Gay Marriage

[signals]

Hence the rift between american catholics and the vatican which once insisted the world is flat and the sun revlves around it.

SOCUS and repubs should read Matthew 7:1 and stay out of peoples personal lives

American Catholics, much like the Vatrican, have their own version of the Bible.

Judge not lest ye be judged? HMMM, isn't it the SCOTUS job to JUDGE? Your personal lives are no longer personal when they are up for public debate.

Oh BTW, verse 2
[sup] [/sup]For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Pick and choose chapter and verse and it suits your purpose. Read on and basically it says you will get yours in the long run.

 

[Ms Tree]

Nii-ce twist. Using EQUAL rights as a way to say that perversion should trump religion.

I don't oppose gay marriage on the government level, but I laugh at those who stoop to saying that these EQUAL rights are denied because it's what Sunday school taught us. Practice what you preach, separate church and state. In my beliefs, gay is wrong, BUT the government has a right to secure equality in the secular level as it deems to its profit. I can say that Caesar gets what's Caesar's. I have no problem with that. I can't help that in the USA Christians are retarded and render unto Caesar's what is God's, but you sinking to their low makes you no better!

No twist at all. Perversion is a POV. Some used to find interracial marriage a perversion. Some religions find that sex for pleasure is a perversion. Some feel that a 40 yr old man married to a 20 yr old woman is a perversion (my sister and brother in law have been married for over 30 years). What you find perverse is not a legal argument and does not matter in the least.


This argument is solely about equal rights. The right of two (or more) adults to enter in to a binding contract. You may laugh all you want but you have yet to provide a legal argument against equal marriage. I do practice what I preach. I do my best to separate my personal feelings from my positions on peoples rights.


No idea what you are ranting on about in the rest of your post. Bottom line is if you have a compelling legal argument go for it, other wise it really does not matter.

 

[RDU Jetblast]

American Catholics, much like the Vatrican, have their own version of the Bible.

Judge not lest ye be judged? HMMM, isn't it the SCOTUS job to JUDGE? Your personal lives are no longer personal when they are up for public debate.

Oh BTW, verse 2
[sup] [/sup]For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Pick and choose chapter and verse and it suits your purpose. Read on and basically it says you will get yours in the long run.

Dude, ye must not understand what verse two means. It supports vs 1. It supports my argument.

Yes, it is scotus' job to judge based strictly and soley on the constitution. Judge the issue by its morality and you will be judge simularly.

By the way, there are dozens of versions of the bible. But none are radically different from any other to my knowledge.

 

[RDU Jetblast]

I just re-read the first two lines of your post. You dont know what you Are talking about.

 

[southwind]

W T F...would YOU Know about copulation between a Man and Woman ???????????????????????

Where did I mention copulation.................Dolt ! Besides, you and Rosy Palm, gettin' it on, isn't considered copulation. Must be sad to have to take viagra all by yourself !

If that is fly at all, the same rights must apply to both. Adoption, surviorship, property, insurance... everything.

Even if that comes to pass there is still the issue of separate but equal. That was already struck down.

If you can provide a legal argument that shows why two people should not be allowed to marry have at it. I have yet to hear one. Lots of religious ones but no legal one.

Where exactly did you find your information regarding the reason for gay marriage?

I said "IMO" !

That would make them like some male-female relationships.

And ?

 

[Dog Wonder]

It would make heterosexuals just like you.

 

[Ms Tree]

I said "IMO" !

Fine, in my opinion the world is flat. Try backing up your opinion with a bit of knowledge or facts. Other wise you just continue to waste every ones time with your unfounded and unsound POV.

 

[southwind]

Put me on ignore then and stop crying !

 

[Ms Tree]

You are the one who sounds like they are crying. You could not present a rational thought if it came to you gift wrapped with a bow.

So long as you continue to spew your stupidity, I'll be here to point it out and laugh.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Wait until Bears starts his daily thread or two.

More boohooing.

 

[SparrowHawk]

One of the PRIMARY roles of government is the enforcement of Private Property rights. Within that limited scope there is also the enforcement of contracts resulting in the case of Marriage a Divorce Court to resolve disputes in a fair and equitable manner.

There is no real provision in the COTUS to support denial of the right to Liberty.

 

[Ms Tree]

You may have a point. There have been several staunch republicans who have been very vocal in their views and voting record again equal rights for gays only to be exposed as being gay them selves. Perhaps the adage of he who protests to much is applicable in this case as well?

 

[SparrowHawk]

You may have a point. There have been several staunch republicans who have been very vocal in their views and voting record again equal rights for gays only to be exposed as being gay them selves. Perhaps the adage of he who protests to much is applicable in this case as well?

I don't much care about motives, I care about individual Liberty and the right to live as you choose with as little interference from Government as possible. Honestly this issue shouldn't be one. I have no particular love for the Gay lifestyle or a particular hatred of it. Frankly it's none of my business what someone else does in their pursuit of happiness, just so long as they don't initiate force or otherwise interfere with my Liberty.

 

[southwind]

You are the one who sounds like they are crying. You could not present a rational thought if it came to you gift wrapped with a bow.

So long as you continue to spew your stupidity, I'll be here to point it out and laugh.

So you are saying "NO" gay couple wants to get hitched , simply because of the benefits of said hitching ?
Your are the naive and stupid one, in this discussion, if you believe that!
Again, don't like what you see or hear.............Ignore !

Yo Knucklehead.
You can 'crack on me ALL day long,....I find it comical.
BUT,
Truth be told,.....for whatever reason, you NEVER mention a Spouse, gal-pal, a date etc, but appear to be a sex expert, which then has me pondering if you 'may' be a ..Pickle Smoocher, perhaps a Voyeur or possess an assortment of Blow-up Dolls ! ?????????????????????

1. I don't believe in bringing my wife into any of the discussions here, as it's non-relavent and she is not here to voice her opinion on any of these discussions !
2. Sounds to me like your "Cruisin"...............Dolt !

 

[Ms Tree]

So you are saying "NO" gay couple wants to get hitched , simply because of the benefits of said hitching ?
Your are the naive and stupid one, in this discussion, if you believe that!
Again, don't like what you see or hear.............Ignore !

You are aware that everyone here can read your previous posts and tell that you are full of crap right?

So to review your BS.

Your post #9. Emphasis added. This where you said that some same sex unions involve love but a lot are for benefits.

How 'bout we call the gettin' together of a man and woman "Marriage" and the gettin' together of the same sex "Civil-Union" !
While I'm sure some of the same sex "Civil Unions" involve love, imo, a lot of it has to do with the benefits derived from that "Civil Union" whether they be tax breaks, insurance or even flight benies !

This was my post #11 (emphasis added) asking where you got your information regarding the reasons for same sex unions. I never implied, inferred, used or in any way alluded to any numbers one way or the other. That was all you. All I did was ask you to support another one of your idiotic unsubstantiated bigoted assumptions.

If that is fly at all, the same rights must apply to both. Adoption, surviorship, property, insurance... everything.

Even if that comes to pass there is still the issue of separate but equal. That was already struck down.

If you can provide a legal argument that shows why two people should not be allowed to marry have at it. I have yet to hear one. Lots of religious ones but no legal one.

Where exactly did you find your information regarding the reason for gay marriage?

And now we get your your latest lie asserting hat I some how said that no same sex unions were based on benefits even though it is clear for all to see that I never said that and that you are full of crap.


I do not believe that nor did I say it. I got married to my wife so that she would have health benefits first and fore most. I know several others with in my circle of friends who have done the same. You are the one who inferred numbers by using the term “some” and “a lot” but gave no sources to back your BS up. This lack of substantiation was more than likely due to the fact that there is none and even if there was it is unlikely you would ever find it given the fact that you do not research any of the crap that you post on here.


Further more. There is nothing in any legal writings, laws or anything else that specifies why two people can get married or have a civil union. The only requirements are that they be of legal age and consent to the union. Why two people enter the contract is irrelevant. I know I could care less as it is none of my damn business.


Again, as I said earlier, only in your dreams. So long as you continue to post lies I will be here to expose you for the fraud and liar that you are. So you can either deal with it or learn how to substantiate your claims with facts and research.