Does anyone find this sick?

[andvruss]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
In case you didn't realize, that was a little thing I like to call "satire"

until death or divorce do them part.

They should revise the ceremony to include the divorce part it just sounds so.... y'know.... "till death or divorce do us part!"

@ COMRADDICT, ANDVRUSS and other wackos:

If the purpose of marriage is raising kids, then should sterile or impotent folks be allowed to marry? What about if a couple states right out that they WON'T have children? Should they still be allowed to marry? What if I meet the girl of my dreams - at age 73? Should I still be allowed to marry?

Your argument is grade A manure.

I didn't say that the purpose of marriage is to have children. That isn't what it is primarily about. I am not anit-gay or lebsian, I just wish that they would ty to change form their......ways. I presume morals don't matter to you, Pontiuth, so I can't really argue against you.
It isn't moral and Biblical what they are doing.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
In case you didn't realize, that was a little thing I like to call "satire"

I was just about to post that you had proved the working defenation of satire. Then you had to ruin my fun

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

Originally posted by Comraddict
homo marriage is joke. they can't have biological kids. thru history i never heard of homo marriage until today! of course women didn't have rights etc before, but it is not same thing! purpose of marriage is love and making kids, raising family, making better future for kids.

That is not true. What about the people that get married and choose not to have kids? My uncle got married a couple of years ago and his wife didn't want kids. Does this mean that this wasn't really a marriage?

 

[Margim]

Bah... I guess this is where I stop trying to look enlightened. I personally disagree with any alteration to the traditional concept of marriage. If homosexual couples wish to live together, that's one thing - getting 'married' is another. Maybe I'm just on about semantics here - I'm not sure - but marriage has been regarded as between a woman and man for a few thousand years - why change the definition just to suit society?

*Margim bolts from the door with trails of flame pursuing*

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by andvruss


I didn't say that the purpose of marriage is to have children. That isn't what it is primarily about. I am not anit-gay or lebsian, I just wish that they would ty to change form their......ways. I presume morals don't matter to you, Pontiuth, so I can't really argue against you.
It isn't moral and Biblical what they are doing.

I do remember the United State being founded as a theocracy

 

[The Yankee]

I thought people could have kids even without getting married. Why deny a gay couple from doing what they want, to be formally together? There are people willing to marry them,, that should be enough. It doesn't affect me in any way, other than seeing homosexual people I know become ha in lives, which is pretty good for me.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Margim
Bah... I guess this is where I stop trying to look enlightened. I personally disagree with any alteration to the traditional concept of marriage. If homosexual couples wish to live together, that's one thing - getting 'married' is another. Maybe I'm just on about semantics here - I'm not sure - but marriage has been regarded as between a woman and man for a few thousand years - why change the definition just to suit society?

*Margim bolts from the door with trails of flame pursuing*

Would you agree with them having the option of having an instution similar to marriage, but entitled differently?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I was speaking to a woman recently about a female member of her family that had gotten married but wasnt planning on having kids. She was very upset about it. She said that God doesnt love women who dont have kids because theyre selfish. That left me speechless. The sad thing is, most people in the world would agree with her.

 

[superslug]

Originally posted by andvruss
I didn't say that the purpose of marriage is to have children. That isn't what it is primarily about.

That was primarily Comraddict's argument, not your own, true.

Originally posted by andvruss
I am not anit-gay or lebsian, I just wish that they would ty to change form their......ways.

You may not be against them, but you sure as hell don't accept them for what they are.

Originally posted by andvruss
I presume morals don't matter to you, Pontiuth, so I can't really argue against you.
It isn't moral and Biblical what they are doing.

Isn't Biblical? Wanting to enforce religious beliefs down the throats of those who don't care to follow the same spiritual text flies in the face of the values of democracy and western civilization.

 

[The Yankee]

"Civil unions" would please many people....they just want the common rights granted to formal couples.

 

[cgannon64]

I'd like you to go up to a gay person, in their face, and tell them that they are immoral.

The lesson would be even better if you know the gay person as a friend. Or your brother.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Speaking of grade A manure, youd look awfully silly taking three milk cows out for walkies every morning and evening.

Every chick has her down side

I am not anit-gay or lebsian, I just wish that they would ty to change form their......ways.

I wish you'd be a homo! Reform your ways, man!

.... are you offended? Then stop doing it the other way round

I presume morals don't matter to you, Pontiuth, so I can't really argue against you.
It isn't moral and Biblical what they are doing.

The Bible has nothing to do with the LAWS OF A FREE SOCIETY, which should be based on common sense and tolerance, not the dictates of a bearded fellow above the clouds. Sometimes, yes, they do overlap, but not often.

Morals matter a lot to me, but they have nothing to do with this issue. I see no reason to forbid people their BIRTHRIGHT of marriage, no matter WHO they choose to marry.

I personally disagree with any alteration to the traditional concept of marriage.

How much are you asking for dowries then? I bet I can beat you!

to every Christian and other religious person: You are NOT responsible for other people's moralities. Even according to YOUR OWN BIBLE, that is GOD's business. Let other people alone, if they're not hurting you.

 

[superslug]

As long as homosexuals and lesbians considered "civil unions" a recognition of their societal desires, and not a consolation prize, I think it would pose a good alternative.

 

[Margim]

I'm not sure. Perhaps I'm just old fashioned or something. I'm defintely not pro-homosexual relationships, yet I recognise that its the way some people feel. I accept that relationships happen, but I don't feel I particularly need to support them or grant them special status. I guess I've got my own standards - maybe this is one of the conversations I should never have entered.

 

[Comraddict]

For all that think marriage is not about kids: ask yourself how come we have 6-7 billion humans, and how did you come on world?
And what is ultimate meaning of life? one that some of you can't live with - simply to extend our species.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

"Civil unions" would please many people....they just want the common rights granted to formal couples.

Many rights which are DENIED them today. I know a gay man who was denied the right to be with his spouse when the latter was very ill, because since they weren't "legally" married, the first man was "technically" a total stranger [not family or anything] so the hospital was not allowed to let him in! Similarly, he wasn't allowed to act as next of kin, etc, or to make medical decisions concerning care of his spouse when he was in a coma [it was after a car crash].

Are gay people REALLY hurting you so much that you can deny them these rights for a silly social concept? When you attempt to legislate public morality and behavior, how many lives are you unconsciously hurting?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by Margim
I'm not sure. Perhaps I'm just old fashioned or something. I'm defintely not pro-homosexual relationships, yet I recognise that its the way some people feel. I accept that relationships happen, but I don't feel I particularly need to support them or grant them special status.

Dont you see? By denying them the right to marry, youve already granted them a special status. By allowing them to marry like everyone else, they no longer have a special status.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

For all that think marriage is not about kids: ask yourself how come we have 6-7 billion humans, and how did you come on world?
And what is ultimate meaning of life? one that some of you can't live with - simply to extend our species.

Then let's deny women the right to marry when they lose their period. And let's dissolve any marriages after the woman goes into menopause and the man is proven to be impotent. And let's deny sterile people the right to marry as well. And let's deny people the right to marry unless they sign a PLEDGE to the state that they'll have at least x children!

Otherwise, our race is in danger of dying out!

 

[Comraddict]

they want special status. they want us all to know that they are gay!

 

[Comraddict]

Pontiuth Pilate, you have mom and dad, not two dads. Live with it.