Obama, Cheney, Bush and Powell in New Pro Gay Marriage Ad

reply to post by kaylaluv

I hear gay marriage and abortion is still illegal in Iraq. Maybe their morals are more in line with yours.

I don’t believe in killing people for being gay, so NO, they have no morals. They are more in line with your beliefs since you’re the one who believes it’s OK to kill a baby so as not to inconvenience you or cramp your lifestyle.

Same-sex sexual relations have been attempted to be decriminalized – but are still considered a capital offense in some areas, as well as a taboo by the majority of the population in Iraq. Many LGBT people in the country suffer from discrimination, abuse, honor killings and murder.

No Morals

reply to post by starfoxxx

Originally posted by starfoxxx
Dick, Bush, Obama, Colon ALL had there Sayings Taken Out Of Context.

Do you know what "taken out of context" means?

If you said, "I was so cold, I would kill someone for a blanket"

And I repeated your quote as - starfoxxx said, "I would kill someone".

In each of these cases, as I have shown, the people were talking about gay marriage and equal rights for gay people. These words are not out of context, and no matter how many times you say it or how many capital letters you use, that fact will not change.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

And atheist marriage is holy????

Of course not.

What is “holy” about atheism? Nothing!

At least its between a man and a woman (in some instances - at least in your case).

Look, I’m not the religion police, or the morality police, or the police in any sense of the word. I simply pointed out why there is so much kick back…it’s because of the word marriage. Progressives love to tear down any barriers that obstruct their sick, twisted view of utopia. It’s not surprising to me at all that they won’t settle for civil unions. That wouldn’t be good enough because it didn’t piss off enough moral people.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by starfoxxx

 

Originally posted by starfoxxx
Dick, Bush, Obama, Colon ALL had there Sayings Taken Out Of Context.

Do you know what "taken out of context" means?

If you said, "I was so cold, I would kill someone for a blanket"

And I repeated your quote as - starfoxxx said, "I would kill someone".

In each of these cases, as I have shown, the people were talking about gay marriage and equal rights for gay people. These words are not out of context, and no matter how many times you say it or how many capital letters you use, that fact will not change.

It is out of context...



It was out of context because at the end the narrator said "it's time for gay marriage" and that's not what Bush or Powell said at all. Mrs Bush and Colon Powell both said basically the same thing….same rights and the protection of the law. I agree with that as do most conservatives. These two people IN NO WAY said they support gay marriage.

How do we know they weren't supporting civil unions? I didn't hear the word marriage......

reply to post by seabag


Is atheist marriage holy?

Originally posted by seabag
Of course not.

What is “holy” about atheism? Nothing!

Hey, you're the one that said gay marriage being "unholy" is the reason it violates the sanctity of marriage:

Originally posted by seabag
Gay marriage is unholy; therefore it violates the sanctity of marriage.

So, if atheist marriage is also unholy, why doesn't it also violate the sanctity of gay marriage? Why aren't you also against it? Your position is hypocritical.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

So, if atheist marriage is also unholy, why doesn't violate the sanctity of gay marriage? Why aren't you also against it? Your position is hypocritical.

Thanks for quoting me! I know what I said and it’s not hypocritical.

I’ve already answered this…it’s not as offensive because it’s still ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. That is the issue…gay marriage.

reply to post by technical difficulties

Why act so irrational towards something that has no impact on your life whatsoever?

But it does effect everyone’s life in a way. IMO the SCOTUS really screwed up in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. This was a huge victory for morally depraved people everywhere.

I’m over it. I don’t care really. I will live in a place where people share my views (I already do). And I will gladly move again if I have to in order to keep my children away from the gross immorality this country is now fostering.

Originally posted by Signals


They don't know what they support, it changes like the direction of the wind...

Why do gay couples need to be legally married? Don't they receive the same legal protections through a legal union or partnership?

IS NOTHING SACRED ANYMORE IN THIS COUNTRY ?

not until everyone has the same rights, everywhere!

reply to post by seabag

Originally posted by seabag
But it does effect everyone’s life in a way.

How? It doesn't affect my life ONE BIT. Why do you insist it affects yours?

IMO the SCOTUS really screwed up in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.

So, you think the government should be right there in the bedroom keeping people from performing sodomy?

I’m over it. I don’t care really.

Yeah, that's apparent.

reply to post by ibiubu


Destroy the Catholic church? That's going to be tough to do. What percentage of the worlds population claims Catholicism, of whatever sect, as their faith? ...and Roman Catholicism makes up what percentage of that? This issue will not end the Catholic church, it's a bit sturdier than that.

...and no, I am not Catholic. My family is, so it's influenced me, yes; but for the most part, I go my own way.

If they NWO is so all pervasive as you and other claim, this seems rather a silly issue for them to push. Happy people are hardly likely to allow themselves to be pushed around, however covertly. Or overtly, for that matter.

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
In short, the problem lies in the fact that to give same sex couples the same rights, the same "perks", as married heterosexual couples currently enjoy, automatically, by virtual of their "married" status, you would have to amend each and every law, at both Federal and State levels, that referenced martital status as a qualification, to include civil unions.

A daunting, and expensive, task.


It is/would be a far simpler task to merely extend the legal definition of the term "marriage" to All couples, hetero- and same-sex, thus automaticaly making the laws requiring "marriage as a qualification, applicable to all.


In the Law, Words DO matter.[

Playing Devil's advocate here, how do you deal with the presence of common law marriage? (I'm talking about the broader brush stroke of cohabitation law here, not the contractual marriage concept which most states have been doing away with.) The time frame varies by state, but most states consider a man & woman to be in the equivalent of a marriage for legal and debt purposes after they have cohabitated for a certain number of years. If, suddenly, we change the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions, then do we suddenly open the door for Laverne & Shirley or Oscar & Felix to be considered common law married by the state as well?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

How? It doesn't affect my life ONE BIT. Why do you insist it affects yours?

I’ve already explained it but you refuse to acknowledge it. It’s the gross immorality the country is fostering by bowing to demands like this. Immorality affects everyone around you. It certainly affects the way my children will view the world. It’s not the same country it was 10, 20, 30 years ago IMO. Every generation feels that way though. Look at the uproar over Elvis and later the Beatles.

However, sodomy an gay marriage is a bit more extreme than Elvis’s gyrating hips or the Beatles’ bloody album cover and strange lyrics.

So, you think the government should be right there in the bedroom keeping people from performing sodomy?

Not the federal government, but I do think states are entitled to make laws for their people…and we are free to move if we disagree.

reply to post by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
The time frame varies by state, but most states consider a man & woman to be in the equivalent of a marriage for legal and debt purposes after they have cohabitated for a certain number of years.

Simple cohabitation does not equal a common law marriage. Interestingly, nine states allow it (the same number that allows gay marriage). And each state has specific rules that apply. For example, they have to present themselves as husband and wife, and Utah requires validation by the court.

If, suddenly, we change the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions, then do we suddenly open the door for Laverne & Shirley or Oscar & Felix to be considered common law married by the state as well?

If they live together and present themselves as married, in the states that allow gay marriage, then yes, they would have a common law marriage.

Common-law marriage is generally a non-ceremonial relationship that requires "a positive mutual agreement, permanent and exclusive of all others, to enter into a marriage relationship, cohabitation sufficient to warrant a fulfillment of necessary relationship of man and wife, and an assumption of marital duties and obligations."

Source

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Simple cohabitation does not equal a common law marriage.

Thanks BH. I should have researched before I posted. It looks like these laws have changed and quite a few states have retroactively abandoned common law marriage since I was a kid. In the mid to late 80s, it was still fairly routine to see news articles about "single" mothers losing their welfare payments because they were deemed to be in a common law marriage and, as a result, weren't single at all.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

Why choose to be on the wrong side of this issue?

…says the person who believes he’s right!

I could say the same about you. Why are you on the wrong side of this issue? I think my position on this issue is more logical than yours because science backs my position up – After all, can 2 males procreate? How about 2 females?

Considering that my side has valid arguments supporting it whereas your side doesn't, no you can't say the same. If you guys had an argument that wasn't idiotic or misguided, we would've heard it by now.

Speaking of idiotic arguments, your comment at the end is the perfect example of one. Your ability/inability to procreate does determine whether you can or can not get married. If it was, then old/infertile couples as well as couples who don't want children couldn't get married.

Besides, homosexuals/lesbians can procreate via surrogates, and there's more to a legal marriage than just having children, so your argument is terrible regardless of how you look at it.

reply to post by technical difficulties

Considering that my side has valid arguments supporting it whereas your side doesn't, no you can't say the same. If you guys had an argument that wasn't idiotic or misguided, we would've heard it by now.

Let me get this straight!

When it comes to creationism vs evolution, science is KING! When it comes to human relations, science is BS and your progressive opinion is KING?

That speaks volumes!

Marriage is just another social-construct. It shouldn't even EXIST in the government (straight OR gay).

Leave that to religious people...

reply to post by seabag



You are a hypocrite. Atheists don't believe in "sanctity" (holiness) but you have no problem with them getting married, even though they ADMIT that they don't believe in "holiness" (Godliness), but as for some gay people who actually truly DO believe you say "NO" to them. You just wanna use any argument to justify your opinions... Use LOGIC

reply to post by arpgme

Originally posted by arpgme
Marriage is just another social-construct. It shouldn't even EXIST in the government (straight OR gay).

I actually agree with that. Personal relationships should be personal and not regulated or sanctioned by the government. If I had been as 'conscious' 20 years ago as I am now, I wouldn't be legally married. My husband and I would just live together and our relationship would be no one's business.

But keep in mind that people aren't being forced to marry. We have to petition the government to ASK for their involvement. (Why do we do these crazy things???) Cohabitation is and always has been an option. And today, it's even socially acceptable. But we are raised with the instructions to "grow up, get married, and have kids"... It's so ingrained that most people just think it's what they're supposed to do and what they want to do. It sucks to realize we've been lemmings.

I understand people who are opposed to gay people getting married. Their religion has them 'convinced' that it's wrong - more wrong than other "sins", just as society had me convinced to petition the government for their approval and permission to be with the man I love. It's social and religious indoctrination. But at some point, you have to shake that off and start thinking for yourself... or at least I did. I've even considered getting a divorce.

But the fact of the matter is that government 'entices' us with a thousand benefits to get married and controls our access to each other and property when one of us dies (for example). So, it's in our best interest to stay married. It would take a great deal of social change for the country to do away with legal marriage, but I hope it happens eventually. And until then, equal treatment under the law is the only viable option that I see.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

IS NOTHING SACRED ANYMORE IN THIS COUNTRY ?

I don't know - ask all those heterosexuals getting divorced.

You nailed it Kay

reply to post by seabag

Originally posted by seabag
When it comes to human relations, science is BS and your progressive opinion is KING?

No, science is still king. Some couples can procreate, some can't (I can't, for example). But breeding has nothing to do with legal marriage or marriage equality. You're just reaching into your bag of justifications to deny the people you judge as "unholy" their inalienable right to happiness. Procreation is a totally different subject. Changing the subject doesn't help your position any.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."