Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/20/2004 5:13:17 PM EST
Here in Utah, We have an amendment on the ballot which will define:
(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.


How would you vote?

P.S. how do I make a poll?
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:15:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2004 5:16:29 PM EST by Gunner1X]
Sounds good to me. Homos and their agenda scare the crap out of me.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:18:35 PM EST
No government should have any influence in marriages, which are a strictly religious event. Instead, a sheet of paper with 2 names and the words "Civil Union" should be at the top, for legal purposes (like if someone dies).

Only churches should marry a couple, and that church can decide whom its going to marry.

That's my opinion and I am sticking to it.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:21:17 PM EST
I really don't care either way. I could care less what homosexuals do - marry - don't marry - whatever, it doesn't affect me.

Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:27:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By MoparMike:
No government should have any influence in marriages, which are a strictly religious event. Instead, a sheet of paper with 2 names and the words "Civil Union" should be at the top, for legal purposes (like if someone dies).

Only churches should marry a couple, and that church can decide whom its going to marry.

That's my opinion and I am sticking to it.



+1

Too much gooberment involvement in how people live their life as it is.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:32:03 PM EST
I could care less what they do, but I don't think it should be up to the government.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:38:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2004 5:48:32 PM EST by 444slayer]
The same ammendment is on the ballot here. I voted for it today.

Marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. I f 2 homosexuals want to have a relationship, that's fine as long as they leave me alone. But I don't think it's normal, or natural, and my opinion will not change.

That being said, I think the whole piece of paper thing is stupid anyway. ----It's a trap!!!
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:58:33 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:58:59 PM EST
What goes on between a man and a consenting sheep is none of my nor the govt's business.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 5:59:11 PM EST
Its not the government deciding. Its not "up to the govenment". Its the PEOPLE deciding what type of society they want to live in. We all have the right to make the laws we live by. The fabric of society is very thin and we don't need homosexuality to be condoned as an "alternitive lifestyle". It isn't. Some people are born healthy and some people are not born healthy. We, as a society, should be working on a cure for homosexuality [birth defect]. And eventually rid our society of this disease.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:02:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By rainman:
Its not the government deciding. Its not "up to the govenment". Its the PEOPLE deciding what type of society they want to live in. We all have the right to make the laws we live by. The fabric of society is very thin and we don't need homosexuality to be condoned as an "alternitive lifestyle". It isn't. Some people are born healthy and some people are not born healthy. We, as a society, should be working on a cure for homosexuality [birth defect]. And eventually rid our society of this disease.



Yes, just like the liberals want to do with guns and Christianity. If I recall correctly, the Nazis thought Judiaism was a disease too.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:06:07 PM EST
Your comparing homosexuality with a religion?

Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:06:21 PM EST
how about this:
marriage is a sacrament, or a religious rite

any "marriage" by government is not valid and not recognized for tax breaks, etc....it is purely up to your religion
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:08:27 PM EST
How about, being a HOMO gets you NO special rights.

And yes I would vote for the passage of an amendment like that.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:11:05 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2004 6:12:58 PM EST by MoparMike]

Originally Posted By rainman:
Your comparing homosexuality with a religion?




No, I am saying that both religion and homosexuality are ways of life. No one has the right to dictate what is the proper way to worship except God Himself, and no one has any right to dictate how two consenting adults act together.

And the last time I checked into the "proper way to worship," there were hundreds of different denominations. Would someone like to step up to the plate and say that their way is the ONLY way?



You are free to believe what you want, but you are not allowed to push that on others. I dont see any homosexuals saying that being a heterosexual is evil, as 98% of them have learned to live and let live.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:11:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By mikejohnson:
how about this:
marriage is a sacrament, or a religious rite

any "marriage" by government is not valid and not recognized for tax breaks, etc....it is purely up to your religion



+1

Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:15:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By MoparMike:

Originally Posted By rainman:
Your comparing homosexuality with a religion?




No, I am saying that both religion and homosexuality are ways of life. No one has the right to dictate what is the proper way to worship except God Himself, and no one has any right to dictate how two consenting adults act together.

And the last time I checked into the "proper way to worship," there were hundreds of different denominations. Would someone like to step up to the plate and say that their way is the ONLY way?



You are free to believe what you want, but you are not allowed to push that on others. I dont see any homosexuals saying that being a heterosexual is evil, as 98% of them have learned to live and let live.



You're grasping at staws. Your argument is weak as water.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:20:47 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2004 6:25:02 PM EST by Rev-Rob]
Hay what are you guys talking about? Marraige is totally a government thing. As a minister I dont marry anyone unless they first get a marraige Licencee from the state! The state dictates at what age you can get married, what tests are needed if any, makes sure your divorced if needed and certifies me as a religious leader to perform the cerimony, sign the licence and send documentation to them.

If I marry anyone without a Licence it means nothing to our society.

In the old days : ) way back when, you got married by the state (Betrothed) and then married by the church. You could get out of the state marraige but the church marraige was another story.

I believe that Utah is a perfect example of how the Fed Gov has already mandated the paramiters of Marraige. I believe that a condition for Utah's acceptance was to deny polygamy.

Today the government is already in Marraige more than ever. Federal judges around the country are rewriting marraige laws to include Gays. As seen in Mass a narrow decision by thier courts created Gay Marraige in that state and imposed the burden upon the legislature to deny it.

The problem with this is the fair faith and credit clause in the fed gov. This will be a usefull tool in groups in other states demanding that thier states grant them recognition of thier Mass marraige. Some times it wont even take that, the Attorny General of NY has already stated he believes NY must recognize MA gay marraiges.

Think this is the issue. Law suits and appeals have already been filed in other states challenging DOMA laws as well as appeals on convictions ranging from Incest and Polygamy to "inter generational love" Sorry I mean pedophelia.

As the man says gentlemen "were in it for the species"!!
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:22:16 PM EST
Logic dictates that homosexuality is a birth defect.

If you can't see that then you've been brainwashed.

Even plant life has male and female.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:22:29 PM EST
separation of church and state
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:23:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By rainman:
Its the PEOPLE deciding what type of society they want to live in. We all have the right to make the laws we live by.



It's good that we don't let people vote on things like assault weapons, because 60% of them would want to ban our guns.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:29:22 PM EST
A States Constitution is made to limit the power of the state, not to limit the people with an "only you can do this", or "You can't do that".

If it's wrong for society, then let society make laws against it. There is a procedure for that. This is completely different.

This has no place in a State or Federal Constitution.



Ugly.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:32:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2004 6:42:28 PM EST by Rev-Rob]

Originally Posted By mikejohnson:
separation of church and state



Does not exist!! Where exactly does that come from?

Not the constitution which guarentees the freedom of religion while guaranteeing that the state will not recognize one established religion over another. Yep thats right not "Will not respect religion" but "Will not respect the esablishment of Religion". Definition of "establishment" to create or a bussiness. Yes the 1st is not there to defend the gov from churches but to protect churches from the gov as was seen in England with the Catholics, Puritans and Anglicans to the toon of civil war.

Anyway the phrase Seperation of church and state" does mean just that as it comes not from a federal document, but from a private letter from Thomas Jeferson to the Danbury Baptist Church to lay to rest thier fears of the US Establishing a state church like mother England and thus making them second class citizens all over again. Hence once again this is why the 1st Ammendement guarntees not repect to the establisment of religion and guarentees the free exercise there of.

Darn it Jim Im just a country Pastor!!
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:35:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By rainman:
Logic dictates that homosexuality is a birth defect.

If you can't see that then you've been brainwashed.

Even plant life has male and female.



Actually the major legitimate studies lean toward a genetic predisposition in most cases which can be triggered or fostered by experience. But just as with a pedisposition to alchohalism it does not mean you will ever become such.

Also the difference between male and female homosexuality is quite stark.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:37:53 PM EST
CJ - we have an amendment that protects our right to keep and bear.

What this country needs to do is admit that homosexuality IS a birth defect. Not an alternitive lifestyle. Not a choice. Its a sickness. It needs a medical cure.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 6:40:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2004 6:43:48 PM EST by Rev-Rob]

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By rainman:
Its the PEOPLE deciding what type of society they want to live in. We all have the right to make the laws we live by.



It's good that we don't let people vote on things like assault weapons, because 60% of them would want to ban our guns.



Well our for fathers in thier God given wisdom proclaimed certain unalienable rights which inlcude the right to bear arms, free speach and religion. Gays dont have a right to marry under the constitution Federal or otherwise. How can I take away a right you never had?

Now some might say the right to life liberty and happiness in the constitution means gay marraige? Well the same men who wrote that doument where instrumental in the creation of thier respective states first laws and in each and every one of those states Homosexual activity was against the law and punishible by death. So I think it is heighly unlikely they thought homosexuality was happiness.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 7:08:51 PM EST
Quote "Gays dont have a right to marry under the constitution Federal or otherwise. How can I take away a right you never had?"

How I got on the pro-gay side of this arguement, I'll never know.

but...

The constitution does not grant rights! It limits the governments ability to take away liberties.

I've read the arguements that homosexuality is a birth defect, or disease. Would you have an amendment to the constitution that says only people free of birth defects and diseased minds are allowed to get married? You'd have a big list of "shall not be infringed", followed by a statement limiting people instead of government. The constitution is the wrong venue. Plain and simple.

This is something for society and the legislature to iron out. The constitution should not be used to pass law. It is the basis for freedoms and should not be used to limit freedoms no matter how twisted those liberties may be. That is why we have a law making body in government.

If you believe strongly for this, then try to have a law passed if you can. Do not amend the State Constitution. That would be wrong.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 7:16:00 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2004 7:16:45 PM EST by Combat_Jack]
Homosexuality may well be some sort of birth defect- as it is a evolutionary dead end. But the government does not exist to legislate morality.

ETA- I keep forgetting to say that I am CJ's brother and using his account to post.

Seth
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 7:16:11 PM EST

Originally Posted By _Ugly_:
Quote "Gays dont have a right to marry under the constitution Federal or otherwise. How can I take away a right you never had?"

How I got on the pro-gay side of this arguement, I'll never know.

but...

The constitution does not grant rights! It limits the governments ability to take away liberties.

I've read the arguements that homosexuality is a birth defect, or disease. Would you have an amendment to the constitution that says only people free of birth defects and diseased minds are allowed to get married? You'd have a big list of "shall not be infringed", followed by a statement limiting people instead of government. The constitution is the wrong venue. Plain and simple.

This is something for society and the legislature to iron out. The constitution should not be used to pass law. It is the basis for freedoms and should not be used to limit freedoms no matter how twisted those liberties may be. That is why we have a law making body in government.

If you believe strongly for this, then try to have a law passed if you can. Do not amend the State Constitution. That would be wrong.




Um safguarding your liberties ensures and thus grants those right? Same thing? The document states "Are endowed with certain unallienable rights, such as" sounds like its stating your "Rights" to me?

Sorry laws are laws and the contitution is the constitution. My state already has a DOMA law so? But when those laws are challenged by unelected judges well then its up to society to set instone such beliefs and that is done my making it a part of the constituion. Its not limiting freesdoms its esablishing fundimental understandings of who we are and what we believe.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 7:18:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2004 7:25:14 PM EST by Rev-Rob]

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Homosexuality may well be some sort of birth defect- as it is a evolutionary dead end. But the government does not exist to legislate morality.



Morals as in what is good and bad? Ya the Govenment should not say what is right and wrong? Murder, theft, drugs no gov can deny my right to such? A government of the people legislates thair morals all the time and thus shapes its society and defines freedom.

That is funny especially since in this case your missing the total point that is a amendment to the constitution is passed by congress than ratified by the states and as such is the perfect example of democracy. So your against the people having a say which would leave it up to unelected judges.

Just so we are clear.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 8:14:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By Rev-Rob:


Um safguarding your liberties ensures and thus grants those right? Same thing? The document states "Are endowed with certain unallienable rights, such as" sounds like its stating your "Rights" to me?

Safeguarding our liberties is definitely not the same as granting rights. The Constitution enumerates rights. And while the Constitution states some rights, it does not state them all. It does however address this issue with the ninth amendment.

I'll use the United States Constitution for my examples as the states constitutions are generally worded similarly. The ninth states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Constitution "enumerates" our rights. It does enumerate them all. It does not grant rights. It limits government, not people. That is why I believe the amendment should not be in a state or federal Constitution.



Sorry laws are laws and the contitution is the constitution.
Nothing to be sorry about, we simply disagree and will probably spend the next 6 months argueing our points until we try to throttle one another.

My state already has a DOMA law so? But when those laws are challenged by unelected judges well then its up to society to set instone such beliefs and that is done my making it a part of the constituion. Its not limiting freesdoms its esablishing fundimental understandings of who we are and what we believe.

Judges challenging laws are part of the process. Maybe the judges rulings need to be challenged back. The only thing that should be set in stone are the freedoms and liberties. The laws will come and go as society changes. It seems as though the attempt at making this an amendment is more of an attempt at keeping the laws from changing as society changes.

I'm sure we could swap points for days and not make any headway.

I suppose that is why we all need to vote and do what we believe is the right thing.

Take it easy Rev-Rob




Link Posted: 10/20/2004 8:41:41 PM EST
I believe that the only reason for a government to step in is to protect one person from another. I don't believe that drugs should be illegal. Since homosexuals marrying each other does not harm me, the government, even one of the people has no right to step in.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 3:13:27 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/21/2004 3:14:38 AM EST by Rev-Rob]

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I believe that the only reason for a government to step in is to protect one person from another. I don't believe that drugs should be illegal. Since homosexuals marrying each other does not harm me, the government, even one of the people has no right to step in.



Is like the drugs are a victimless crime statement Bill Mahr likes to to quote? And if we ignore the full impact of the situation this could also be said about homosexuality. For example damage done in anal sex, the fact that the average gay male has 25 to 75 partners, the spread of Aids, the damage shown by gay marraige to Marraige as shown in Holland and scandinavia where Marraige has becaome almost extinct and as much as 90% of children are born out of wedlock.

If homosexuality is in anyway mental illness as others have said than your saying they have a right not to be helped but rather to promote it. Teach it to our children in school, bring adopted children up in it and open the doors to what next? Polygamy, incest, intergenerational love?

Oh I think there is a whole lot or hurting going on.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 8:03:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By Rev-Rob:


For example damage done in anal sex, the fact that the average gay male has 25 to 75 partners, the spread of Aids,

the damage shown by gay marraige to Marraige as shown in Holland and scandinavia where Marraige has becaome almost extinct and as much as 90% of children are born out of wedlock.-I don't see the problem here. They have their way of doing thing things, and who am I to say they are wrong.

If homosexuality is in anyway mental illness as others have said than your saying they have a right not to be helped but rather to promote it. Teach it to our children in school, bring adopted children up in it and open the doors to what next?-I don't see what right we have to stop them.

Polygamy, incest, intergenerational love?- Anything that happens between two consenting adults is NONE OF MY BUSINESS.




Seth
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 8:38:26 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/21/2004 8:44:36 AM EST by Rev-Rob]

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By Rev-Rob:


For example damage done in anal sex, the fact that the average gay male has 25 to 75 partners, the spread of Aids,

the damage shown by gay marraige to Marraige as shown in Holland and scandinavia where Marraige has become almost extinct and as much as 90% of children are born out of wedlock.-I don't see the problem here. They have their way of doing thing things, and who am I to say they are wrong.

If homosexuality is in anyway mental illness as others have said than your saying they have a right not to be helped but rather to promote it. Teach it to our children in school, bring adopted children up in it and open the doors to what next?-I don't see what right we have to stop them.

Polygamy, incest, intergenerational love?- Anything that happens between two consenting adults is NONE OF MY BUSINESS.




Seth



Well that seems to be the point to may people like yourself who dont care about the future of this society. By your reason if its consenting adults then drug use, spausal abuse, and suicide are OK.
You also then dont have a problem with the spread of Aids, the children who will be subject to the actions of consenting adults and the total disolution of any sense of family.

Good example a porstitute is a consenting adult she has multible partners every day. Catches and spreads aids to numerious men who intern give it to thier unsuspecting wives and unborn children. The prostitute has numerious children also infected and what does she do with them. Well might get welfare for them or maybe sell drugs. If these children live, what do you think thier contrabution to society will be?

Since you have no right to condemn them or stop them I hope you pay allot of taxes to pay for the welfare, police and firefighters to handle this women, the drugs and alchohal, violence ect associated with these consenting adults.

I also hope she moves next door to you, ya your property value may decline but darn it you decided not to stop consenting adults. More to the point I hope you see in her children eyes and say but your moms a consenting adult.

Seem od that I should say this? Well thats what you are saying should be allowed to happen to all of us? Society is a social contract not just between individuals but between individuals and the society as a whole. Dont ever whine about rampant drugs, alchohal, drunk driving, prositution, children in abusive homes, high healthcare costs ect. Because there all done by consenting adults.


Link Posted: 10/21/2004 8:49:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By MoparMike:
No government should have any influence in marriages, which are a strictly religious event. Instead, a sheet of paper with 2 names and the words "Civil Union" should be at the top, for legal purposes (like if someone dies).

Only churches should marry a couple, and that church can decide whom its going to marry.

That's my opinion and I am sticking to it.



+1

If the folks in congress really wanted to quash the "gay maraige" issue, they would do 2 things.

#1 - Amend/modify the tax code to allow beneficiary status to designated persones for pensions and tax deferred health and retirement plans. Currently the law/IRS code only allows spouse and dependents to receive funds after the participant's demise - changing this eliminates one of the biggest "legal" arguments for the issue.

#2 - mandate that health insurance companies must cover someone, as long as the primary insured (employee) pays for them, regardless of "married" status. (Many insurers do this today). It shouldn't matter to them if I want to cover my girfreind, boyfriend, whatever... as long as they get their $$. If they wanted to charge a marginally higher rate for non-married coverage (anticipating, no doubt, the argument of "increased paperwork issues due to the flexibility of a non-married relationship") that's fine. As long as they don't have pre-existing conditions, or are covered currently by another insurere, then they get covered. This eliminates "legal" argument #2.

I see enough abused children and disfunctional relationships in the "straight" community. As long as 2 folks give a shit about each other, and are willing to commit to a relationship and work together to make their lives better, who am I to say that's wrong?

If it is a sin, then they''ll answer to The Man when their time comes.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 9:01:27 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/21/2004 9:02:39 AM EST by Rev-Rob]

Originally Posted By Tango7:

Originally Posted By MoparMike:
No government should have any influence in marriages, which are a strictly religious event. Instead, a sheet of paper with 2 names and the words "Civil Union" should be at the top, for legal purposes (like if someone dies).

Only churches should marry a couple, and that church can decide whom its going to marry.

That's my opinion and I am sticking to it.



+1

If the folks in congress really wanted to quash the "gay maraige" issue, they would do 2 things.

#1 - Amend/modify the tax code to allow beneficiary status to designated persones for pensions and tax deferred health and retirement plans. Currently the law/IRS code only allows spouse and dependents to receive funds after the participant's demise - changing this eliminates one of the biggest "legal" arguments for the issue.

#2 - mandate that health insurance companies must cover someone, as long as the primary insured (employee) pays for them, regardless of "married" status. (Many insurers do this today). It shouldn't matter to them if I want to cover my girfreind, boyfriend, whatever... as long as they get their $$. If they wanted to charge a marginally higher rate for non-married coverage (anticipating, no doubt, the argument of "increased paperwork issues due to the flexibility of a non-married relationship") that's fine. As long as they don't have pre-existing conditions, or are covered currently by another insurere, then they get covered. This eliminates "legal" argument #2.

I see enough abused children and disfunctional relationships in the "straight" community. As long as 2 folks give a shit about each other, and are willing to commit to a relationship and work together to make their lives better, who am I to say that's wrong?

If it is a sin, then they''ll answer to The Man when their time comes.




And when polygamy and poly amorious joinings come to be legal as well? How exactly will we decided who is with who? When? How? Ya they get thier money or will they? Well there will be unions you say! Um as seen in Hollanmd and scandinavia what happens is no one gets married. In some of these places 30-90% of the children are born out of wedlock.

The average gay male has upwards of 75 partners and has no interst in marraige. So your saying since some chilren are lacking a stable supportive heterosexual home then heck lest just get rid of the expectation.

Oh and the only way to support the transient nature of a post marraige society is socialized medicine. Looks peachy doesnt it!!
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 9:30:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By Rev-Rob:
Is like the drugs are a victimless crime statement Bill Mahr likes to to quote?



The war on drugs is a joke. If drugs were legalized (Rx for anything stronger then pot), the funds that are used for "enforcement" and the (tax) profits from sales would pay for the anticiapted healthcare burden that availble drugs might produce. That's my commnet here - there are other threads concerning the drug issue.


And if we ignore the full impact of the situation this could also be said about homosexuality. For example damage done in anal sex, the fact that the average gay male has 25 to 75 partners, the spread of Aids...


And letting same sex couples mary will change this how? Allowing CU/DP will change this how? Outright outlawing of homosexual behavior will change this how? Burning faggots for God will change this how? [COC discalimer: argumentative point - no personal or sterotype slam intended]

HIV/ADIS is spread by sex: oral,anal, and vaginal all have confirmed transmission rates. Admittedly, the potential for fluid-to-blood transfer is higher with anal sex, but what about hetero couples who like to "stuff it up her pooper and post pics"? Lesislating morality is like legislating common sense... it looks good on paper, but it doesn't work in practice.

IIRC, the gay community was leap-years ahead of us in the campaign to promote condom use - many straight folks still went "bareback" even at the height of the "AIDS epidemic" because, of course "They weren't gay, and AIDS is a gay disease, right?". Oops.


...the damage shown by gay marraige to Marraige as shown in Holland and scandinavia where Marraige has becaome almost extinct and as much as 90% of children are born out of wedlock. If homosexuality is in anyway mental illness as others have said than your saying they have a right not to be helped but rather to promote it. Teach it to our children in school, bring adopted children up in it and open the doors to what next? Polygamy, incest, intergenerational love? Oh I think there is a whole lot or hurting going on.


I won't try to support incest , and I'm not sure what your term "intergenerational love" means, but if it's a form of incest that skips generations, see the immediately preceding line about "no incest". From a biological standpoint (mutations, recessives, etc.) as well as caretaker / parental /sibing relationship standpoint, I don't think you'll find any defenders here.

[point of order] Just noticed your latest post as I was constructing mine, Revb-Bob:

In your earlier post (0813) you stated that

the fact that the average gay male has 25 to 75 partners
and

as much as 90% of children are born out of wedlock
.

I see by 1401 you have modifed you reference numbers slightly:

In some of these places 30-90% of the children are born out of wedlock.

The average gay male has upwards of 75 partners and has no interst in marraige.



How many partners is it? And, is it possible that the "average gay male" has no interest in marraige because marriage has been traditionally denied? If the polling question was "would you like to settle down someday with a single partner" the answer might have been different.

Anyway, back to my point... [/point of order]


And when polygamy and poly amorious joinings come to be legal as well? How exactly will we decided who is with who? When? How? Ya they get thier money or will they?


As far as poly relationships, why does there have to be an "ownership" of any individual by another? Realizing for argument's sake that we are not using the Scriptural definition of a wife "belonging" to her husband (no duh!)

As far as money, if I was entering a poly relationship, I assume that it would work one of three ways: #1 - ya get what ya brung (financially), and you split the profits, or #2 - everything get split, no matter whether you came with it or not, or #3 - you run like hell with what you can carry !

(I know, it sounds like a lot of divorces we've been witness to... it'slike a party on a pincushion - everybody's gonna get stuck ) Another aspect would be to form a partnership (corporate style), listing all participants as partners. This would give the others the option to "buy out" someone they not longer loved. (Hey, if only I could have "bought out" my ex GF....oh, wait.. I did )

Other factors to consider: what about the "mistress" factor? In europe, it is "accepted" that a man might take a mistress. In the states, I've heard of many uses of the "300 mile" rule for business trip one-nighters. Hey, a BJ isn't really sex, right Mr. Clinton?

I'm not saying I agree with any of it, but I don't think that two people (or three, or four), who are willing to make a committment to each other to work together to better their existence (and the existence of any children) necessarily need governmental approval. I know of several "common law" relationships that are better then some church wedded couples I know, because they give a shit about the other person, and about what effect their actions will have on that person, and their kids, if present.

The contrary side of that coin could be posited as a question:

Just because Joe steps out on Jane, does that endanger your marriage to your wife?

If you answer "No, because I hold myself responsible for my vows (and possibly, but not necessarily for this argument to God, Allah, Yaweh, whomever), and his lack of character/commitment will not corrode who I am", then why couldn't another individual have that same level of devotion and self-discipline, regardless of whether they go home to John, or Mary, or Bill and Linda and Janice?
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 9:59:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
What goes on between a man and a consenting sheep is none of my nor the govt's business.



You must be talking about Bin Laden aren't you?
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 10:02:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By MoparMike:
No government should have any influence in marriages, which are a strictly religious event. Instead, a sheet of paper with 2 names and the words "Civil Union" should be at the top, for legal purposes (like if someone dies).

Only churches should marry a couple, and that church can decide whom its going to marry.

That's my opinion and I am sticking to it.



+1

Marriage is a religious rite and should be left up to each religion.

The legal benefits of civil unions should be available to any 2 people who want one. Whether its Jane and John or Jane and Jane or Jay and his hetero lifemate Bob

Link Posted: 10/21/2004 10:03:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By Airwolf:

Originally Posted By MoparMike:
No government should have any influence in marriages, which are a strictly religious event. Instead, a sheet of paper with 2 names and the words "Civil Union" should be at the top, for legal purposes (like if someone dies).

Only churches should marry a couple, and that church can decide whom its going to marry.

That's my opinion and I am sticking to it.



+1

Too much gooberment involvement in how people live their life as it is.




::pounds fist on the table::

+1
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 10:04:35 AM EST
Have you ever seen a gay dog. Take it from me my wife's mom is gay. It is no picnic.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 10:12:49 AM EST
The people can ask to have any issue brought to a vote, but I think the government has better things to do that worry about what marriage consists of.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 10:14:49 AM EST
If a church says it's only man and woman, then that is their providence to do so. The state can't say shit though and if a couple men or a couple women want to get "married" then let them.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 10:18:08 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/21/2004 10:30:37 AM EST by Rev-Rob]

Originally Posted By Tango7:



[point of order] Just noticed your latest post as I was constructing mine, Revb-Bob:

In your earlier post (0813) you stated that

the fact that the average gay male has 25 to 75 partners
and

as much as 90% of children are born out of wedlock
.

I see by 1401 you have modifed you reference numbers slightly: In some of these places 30-90% of the children are born out of wedlock.

The average gay male has upwards of 75 partners and has no interst in marraige.



How many partners is it? And, is it possible that the "average gay male" has no interest in marraige because marriage has been traditionally denied? If the polling question was "would you like to settle down someday with a single partner" the answer might have been different.

.

Well Im not even gonna touch your case for multiple spouses, that speaks for itself.

As far as the gay disease thing it speak to that Gays where the primary victims. The average heterosexual has never surpassed the Gay community. Instead they gay community has been only surpassed by young Black females. Now that young black females catagory is not in my opinion representative as upon further attention you usually find prostitution and drug use as factors. So its not the average young Black women either.

To your point I dont think I ever condoned sleeping around by any person.

As for your problem with the math what exaclty dont you uundestand? Is not 75 the upwards limit in the 25-75 equation? And does not the 30 to 90% mean as much as 90% could apply? Is the % a problem?

And last but not least your arguement that Gays have not been allowed to marry so naturally they would not want to does not exist in reality. In Holland and Canada where they have been allowed to marry a very small almost minscule amount do.



Link Posted: 10/21/2004 10:22:16 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/21/2004 10:32:04 AM EST by Rev-Rob]

Originally Posted By hamptonyellowdog:
Have you ever seen a gay dog. Take it from me my wife's mom is gay. It is no picnic.




The homosexuality in nature I.E. situation is a bezar one at that. Books upon books have gone one way or the other as such intercourse is more often imposing dominance. I have had many bezzar discussions on whether same sex intercourse in prisons is Homosexual?

As for your wives mother. Yes it is no picnic. Suicide in the gay population is very high. gays say its because of societal preasures. Former Gays say its because of internal conflicts with the knowing its wrong.

Answer? Dont know Im not gay.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 10:24:02 AM EST
Do it! Nevada did.
Top Top