From here.
Edited By GORDON on 1154651295
My priorities.
It's somewhere in the 20s or so on my list, but I'm in favor of the legality of it not against it.
I still have yet to see an arguement in favor of banning gay marriage that isn't completely based on 1) forcing your religion on others, or 2) homophobia.
Edited By TPRJones on 1149529431
I still have yet to see an arguement in favor of banning gay marriage that isn't completely based on 1) forcing your religion on others, or 2) homophobia.
Edited By TPRJones on 1149529431
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
-
Mommy Dearest
- Posts: 1393
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 12:59 pm
homophobe. I think you hit the nail on the head.It's somewhere in the 20s or so on my list, but I'm in favor of the legality of it not against it.
I still have yet to see an arguement in favor of banning gay marriage that isn't completely based on 1) forcing your religion on others, or 2) homophobia.
Amen.
I was gonna do a post like:
What I've Learned From the Presidents
1) Sleeping with an intern? Lob missiles at foreign countries.
2) Approval rating in the shitter? Talk about banning gay marriage.
Whatever's going on, there's a distraction available somewhere.
I was gonna do a post like:
What I've Learned From the Presidents
1) Sleeping with an intern? Lob missiles at foreign countries.
2) Approval rating in the shitter? Talk about banning gay marriage.
Whatever's going on, there's a distraction available somewhere.
It's not me, it's someone else.
-
thibodeaux
- Posts: 8056
- Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:32 pm
I'm not for gay marriage not so much because of any religious beliefs, but because of what the fucking definition of marriage is. I've been all for a legally binding union for homosexuals for a number of years, just don't call it marriage.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
I'm all for black people counting in the census, just don't call them human, that's not what they are. 3/5s is plenty.I'm not for gay marriage not so much because of any religious beliefs, but because of what the fucking definition of marriage is. I've been all for a legally binding union for homosexuals for a number of years, just don't call it marriage.
And M-W disagrees with you, Vince.
It's not me, it's someone else.
I'm not for gay marriage not so much because of any religious beliefs, but because of what the fucking definition of marriage is. I've been all for a legally binding union for homosexuals for a number of years, just don't call it marriage.
I'm all for black people counting in the census, just don't call them human, that's not what they are. 3/5s is plenty.
And M-W disagrees with you, Vince.
Well god dam. MW disagrees with me. They also have an entry for coconspirator.
You show me how one person can conspire by himself (without a mental disorder) and I'll agree that coconspirator is a proper word.
I think I'll just start calling creationism science while we're at it.
I base my belief on marriage being between a man and a woman on history. I did some research on it in the past and only found a couple of cultures where same sex unions were recognized. One of them was an American Indian tribe. I forget what the other one was, but it was another culture of little significance.
I do find it interesting that where same sex unions are recognized that lesbian couples have a higher divorce rate than even hetero couples.
If making one woman happy in a marriage is hard, making two happy is impossible.
Oh, and I agree with Gordo.
Edited By Vince on 1150070492
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
If making one woman happy in a marriage is hard, making two happy is impossible.
I laughed.
I've never had a problem with homosexual marriage.
I will draw the line when people try to marry animals, inanimate objects, and people against their will.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
I think 2 dudes should be able to marry, though, as long as they're just friends. It's easy for a couple buddies to get along forever without all the "He hasn't said a word since dinner... is he mad at me?" bullshit. So there should be tax breaks and stuff afforded that kind of relationship.
All in all, if one type opf marriage is legal, I guess they all should be. Or at least left up to the states (like that will ever happen again).
All in all, if one type opf marriage is legal, I guess they all should be. Or at least left up to the states (like that will ever happen again).
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
I'm still curious about the states where polygomy used to be legal. Did the other states just not recognized the additional marriages?
The problem with leaving it up to the states is that the other states have to recognize the legality of the marriage (unless they passed a law or amended their state's Constitutions beforehand). Not that I have a problem leaving things up to the states, but differing standards of who can and can't be married could get confusing.
For instance, no marriage in Hollywood would be recognized at legit anywhere else because, let's face it... they don't even consider them legit in Hollywood.
If I ran my own state I wouldn't recognize gay marriages because I don't want to institute some sort of "proof of consumation" to weed out the ones looking for tax breaks. Or at aleast, I don't want to see any proof of consumation.
Not that a hetero couple couldn't do that, but let's be real. Would you put up with the amount of BS you do from your spouse if you weren't getting laid at least some of the time (even if it's bad sex). That'd have to be a big ass fucking tax break.
The problem with leaving it up to the states is that the other states have to recognize the legality of the marriage (unless they passed a law or amended their state's Constitutions beforehand). Not that I have a problem leaving things up to the states, but differing standards of who can and can't be married could get confusing.
For instance, no marriage in Hollywood would be recognized at legit anywhere else because, let's face it... they don't even consider them legit in Hollywood.
If I ran my own state I wouldn't recognize gay marriages because I don't want to institute some sort of "proof of consumation" to weed out the ones looking for tax breaks. Or at aleast, I don't want to see any proof of consumation.
Not that a hetero couple couldn't do that, but let's be real. Would you put up with the amount of BS you do from your spouse if you weren't getting laid at least some of the time (even if it's bad sex). That'd have to be a big ass fucking tax break.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
As Catt points out, if fake marriage is the issue, then maybe we need to clamp down on illegals marrying American citizens.
Two scenarios:
A - A gay couple get married and enjoy all the benefits and downfalls that any married couple face.
B - A gay couple and a lesbian couple get together and marry each other's partner so the state recognizes their marriages as between a man and a woman. They buy homes right next to each other to make it easier to live the lie by swapping mail, being around for any marriage decisions, etc.
In one scenario, the gay couple has zero headaches and lives as functioning, contributing members of society.
In the other, they do the same thing except they have to jump through a bunch of hoops to fool the system.
Meanwhile, Pablo can pretend he likes Mary Jane American so she'll foolishly marry him ASAP. He'll then bring over all his relatives and divorce her as soon as is legally possible.
Which is worse for American society?
Two scenarios:
A - A gay couple get married and enjoy all the benefits and downfalls that any married couple face.
B - A gay couple and a lesbian couple get together and marry each other's partner so the state recognizes their marriages as between a man and a woman. They buy homes right next to each other to make it easier to live the lie by swapping mail, being around for any marriage decisions, etc.
In one scenario, the gay couple has zero headaches and lives as functioning, contributing members of society.
In the other, they do the same thing except they have to jump through a bunch of hoops to fool the system.
Meanwhile, Pablo can pretend he likes Mary Jane American so she'll foolishly marry him ASAP. He'll then bring over all his relatives and divorce her as soon as is legally possible.
Which is worse for American society?
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Do you really want a list of all the things done throughout history that turned out to be stupid or wrong? That'd be a hell of a long list, you know.I base my belief on marriage being between a man and a woman on history. I did some research on it in the past and only found a couple of cultures where same sex unions were recognized. One of them was an American Indian tribe. I forget what the other one was, but it was another culture of little significance.
Do you have something more logical as a basis? I admit you've named a reason that doesn't seem to be based entirely on homophobia or religion (although one could argue that religion has had a strong effect on history, and thus could be a possible basis for this reason, too). But I was hoping for something that actually made some sort of sense.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
I was gonna say. Hell, not terribly long ago, homosexuality was a crime. A bit further back, it was a crime punishable by death.(although one could argue that religion has had a strong effect on history, and thus could be a possible basis for this reason, too).
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."