Predicto Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I'm fine with gay marriage. Just leaves more women for the rest of us. I dunno man. I know a smokin' hot lipstick lesbian couple. They have a child at my kids' school. And I mean Smokin'. It makes me want to cry sometimes at the waste. that is when I'm not thinking about just watching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Weirdo Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 portis are you really in love with your dog? I know you're making a stupid point. But I really am concerned. It was just a little too realistic if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 thanks?What was that? and how does that comment hold bearing here? You don't like my dog example do you? It holds bearing because you think you have 'resolved" things because you have convinced yourself that you are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I'm fine with gay marriage. Just leaves more women for the rest of us. Um ... you forgot about the lesbians. And I don't know how this thread has gone so long, but portisizzle, if you want to marry your dog, you can marry your damn dog. Your wife might not be very happy about it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Also, I don't think your marriage is as good as mine, I don't like you calling what you have a marriage, compared to what I have with my wife and child... (just food for thought) Missed this... Care to explain? You don't think my marriage is as good as yours? What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 thanks?What was that? and how does that comment hold bearing here? You don't like my dog example do you? I have a dog that I am in love with and wish to marry as well. Would you and your dog/lover like to make a marriage square with us? If I can convince my fish, then we could have a marriage pentagon going. Seriously, I don't want to get into the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashburnskinsfan Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 The "definition" of marriage is not up for debate. In our society it is clear that this means a temporary union between a man and woman. I fixed it for you. Gay unions are not a threat to marriage, nor to happy families, nor to kids having a loving home environment. Heterosexual men and women paying lipservice to the idea of life-long commitment is what has, and continues to, undermine marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 It holds bearing because you think you have 'resolved" things because you have convinced yourself that you are right. This is not the first time you have written this. I am making my points. I have an open mind. If you have a problem with my style them tell me. But from my side of the street I am doing no different than do you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I fixed it for you. Gay unions are not a threat to marriage, nor to happy families, nor to kids having a loving home environment. Heterosexual men and women paying lipservice to the idea of life-long commitment is what has, and continues to, undermine marriage. You are right in saying gay unions do not threaten marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Missed this...Care to explain? You don't think my marriage is as good as yours? What? :laugh: Oh the irony.....the IRONY I tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Missed this...Care to explain? You don't think my marriage is as good as yours? What? Well I can't speak for code, but if you are in love with and want to marry your dog, I would think that your marriage is in a little bit of trouble. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I have a dog that I am in love with and wish to marry as well. Would you and your dog/lover like to make a marriage square with us? If I can convince my fish, then we could have a marriage pentagon going. Seriously, I don't want to get into the debate. You can't marry your dog. But Code could probably hook you up with a nice church were they throw around the term marriage so loosely that you MIGHT get a pass. PM him........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 You are right in saying gay unions do not threaten marriage. then what's the problem? I have yet to see a logical arguement other than "the current defintion of marriage is between a man and a woman" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 then what's the problem? I have yet to see a logical arguement other than "the current defintion of marriage is between a man and a woman" My opinion is I really do not care what you call it when two men decide to get a union. So long as the term marriage is not included. Ever think about why two men would want marriage? Do they understand what the term really means and where the term comes from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 My opinion is I really do not care what you call it when two men decide to get a union. So long as the term marriage is not included.Ever think about why two men would want marriage? Do they understand what the term really means and where the term comes from? Well, we're actually in agreement, then. The term doesn't really mean anything, call it "special civil union", whatever, it doesn't really matter. The point is that the benefits and legal rights (burdens if you're losing 50%, I want half Eddie, HALF) should be available to anyone, regardless of the mix of the couple. Edit: that came out wrong, I wasn't saying the term marriage doesn't mean anything, just that it's not important that a gay union be referred to as a marriage. Honestly though, at that point, it IS just semantics, I don't see the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 My wife and I have four kids. Anyone with less than four kids is perverting the purpose of marriage which is to 'go forth and multiply.' Therefore I propose an amendment in which the state refuses to recognize any union between a man and a woman that does not result in four children within the first six years of 'marriage.' It's about as compelling as the dog analogy. Personally, I don't care if gays get the right to marry or not. Sure, they didn't choose to be gay, but I didn't choose for them to be gay either. Sorry, in the end it's not my problem. I don't approve of amending my state constitution though. That's overkill if you ask me. Write a law if you want, but I don't like mucking around with the constitution for something like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Well, we're actually in agreement, then. The term doesn't really mean anything, call it "special civil union", whatever, it doesn't really matter. The point is that the benefits and legal rights (burdens if you're losing 50%, I want half Eddie, HALF) should be available to anyone, regardless of the mix of the couple. Of course you do know that the movement in the gay community is not to simply create this "special civil union". The legal aspect is not the goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Of course you do know that the movement in the gay community is not to simply create this "special civil union". The legal aspect is not the goal. Did you read the proposed amendment? particularly this part: "would prohibit the state from creating or recognizing any legal status for unmarried persons that is similar to that of marriage." Again, I don't know why we need an amendment to the constitution for this ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raperry2 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 obviously the people that disagree with these outcomes are a minority. the vote isnt even close in virginia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 My wife and I have four kids. Anyone with less than four kids is perverting the purpose of marriage which is to 'go forth and multiply.' Therefore I propose an amendment in which the state refuses to recognize any union between a man and a woman that does not result in four children within the first six years of 'marriage.' It's about as compelling as the dog analogy. Personally, I don't care if gays get the right to marry or not. Sure, they didn't choose to be gay, but I didn't choose for them to be gay either. Sorry, in the end it's not my problem. I don't approve of amending my state constitution though. That's overkill if you ask me. Write a law if you want, but I don't like mucking around with the constitution for something like this. Not trying to get into the debate here, but just some legal perspective... If a state legislature were to pass a law banning same sex marriage or restricting a marriage to a union between man and woman, that law may actually be attacked and declared unconstitutional under the state constitution. Therefore, passing a state constitutional amendment is the "safest" route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 So mentally retarded people, or say incapacitated stroke victims shouldn't get benefits? I mean, they are abnormal right? What the hell kind of statement is this? You'll have to come up with a better example than that. Being metally retarded or having a stroke is not a choice Ramming you rod up some guys arse is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Did you read the proposed amendment? particularly this part:"would prohibit the state from creating or recognizing any legal status for unmarried persons that is similar to that of marriage." Again, I don't know why we need an amendment to the constitution for this ... I would argue that it was/ is the activist judges who have created law in select cases around this country. Legislatures create law not a judge. I would guess that this was the basis for these amendments. Do you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I think you're all secretly gay. There is no way you could spend this much time on one topic without enjoying the thoughts and visualizations of two men (or women) together.Honestly.. it's crossed your mind, right? Two men. Frenching. Pool side. Speedos. Oh yeah. You love it. Hooray gays! That's only Iggle fans. That's why you have to project such a "fearsome" image at your crappy stadium, to compensate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Of course you do know that the movement in the gay community is not to simply create this "special civil union". The legal aspect is not the goal. Of course. They want to be looked at in the same way as any other human being in a loving relationship. To be able to walk down the street and hold hands like any other couple and not get dirty looks or worse. They want public opinion to change. They're wrong with that, though. You can't legislate that. The legal part is all that should matter as far as the gov't is concerned. They have to realize that they can't force people to accept them that way, it will only come with time if ever. America is far too prejudiced to them right now for that to be a reasonable goal and it is NOT within their rights to ask the gov't to make it so. It IS within their rights to ask for the same protections, benefits and consideration under the law and from the gov't, though. IMO, those of the gay marriage movement who choose to concentrate on the word marriage and making it equal in people's MINDS have made a huge tactical error and are asking too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 The "definition" of marriage is not up for debate. In our society it is clear that this means a union between a man and woman. And, untill 50 years ago, it was defined as between one man, one woman, and one race. That definition was wrong. At the time. It didn't become wrong, it always was. (And it was unconstitutional. At the time. The words are "equal protection under the law". Not "equal protection, as long as society doesn't think it's icky".) ----- (I'll also point out: In our society, it's been clear for thousands of years that a life becomes a person at birth. Some folks are now trying (with some justification, IMO) to change that. Does the fact that life (or at least "human-ness") began at birth untill recently mean that it's evil to try to re-define it?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.