Political Crossfire Forums

[Carl]

Etienne wrote: It sounds like gender is more important to you than love, honor, and commitment...

Marriage, intrinsically, is defined by gender. Love, honor, and commitment are tertiary to what marriage is. One need not be married to love, honor, and commit.

As regards rights, however, the thing you claimed was offended, there is no such offense. All Americans of whatever persuasion have absolutely equal rights under the law as regards marriage. It's not an issue of rights.

[Super Conservative!]

Brokeback Mountain lost to Crash.

It was robbed.

[Melchior]

Ewrue The Veracious wrote: Etienne wrote: Carl wrote: Etienne wrote: If two women love each other, and are committed to each other in a long term relationship, then you are depriving them of the benefits awarded to heterosexual couples by denying them the right to marry.

Everyone in America, gay or straight, has the right to marry under precisely the same terms as everyone else. It's not an issue of rights.

Everyone is America has a right to marry their soul mate? what if your so called sole mate is a 5 year old, or a dead person, or a farrari, or any thing else. nobody has the right to marry their sole mate.

Ugh, not this s**t.

Consenting adults (which, by the way, is all you need to be to sign a contract) are NOT 5 year olds, corpses, farrari's, raccoons, toasters, clouds, spiders, staplers....

For the love of God, please don't start with that.

[Ewrue The Veracious]

Etienne wrote: Ewrue The Veracious wrote: Etienne wrote: Ewrue The Veracious wrote: Etienne wrote: Ewrue The Veracious wrote: animals don't practice homosexuality when two puppies are humping that is a form of domination it is rape. the perpouse of the parts matching up is simple the anus is not an entry feces is supposed to leave the body through it and by putting body parts into that orafice you sperad desease. also childbirth procreation. you cannot have a family without a mother father or as it is called bridegroom.

[irst...

Quote: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.


Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.

Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks.

And second...

You cannot have a family without a mother and a father? So again...people who can't have children shouldn't be able to marry, because they can't have children, and therefore can't form a family. It takes a mother and a father, and since they can't have children, they can't be a mother and a father.

Quote: how can you steal a religious sacramint from all the churches and say it is a legal contract. a barmitsva is not a legal contract first communion is not a legal contract tething is not a legal contract. by the homosexuals stealing our sacrament they are stomping on my belifes and that isn't illigal but that is why i am aginst it.

Gay couples are NOT stealing your religious sacrament. YOU are depriving gay couples of the same benefits UNDER THE LAW awarded to heterosexual couples. no you are wrong animals dont pick a samesex mate unl;ess they are animals that reproduce that way and animals mating with others of the same sex is a domination tactic they don't do it for plesure they do it to establish their rank in their pack or environment.

[quote=Zoologists have observed animals engaging in homosexual behavior, yet I am wrong?]
there is no homosexualality between animals it is a domination tactic now your appling this theory to the debate then i should be allowed to eat you because crabs are canables i should be allowed to piss on your car and it would become my property. animals do not engage in sexual intorcorse with the same sex for the reasons people do it. it is to gain a position over each other for servival. your arguemnt however well stated it is or grounded in scince, has no bering and dosent prove that the homosexual behavior of mankind is the equivelant.

Quote: you can be a family if you devorce or cannot have childeren this isn't something that can be helped. plus there is medical advances every day that can render a steral person fertile agian. there is hope for them and also adoption.

[quote=But you said you can't have a family without a mother and a father. If people can't have children, then they can't become mothers and fathers, and therefore shouldn't be allowed to marry.]
do you know what good faith is. in the hope that people cannot bear children may be able to is enough to allow them to merry nomatter if the hope is very slight. a mother can also be a potintial mother and same with father. and there is also adoption. with two people of the same sex there is no way that they can procreate with each other and they will never be allowed to adopt children because the child will never understand the gender roles or normalcy and with perverted people as his parents he will become a pervert himself.

Quote: i am in noway depriving any rights to anybody i can't marry a dude you cant marry a person of your sex nobody can merry a person of their same sex it is in descriminatory and universal and it leaves no one out at all 100% equal. and it is a religious sacrament has been for all time always will be for ever and ever. never was a state thing or federal issue. it is a religious sacrament look who invented it.

If two women love each other, and are committed to each other in a long term relationship, then you are depriving them of the benefits awarded to heterosexual couples by denying them the right to marry. no i am not depriving them of a long term relationship they could find a man to marry and if they cant too bad marrage is definded as between a man and a woman end of that debate no opinion will ever change that fact ever.

It sounds like gender is more important to you than love, honor, and commitment... if gender isn't important is species or plain of existance. yes it is when talking about marrage love can adapt it is a dis honor to be homosexual. gender is with you all the time.

and ferthermore i am not saying that you can't love anybody you want just that you can't merry anybody you want. marrage is defined (for the last time if you don't get this now than you will never understand what marrage is) as the two people becoming one to God and this union is known as a bridgroom. the only way you can be a bridegroom is if you are male and female. period end of discussion this is a fact and nothing i or you say can change it.

[Ewrue The Veracious]

Melchior wrote: Ewrue The Veracious wrote: Etienne wrote: Carl wrote: Etienne wrote: If two women love each other, and are committed to each other in a long term relationship, then you are depriving them of the benefits awarded to heterosexual couples by denying them the right to marry.

Everyone in America, gay or straight, has the right to marry under precisely the same terms as everyone else. It's not an issue of rights.

Everyone is America has a right to marry their soul mate? what if your so called sole mate is a 5 year old, or a dead person, or a farrari, or any thing else. nobody has the right to marry their sole mate.

Ugh, not this s**t.

Consenting adults (which, by the way, is all you need to be to sign a contract) are NOT 5 year olds, corpses, farrari's, raccoons, toasters, clouds, spiders, staplers....

For the love of God, please don't start with that. or siblings perant child or same sex. why do you get to set your standards and mine are seen as biggoted? if yoy can't martry a corpse than you can't marry a person of your own sex or of your own family or of any other perverse combination. besides what is a sole mate?

[The Impeacher]

uh oh,

looks like CRASH is the big winner. i guess hollywood as a TOLERANCE AGENDA... damn hollywood pushing their "let's all get along" agenda.

:lol:


YOU KNOW IT'S HARD OUT HERE FOR A PIMP!!!

[Ewrue The Veracious]

Carl wrote: Etienne wrote: It sounds like gender is more important to you than love, honor, and commitment...

Marriage, intrinsically, is defined by gender. Love, honor, and commitment are tertiary to what marriage is. One need not be married to love, honor, and commit.

As regards rights, however, the thing you claimed was offended, there is no such offense. All Americans of whatever persuasion have absolutely equal rights under the law as regards marriage. It's not an issue of rights. thank you mabey this guy will crack a dictionary or anencyclopedia and learn what exactly marrage is.

[Ewrue The Veracious]

The Impeacher wrote: uh oh,

looks like CRASH is the big winner. i guess hollywood as a TOLERANCE AGENDA... damn hollywood pushing their "let's all get along" agenda.

:lol:


YOU KNOW IT'S HARD OUT HERE FOR A PIMP!!! never herad of crash what is it about.

and hollywoods definition of tollerance is intolerant to itsself and is meaningless. tollerance is never going to be an across the board idea.

[The Impeacher]

Ewrue The Veracious wrote: The Impeacher wrote: uh oh,

looks like CRASH is the big winner. i guess hollywood as a TOLERANCE AGENDA... damn hollywood pushing their "let's all get along" agenda.

:lol:


YOU KNOW IT'S HARD OUT HERE FOR A PIMP!!! never herad of crash what is it about.

and hollywoods definition of tollerance is intolerant to itsself and is meaningless. tollerance is never going to be an across the board idea.

well,

i dont think i like you much, that's fer sure... ;)

anywho, "tolerance" is what would happen if people respected each others rghts and freedoms.

i'd like to think that that SHOULD be an across the board idea/

[Super Conservative!]

All our problems would be solved if the government just banned marriage.

[RealRepublicanArmy]

With 50% of American marriages ending in divorce nowadays, we might as well ban it.

[Carl]

The Impeacher wrote: anywho, "tolerance" is what would happen if people respected each others rghts and freedoms.

So, "to tolerate" is the same as "to respect" ?

I had always thought that implicit in the term "tolerance" was the idea of graciously enduring something less than ideal.

[Carl]

RealRepublicanArmy wrote: With 50% of American marriages ending in divorce nowadays, we might as well ban it.

Or better yet, return to requiring specific, proven grounds for divorce that require material evidence, and revoke the ability to obtain "no fault" divorce.

I'm sure divorce rates would plummet right back to the levels they were at then....the marriage rate might decline quite a lot as well.

[Super Conservative!]

RealRepublicanArmy wrote: With 50% of American marriages ending in divorce nowadays, we might as well ban it.

Oh, people would still get married, it just wouldn't have any legal ramifications.

[RealRepublicanArmy]

The American family institution is going through a cultural decline, just as the Roman family structure did right after the Empire climaxed. Though we may not get the pleasure of public funded orgy houses, we will reap the negatives of our lack of family values.

[Ewrue The Veracious]

The Impeacher wrote: Ewrue The Veracious wrote: The Impeacher wrote: uh oh,

looks like CRASH is the big winner. i guess hollywood as a TOLERANCE AGENDA... damn hollywood pushing their "let's all get along" agenda.

:lol:


YOU KNOW IT'S HARD OUT HERE FOR A PIMP!!! never herad of crash what is it about.

and hollywoods definition of tollerance is intolerant to itsself and is meaningless. tollerance is never going to be an across the board idea.

well,

i dont think i like you much, that's fer sure... ;)

anywho, "tolerance" is what would happen if people respected each others rghts and freedoms.

i'd like to think that that SHOULD be an across the board idea/ you are being in tolerant of me there are things that cannot be ever tolorated such as murder rape theft or any of these so across the board tolorence is compleate anarchey.

how can you say you don't like a person baised on a few words and ideals it seems you are the most intollerant. i just want people to behave you want me to think like you that is lack of tolerance.

[Super Conservative!]

RealRepublicanArmy wrote: The American family institution is going through a cultural decline, just as the Roman family structure did right after the Empire climaxed. Though we may not get the pleasure of public funded orgy houses, we will reap the negatives of our lack of family values.


I always see that repeated by conservatives, but I never see any sources. Wonder why that is.

[RealRepublicanArmy]

Ewrue The Veracious wrote: The Impeacher wrote: Ewrue The Veracious wrote: The Impeacher wrote: uh oh,

looks like CRASH is the big winner. i guess hollywood as a TOLERANCE AGENDA... damn hollywood pushing their "let's all get along" agenda.

:lol:


YOU KNOW IT'S HARD OUT HERE FOR A PIMP!!! never herad of crash what is it about.

and hollywoods definition of tollerance is intolerant to itsself and is meaningless. tollerance is never going to be an across the board idea.

well,

i dont think i like you much, that's fer sure... ;)

anywho, "tolerance" is what would happen if people respected each others rghts and freedoms.

i'd like to think that that SHOULD be an across the board idea/ you are being in tolerant of me there are things that cannot be ever tolorated such as murder rape theft or any of these so across the board tolorence is compleate anarchey.

how can you say you don't like a person baised on a few words and ideals it seems you are the most intollerant. i just want people to behave you want me to think like you that is lack of tolerance.

It is quite easy to dislike a person baised on a few of his words or ideals. If I hear a white person say, "we need to help the n*ggers of this country," I won't like him. If I hear someone say, the queers are pushing their agenda on us, I won't like him, because he is obviously ignorant and if you want to call me intolerant cuz I discriminate against hateful ideologies, go ahead.

[Ewrue The Veracious]

RealRepublicanArmy wrote: The American family institution is going through a cultural decline, just as the Roman family structure did right after the Empire climaxed. Though we may not get the pleasure of public funded orgy houses, we will reap the negatives of our lack of family values. the AMF is an organization that trys to preserve the pillars of our civilization. and whatr ever happend to that perverted orgy having roam i seem to remember the end of some 1000 year-old empire but i must be mistaken.

[Etienne]

Ewrue The Veracious wrote: if gender isn't important is species or plain of existance. yes it is when talking about marrage love can adapt it is a dis honor to be homosexual. gender is with you all the time.

Why is it a dishonor to be homosexual?

Quote: and ferthermore i am not saying that you can't love anybody you want just that you can't merry anybody you want. marrage is defined (for the last time if you don't get this now than you will never understand what marrage is) as the two people becoming one to God and this union is known as a bridgroom. the only way you can be a bridegroom is if you are male and female. period end of discussion this is a fact and nothing i or you say can change it.

Fine...let's drop the word Marriage. Let's create a new term...Civil Unions.

Let's call Civil Unions social contract between two consenting unrelated adults, who love and honor each other, and are committed to each other. Civil Unions will be recognized by the State, and will be performed by a Justice of the Peace. Marriages will be religious ceremonies, conducted in a religious setting, and performed by a religious leader. However they will not be recognized by the State, and therefore will not receive societal benefits awarded to Civil Unions.

This is a win-win for everyone. Gays get their relationships recognized by the State, and marriage remains a religious sacrament.