and hard to relate to unless you are gay yourself.


I took a swing because he is passive and likes to 'go along to get along'. The guy has an MBA from one of the best schools in the nation and he has yet to break into lower or middle management for crying out loud; did his boss accidentaly drop him on his head?. The only thing I learned from him that is useful was how to put on the 'nice' façade when one's intentions are anything but. If he was Big Chief Lukas who took scalps in the finance department and feasted upon the innards of interns, that would be another thing. I asked him 'why not apply for the higher positions?', he rebuked saying that his position was good enough and some Catholic BS.

That said, better to have a pussy father than none. Many of these kids being adopted come from overseas, so it is doubtful they are crowding out the local market. Resources are more important than the intangibles; I learned that the hard way.

[ximmy]

Two dongs don't make a right...

[EE_]

Two dongs don't make a right...


Cute and funny, What a doll! :-*

[Desolation LineTrimmer]

It isn't the way it is suppose to be.

Its not natural

It is certainly not Ideal for two men to raise a child.

It is best for a child to have a mother and a father.


Thats what the big deal is


I had two mothers since my father was a pussy. I'm surprised he did not pop out farting perfume.

That said, why is it best? To determine, one must first define what is good parenting. I propose that the tree be known by its fruits: children who are not predisposed to crime, and are vigilant in their studies may be considered good fruits as are their parental units.


You don't hold much respect for your "pussy" father, why then would you want two effeminate parents? If you could somehow separate children so that gay children went with gay couples then I would probably agree with you, all other things being equal, but straight boys are better served by straight parents. Gay boys famously don't get along with their straight fathers. It works the other way too. The reason gay boys don't get along with the fathers is that the fathers don't know how to relate to the boys, not being effeminate themselves. There is a lack of communication and empathy. The whole gay culture is abnormal and hard to relate to unless you are gay yourself.



That said, better to have a pussy father than none. Many of these kids being adopted come from overseas, so it is doubtful they are crowding out the local market. Resources are more important than the intangibles; I learned that the hard way.


I don't have an argument with gay adoption in certain cases. I'm talking about gays being legally able to sue for exactly equal consideration with hetero parents looking to adopt, and that will happen just as soon as the smoke clears on this current battlefield of gay marriage, which is the main reason I'm opposed to gay marriage. Gays are never going to quit pushing for legal equality, but the problem is they are not equal. Life comes from heterosexual union. It does not come from homosexual unions. Homosexual does not equal heterosexual.

[Skirnir]

Two dongs don't make a right...


Correct; they make a little Dong instead.
http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/1751/632e.jpg





That said, better to have a pussy father than none. Many of these kids being adopted come from overseas, so it is doubtful they are crowding out the local market. Resources are more important than the intangibles; I learned that the hard way.


I don't have an argument with gay adoption in certain cases. I'm talking about gays being legally able to sue for exactly equal consideration with hetero parents looking to adopt, and that will happen just as soon as the smoke clears on this current battlefield of gay marriage, which is the main reason I'm opposed to gay marriage. Gays are never going to quit pushing for legal equality, but the problem is they are not equal. Life comes from heterosexual union. It does not come from homosexual unions. Homosexual does not equal heterosexual.


Life does indeed come from heterosexual unions, in the sense of forming the beast with two backs. That is why gay households adopt. That said, in the legal context, marriage is a just a contact between man and woman to which the state is a party. To borrow Keynes' slur about gold, that contract is a barbarous relic.

[Phoenix]

"Marriage" needs to cease being a state issue.


Agreed, but the promotion of sexual perversion is one of the reasons behind this.

"Marriage" has been the union of a man and a woman for millennia, and the queers want that redefined to accommodate them.

[Phoenix]

It is the way God (or nature if you prefer) Intended it.


That's the entire problem, Ken. God intended it, and these f@ggots want something different.

In every society where homosexuality has become "normal," that society quickly collapsed.

This isn't a "religious" thing, either. The pre-Christian Germanic peoples put homosexuals to death. Any society that wants to continue, embraces that which is normal. And vice-versa.

[BrewTech]

"Marriage" needs to cease being a state issue.


Agreed, but the promotion of sexual perversion is one of the reasons behind this.

"Marriage" has been the union of a man and a woman for millennia, and the queers want that redefined to accommodate them.


This is where you get it mixed up. The "marriage" that you refer to in the first part of your statement (before the comma) is one thing... and I can't disagree with it. However, the "queers" don't give two shitz about the type of marriage of which you speak. What folks call "marriage" nowadays is a completely different thing - as has been stated, it is simply a contract in which the state is a party, and has interest. In return for signing that contract, the state issues certain privileges. That's what the "queers" want. They don't necessarily want the marriage you hold sacred, they mostly just want the government version.

[Joe King]

I wish you guys would clear up this pension thing for me.
I might have a very very old granfather about to croak with a great pension, to marry.
I want a check damn it!...just like all the fags and dykes want.


Go get on one knee before Granpa, look deep in his eyes and ask him to marry you.

I dare you. ;D

If he says yes, get back to us and you'll have your answer.
Oh, and make sure to go buy a ring first, just in case he says yes.

[BrewTech]

I wish you guys would clear up this pension thing for me.
I might have a very very old granfather about to croak with a great pension, to marry.
I want a check damn it!...just like all the fags and dykes want.


Go get on one knee before Granpa, look deep in his eyes and ask him to marry you.

I dare you. ;D

If he says yes, get back to us and you'll have your answer.
Oh, and make sure to go buy a ring first, just in case he says yes.




... and get video or it never happened! ;D

[Joe King]

"We The People" means each individual person. It does NOT mean that 51% get to tell the other 49% how to live their lives.


I agree

I also agree that natural rights to life, lberty, and property, Should be protected no matter what.

What we have now isn't working very well.

So what's the solution?
How's this for a crazzzy idea?

A gov that offers protection under the law, equally to all people, while guarding the Rights of the minority from the will of majority if it seeks to diminish the minoritys Rights.
And just remember, we're all part of a minority at some point.
i.e. almost everyone has something in their life that the majority doesn't, so it's all relative to whatever the subject happens to be at the time as to whether you fit in the minority camp or not.

[Joe King]

I wish you guys would clear up this pension thing for me.
I might have a very very old granfather about to croak with a great pension, to marry.
I want a check damn it!...just like all the fags and dykes want.


Go get on one knee before Granpa, look deep in his eyes and ask him to marry you.

I dare you. ;D

If he says yes, get back to us and you'll have your answer.
Oh, and make sure to go buy a ring first, just in case he says yes.




... and get video or it never happened! ;D
Good idea!

One other thing EE_, you can't use Granmas old ring, as Granpa needs a mans ring. :D

[EE_]

I wish you guys would clear up this pension thing for me.
I might have a very very old granfather about to croak with a great pension, to marry.
I want a check damn it!...just like all the fags and dykes want.


Go get on one knee before Granpa, look deep in his eyes and ask him to marry you.

I dare you. ;D

If he says yes, get back to us and you'll have your answer.
Oh, and make sure to go buy a ring first, just in case he says yes.




... and get video or it never happened! ;D
Good idea!

One other thing EE_, you can't use Granmas old ring, as Granpa needs a mans ring. :D



Okay, I picked out the ring and called Grampa...he said he loves me very much and he would definately marry me......then he paused for a sec and said 'who is this?' :conf:

http://extrajewel.com/jewelinfo/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/mens-diamond-wedding-ring-man56_b1.jpg

[Joe King]

I want a check damn it!...just like all the fags and dykes want.


It's not just the fags and dykes, EE_ ...how many heteros do you think decide to sign that contract for the supposed tax breaks? I've known more than a few in my life.


Yes, that is how the system is set up at present.
Now we will have to add many more sponging for profit to the mix.
I think we will all have to add to the kitty to make this work?
How about just getting the .gov out of your marriage completely?

How about if the .gov went back to certifying marriages as opposed to issuing licenses for them?

License=permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal.
i.e. when did they make it illegal to go before your God to be married?

Most people who are dead set against this issue do so on religious grounds.
Which is sort of hypocritical of them, if you ask me.

How so?

Glad you asked.

It's easy. Because the first Commandment states that, thou shall not have any other Gods before me. {or something very close to that effect}

So how can one honor that if one must go to some 3rd party to ask/pay for permission to go before your God to be married?
i.e. direct violation of the the first Commandment that they say they supposedly honor.

[Joe King]

It isn't the way it is suppose to be.

Its not natural

It is certainly not Ideal for two men to raise a child.

It is best for a child to have a mother and a father.


Thats what the big deal is
In general terms, I personally agree 100%

However, it is not up to me to decide the morality or lackthereof for others.

As soon as I do, I'm saying that it's ok for them to decide for me.
All I require of others, regardless of race color creed or any other measure of division, is that they have a sincere desire to exist in peace with their fellow man.

Simply put, it comes down to equal Rights under the law for all.

[Joe King]

I wish you guys would clear up this pension thing for me.
I might have a very very old granfather about to croak with a great pension, to marry.
I want a check damn it!...just like all the fags and dykes want.


Go get on one knee before Granpa, look deep in his eyes and ask him to marry you.

I dare you. ;D

If he says yes, get back to us and you'll have your answer.
Oh, and make sure to go buy a ring first, just in case he says yes.




... and get video or it never happened! ;D
Good idea!

One other thing EE_, you can't use Granmas old ring, as Granpa needs a mans ring. :D



Okay, I picked out the ring and called Grampa...he said he loves me very much and he would definately marry me......then he paused for a sec and said 'who is this?' :conf:

[im g]http://extrajewel.com/jewelinfo/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/mens-diamond-wedding-ring-man56_b1.jpg[/img]

Sorry, you to need to do so in person. On one knee, while holding his hand and looking deeply into his eyes. :-* <---and give him one of these, too. So he'll know you mean buisness.

Good luck not getting written out of his Will :lol

[SeekYeFirst]

I heard this news on NPR's "Democracy Now." For some reason the dyke that runs it has been whining about its passing since it happened. Now she sounded like she was gloating. She doesn't realize the vote was democratic (mob-rule) like she supports.

[Phoenix]

"Marriage" needs to cease being a state issue.


Agreed, but the promotion of sexual perversion is one of the reasons behind this.

"Marriage" has been the union of a man and a woman for millennia, and the queers want that redefined to accommodate them.


This is where you get it mixed up. The "marriage" that you refer to in the first part of your statement (before the comma) is one thing... and I can't disagree with it. However, the "queers" don't give two sh*tz about the type of marriage of which you speak. What folks call "marriage" nowadays is a completely different thing - as has been stated, it is simply a contract in which the state is a party, and has interest. In return for signing that contract, the state issues certain privileges. That's what the "queers" want. They don't necessarily want the marriage you hold sacred, they mostly just want the government version.


The f@ggots already have what you're describing:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/dpregistry/

The nuclear family is the most fundamental unit of all human societies; father, mother, children (and often with multi-generations in the same home). Destroy the nuclear family, and the society collapses like any structure where the foundation is destroyed.

No, the f@ggots and their fellow-travelers (Communists and the usual suspects) want to assault the ancient institution of marriage using "the law." Government shouldn't be issuing marriage "licenses," but that's not the point. The point is the ancient institution itself is under attack.

BTW, why are you putting "queers" in quotation marks? That would suggest you find the term offensive for some reason? Do you believe homosexuality is normal?

[Phoenix]

I heard this news on NPR's "Democracy Now." For some reason the dyke that runs it has been whining about its passing since it happened. Now she sounded like she was gloating. She doesn't realize the vote was democratic (mob-rule) like she supports.


Amy Goodman = Jewess.

[Joe King]

"Marriage" needs to cease being a state issue.


Agreed, but the promotion of sexual perversion is one of the reasons behind this.

"Marriage" has been the union of a man and a woman for millennia, and the queers want that redefined to accommodate them.


This is where you get it mixed up. The "marriage" that you refer to in the first part of your statement (before the comma) is one thing... and I can't disagree with it. However, the "queers" don't give two sh*tz about the type of marriage of which you speak. What folks call "marriage" nowadays is a completely different thing - as has been stated, it is simply a contract in which the state is a party, and has interest. In return for signing that contract, the state issues certain privileges. That's what the "queers" want. They don't necessarily want the marriage you hold sacred, they mostly just want the government version.


The f@ggots already have what you're describing:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/dpregistry/

The problem with that is that .gov won't enforce it effectively. If they would, your pont might be valid.
i.e. too many cases of that "registry" stuff simply being ignored.

[Phoenix]

The problem with that is that .gov won't enforce it effectively. If they would, your pont might be valid.
i.e. too many cases of that "registry" stuff simply being ignored.


Wrong. A "registered domestic partnership" is equal to "legal marriage." If an entity ignores it or refuses to accept it, they can be sued in f@g-friendly California courts.

I reiterate: f@g "marriage" is being pursued not for "freedom" or "equality" but to assault the ancient institution of marriage.

[Joe King]

The problem with that is that .gov won't enforce it effectively. If they would, your pont might be valid.
i.e. too many cases of that "registry" stuff simply being ignored.


Wrong. A "registered domestic partnership" is equal to "legal marriage." If an entity ignores it or refuses to accept it, they can be sued in f@g-friendly California courts.

I reiterate: f@g "marriage" is being pursued not for "freedom" or "equality" but to assault the ancient institution of marriage.

Problem is, people are being denied that Right at the time it is needed most.
i.e. how would you feel if you were barred from your dying wifes hospital room because some nurse didn't want to accept your paper work? Thereby forcing you to fight about it after the fact?

That type of situation has in fact happened.

As I said, if all people accepted others as equals, it probably wouldn't be an issue.
But too many people choose to Judge others based upon their own personal and oftentimes flawed biases.

[Phoenix]

Problem is, people are being denied that Right at the time it is needed most.


There was not, is not, and never will be - regardless of what a black-robed whore declares otherwise - a "right" to f@g "marriage." Rights come from God, not from a whore in a "court."




i.e. how would you feel if you were barred from your dying wifes hospital room because some nurse didn't want to accept your paper work? Thereby forcing you to fight about it after the fact?


A f@g "marriage" license is going to change that how? Just a piece of paper.




That type of situation has in fact happened.


What, once in a million - or less? This is like the liberal "argument" about "rape or incest" as "justification" for abortion on demand.




As I said, if all people accepted others as equals


A mental defective is not my "equal."

Homosexuals need treatment, not "acceptance."

[Joe King]

Problem is, people are being denied that Right at the time it is needed most.


There was not, is not, and never will be - regardless of what a black-robed whore declares otherwise - a "right" to f@g "marriage." Rights come from God, not from a whore in a "court."
I'm talking about the Right to decide who your next of kin is and to have all people in positions of authority honor it.




i.e. how would you feel if you were barred from your dying wifes hospital room because some nurse didn't want to accept your paper work? Thereby forcing you to fight about it after the fact?


A f@g "marriage" license is going to change that how? Just a piece of paper.
People who do the type of thing I refer to do so because they personally won't acknowledge anything that they see as being less than a marriage license.



That type of situation has in fact happened.


What, once in a million - or less? This is like the liberal "argument" about "rape or incest" as "justification" for abortion on demand.
If it happens once it's too often.
Have you ever heard of such a thing happening to a husband and wife married couple? Doubtful.




As I said, if all people accepted others as equals


A mental defective is not my "equal."

Homosexuals need treatment, not "acceptance."
You don't have to accept their lifestyle, just accept that they get the same Rights and protections under the law as everyone else.


Besides, as a "Christian" you should love the sinner and hate the sin.
You do understand the difference there, right?
i.e. it's only Gods place to Judge the sin part. Not yours.

[Fortyone]

I post the challenge to anyone to show me a civilization where homosexuality didnt devolve into pedophilia or actually thrived with acceptance of homosexual practices.

[Spectrism]

Well, now, this splains a whole lot to me.






It isn't the way it is suppose to be.

Its not natural

It is certainly not Ideal for two men to raise a child.

It is best for a child to have a mother and a father.


Thats what the big deal is


I had two mothers since my father was a pussy. I'm surprised he did not pop out farting perfume.

That said, why is it best? To determine, one must first define what is good parenting. I propose that the tree be known by its fruits: children who are not predisposed to crime, and are vigilant in their studies may be considered good fruits as are their parental units.

[Spectrism]

Problem is, people are being denied that Right at the time it is needed most.


There was not, is not, and never will be - regardless of what a black-robed whore declares otherwise - a "right" to f@g "marriage." Rights come from God, not from a whore in a "court."
I'm talking about the Right to decide who your next of kin is and to have all people in positions of authority honor it.




i.e. how would you feel if you were barred from your dying wifes hospital room because some nurse didn't want to accept your paper work? Thereby forcing you to fight about it after the fact?


A f@g "marriage" license is going to change that how? Just a piece of paper.
People who do the type of thing I refer to do so because they personally won't acknowledge anything that they see as being less than a marriage license.



That type of situation has in fact happened.


What, once in a million - or less? This is like the liberal "argument" about "rape or incest" as "justification" for abortion on demand.
If it happens once it's too often.
Have you ever heard of such a thing happening to a husband and wife married couple? Doubtful.




As I said, if all people accepted others as equals


A mental defective is not my "equal."

Homosexuals need treatment, not "acceptance."
You don't have to accept their lifestyle, just accept that they get the same Rights and protections under the law as everyone else.

Besides, as a "Christian" you should love the sinner and hate the sin.
You do understand the difference there, right?
i.e. it's only Gods place to Judge the sin part. Not yours.


They don't want the same rights. They want special rights and they want formal acknowledgement that their sin- their "lifestyle" is "acceptable to all- enforceable by law. This is about REQUIRING all to bow to the sacred cow of homosexual perversion.

Your quaint use of the phrase- love the sinner/ hate the sin.... is bogus. It denies the reality of the law of the land. This issue is about instituting perversion ABOVE the heads of all. It is the elevating of perversion to a place of authority over all.

[StackerKen]

Great to see you Posting Spectrism :)

I was hoping you would chime in on some of the other threads too. (up to you of course)

I always like to hear you views on stuff.

[Phoenix]

Besides, as a "Christian" you should love the sinner and hate the sin.


Please cite chapter and verse of where that is in the Bible.




i.e. it's only Gods place to Judge the sin part. Not yours.


Perverts always push the "judge not, judge not, judge not" angle, but ALWAYS "forget"/ignore the "go and sin no more, go and sin no more, go and sin no more" angle. Why is that?

[Phoenix]

I post the challenge to anyone to show me a civilization where homosexuality didnt devolve into pedophilia or actually thrived with acceptance of homosexual practices.


Stage 1: interracial "marriage" legalized and accepted.

Stage 2: homosexual "marriage" legalized and accepted.

State 3: pedophilia and "man/boy marriage" legalized and accepted.

[Joe King]

Besides, as a "Christian" you should love the sinner and hate the sin.


Please cite chapter and verse of where that is in the Bible.



i.e. it's only Gods place to Judge the sin part. Not yours.


Perverts always push the "judge not, judge not, judge not" angle, but ALWAYS "forget"/ignore the "go and sin no more, go and sin no more, go and sin no more" angle. Why is that?


Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness
and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the
kindness of God {is what} leads you to repentance? (Rom.2:4)

While not verbatim, God has to have loved the sinner prior to his repentance in order to have been kind in the first place.

Aren't all Christians supposed to try their best to emulate Gods ideals?


Also, your referance to "go and sin no more" only applies after repentance.


As for "Judging", all you are doing when doing so is imposing the reasons you would have done something if it were you who were doing that thing someone else is doing that you don't like.
i.e. you have no way of knowing what is truly in anothers heart when they do what they do.

One can only truly Judge oneself.

[Phoenix]

One can only truly Judge oneself.


One cannot be the Salt of the Earth without "judging others."

I do not judge anyone's soul; God does that. I wouldn't even attempt to send Joseph Stalin to Hell; God must examine his heart and do that.

I can and do judge behavior.

[Joe King]

One can only truly Judge oneself.


One cannot be the Salt of the Earth without "judging others."

I do not judge anyone's soul; God does that. I wouldn't even attempt to send Joseph Stalin to Hell; God must examine his heart and do that.

I can and do judge behavior.
I'm sure it's rooted in your own personal beliefs, too.
That you are attempting to impose on others via force of government.

A government I might add is supposed recognize the Equal Rights of all under the law.

You want to truly fix it?
Lobby .gov to get out of the "marriage" business.

That fixes the root of the problem.
i.e. don't waste your time fighting the symptom.

[Phoenix]

That you are attempting to impose on others via force of government.


Oh, bullshit. This is a f@ggot-led campaign to use government ("the courts") to REDEFINE AN ANCIENT INSTITUTION TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR PERVERSION.




A government I might add is supposed recognize the Equal Rights of all under the law.


Can you show me one homosexual male who was prohibited from marrying a woman? Can you show me one homosexual female who was prohibited from marrying a man?

[Joe King]

That you are attempting to impose on others via force of government.


Oh, bullsh*t. This is a f@ggot-led campaign to use government ("the courts") to REDEFINE AN ANCIENT INSTITUTION TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR PERVERSION.




A government I might add is supposed recognize the Equal Rights of all under the law.


Can you show me one homosexual male who was prohibited from marrying a woman? Can you show me one homosexual female who was prohibited from marrying a man?


Marriage is also rooted in religion.
Our .gov is supposed to be impartial when it comes to personally held religious beliefs.

Again, work to get your .gov out of the marriage business. As that would solve the problem.
But you don't like that idea as that wouldn't allow the .gov to give preference to your faith-held beliefs.




Your second question is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[Phoenix]

A government I might add is supposed recognize the Equal Rights of all under the law.




Can you show me one homosexual male who was prohibited from marrying a woman? Can you show me one homosexual female who was prohibited from marrying a man?




Your second question is irrelevant to the topic at hand.


Read it again.

[Bull_Rides_Bear]

In every society where homosexuality has become "normal," that society quickly collapsed.

This meme is often parroted, but is it actually true?

For example, haven't all previous civilizations collapsed regardless of their stance on gay people? One might as well say: "all previous civilizations that have embraced heterosexuality have eventually perished."

[Joe King]

A government I might add is supposed recognize the Equal Rights of all under the law.




Can you show me one homosexual male who was prohibited from marrying a woman? Can you show me one homosexual female who was prohibited from marrying a man?




Your second question is irrelevant to the topic at hand.


Read it again.


Ok.

...read....read....read....read.....



Your second question deals with heterosexual marriage, thereby making it not applicaple to the discussion.

[Phoenix]

Your second question deals with heterosexual marriage, thereby making it not applicaple to the discussion.


You spew about "equality" and I pointed out that every homo male has the right to marry a woman, just like a normal man.

The issue is NOT "equal rights," but special rights. The "right" to define an ancient institution to "fit" their perversion.

[Bull_Rides_Bear]

They want special rights...


What special rights have gay people ever sought or ever been granted?

[Phoenix]

In every society where homosexuality has become "normal," that society quickly collapsed.

This meme is often parroted, but is it actually true?

For example, haven't all previous civilizations collapsed regardless of their stance on gay people? One might as well say: "all previous civilizations that have embraced heterosexuality have eventually perished."


Civilizations don't collapse because such societies embrace the Laws of God.

[Phoenix]

They want special rights...


What special rights have gay people ever sought or ever been granted?


We're not talking about happy people. We're talking about homosexuals.

The "right" to redefine an ancient institution to accommodate their perversion, the "right" to force others to "accept" them, the "right" to accord their characteristic disease (HIV/AIDS) special protections.

[Bull_Rides_Bear]

You spew about "equality" and I pointed out that every homo male has the right to marry a woman, just like a normal man.

The issue is NOT "equal rights," but special rights. The "right" to define an ancient institution to "fit" their perversion.


A straight person can legally marry the spouse they desire. I think gay people want that same right.

BTW, if gay marriage becomes the law of the land, it would apply to everyone equally.. You could conceivably marry a man at that point, so the right to marry would apply equally to gays and straights alike. How do you construe 'special rights' out of that?

[Bull_Rides_Bear]

Civilizations don't collapse because such societies embrace the Laws of God.


All prior societies that have "embrace the Laws of God" have collapsed.

[Phoenix]

You spew about "equality" and I pointed out that every homo male has the right to marry a woman, just like a normal man.

The issue is NOT "equal rights," but special rights. The "right" to define an ancient institution to "fit" their perversion.


A straight person can legally marry the spouse they desire. I think gay people want that same right.

BTW, if gay marriage becomes the law of the land, it would apply to everyone equally.. You could conceivably marry a man at that point, so the right to marry would apply equally to gays and straights alike. How do you construe 'special rights' out of that?


Every male has the the right to marry the woman of his choosing, and every woman has the right to marry the man of his choosing.

"Marriage" is an ancient institution defined as the union of man and woman. If that is changed to accommodate f@gs, it's no longer marriage, damaging or destroying the institution cherished by millions of normal couples.

F@gs don't want the right to the legal rights of marriage; they want to destroy the institution itself. They already have access to the legal rights of marriage.

[Phoenix]

Civilizations don't collapse because such societies embrace the Laws of God.


All prior societies that have "embrace the Laws of God" have collapsed.


Please STOP with the sodomistic sophistry.

Societies do not collapse if they continue to embrace the Laws of God. You knew exactly what I meant, both times.

[Bull_Rides_Bear]

The "right" to redefine an ancient institution to accommodate their perversion

Legal, taxpaying citizens have the right to petition their government for redress of grievances and change those institutions of government accordingly.




the "right" to force others to "accept" them, the "right" to accord their characteristic disease (HIV/AIDS) special protections.


Whether you accept gay people or not isn't really relevant to the legal discussion of gay marriage. Your ability to vote no on gay marriage, or lobby against it, is really the extent of the impact your views can have.

[Bull_Rides_Bear]

F@gs don't want the right to the legal rights of marriage; they want to destroy the institution itself. They already have access to the legal rights of marriage.


This is a rather transparent bait and switch argument you are attempting to use.

Gay people ARE seeking the legal rights of marriage, yet you have to portray them as wanting "to destroy the institution itself."

Laughable.

[BrewTech]

Your second question deals with heterosexual marriage, thereby making it not applicaple to the discussion.



The issue is NOT "equal rights," but special rights. The "right" to define an ancient institution to "fit" their perversion.


Modern state-sanctioned marriage is not the ancient institution that you refer to. Why do you keep getting the two mixed up? If you could get that point straight, we would probably agree.

I know, I know, they already have civil unions.

Why don't you just worry about your own marriage, and leave others alone, as you would have them do?

[Wandering Wastrel]

Just wait until the first high profile gay divorce. I'd give my left testicle to see that arrogant bloated fop Elton John get shaken down for everything he's worth by a bitter simpering ex-lover in a high profile gay divorce.


I assume that the courts will treat gay divorce the same way they treat straight divorce. Therefore, when two men divorce, each of them will have to give half of everything they own to two lesbians who are divorcing.

[StackerKen]

:D

[Joe King]

Civilizations don't collapse because such societies embrace the Laws of God.


All prior societies that have "embrace the Laws of God" have collapsed.


Please STOP with the sodomistic sophistry.

Societies do not collapse if they continue to embrace the Laws of God. You knew exactly what I meant, both times.

So apparently it isn't a part of Gods plan for any society to have not strayed.

For if they hadn't strayed, the proof would be in their still being here.


I contend that's it's impossible for anyone to do anything that doesn't further the plan. No matter what they do.
Gonna take a left turn at the intersection? Part of the plan. Decide to turn right? Hey, that works too.

It's like this. Lets say I took my time machine and went back in time and succeeded in killing Hitler.
All that would do would make it so that you all know some other name than Hitler.
i.e. the same stuff would've happened, as someone else would have simply filled the role.

Life really is a stage.

[Saul Mine]

I also Agree.

But the fact that some judge feels he can go against the will of the people, Bothers me


Well, that depends on whether the people recall that judge, doesn't it? If they can't get a quorum to unseat him then he does in fact represent the will of a majority of the people, or at least their lack of concern.

[StackerKen]

"We The People" means each individual person. It does NOT mean that 51% get to tell the other 49% how to live their lives.


I have been thinking about this. and I see folks agree with you (Applauds)

Surely you don't think that the 49% should tell the 51% how to live. Do you?

And You don't think one Judge should tell all the people how they should live do you?

So who decides?

Sure the government should stay out of some parts of our lives.
But what about the laws that need to be in place?

Who do you think should decide those? one man?

a small group of men?

or the People?

I think the "we the People" was working OK. Until the government stopped Representing the people.

Now we have judges doing what they feel is right and rewriting the Constitution or ignoring the Constitution and the people.

[Phoenix]

Why don't you just worry about your own marriage, and leave others alone, as you would have them do?


I'm right, they're wrong, it's as simple as that. Homosexuality is a public health menace, not a "private thing for someone's bedroom."

[StackerKen]

We the People of Ca. are gonna vote to legalize marijuana in Nov.

But some frigging Judge is gonna tell us later that we can't.

that's BS

[Phoenix]

Well, that depends on whether the people recall that judge, doesn't it? If they can't get a quorum to unseat him then he does in fact represent the will of a majority of the people, or at least their lack of concern.


You cannot "recall" a Federal "judge."

[Kali]

What's great about all this is that no matter what kind of wacky opinions some may have on this issue God gets the final say and we know how that plays out.

He told us how it is and how it's going to be long before the first homosexual ever stepped out of the closet.

Any opinion opposite of what he said will prove itself to be wrong.

[StackerKen]

Well, that depends on whether the people recall that judge, doesn't it? If they can't get a quorum to unseat him then he does in fact represent the will of a majority of the people, or at least their lack of concern.


You cannot "recall" a Federal "judge."


We the people should have never let that happen.

Thats BS

[StackerKen]

We the People didn't want Obamacare, But the frigging demogrates in Washington decided they knew better.

We the people supported the people of AZ. when they passed the immigration law....But the Dems in Washington shot that down as well.

[zap]

We the People didn't want Obamacare, But the frigging demogrates in Washington decided they knew better.

We the people supported the people of AZ. when they passed the immigration law....But the Dems in Washington shot that down as well.




Yep Ken, they do exactly what they want to do, vote all you want, we the people (the small people) have no say in it. When the government crashes and all goes to hell then we will have a say as, we the people.

[1970 silver art]

We the People didn't want Obamacare, But the frigging demogrates in Washington decided they knew better.

We the people supported the people of AZ. when they passed the immigration law....But the Dems in Washington shot that down as well.




But....but....but......Stacker........The gov't knows what's best for us. Everybody knows that the gov't has our best interest at heart. :sarc: :sarc: :sarc: :sarc: :sarc: :sarc: :sarc:

On a serious note, Zap is right in that the gov't is going to do what it wants anyway. It will not listen to the people. For example, Did the gov't listen to the people when they yelled "NO!" to TARP? Nope. Did the gov't listen to the people when they yelled "NO!" to the Health Care reform bill? Nope.

People can yell "NO!" to same-sex marriage all they want but guess what? They will not listen to the people and will do whatever they want and that means allowing same-sex marriages. The gov't only listens to the Lobbyist pimps and the special interest groups with deep pockets.

[zap]

Whoever holds the most money has all the power. We all know that.

[vacuum]

I think homosexuals should be able to have civil unions, but marriages should be specific to heterosexual couples, and specifically civil unions shouldn't have any tax, economic, or similar benefits that marriages have.

The reason the state (and by extension society) gives marriages special status is because that is where children come from. By encouraging people to have children by giving them special benefits, it smoothly ushers in the next generation of tax payers.

There is no reason for non-heterosexual couple to be given these benefits because they aren't starting a family. There aren't tax benefits for personal happiness in other aspects in life, such as doing a hobby you love, traveling, or going to social events. Why should there be tax benefits for having a relationship that is personally satisfying? I'm sorry if this sounds biased, but unfortunately nature didn't make homosexual couples beneficial to propagating society. The economic benefits of sharing a living space, cooking together, and commuting should be enough of an incentive for two people to live together without extra benefits (at other people's cost of course). Think of it like subsidizing farming.

[BrewTech]

I think homosexuals should be able to have civil unions, but marriages should be specific to heterosexual couples, and specifically civil unions shouldn't have any tax, economic, or similar benefits that marriages have.

The reason the state (and by extension society) gives marriages special status is because that is where children come from. By encouraging people to have children by giving them special benefits, it smoothly ushers in the next generation of tax payers.

There is no reason for non-heterosexual couple to be given these benefits because they aren't starting a family. There aren't tax benefits for personal happiness in other aspects in life, such as doing a hobby you love, traveling, or going to social events. Why should there be tax benefits for having a relationship that is personally satisfying? I'm sorry if this sounds biased, but unfortunately nature didn't make homosexual couples beneficial to propagating society. The economic benefits of sharing a living space, cooking together, and commuting should be enough of an incentive for two people to live together without extra benefits (at other people's cost of course). Think of it like subsidizing farming.

That may be the most collectivist post I have ever read on this forum.

I guess it just proves my point that the only reason govt grants privileges to those who sign away the rights to their relationship is because it serves to breed new slaves to feed the beast.

Sickening. What's more sickening is that someone on this board would actually support that idea.

[Joe King]

What benefits do married people get relative to taxes?

All I've ever heard of is the so-called marriage penalty when it comes to taxes.

:conf:

IMHO, the bennys are next of kin Rights, Rights of inheritance, and other such mundane things.



But to be perfectly honest, if people in this Nation put forth as much energy towards monitoring what our leaders have been doing in Washington DC as they do worrying about other peoples private lives, we'd not be facing into the abyss of financial Armageddon as we currently are. :'(

I'll trade gay marriage for an honest monetary system any day of the week.
Anyone with me on that?

[Skirnir]

What benefits do married people get relative to taxes?

All I've ever heard of is the so-called marriage penalty when it comes to taxes.

:conf:

IMHO, the bennys are next of kin Rights, Rights of inheritance, and other such mundane things.



But to be perfectly honest, if people in this Nation put forth as much energy towards monitoring what our leaders have been doing in Washington DC as they do worrying about other peoples private lives, we'd not be facing into the abyss of financial Armageddon as we currently are. :'(

I'll trade gay marriage for an honest monetary system any day of the week.
Anyone with me on that?



I am. It is just another façade used to distract the people i.e. the circus part of 'bread and circuses'.