Chavez Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 You forgot about how gay people are more likely to commit suicide, live shorter lives, live in depression, have a communicable disease, wear ugly clothes and rape children. NTTIAWWT ...now, I'm just throwin' darts at the wall here, but couldn't the suicide and depression be due to kindhearted Christians like you casting them into the pit at every opportunity, and the shorter lives might be due to being denied the life-lengthening benefits of marriage, among other things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 i got no issues with some sort of civil union/legal arrangement that would allow two people of the same sex to receive whatever tax and health care benefits they can get and also to allow them to adopt kids if they want. i will never think of it as marriage ... If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 You do realize, tonormandog, that for the vast vast vast majority of human history marriage was a property based transaction between two families and that for most cultures throughout human history patriarchal polygamy was the norm, dont you (though interestingly, there have been matriarchal polygamous cultures)? Do you really think this one man one woman stuff is some sort of hoary ancient tradition? so to be clear ... are you recommending a return to this past culture for america? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 I'd be all for multiple wives if it meant a higher frequency of sex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyalboyd Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 I'd be all for multiple wives if it meant a higher frequency of sex. Intresting. BUT it would never pass the Senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Intresting. BUT it would never pass the Senate. What, they are too stuck on the whole "wife-mistress" setup to change? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10g_DBA Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 so to be clear ... are you recommending a return to this past culture for america? Save your energy. Skins and all the other lost souls can't recognize what we know to be the standard of absolute truth. You are arguing with people who are unable to see beyond the limits of philosophical naturalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Save your energy. Skins and all the other lost souls can't recognize what we know to be the standard of absolute truth. You are arguing with people who are unable to see beyond the limits of philosophical naturalism. Your riposte would sting more if you could see beyond the limits of the church walls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Save your energy. Skins and all the other lost souls can't recognize what we know to be the standard of absolute truth. You are arguing with people who are unable to see beyond the limits of philosophical naturalism. Hey check yer pm Mr. Absolute Truth dipAthena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 here is where it requires talking to you like you are a 6 year old ... little skins, here is why we have marriage. marriage exists for the purpose of stable families raising children. to do this, you need a man and a woman or else you cannot have children. for this reason, we let the man and the woman marry. now, along the way, there will be people who do get married, but don't have children! in that case, they do not receive all the benefits that couples with kids receive. now, in the case of a man and a man or a woman and a woman, well, they can't have children together. << draws skins a picture showing how things don't fit>> so since they can't make babies, there really is no need for them to get married. in fact, if a man and a woman couldn't have children, there really would not be much of a need for them to get married either. in that case, we would all just die out. isn't marriage wonderful? My god, yer a kookoo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 What, they are too stuck on the whole "wife-mistress-hooker-dog" setup to change? fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10g_DBA Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Hey check yer pm Mr. Absolute Truth dipAthena. One good thing about natural disasters is that they drive you underground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Remember kids, never argue with a dumbass - he'll drag you down to his level and win with experience. And I'm not going to say who I'm addressing this advice to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 fixed Didn't need fixing, but I appreciate you lending your raper-like wit to my post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Remember kids, never argue with a dumbass - he'll drag you down to his level and win with experience. And I'm not going to say who I'm addressing this advice to. I know, I know. You are talking about yerself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 One good thing about natural disasters is that they drive you underground. Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 I know, I know. You are talking about yerself? I'm starting to think that being on your side in any way implies a level of complete wrongness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 I'm starting to think that being on your side in any way implies a level of complete wrongness. I told you to keep me on ignore, remember cutie? How could you ever know if you were on my side? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 I told you to keep me on ignore, remember cutie? How could you ever know if you were on my side? I couldn't quit yew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 I couldn't quit yew. Clever. Thick, round, sturdy, covered in rough scaly bark. No wonder you love me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 so let's recap. gay marriage is not needed to for two people of the same sex to care for each other. gay marriage is not needed to promote stable, traditional families. gay marriage is not needed for health care coverage. that can be addressed separately, and is in place for many today (it is at my company). gay marriage is not needed for tax relief, we could just allow a SO to be claimed as a dependent. it is a good thing to give economic aid to any single, two, or combination of people who are helping to raise a child that is adopted. this is admirable to support. for those who want it again ... why is that exactly? can we provide some grounds vs. running around yelling discrimination! discrimination! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Again, to re-iterate: I really don't care much if the fundies call it a marriage or not, so long as there is a civil arrangement by which consenting adults can have the legal benefits entitled to married couples. I don't need some guy in a funny suit to vet my union as long as the state recognizes it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantherDave Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Man, still slugging it out ......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Again, to re-iterate: I really don't care much if the fundies call it a marriage or not, so long as there is a civil arrangement by which consenting adults can have the legal benefits entitled to married couples. I don't need some guy in a funny suit to vet my union as long as the state recognizes it. civil arrangement is fine with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Man, still slugging it out ......... slow day ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.