Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





View Poll Results: Should Same-Sex Marriage be Nationally Legalized?

Voters
37. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I support it

    31 83.78%
  • No, I don't support it

    2 5.41%
  • Other (no clue what this would be)

    4 10.81%
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 164
  1. #91
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Deutschland
    Posts
    15,947
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    I didn't say slavery in the Bible meant black and white. But slavery is slavery. It doesn't say "Don't own Africans, but owning another Jew is A-OK!" It allows for the owning of people. Period. About that, there can be no honest debate.
    It also says that if you only have one pillow in your house, you give it to the slave.

    Totally different ideology right there.


    And if you would like to PM of the source where it talks about jewelery, that would be nice.

    And by the way, those pants, they belong to my dad.And they're not really pants,
    they're Lederhosen



  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    On the way to Camelback
    Posts
    2,838
    vCash
    1500
    There is only one rational argument against gay marriage, and that argument is against marriage itself for various reasons (tax cuts, perks etc.).

    It doesn't feel right or its icky or because some book says so isn't rational, it is at best gullibility and at worst hateful bigotry.

    The Giants NL West Division chase.

    Gagné's HGH Care Package

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Tx
    Posts
    22,625
    vCash
    1500
    Marriage is meant for family life. Homosexuals are not capable of providing the natural family process because they cannot reproduce.


    If you take family out of the equation, there is little reason for the state to acknowledge the idea of marriage to begin with.


    I support the idea of Civil Unions.... leave marriage to the church. If the state wants to acknowledge two homosexuals as a "union" then who cares. But why torture religious people who clearly hold a significant reverence to marriage?

    The PSD's Official Steve Nash Support Crew, Members: R4L

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Raidaz4Life View Post
    Marriage is meant for family life. Homosexuals are not capable of providing the natural family process because they cannot reproduce.


    If you take family out of the equation, there is little reason for the state to acknowledge the idea of marriage to begin with.


    I support the idea of Civil Unions.... leave marriage to the church. If the state wants to acknowledge two homosexuals as a "union" then who cares. But why torture religious people who clearly hold a significant reverence to marriage?
    Marriage doesn't belong to the church, and it's absurd to think that it does.

    If marriage is really meant for "family life," then restrict it to anyone capable of and planning to have children. Discover you're sterile? Sorry, divorced.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Johann View Post
    It also says that if you only have one pillow in your house, you give it to the slave.

    Totally different ideology right there.


    And if you would like to PM of the source where it talks about jewelery, that would be nice.
    Well at least we're being nice to the slaves. I mean, granted, we're allowed to beat the hell out of them, but they'll have a plow!


    Of course it's a different ideology. They stoned children to death. We just want them to die of preventable diseases because health care might cost us some money. Way different.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    On the way to Camelback
    Posts
    2,838
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Raidaz4Life View Post
    Marriage is meant for family life. Homosexuals are not capable of providing the natural family process because they cannot reproduce.


    If you take family out of the equation, there is little reason for the state to acknowledge the idea of marriage to begin with.


    I support the idea of Civil Unions.... leave marriage to the church. If the state wants to acknowledge two homosexuals as a "union" then who cares. But why torture religious people who clearly hold a significant reverence to marriage?
    I have two aunts that have been married for years, both of them sterile. Two more aunts that decided from the get go to not have children for various reasons. Four total family members that going in, either didn't want kids or couldn't have them. I guess their marriages should be void.

    The Giants NL West Division chase.

    Gagné's HGH Care Package

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Tx
    Posts
    22,625
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    Marriage doesn't belong to the church, and it's absurd to think that it does.

    If marriage is really meant for "family life," then restrict it to anyone capable of and planning to have children. Discover you're sterile? Sorry, divorced.
    One has to do with naturally not being intended to reproduce and the other has to do with a genetic abnormality which is unnatural and should look to be corrected. Nature intended for a man and woman to reproduce, thats why they have the functioning (or not so functioning) parts to do it.


    If your argument was "restrict it to people who want to have children. Decide you don't want to have children? Sorry, divorced" I would say you had a point but would still hold that contention. Why should you get a tax break if you're not planning on contributing something towards society's future?


    Like I said, fully believe they should be separate based on couples looking for a family based relationship and those that are not. Or to make it simple... let the church have marriage and the state acknowledge unions. Everyone wins.... but then again some issues aren't about everyone winning. They are just dragged on because people enjoy the controversy.

    The PSD's Official Steve Nash Support Crew, Members: R4L

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    On the way to Camelback
    Posts
    2,838
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    Well at least we're being nice to the slaves. I mean, granted, we're allowed to beat the hell out of them, but they'll have a plow!


    Of course it's a different ideology. They stoned children to death. We just want them to die of preventable diseases because health care might cost us some money. Way different.
    Don't forget to look deeper and find where this compassionate nonsense is coming from.

    It's okay to beat them, just don't beat them to death! Not to be a nice guy and all, but because you'll lose out on that property.

    The Giants NL West Division chase.

    Gagné's HGH Care Package

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Tx
    Posts
    22,625
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GHGHCP View Post
    I have two aunts that have been married for years, both of them sterile. Two more aunts that decided from the get go to not have children for various reasons. Four total family members that going in, either didn't want kids or couldn't have them. I guess their marriages should be void.
    I figured people would get hurt feelings and throw this scenario at me (didn't take long), but in reality, why are they married? What is the point? Sentimentality? You can argue the commitment but its not like divorce is very hard. There is literally no point in being married. People get married because that is what they feel they are supposed to do. Gay people want to get married because everyone else feels that is what they are supposed to do so they feel left out. There is no logical reason for homosexuals to get married. People claim it is a right's issue when really there is no right being denied. They have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as good ol Joe FamilyMan down the street, they just choose not to take it.


    It's like a restaurant giving out coupons for a free hamburger to every customer but a select group of customers decide they don't like hamburgers and want a burrito instead. Then say they are being treated unequally because they don't get their own free coupon. They get a coupon... its just not for what they want... but they are making the choice not to take it.

    The PSD's Official Steve Nash Support Crew, Members: R4L

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,286
    vCash
    1500
    To be absolutely frank about it,marriage is the result of instinctual bonding to protect your offspring.
    No mammals whos offspring are somewhat self reliant early on pair bond.
    Our "pair bonding" is a result of the need for two adults to care for an offspring.
    The mother couldnt carry and care for and feed and protect an infant child alone.
    Over time this obvious need for protection became instinctual.

    the "legality" of this genetic instinct is what is at the core of the debate, so the religious perspective of "families" as a means test is justified from a scientific perspective if not from a moral perspective,but given that many gay couples choose to raise children as well would seem to make the inclusion of that dynamic an important caveat.
    so then it must first be decided is it marriage defined by a legal, moral or religious standard that is being discussed, as each seems to have their own measurement.

    At least you can extend your paper out by a couple of thousand words taking it in that direction(LOL).

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    On the way to Camelback
    Posts
    2,838
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Raidaz4Life View Post
    One has to do with naturally not being intended to reproduce and the other has to do with a genetic abnormality which is unnatural and should look to be corrected. Nature intended for a man and woman to reproduce, thats why they have the functioning (or not so functioning) parts to do it.


    If your argument was "restrict it to people who want to have children. Decide you don't want to have children? Sorry, divorced" I would say you had a point but would still hold that contention. Why should you get a tax break if you're not planning on contributing something towards society's future?


    Like I said, fully believe they should be separate based on couples looking for a family based relationship and those that are not. Or to make it simple... let the church have marriage and the state acknowledge unions. Everyone wins.... but then again some issues aren't about everyone winning. They are just dragged on because people enjoy the controversy.
    Homosexuality occurs in nature, it is natural. Trying to demonize it will get you nowhere.

    I was unaware that a marriage license had a contract in it requiring kids. Can you point this out to me?

    Do you think the civil rights movement was started because people just loved the controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raidaz4Life View Post
    I figured people would get hurt feelings and throw this scenario at me (didn't take long), but in reality, why are they married? What is the point? Sentimentality? You can argue the commitment but its not like divorce is very hard. There is literally no point in being married. People get married because that is what they feel they are supposed to do. Gay people want to get married because everyone else feels that is what they are supposed to do so they feel left out. There is no logical reason for homosexuals to get married. People claim it is a right's issue when really there is no right being denied. They have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as good ol Joe FamilyMan down the street, they just choose not to take it.


    It's like a restaurant giving out coupons for a free hamburger to every customer but a select group of customers decide they don't like hamburgers and want a burrito instead. Then say they are being treated unequally because they don't get their own free coupon. They get a coupon... its just not for what they want... but they are making the choice not to take it.
    It didn't take long because this is reality. People are sterile, people don't want kids. Both are free to get married for whatever reasons they want. Your marriage for breeding nonsense is just that, nonsense. And trust me, there is no hurt feelings here, only pity.

    Your analogy fails. The "others" aren't asking for burritos, they are asking for the same hamburger, just their coupons aren't redeemable because of (insert bigoted reasoning here).

    The Giants NL West Division chase.

    Gagné's HGH Care Package

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Deutschland
    Posts
    15,947
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    Well at least we're being nice to the slaves. I mean, granted, we're allowed to beat the hell out of them, but they'll have a plow!


    Of course it's a different ideology. They stoned children to death. We just want them to die of preventable diseases because health care might cost us some money. Way different.
    Where are you getting this from?
    I used pillow as an example to show that a slave was treated equally, or better than the owner.

    When you think of slave, you think of people attached to chains humming slave chants, etc etc. The bible isn't set in 19th century America.


    And with the stoning of the child. Does the bible state a case that that actually occurred. No. It was used as an extreme case to a potential situation.

    And by the way, those pants, they belong to my dad.And they're not really pants,
    they're Lederhosen



  13. #103
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Raidaz4Life View Post
    One has to do with naturally not being intended to reproduce and the other has to do with a genetic abnormality which is unnatural and should look to be corrected. Nature intended for a man and woman to reproduce, thats why they have the functioning (or not so functioning) parts to do it.
    It's always fun when we get into the "nature intended" bit of this, as if nature has some intelligence behind it, deciding what it does and does not want.

    Furthermore, you say this as if asexual reproduction just doesn't happen in nature. Or the spontaneous changing of gender in an environment with too many of one and not enough of the other.

    Talking sexuality in nature is not something you can do when looking to restrict anything. As far as nature is concerned, pretty much anything goes.


    If your argument was "restrict it to people who want to have children. Decide you don't want to have children? Sorry, divorced" I would say you had a point but would still hold that contention. Why should you get a tax break if you're not planning on contributing something towards society's future?
    Being married improves life expectancy, and across genders, ethnicities, and countries, married people are happier than single. Those seem like two things, among the many other positives, that governments would want to encourage in a population. Don't you think?


    Like I said, fully believe they should be separate based on couples looking for a family based relationship and those that are not. Or to make it simple... let the church have marriage and the state acknowledge unions. Everyone wins.... but then again some issues aren't about everyone winning. They are just dragged on because people enjoy the controversy.
    Once again, marriage does not belong to a religion. You say "the church" when you clearly mean the Christian church... what about Jews? Mormons? Buddhists? Hindus? Muslims?

    And, let's be realistic here: Is anyone going to say anything other than that they're "married?" No conversation will start out, "So how long have you guys been civilian unionized?" They sound like steel workers.

    Explain to me how it's not exponentially more simply to just let everyone that loves another person and wants to marry them do so. Because so far, all you've basically said is, "Let's try to make this as complicated as we possibly can!"
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    35,788
    vCash
    1090


    Just let em. If they want to be married, go ahead.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    43,291
    vCash
    7100
    It should be decided by individual states. Marriage at the basis is a contract, so states should have the right to allow and enforce whatever contracts they want to enforce. I personally would rather states allow male-male and female-female marriage contracts, but I can see why some might not choose to do so. They're well within their right to do so, given that sexuality is not a protected class at this time. That being said, it's not an issue that should be forced on the states by the federal government either way.
    On Cam Newton:

    Quote Originally Posted by Norm View Post
    So it's official.

    This jerk off is going to be the first QB taken in the first round (or maybe the first 5) in the modern era to throw less than 300 passes at DI level. and he might go #1 overall.


    hahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Nfl scouting is a joke.

  16. 11-28-2012, 12:34 AM
    Reason
    Religiousness

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •