Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Mighty1 on May 24, 2004, 12:59:49 PM
-
Married Gays sue Clinic (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/22/gaymarriage.lawsuit.ap/index.html)
Just what we needed more lawsuits.
WTG Massachusetts!
-
this country........
is going.......
to hell*
-
y heloo thar butseckz lolol!!!!111
-
The ethical ramifications of such a lawsuit aside, I don't see the problem. The whole "why should gay's be married" thing was about equal rights. Married heterosexual couples have the right, and now these two ladies do, and are exercising that right.
Whether or not this kind of lawsuit is right has no bearing on their "gayness".
EDIT: maybe that last line should read that their gayness has nothing to do with whether that kind of lawsuit is right.
-
BUTTBABIES!!!
-
Blah.. deleted... yer dum.
-
dont you just hate those equal rights?
-
Originally posted by moose
dont you just hate those equal rights?
Almost as much as the people that love to use the term as a catch phrase without understanding what it means.
-
Great point Mighty1. Now Gay's have the same rights that heterosexual married couples have enjoyed for decades. Bout time.
-
I dont see this as a married persons thing or not.
I see it as a STUPID abuse of the legal system for some lazy person to get easy cash.
Nothing more than that gay or straight these lawsuites are BULLCHIT.
-
If a doctor ****s up he should be held accountable.
-
So we start holding DR's accountable when we get cancer?
-
Why didnt the one with the cancer sue from the beginning instead of having her "spouse" do it after they were married
Here's my prediction.....Insurance companys are going to raise premeiums for same sex partnered woman....twice the breasts twice the risk for brest cancer.
I totally agree with equal rights but I dont agree with redefining a religious instituions practices for the last couple thousand years to do it.
Let them be life partners and file their taxes together.....but married...NOPE
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
[B
Let them be life partners and file their taxes together.....but married...NOPE [/B]
Gotta say I agree with ya there .
Marriage to me any ways Is a holy thing that should be done by a member of the clergy hopefully in the church.
And somehow I just dont find anywhere in the Bible where it says its ok for a man to marry another man .
Indeed it says a man shall not lie with another man.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Marriage was here long before Christianity.
Depends on if you are a believer or not.
If you are then God was here first.
If not then it's all a moot point to ya any ways LOL.
-
You can be wed outside the church, I've detailed it before. In every state, people can be married without going through the religious aspect of it - but it is recognized by the state.
So, too late, marriage has been redefined for quite some time by the government.
-SW
-
Originally posted by txmx
Depends on if you are a believer or not.
If you are then God was here first.
If not then it's all a moot point to ya any ways LOL.
No it is proven fact that marriage has been around alot longer then christians.
-
guess even in the old norse religion (odin and thor stuff) there was marriage.
but some men still want them stuck in the kitchen dont they :)
gay or not. :D
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
If a doctor ****s up he should be held accountable.
What % of doctors never screw up?
How many doctors will be left?
eskimo
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
What % of doctors never screw up?
How many doctors will be left?
eskimo
When it is blatent they should be held accountable.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
You can be wed outside the church, I've detailed it before. In every state, people can be married without going through the religious aspect of it - but it is recognized by the state.
So, too late, marriage has been redefined for quite some time by the government.
-SW
It's just a matter of time befor multiple partner marriges....human to animal marriges....human to inadimate object marriges....we cant discriminate now can we.
"I want to marry my car. Since it doesnt run/work it is dependent on me. Therefore i consider all of the repairs done on it medical expenses."
I still dont under stand why the lesbo w/ the cancer didnt sue from the begining....instead they got married and the "spouse" sued on the grounds that they couldnt marry befor?
No it is proven fact that marriage has been around alot longer then christians.
that still doesnt make it any less offensive to me
-
Originally posted by txmx
Gotta say I agree with ya there .
Marriage to me any ways Is a holy thing that should be done by a member of the clergy hopefully in the church.
And somehow I just dont find anywhere in the Bible where it says its ok for a man to marry another man .
Indeed it says a man shall not lie with another man.
And exactly which religion do you reccomend that should be running our country?
eskimo
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
It's just a matter of time befor multiple partner marriges....human to animal marriges....human to inadimate object marriges....we cant discriminate now can we.
"I want to marry my car. Since it doesnt run/work it is dependent on me. Therefore i consider all of the repairs done on it medical expenses."
I still dont under stand why the lesbo w/ the cancer didnt sue from the begining....instead they got married and the "spouse" sued on the grounds that they couldnt marry befor?
That is a pretty dumb arguement.
-
I fail to see that line of reasoning Gunslinger, you run into a problem with the whole consent area of marriage.
Sheep, do you take this man to be your lawfully married husband? Sheep? SHEEP?
No yes, no marry.
-SW
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
That is a pretty dumb arguement.
yes and 20 years ago people would have said the same thing about gays being married.....or 60 years ago w/ blacks voteing
just because you say its dumb and I say offensive doesnt mean you can discriminate against bestiasexuals (or what ever they call themselves)
I fail to see that line of reasoning Gunslinger, you run into a problem with the whole consent area of marriage.
what about def mute people?? there's got to be some consession to them.
And exactly which religion do you reccomend that should be running our country?
eskimo I want a governmet for the people running this country. If the people dont agree with this....wich most dont according to poles....than it shouldnt be so. there should be some kind of vote.
-
Deaf mute people can still sign or write. and further downt he road we go, there are still methods for blind, deaf, mute people to convey their thoughts. I've not heard of someone in a coma getting married, however, so I think thats about where it stops.
-SW
-
If I adopt the logic of the household bigots of this BBS I come to the conclusion that if one files a 'frivolous' lawsuit one is not allowed to marry. Should all heterosexual marriages be disbanded because some straight ***wit sued someone for nothing??
All out weak argumentation and opportunism as always... and then finally when they run out of fictitious economic argumentation they start the religion routine. Nothing as empty and pathetic as that.
(http://realtikihut.tripod.com/comics/jesus_freaks.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
yes and 20 years ago people would have said the same thing about gays being married.....or 60 years ago w/ blacks voteing
just because you say its dumb and I say offensive doesnt mean you can discriminate against bestiasexuals (or what ever they call themselves)
what about def mute people?? there's got to be some consession to them.
DING DING DINg DIng Ding ding ding ding........... what was that? That was the logic train zooming by you.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
And exactly which religion do you reccomend that should be running our country?
eskimo
Who said anything about running the country?
Leave it up to someone to try and put words in other peoples mouths.
Pay attention I am saying that I That Is In ME do not see a marraige as being legit if it aint done by a memeber of the clergy and hopefully in a church of somekind.
That is simply my opinion .
As for who runs the country I would hope that it remains the way it is now.
Only I think that government should stay out of Gods House .
And God stay out of the white house.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
DING DING DINg DIng Ding ding ding ding........... what was that? That was the logic train zooming by you.
So you are saying the idea of gays getting married was not absured 20 years ago....and black voters were not descriminated against either?????/ what rock have you been under?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
So you are saying the idea of gays getting married was not absured 20 years ago....and black voters were not descriminated against either?????/ what rock have you been under?
Gunslinger I doubt he was even born 20 years ago.
Forgive him.
-
Originally posted by txmx
Gunslinger I doubt he was even born 20 years ago.
Forgive him.
he sure sounds like it. cant even answer the question....just writes it off as absurd
-
I think he was Dinging you regarding the Animal and Car weddings. Silly is silly.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I think he was Dinging you regarding the Animal and Car weddings. Silly is silly.
yes they are extreme....but wouldnt a "gay marriage" 20 years ago sound silly?
According to you who are for this who are we to say they cant be married and be happy?
-
ding ding ding.......
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
ding ding ding.......
Yet another one who rights off the possible as absurd
-
ding ding ding...
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Married Gays sue Clinic (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/22/gaymarriage.lawsuit.ap/index.html)
Just what we needed more lawsuits.
WTG Massachusetts!
EXACTLY !
All this gay crap is just politicaly fine and correct , right up to the point where you see the damage & distruction of a young childthat you know personaly , having being enlightend and educated by a pervert !
Makes me puke !
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Too bad it can't make you spell.
LOL ok MR WIZARD what did he misspell?
-
Still wondering why Gay folks scare so many of you. Do you think they have a recruiting quota? Maybe you think you're in danger of being admired by someone with a noodle?
Oh, I know... you care about the children. They might not grow up bigotted enough to maintain the status quo.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
It's just a matter of time befor multiple partner marriges....human to animal marriges....human to inadimate object marriges....we cant discriminate now can we.
"I want to marry my car. Since it doesnt run/work it is dependent on me. Therefore i consider all of the repairs done on it medical expenses."
You got that from Bill O'Lielly. here is the reponse - marraige and civil unions are between TWO PEOPLE
there is no mechanism for marrying more than one person or for marrying your sheep. Although Im sure you promised it to a few hehe.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
yes and 20 years ago people would have said the same thing about gays being married.....or 60 years ago w/ blacks voteing
or blacks marrying whites
and I think you just made the argument FOR gay marriage.
-
Originally posted by txmx
LOL ok MR WIZARD what did he misspell?
do you really have to ask that?
ding ding
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Married Gays sue Clinic (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/22/gaymarriage.lawsuit.ap/index.html)
Just what we needed more lawsuits.
WTG Massachusetts!
Having followed your link; I'm astonished at your legal system; but fail to see the gender relevance.
Let's get this straight: if I understand your link; a spouse marrying a cancer patient can sue the doctor, right?
What's gay got to do with it??
-
Originally posted by strk
or blacks marrying whites
and I think you just made the argument FOR gay marriage.
Not really there brainiac.
You see A black MAN would marry a white WOMAN therefore it would be good in the eyes of God.
You know the whole man & woman thing
2 bolts together are useless .
but you take a bolt and a nut and now you can do somethiing with it.
It kinda works that way in nature.
Now If all the Gays wanna be pissed at someone tell them to Hate God because he made us thats HIS plan.
I think you can see the difference.
-
guys are funny...search some old marriage threads and its all about marriage being a business arrangement, marriage is only bout the taxes and the bennies, pre-nup pre-nup, stay single 4 evah etc...
then when its same-sex marriage suddenly the message changes to using words like Sacred, God and Jesus.
Lets be real, hetero, homo, its all bout the taxman and bennies...been this way a longtime and we got how many thousands of divorce lawyers to prove this point? :D
-
(http://latis.ex.ac.uk/cfarchive/bolts.jpg)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
(http://latis.ex.ac.uk/cfarchive/bolts.jpg)
And they are totally useless without bolts .;)
-
Originally posted by strk
or blacks marrying whites
and I think you just made the argument FOR gay marriage.
Or for Men marrying animals or couples marrying other couples...were does it stop. Stabby and MT say I'm nuts here but people would have said the same thing 20-30 years ago if i would have told them that two gays can get married in a court house.
I dont think its a discrimination issue i just think the bleeding heart librals are gonna open up the flood gates of hedonism here.
And they are totally useless without bolts .
AMEN LOL
-
Of course you had to label people bleeding heart liberals because they don't want the government any more involved, and in fact far less involved, in people's daily lives and how they live them.
So, what does that make you? A commie conservative?
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Of course you had to label people bleeding heart liberals because they don't want the government any more involved, and in fact far less involved, in people's daily lives and how they live them.
So, what does that make you? A commie conservative?
-SW
Nope....a conservative who thinks that gay marrige is offensive and will open the flood gates to more radical things that make me want to throw up?
This isnt an equal rights issue it's just been twisted into one.....A gay man has the same marriage rights that I do.....the right to marry a woman....That sounds equal to me
but one thing remains the same non of you librals have answered my question at all.
-
Originally posted by Hornet
guys are funny...search some old marriage threads and its all about marriage being a business arrangement, marriage is only bout the taxes and the bennies, pre-nup pre-nup, stay single 4 evah etc...
then when its same-sex marriage suddenly the message changes to using words like Sacred, God and Jesus.
Lets be real, hetero, homo, its all bout the taxman and bennies...been this way a longtime and we got how many thousands of divorce lawyers to prove this point? :D
very good point hornet...I may opose their marriage but I would not deny them any rights/benifits for cohabitation/partnership.
I myself was completly against marriage even after marrying....me and my wife were on the brink of divorce.....but fixed things and my attitude has changed. Plus I also re-established my relationship w/ jesus and life has been good since.
-
First of all, I am no liberal. I don't get involved in that convulated crap of taking sides, when both sides are identical spare one or two issues. Fight that out amongst yourselves. From here, neither of these fictional sides are appealing.
What question? I never saw you pose a question other than, well if we do this - then the flood gates will open response. Which I showed you, could not happen, because an animal nor a car can give consent.
-SW
-
Your logic is flawed Gunslinger and I will stop the sillyness to tell you why.
If item A was unacceptable 30 years ago, and is OK today then all things that are unacceptable today will be OK 30 years from now.
One thing doesn't follow from the other.
Mass murderers were unacceptable 30 years ago.. they are still unacceptable today. So everything that is considered unacceptable today will still be unacceptable in 30 years.
nuff said?
-
I think Bush has confused people on what a real conservitive is.
-
After reading this thread I feel gay.
-
Originally posted by MoRphEuS
After reading this thread I feel gay.
You avatar does have anime in it. Even if it is a girl, it most likely is a dickgirl.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Your logic is flawed Gunslinger and I will stop the sillyness to tell you why.
If item A was unacceptable 30 years ago, and is OK today then all things that are unacceptable today will be OK 30 years from now.
One thing doesn't follow from the other.
Mass murderers were unacceptable 30 years ago.. they are still unacceptable today. So everything that is considered unacceptable today will still be unacceptable in 30 years.
nuff said?
But what is the difference (physically aside) between a man marrying another man....and a many marrying an animal?
If that's what makes them happy????? If they have companionship????? who says we cant redefine marraige as a union of a man and woman....to a union of a person and person....what stops somone from Re-redefining it again?
orriginally posted by mt
Great point Mighty1. Now Gay's have the same rights that heterosexual married couples have enjoyed for decades. Bout time.
so wouldnt it also be discrimination from those who are into other things that want "equal rights" as well?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
But what is the difference (physically aside) between a man marrying another man....and a many marrying an animal?
If that's what makes them happy????? If they have companionship????? who says we cant redefine marraige as a union of a man and woman....to a union of a person and person....what stops somone from Re-redefining it again?
You are missing the whole "consenting adults" thing.
-
I think i just did answer your question. Sorry if you cannot grasp the idea that 2 consenting adults may be free to do as they wish.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
You are missing the whole "consenting adults" thing.
who's to say that a farmers horse isnt "consenting" who's to say marrige HAS to be defined by those standards.....we use to have a definition of marriage but that's been re-defined?
arent you discriminating now from poligamists? Multiple partners...they're consenting adults?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
who's to say that a farmers horse isnt "consenting" who's to say marrige HAS to be defined by those standards.....we use to have a definition of marriage but that's been re-defined?
arent you discriminating now from poligamists? Multiple partners...they're consenting adults?
Can you talk to animals?
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
Can you talk to animals?
some people think so....are you gonna discriminate against their rights?
apes learn sign languages....dogs learn sit?
AND what about poligimists? you can talk to them...they are consenting adults?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
some people think so....are you gonna discriminate against their rights?
AND what about poligimists? you can talk to them...they are consenting adults?
Well the fact is you cannot get an animal's opinion. Sorry that will not stand up in court. There are plenty of unwed poligimists, and if any man who is that much of an idiot to marry 2 women more power to him. The only people that would do that are hillbillys, and they are already doing it out in Utah.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
Well the fact is you cannot get an animal's opinion. Sorry that will not stand up in court. There are plenty of unwed poligimists, and if any man who is that much of an idiot to marry 2 women more power to him. The only people that would do that are hillbillys, and they are already doing it out in Utah.
AND THERE IT IS FOLKS........DING DING DING
"its gotta be just rednecks and hillbillies"
"guys gotta be an idiot"
your saying that gay people have the right to "re-define" marriage but poligimists dont
What makes them so different? dont they have the same rights or are hillbillies and idiots lesser people?
Tollerence at its best.....
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
AND THERE IT IS FOLKS........DING DING DING
"its gotta be just rednecks and hillbillies"
"guys gotta be an idiot"
your saying that gay people have the right to "re-define" marriage but poligimists dont
What makes them so different? dont they have the same rights or are hillbillies and idiots lesser people?
Tollerence at its best.....
Oh i am saying that poligamists have a right to marry as many people as they want. The way i see it, if it is between 2 consenting adults and their life choices do not interfer with others then they should do whatever the hell they want. This is America.
-
Originally posted by txmx
Not really there brainiac.
You see A black MAN would marry a white WOMAN therefore it would be good in the eyes of God.
You know the whole man & woman thing
2 bolts together are useless .
but you take a bolt and a nut and now you can do somethiing with it.
It kinda works that way in nature.
Now If all the Gays wanna be pissed at someone tell them to Hate God because he made us thats HIS plan.
I think you can see the difference.
braniac lol
that wasnt his point.
We werent talking about god at all. but since you brought it up, if the bible mentions it that means it was around before the bible, no?
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Married Gays sue Clinic (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/22/gaymarriage.lawsuit.ap/index.html)
Just what we needed more lawsuits.
WTG Massachusetts!
Even though I'm not totally for homo marriage, this is one of the reasons I WOULD be for it.
Protection under the law.
-
Originally posted by strk
braniac lol
that wasnt his point.
We werent talking about god at all. but since you brought it up, if the bible mentions it that means it was around before the bible, no?
The bible also demands that you stone misbehaving children. How dare they defy the will of their god and only spank them!
-
if you want my true opinion (which you probly dont)
Gay men should all be shot and gay women should all live at my house.
-
Originally posted by mechanic
if you want my true opinion (which you probly dont)
Gay men should all be shot and gay women should all live at my house.
no my house. well you can have the ugly ones
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
Oh i am saying that poligamists have a right to marry as many people as they want. The way i see it, if it is between 2 consenting adults and their life choices do not interfer with others then they should do whatever the hell they want. This is America.
and there it is you just redefined Marriage once again. from 2 people of the opposite sex...to two people.....to just people....what's next.
Why stop their and remove that consenting adults aspect from the whole thing.......were do you stop? You cant just sit there and tell me it has to be consenting adults because that's just a norm....and norms are broken.
I've allways said I agree with giving gays some type of unions that define them as a gay "type" marriage and give them all the same benifits and rights as a strait couple. Calling what they have just degrades what I have with my wife......plus it offends me. I want to be fair to people of "alternate life styles" but this is going to far. I'm done you can have the last word however stupid it may be
-
Originally posted by mechanic
if you want my true opinion (which you probly dont)
women that are gay in porn shoots should all live at my house. No trucker bull dikes.
Fixed it for you.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Even though I'm not totally for homo marriage, this is one of the reasons I WOULD be for it.
Protection under the law.
for the record I agree as well. Give them "somthing" gay union" ect and give them all the right/benifits that a marriage has.
-
try this on for size
a man and a woman get married in a state that only allows straight marriage - no civil union or anything like that
one of them gets a sex change operation
are they still married??
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
for the record I agree as well. Give them "somthing" gay union" ect and give them all the right/benifits that a marriage has.
So you agree with Kerry then. Who is for civil unions but against marriage. Which is the correct thing to do. Leave 'marriage' up to the various religions, but for benefits and legal rights have civil unions.
-
Originally posted by strk
braniac lol
that wasnt his point.
We werent talking about god at all. but since you brought it up, if the bible mentions it that means it was around before the bible, no?
Ofcourse as God was here before the Bible .
Pretty hard to outdate God.
-
Its really a matter of Gay Men dont like Seafood...and Gay Women perfer it over Steak. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Nope....a conservative who thinks that gay marrige is offensive and will open the flood gates to more radical things that make me want to throw up?
This isnt an equal rights issue it's just been twisted into one.....A gay man has the same marriage rights that I do.....the right to marry a woman....That sounds equal to me
but one thing remains the same non of you librals have answered my question at all.
for a conservative you sure talk about group sex, gay sex and bestiality a lot . . .
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
Fixed it for you.
lmao ty stabby
-
Originally posted by txmx
Ofcourse as God was here before the Bible .
Pretty hard to outdate God.
agreed
so if god made gays, arent they god's children, and as such, shouldnt we let them live as they want? who are they hurting?
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
So you agree with Kerry then. Who is for civil unions but against marriage. Which is the correct thing to do. Leave 'marriage' up to the various religions, but for benefits and legal rights have civil unions.
Is that kerry befor he agreed with gay weddings or after when he disagreed with kerry.....you never can tell.
Either way
I know states allready have cohabitiation laws that say if somone lives together for a length of time they are considered a couple and are entitled to the same rights as a married couple.
I allso agree they should be aloud to adopt...them and single people as well.
You go around RE-defining enough things and soon enough normal becomes abnormal and then there are no standards.
-
Originally posted by strk
agreed
so if god made gays, arent they god's children, and as such, shouldnt we let them live as they want? who are they hurting?
Strk you are correct...it is not our place to judge them...it is god's. I dont agree with them getting married cause it offends me. also see above thread
-
Originally posted by strk
agreed
so if god made gays, arent they god's children, and as such, shouldnt we let them live as they want? who are they hurting?
their own backsides?
-
Originally posted by strk
agreed
so if god made gays, arent they god's children, and as such, shouldnt we let them live as they want? who are they hurting?
LOL God did not make Gay's man made Gay's with his longing for perversion.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Strk you are correct...it is not our place to judge them...it is god's. I dont agree with them getting married cause it offends me. also see above thread
well if god made them, dont you think it offends him to see them treated differently?
-
Originally posted by txmx
LOL God did not make Gay's man made Gay's with his longing for perversion.
you - there is no hope for you.
-
Originally posted by strk
you - there is no hope for you.
You know I bet God Is saying the same thing about the world right about now.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
You avatar does have anime in it. Even if it is a girl, it most likely is a dickgirl.
lol a dickgirl
wow how original:aok
Mr Shades at it again I see.;)
-
Originally posted by strk
well if god made them, dont you think it offends him to see them treated differently?
no because they are not of his flock.....god gave man free will.
That means we have the power to either screw up as bad as we want....or to embrace our faith and live a good and loving life.
-
Originally posted by txmx
You know I bet God Is saying the same thing about the world right about now.
Naw. he saw all of this coming
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
no because they are not of his flock.....god gave man free will.
That means we have the power to either screw up as bad as we want....or to embrace our faith and live a good and loving life.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Matthew 5:7
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:10
-
Originally posted by strk
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Matthew 5:7
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:10
The good works of man are but filthy rags before God.
Cant remember I'm not a hardcore bible thumper.
Also I'm not sure mathew is talking about homos. My version is a little different:
And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, 3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. 10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11
-
I predict locking in no more than 2 days time if that.
-
In the society we live in today, this subject has more to do with sociology and science than religion. Remember that law is a science. Religion is a faith based concept. My 2cents.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Is that kerry befor he agreed with gay weddings or after when he disagreed with kerry.....you never can tell.
Either way
I know states allready have cohabitiation laws that say if somone lives together for a length of time they are considered a couple and are entitled to the same rights as a married couple.
I allso agree they should be aloud to adopt...them and single people as well.
You go around RE-defining enough things and soon enough normal becomes abnormal and then there are no standards.
Kerry has never stated anything else but what i outlined.
-
It Is just this simple.
Gays wish to marry because striaght people have told them they can't!
Basic human nature tell someone they cant have something and they will want it more and more.
-
Originally posted by txmx
It kinda works that way in nature.
http://www.fact-index.com/p/pa/parthenogenesis.html
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
The good works of man are but filthy rags before God.
Cant remember I'm not a hardcore bible thumper.
Also I'm not sure mathew is talking about homos. My version is a little different:
And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, 3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. 10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11
that is the sermon on the mount, Jesus is the one who said it and Im pretty sure he meant everyone.
-
Funny part of this is that the first thing the lesbo did after getting married wasn't take a vacation or have a honeymoon....noooo she went out and sued her partners doctor for not finding cancer quick enough.
So to her marriage is the right to get money for doing nothing. Sounds familiar doesn't it Demos?
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Funny part of this is that the first thing the lesbo did after getting married wasn't take a vacation or have a honeymoon....noooo she went out and sued her partners doctor for not finding cancer quick enough.
So to her marriage is the right to get money for doing nothing. Sounds familiar doesn't it Demos?
You could sue a doctor for loss of consortium if you wife were mistreated or misdiagnosed. Yet you would deny those same rights to someone else... you really should have learned to share when you were younger.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Funny part of this is that the first thing the lesbo did after getting married wasn't take a vacation or have a honeymoon....noooo she went out and sued her partners doctor for not finding cancer quick enough.
So to her marriage is the right to get money for doing nothing. Sounds familiar doesn't it Demos?
Sounds like a straight marriage.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
You could sue a doctor for loss of consortium if you wife were mistreated or misdiagnosed. Yet you would deny those same rights to someone else... you really should have learned to share when you were younger.
While I don't necessarily agree with it, the argument that marriage rights don't belong in a homo relationship is certianly a legitimate one.
-
Originally posted by emodin
http://www.fact-index.com/p/pa/parthenogenesis.html
Nice link now prove it works in humans.
-
you really should have learned to share when you were younger
Share with who? My best male friend? My dog?
Just because I want my best friend to be my sister doesn't mean he should be.
You guys keeps saying they should have these rights because we do but they aren't like me or you they want more.
They have the right to marry the opposite sex just like us.
All this PC whinny BS is getting on my nerves.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
You guys keeps saying they should have these rights because we do but they aren't like me or you they want more.
They have the right to marry the opposite sex just like us.
They should have the right to marry the person they love, you can so they should be able to do it as well. They are just like you in the sense that their trying to be happy and find their place in life and society. They are unlike you in meddling with other people's affairs and trying to force ones own misguided beliefs and stone-age morals upon others, ever saw a homosexual lobbying for a ban on heterosexual marriage?
All this PC whinny BS is getting on my nerves.
As if the preposterous expressions of whiny bigotry and (wishful) backward reasoning don't tire those who don't look upon other groups with condescension to battle their own innate insecurities...
-
Originally posted by txmx
Nice link now prove it works in humans.
I wasn't aware that I was tackling anything more than your statement that it "works that way in nature."
Now, if you want to get into the arguement on whether or not it is posible in humans, then I can say that it is...but only if medical technology currently available is used (at least as far as I know). Very simply: take the DNA from one woman's egg (or the same woman, for that matter), and insert it into the egg of a woman who will carry the fetus to term. As I understand it, you could technically do the same thing with the DNA found in sperm, the only difference is that you would need an egg that had no DNA in it to begin with, and a woman would have to bring any fetus to term.
If you want to argue morals, I'm not interested. Pretty much everyone who has posted here has made up his/her mind, and I'm not interested in being drug into a revolving debate on the issue with a bunch of people on a BBS board. I find the whole arguement from both sides interesting, but I don't really see the point in hitting my head against a wall.
I will, however, occasionally take it upon myself to post facts to dispute inaccuracies in other people's posts. :D
-
Originally posted by emodin
I wasn't aware that I was tackling anything more than your statement that it "works that way in nature."
Now, if you want to get into the arguement on whether or not it is posible in humans, then I can say that it is...but only if medical technology currently available is used (at least as far as I know). Very simply: take the DNA from one woman's egg (or the same woman, for that matter), and insert it into the egg of a woman who will carry the fetus to term. As I understand it, you could technically do the same thing with the DNA found in sperm, the only difference is that you would need an egg that had no DNA in it to begin with, and a woman would have to bring any fetus to term.
If you want to argue morals, I'm not interested. Pretty much everyone who has posted here has made up his/her mind, and I'm not interested in being drug into a revolving debate on the issue with a bunch of people on a BBS board. I find the whole arguement from both sides interesting, but I don't really see the point in hitting my head against a wall.
I will, however, occasionally take it upon myself to post facts to dispute inaccuracies in other people's posts. :D
Find a woman that makes her own sperm and then I might see your point there.
-
whats the argument about again?
woman sues doctor because he did not do his job. woman went to doctor, showed doc the lump, doc didnt do anything about it (and yes, im sorry but the woman is also quite responsible at not having a 2nd opinion from another doctor..i mean cmon, if you grow a big ball somewhere in your body and a phd says its nothing..do you believe him and trust your life on that? heck no).
as for all of ye anti-gay marriage religious nuts: Whats the big deal? You should be going to the local worship hut and giving thanks to the diety of your choice that homosexuals and lesbians are getting married.
Homosexuality is not hereditary you know. And even if it indeed was, same sex couples sure as heck aint mixing their genes with their partners.
"Now, if you want to get into the arguement on whether or not it is posible in humans, then I can say that it is...but only if medical technology currently available is used (at least as far as I know). Very simply: take the DNA from one woman's egg (or the same woman, for that matter), and insert it into the egg of a woman who will carry the fetus to term. As I understand it, you could technically do the same thing with the DNA found in sperm, the only difference is that you would need an egg that had no DNA in it to begin with, and a woman would have to bring any fetus to term. "
You've described cloning. The woman carrying the fetus to term would be carrying the genetic 'twin' of whoever donated the dna.
the dna in a woman's egg is different from the one in a sperm. XX vs XY. When the sperm meets the egg the dna exchange begins.. the only way to make a woman knock another woman up would be to get her XX genes and snip off the part that turns the second X into a "Y" (to use extremely crude layman's terms here).
By the time that kind of technology is avaliable, you would be able to simply build up your own dna... ala Gattaca for example.
-
Originally posted by OIO
the dna in a woman's egg is different from the one in a sperm. XX vs XY. When the sperm meets the egg the dna exchange begins.. the only way to make a woman knock another woman up would be to get her XX genes and snip off the part that turns the second X into a "Y" (to use extremely crude layman's terms here).
A sperm carries EITHER an X or a Y chromosome, while the egg only carries one X chromosome (in most cases). If the sperm that fertalizes the egg has the X chromosome, the child becomes a girl. If the sperm has a Y chromosome, it becomes a boy. In cases where the sperm or the egg carry two chromosomes (like XY, XX, ect), then you get into the realm of Klinefelter Syndrome (XXY chromosomes), which has some nasty genetic side-effects (infertillity being just one). Basically, you don't have to have the Y chromosome. If you did, everyone would be male.
As far as cloning goes, it is not the same thing. During reproduction, the DNA from the two parent gametes (mature sperm or egg cell) contain only 1/4 of the parent's DNA. Meiosis splits the full 46 chromosomal pairs into the haploid 23 chromosomes, and then meiosis II splits those chromosomes in half, with one chromatid per haploid going to each gamete. Therefore, each gamete has only one chromatid out of the total of four chromatids found in a regular chromosomal pair found in your average human cell.
Therefore, since there is only 25% of the parent's full DNA represented in each gamete (and crossover can occur along the chromatids), combining two gametes from the same creature will not result in a clone. ***edit: actually, my math was off...there is a 50% base chance of a genetic match occuring-ie a clone. However, due to gene swapping (chromosome pairs swapping genes between each other) during a certain phase of Meiosis I, this chance is greatly reduced***
(For those of you who have noticed that 1/4 + 1/4 does not equal 1, you have to remember that the chromatids combine and then double).
A clone is an exact DNA duplicate of a creature.
As per my link earlier in this thread, there is a species of lizards that is almost entirely female, and they do not need male lizards of their species to reproduce.
However, if we are talking about mammals specifically, due to what is called "imprinting," things become a little trickier. However, scientists have gotten around this with lab mice, and it is believed that it would be posible to do the same thing in humans., though there are ethical questions involved in undertaking such a procedure. http://www.nature.com/nsu/040419/040419-8.html#
-
Ok so how do two women reproduce by just having sex together?
Or do they still need sperm?
And where do we get the little swimmers?
You got it MEN !
So even though I flunked math I can even do the addition on this one.
-
My silly point is that if you wish to procreate man needs woman and woman needs man.
Funny how it works that way .
We still aint found a way to out smart God yet have we?
-
Originally posted by txmx
Ok so how do two women reproduce by just having sex together?
Or do they still need sperm?
And where do we get the little swimmers?
You got it MEN !
So even though I flunked math I can even do the addition on this one.
(http://www.gilbertv.com/images/captainobvious02.jpg)
-
Originally posted by rpm371
(http://www.gilbertv.com/images/captainobvious02.jpg)
So a GAY marriaige Is a joke then right?
I mean you cant create a child togther witch is one of the main reasons for getting married .
Atleast it used to be you know family and those silly old values.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
They have the right to marry the opposite sex just like us.
Where have I heard this before? Oh right. Black people have the right to marry some of their race, just like us. I don't see why they should be allowed to marry white people.
The answer by the way, is "freedom". Gay people in Mass. just got the freedom to marry the people they love, but some of you just can't help but want to hold that back. You want the state to say who consenting adults can an can't marry. ****ing commies.
-
No I want the church to say who can and cant get married as I see it as a holy union not a civil one.
And the Bible clearly states that a man shall not lie with another man.
A man and woman together weather they be a black man and a white woman makes no difference as they are not breaking the laws of God and nature.
-
Originally posted by txmx
A man and woman together weather they be a black man and a white woman makes no difference as they are not breaking the laws of God and nature.
As was demostrated to you up above homosexuality is not against the laws of nature, but exists in nature in many places.
No one is asking you stop following your relgion as you see it. But it goes against the principles of the US for you to try an force someone else to follow the religion as you see it. Unless you think that the US is a theocracy.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
You are lying. As was demostrated to you up above homosexuality is not against the laws of nature, but exists in nature in many places.
No one is asking you stop following your relgion as you see it. But it goes against the principles of the US for you to try an force someone else to follow the religion as you see it. Unless you think that the US is a theocracy.
I believe that like being babtised being married is something done by the church.
And the church does not condone homosexuals.
For those who do not belive in God and his rules you will never understand this.
But at some point the day will come when we all will have to answer for our actions here on earth.
Are you ready?
I know I'm not.
-
Originally posted by txmx
I believe that like being babtised being married is something done by the church.
Did you and your wife get a marriage licence when you got married?
-
Thrawn, I know it's late, but why are you arguing at this particular idiot? I say at, because he's incapable of putting together a coherent argument. Let him be, and remember - it's not nice to pick on the handicapped.
-
So according to you Thud people should marry who they want right? What if they "love" their mother? or father? brother? sister?
Hell I love my son so does that mean I get to corn hole him?
Is that OK by you or is that having "stone-age morals"?
The problem with some of you liberal types is that you have NO morals at all.
You want the state to say who consenting adults can an can't marry.
No I don't want the state to do anything but retards like you make it so they have to.
The courts are not taking anything away from them they are just making sure they don't get something that doesn't belong to them in the first place.
-
Originally posted by txmx
I believe that like being babtised being married is something done by the church.
And the church does not condone homosexuals.
You can believe what you want but the fact remains that a marriage is performed and validated by a civil servant, not some agitator in a dress who happens to have a bunch of thoughtless morons shaping their lives and minds after his ridiculous dribble.
Moreover, the church does not condone the use of condoms either.. How do you think your 'god' will look upon the millions of deaths caused by that criminal idiocy in his name?
For those who do not belive in God and his rules you will never understand this.
But at some point the day will come when we all will have to answer for our actions here on earth.
Are you ready?
I know I'm not.
If there, not a chance in hell but nevertheless, is a 'god' you are indeed not ready, since I'm convinced that a would-be god as most religions envison would never approve of retards dicriminating and looking down upon others among his 'sheep' in his name while merely satisfying their primal urge to place themselves above others in the moral hierarchy.
Better change that 'little' glitch before your day comes, sinner...
BTW, you believe the afterlife is something akin to a BBS shadow account?
.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
So according to you Thud people should marry who they want right? What if they "love" their mother? or father? brother? sister?
Hell I love my son so does that mean I get to corn hole him?
Is that OK by you or is that having "stone-age morals"?
The problem with some of you liberal types is that you have NO morals at all.
Very well, I'll go long in your flawed logic. The suggestions you formulated so eloquently above present a health risk if allowed. Allowing people related to a certain degree to acquire an administrative marriage does essentially condone by law the possibility of reproduction from similar genetic make-ups. That is what draws the line whom you can marry, not some loonatic's stone-age morals spread from the pulpit.
-
I never had an really strong views on gay marriage. I just vaguely wondered why they wanted to bother. But it seems like anyone else they want validation in their lives. It has to be tough to be gay and judging by the prejudice shown here by so called Christians I can see why.
As it happens I spent last new year's eve at a party in the house of a lesbian couple. Not a 'gay' party, just friends who it happens were all straight. I considered my attitude to the whole gay thing and I realized that at some point I stopped seeing the gay thing and simply thought of them as a couple. We didn't discuss their sexuality any more than I discuss mine with my friends.
At the end of the day gay people are just that, people. It's a pity others don't take the same view.
I really don't know why so many religious people are intolerant bigots on numerous subjects including being gay. I mean just what right do you have to pass judgement on other people's lives? That, as the bible no doubt points out somewhere is God's job not yours
-
Originally posted by SOB
Thrawn, I know it's late, but why are you arguing at this particular idiot? I say at, because he's incapable of putting together a coherent argument. Let him be, and remember - it's not nice to pick on the handicapped.
Because he's bring up some arguements that others have. And what a great foil to show how rediculous those arguments are.
-
Very well, I'll go long in your flawed logic. The suggestions you formulated so eloquently above present a health risk if allowed.
So aids is not a health risk? Isn't the risk of getting aids higher in gays?
Allowing people related to a certain degree to acquire an administrative marriage does essentially condone by law the possibility of reproduction from similar genetic make-ups.That is what draws the line whom you can marry, not some loonatic's stone-age morals spread from the pulpit.
By your logic then I should still be able to marry my son but not my daughter. Or I could marry my brother because we can't have kids.
Looks like your line needs a little work. Maybe you should look at some of those "stone-age morals " you seem to dislike.
-
Originally posted by Thud
You can believe what you want but the fact remains that a marriage is performed and validated by a civil servant, not some agitator in a dress who happens to have a bunch of thoughtless morons shaping their lives and minds after his ridiculous dribble.
Moreover, the church does not condone the use of condoms either.. How do you think your 'god' will look upon the millions of deaths caused by that criminal idiocy in his name?
If there, not a chance in hell but nevertheless, is a 'god' you are indeed not ready, since I'm convinced that a would-be god as most religions envison would never approve of retards dicriminating and looking down upon others among his 'sheep' in his name while merely satisfying their primal urge to place themselves above others in the moral hierarchy.
Better change that 'little' glitch before your day comes, sinner...
BTW, you believe the afterlife is something akin to a BBS shadow account?
.
If I where you I would start stocking up un some really strong sunblock LOL.
The UV rays are pretty bad In hell I here.
-
Anyone who is this vehimently against one group of people having the right to live in peace and love with the mate of their choice is just a bigot. Pure and simple, no doubt about it. Embrace your bigottedness and let it shine for all the world to see.
Out.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Because he's bring up some arguements that others have. And what a great foil to show how rediculous those arguments are.
You're right, that is pretty damning!
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
So aids is not a health risk? Isn't the risk of getting aids higher in gays?
In your social circle homosexuals are probably regarded as both the cause of and synonymous with AIDS, so I'm only moderately surprised someone like you made such a statement.
I'm convinced that the number of heterosual seropositives is far more numerous (All known US gays number far less than all infected straights in Africa alone) so statistically it's complete BS.
By your logic then I should still be able to marry my son but not my daughter. Or I could marry my brother because we can't have kids.
Looks like your line needs a little work. Maybe you should look at some of those "stone-age morals " you seem to dislike.
Hardly, you evidently missed the pivotal point of (a.o.) this whole thread: Homosexuals should be allowed to marry because should have the same right to wed their partner, regardless his/her sex. Ergo, regarding this (and many more) issue(s) the sexes should be treated equally.
Therefore your brother and son shouldn't be allowed to marry you, since we've already established that your sister and daughter can't because of the gene pool thing...
Or perhaps you'd like some sex based discrimination added to your conto as well? Would match your stone-age morals otoh...
.