Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: mg1942 on June 17, 2008, 01:21:53 PM
-
It's said by 2011, there will be 2000 jobs added.
-----
My pops just went back to Los Angeles and he's dismayed at what he saw yesterday... Gays 'n lesbos flooding the marriage centers in downtown L.A.
-
dude, kill the bug.
-
Let him know that we rebelled against the British, the 18th amandment was repealed, women can drive as well as vote and the Japanese are our friends now.
Progress happens, some just haven't learned how to deal with it very well.
-
I Just don't see why your pops has to get upset over something that has nothing to do with his life...
Unless of course he was getting molested by these people, then I can understand his dismay.
-
The Black Plague was an economic boon to the coffin makers in Europe.
Doesn't always make it a good thing.
-
I Just don't see why your pops has to get upset over something that has nothing to do with his life...
Unless of course he was getting molested by these people, then I can understand his dismay.
Maybe it's really upsetting for those who were born and raised in 2nd half or 3/4ths of the 20th century.
-
Let him know that we rebelled against the British, the 18th amandment was repealed, women can drive as well as vote and the Japanese are our friends now.
Progress happens, some just haven't learned how to deal with it very well.
I don't think I'd go so far as to call it progress. It's different for sure.
-
The Black Plague was an economic boon to the coffin makers in Europe.
Doesn't always make it a good thing.
That's so nice of you to compare same sex weddings to the black plague. It's nothing off from you, so why do you care to make it appear as a bad thing? It's not a threat, it's not infectuous...
Live and let live. As long as people don't cause trouble I'm fine with almost everything.
-
That's so nice of you to compare same sex weddings to the black plague. It's nothing off from you, so why do you care to make it appear as a bad thing? It's not a threat, it's not infectuous...
Live and let live. As long as people don't cause trouble I'm fine with almost everything.
Well, so am I (your last line), however this is a political issue, the gays just wanted to disrespect the religious sect. They already have civil unions, etc. (shrugs)
Next on Oprah, obese civil rights and Man/Sheep marriages, brought to you by a Progressive America.
-
Same sex marriages will be a much bigger economic boom for divorce lawyers.
It always comes back to lawyers, doesn't it?
-
Same sex marriages will be a much bigger economic boom for divorce lawyers.
It always comes back to lawyers, doesn't it?
And marriage councelers
the "Deluth Model" for that ought to be a riot
-
Well, so am I (your last line), however this is a political issue, the gays just wanted to disrespect the religious sect. They already have civil unions, etc. (shrugs)
Next on Oprah, obese civil rights and Man/Sheep marriages, brought to you by a Progressive America.
Civil Unions didn't grant same sex couples the same rights granted by marriage. If anything it was more like the Religious Right wanted to continue the discrimination against and disrespect of homosexuals...What I don't understand is why anyone even cares who marries whom.
-
Civil Unions didn't grant same sex couples the same rights granted by marriage. If anything it was more like the Religious Right wanted to continue the discrimination against and disrespect of homosexuals...What I don't understand is why anyone even cares who marries whom.
Oh yeah, now they get taxed more because they file married. I forget about that. :rolleyes:
What I don't understand is why they want to call it marriage instead of a civil union....WGAS.
-
It's not a threat, it's not infectuous...
AIDS?
-
How is agreeing to be monogamous with one person for the rest of your life (marriage) a threat of AIDS? If anything, it will lower the spread of AIDS.
-
How is agreeing to be monogamous with one person for the rest of your life (marriage)
You can do that without getting married or calling it marriage.
-
Maybe it's really upsetting for those who were born and raised in 2nd half or 3/4ths of the 20th century.
Or maybe they should mind their own business *shrug*
ack-ack
-
Well, so am I (your last line), however this is a political issue, the gays just wanted to disrespect the religious sect. They already have civil unions, etc. (shrugs)
Next on Oprah, obese civil rights and Man/Sheep marriages, brought to you by a Progressive America.
Since when is marriage exclusively a right for the religious? Why does it get the churches all upset at a civil marriage between two people of the same sex? If your church is against it fine but there is no reason to deny someone a civil right to marry the one they love, regardless of sexual orientation. No one is forcing any church to marry people of the same sex, it's just giving these people a right to a civil marriage, something we heterosexuals enjoy. So the question is, why discriminate?
I also find it funny how people equate same sex marriages to somehow opening the door for human/animal marriages, condoning pedophilia and other crap like that. Truly the argument for the weak and simple minded.
ack-ack
-
Sad times in the U.S. when "marriage" is thrown in the trash for back seat boogy boyz.
-
I have nothing against gays getting married.. they always could.. they just needed to follow the rules and marry someone of the opposite gender.
What they are trying to do is horn in on something that is already established with it's own rules.
I really don't understand why they didn't work to make their own form of marriage.. just lazy leeches I guess.
It will be a boon for lawyers and skip chasers but it will clog the courts... the burden of increased benifiets for this new "marriage" will of course.. come down to us.
So.. what are the rules now? Isn't multiple partner marriages discrimination? Don't they love each other and.. at least they can provide a family with both genders. Why not sexless marriage? marriage between close relatives to get the tax and other bennies?
They, the gays, are just lazy leeches and whiners to me. they don't want the wedding gown.. they want the money.
lazs
-
The lamest arguement is ack acks that somehow.. marriage to one other person regardless of gender is now the norm and everything else is off the table.
If you can't discriminate based on gender.. if "love" is the only qualification.. why should number or relationship have anything to do with it? Why not marry your daughter or son that you are raising in a sexless marriage in order to get the benifiets?
Those who tout gay marriage as something special to be given special rights are hypocrites. They are just lazy leeches who want special privilidges.. and exception to the rules just for them.
lazs
-
They are just lazy leeches who want special privilidges.. and exception to the rules just for them.
lazs
Special privledges Lazs? Or equal rights?
-
Re: Civil Unions, the SC ruled long ago that separate but equal is NOT equal. Funny how the exact same arguments were used to fight against mixed race marriages as recently as 1968.
-
Since when is marriage exclusively a right for the religious? Why does it get the churches all upset at a civil marriage between two people of the same sex? If your church is against it fine but there is no reason to deny someone a civil right to marry the one they love, regardless of sexual orientation. No one is forcing any church to marry people of the same sex, it's just giving these people a right to a civil marriage, something we heterosexuals enjoy. So the question is, why discriminate?
I also find it funny how people equate same sex marriages to somehow opening the door for human/animal marriages, condoning pedophilia and other crap like that. Truly the argument for the weak and simple minded.
ack-ack
That will happen. Sooner or later some gay or lesbian couple will sue a church because they feel they have the right to a church wedding and some liberal judge will side with them and set a precedent.
-
Re: Civil Unions, the SC ruled long ago that separate but equal is NOT equal. Funny how the exact same arguments were used to fight against mixed race marriages as recently as 1968.
Strawman there. Homosexuals have always had the option to marry. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex.
The definition of marriage according to Websters dictionary.
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
That has been the definition of marriage for literally thousands of years. Now a few homosexuals want to change that definition.
-
Strawman there. Homosexuals have always had the option to marry. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex.
The definition of marriage according to Websters dictionary.
That has been the definition of marriage for literally thousands of years. Now a few homosexuals want to change that definition.
In 1967 you would have written that black people have every right in the world to marry as long as they are other black people.
-
In 1967 you would have written that black people have every right in the world to marry as long as they are other black people.
1967?
You mean that rule doesn't apply today?
Crazy.
-
I went to a lesbian wedding yesterday- they didn't serve alcohol because they couldn't get a liquor license.
-
well... i think they have a legitimate gripe... why should gays be forced to subsidize heterosexual marriages.
-
torque.. the reason any of us are "forced" to subsidize hetrosexual marriage is because the union of a man and a woman is the best and most stable form for raising future generations. You are subsidizing the future..
lazs
-
MT..as for "separate but equal" that does not apply. race should never have been a factor.
For all of you who are not getting it... We subsidize what we think has value based on that value. There is no value...or.. more precisely.. there is not the same value for homo marriage as there is for hetro...
A much better case could be made for discrimination based on multiple wives. The value more closely resembles that of a two person hetro marriage than the 2 person homo marriage does.
For all of you who think homosexual marriage is fair and a good thing I would ask you to at least have the courage to define this new marriage for me. Please define what is your idea of marriage.
lazs
-
Lazs, how are we subdizing marriage, straight or not? Counties charge for a marriage license.
-
if you are serious.. we can start with the tax code. There are many laws that apply to people who are married but not to ones that are not.
lazs
-
What's next? Can ghey Mormon males have multiple husbands and the females multiple wives?
Where did all the children goe? Ohhh Noes there's no children anymore...
-
mac.. Like I said... define what is the new marriage that is fair to everyone. hell.. any definition will do since we threw out the old one.
How is it now defined? your comical scenario would seem to be a natural progression of "equal rights" based marriage.
lazs
-
Deviation from the traditional norm is definitely discriminatory if it excludes other consenting adults like would be polygamists. Pandora's box has been opened.
-
torque.. the reason any of us are "forced" to subsidize hetrosexual marriage is because the union of a man and a woman is the best and most stable form for raising future generations. You are subsidizing the future..
lazs
elderly people and people that never have kids get married all the time... forcing gays to subsidize them as well seems rather socialist.
-
torque.. the reason any of us are "forced" to subsidize hetrosexual marriage is because the union of a man and a woman is the best and most stable form for raising future generations. You are subsidizing the future..
lazs
Lol sounds like the same reasoning for seatbelt laws, Laz are you sure your not a Dem in hiding?
-
Next thing you know, Sheep herders will be lobbying for the right to marry sheep under the "equal rights" umbrella. (rolling eyes here)
-
Don't agree with the gay life style but I can understand them wanting equal rights with getting married. People may say that marriages are for raising kinds, but how many people are married and don’t have kids? Should they not allowed to be married? Maybe make automatic divorce after one year if no kids are produced?. What about people that have kids and are not married should they be forced to be married for the betterment of the future?
Gays are here and they are not going into hiding to make people feel better, they pay taxes, run business own homes, they should have the right to get married with the same government benefits that it entails..
Either that or do away with the government doing anything for all marriages. Its not like women don’t work and cant support themselves.
-
"new marriage"? Is this what they call it now?
:rofl
-
I took the liberty of quoting your post into the future, where the progressive American leaders will eventually lead us, I'm guessing by 2020:
Animal porkers are here and they are not going into hiding to make people feel better, they pay taxes, run business own homes, they should have the right to get married to the farm animals of their choice with the same government benefits that it entails..
-
Only if animals at that time are like apes in the planet of the apes
-
I took the liberty of quoting your post into the future, where the progressive American leaders will eventually lead us, I'm guessing by 2020:
First sheep and now just animals, looking for other options? :)
-
Only if animals at that time are like apes in the planet of the apes
But who are you to judge if a man and a sheep do not have love, and who are you to say that a man and a sheep cannot marry? They have equal rights, just like men and women!
Did you get my point yet? ;)
-
When they get a vote, Get mine yet? :)
If they can vote they get the same rights,
One of those things that kind of sucks when you let people vote. Give the black man a vote, and now he wants to go to the same schools. Give women the vote, and now they want to work. Kinda sucks huh?:)
Now that gays quit hiding they get to use their wallet and vote to get what they want.
-
But who are you to judge if a man and a sheep do not have love, and who are you to say that a man and a sheep cannot marry? They have equal rights, just like men and women!
Did you get my point yet? ;)
So I guess in a conservative state like Florida, it's the gay's fault that bestiality is legal or that repeated attempts to make it illegal have failed?
ack-ack
-
So I guess in a conservative state like Florida, it's the gay's fault that bestiality is legal or that repeated attempts to make it illegal have failed?
ack-ack
Perhaps it is because the politicians have bigger fish to fry (passing laws) such as teaching Floridians how to vote without being confusedy? Or speak english? or allowing unlimited "Depends" purchases?
Or as the Roman's say, "When in Rome..."
(http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/more-horse-sex.jpg?w=292&h=172)
-
Dammmm and I get Probation....?
:rofl
-
I don't know how you guys got that I supported subsidized marriage or that seatbelt laws and helmet laws had anything to do with subsidizing one group over another.
I am pointing out the facts. that two people of the opposite sex are the best way to raise the future generations... the people have spoken and feel that it is worth subsidizing or.. giving back more of their own money back to them to do so.
That has nothing to do with subsidizing the insurance companies... in the guise of "for your own good" with seat belt laws or helmet laws.
the gays are just lazy leeches in this case.
It has destroyed the fabric and purpose of marriage....
Unless any of you clever liberals can give me the new and fair... definition of marriage...it is all about fair right?
What is the new definition?
lazs
-
Two consenting adults want a civil marriage? Seems reasonable enough to me, and I haven't yet heard a good argument against it. This civil union stuff (ie: separate but equal) is shameful. Let them in on civil marriage, hope that it leads to more stable relationships in that community, and continue about your business being largely unaffected by them. Or even better, get the government out of the marriage business all together and let the issue become moot.
The argument that this will lead to human/animal marriages? Well, really Rip, even you aren't that stupid.
And the argument that churches will be forced to perform ceremonies and accept homosexuals into their congregations? Ask your local female Catholic priest about how Affirmative Action has helped them get ordained by the church, or your nearest homosexual Mormon who was able to force himself/herself into a local congregation with the help of anti-discrimination laws. Good luck in your search. Fortunately, religions are pretty well protected in our society against outside interference beyond causing harm to those unable to fend for themselves.
And and the argument that why not let more than two people get married if we're going to let the gays get married? Well, why not? Certainly doesn't bother me if some bozo wants to burden himself with multiple nagging wives. Really sounds like a self-induced hell-on-earth though, but hey, different strokes...
-
SOB the voice of reason.....
I bet I'm the 1st guy to ever type that! I happily join Neil Armstrong and Jackie Robinson and those 80 year old lesbians in the pantheon of firsts.
-
The argument that this will lead to human/animal marriages? Well, really Rip, even you aren't that stupid.
This is the only part of your post I disagree with SOB. ;)
Lazs, I'm surprised at your opposition to same sex marriages. I know we all tend to play the straight party line at times, but you have always been a common sense logical kinda guy and for you to have this attitude is baffling. I KNOW you aren't homophobic, like some of the others who have voiced their opposition to gay marriage.
-
I am not in the least homophobic.. whatever that means..
This has nothing to do with that. the rules were what they were and they were that way for a reason. Trying to piggyback off of established rules is being a lazy leech.
SOB is at least honest and.. on the surface logical. He claims he has no problem with two consenting adults entering into marriage or even.... multiple adults.
I can see his point on the multiple part.. not for me but.. it would not violate the premis that marriage and having male and female in the relationship is the best thing for everyone in raising future children... no problem
But... consenting adults? sounds good eh? father daughter? mother son? brother sister? sister sister? brother brother... any combination of the above? with no definition other than wanting to get the bennies and love.. why not? why are those people not treated fairly?
What if sex is not even involved? the father/daughter just want the bennies and love each other but sex is not an issue? Is sex the definition? that would discriminate against the asexual. What about cripples who can't even have sex?
Why bother with any one group getting an exception (gays) over all others and opening up this can of worms in all it's unfairness to everyone but straight and gay couples?
Why not leave marriage as it is and let every other oddball form of relationship get their own form of marriage and rules and bennies?
Or.. you could just dissolve all marriage (the real "fair" thing) and no one would get an "unfair" advantage.
If you don't.. it will be inherently unfair. We all except the "unfairness" of hetro couples because of the advantage we all get. There is no advantage to every oddball coupling you can imagine leeching off the system.
lazs
-
I can say that I don't necessarily agree with, or condone homosexuality or same sex "marriage". Am I an avid anti gay marriage activist? Absolutely not. It really isn't a big deal to me. But.............
As far as an economic boon (that's what this post began about, right?) I would have to say yes. To me, at least.
My DJ company does about 25-50 wedding receptions a year. We have even performed at a few "same sex" ceremony receptions. Because I don't agree with or condone it as a personal opinion does that mean I will refuse their patronage? Hell no!
Will I, in the service of the almighty dollar, keep taking their money because it is the same color green as everyone else's, and spends just the same
You're damn skippy! :aok
-
In 1967 you would have written that black people have every right in the world to marry as long as they are other black people.
No I would not have. You see, amongst Blacks their are both men and women and they have the right to marry according to the definition of marriage. Which I notice you conveniently ignored and nearly everyone else in this thread also ignores.
-
so... no one is going to define what they think is fair rules for marriage now?
I thought not. It can't be done. not fairly in any case. The only ones that worked fairly are the ones we had.
It is like printing all government documents in english and spanish to be "fair".. how is that fair to germans who come here? to french or dutch or asian? we have a huge asian population.. what is that? oh.. they follow the rules so they don't need special help?
Come on.. you liberal feelgooders... I want your new definition of marriage that is now fair. How has gay marriage made marriage fair? It has simply extended an advantage onto one more (of many) groups who have a relationship with each other.
lazs
-
Take the current defenition and delete any reference to sex. Easy lazs.
-
Take the current defenition and delete any reference to sex. Easy lazs.
Marriage gives legitmacy to sexual relations within the marriage. So, to be fair, we should remove sex out of marriage? The question begs, why get married then?
-
By sex I meant gender... excuse my mistake.
-
ah... so you would keep the parts about only two people and the parts where sex is required and the parts where no close relatives could marry?
How is that fair? Wouldn't my girlfriend and her grown daughter who live together and depend on each other be being treated unfairly if it is about the bennies? They could use the tax break and medical too.
What about polygamy? why not them? Why do you not press one for spanish and not 2-200 for all the other languages?
What benifet is it for the rest of us to have gay couples get the bennies over all other forms of relationships?
What is "fair" about your definition?
What is the purpose of having a marriage? Why do we support it.
I say that it has all to do with the fact that we think it is good for us. that it makes it more likely that our children will be raised in the best way known to man.. a married couple consisting of a man and a woman.
lazs
-
It has to do with the fact that we should not discriminate based on gender, religion, race or disability. Maybe I missed something there, but you get the point. This isn't some slippery slope leading to goat sex lazs. The law is in place, the definition is in place, just stop decriminating based on gender and we are all being treated equally under the existing law... simple.
-
<Snip>
Why do you not press one for spanish and not 2-200 for all the other languages?
lazs
Lazs,
You might get a kick out of this guy. He owns a restaurant in Pittsburgh.
http://www.casadice.com/ (http://www.casadice.com/)
Click the link on the left for "Our Famous Signs"
-
well... gay couples certainly deserve a fair kick at the can... i don't think they could do more damage to the institution of marriage than the heterosexual have done already.
if you're going to force gays to subsidize hetero marriages and their children's education... then maybe a check box on their tax forms to defer.
as for all the animal and incest remarks... they seem to be more of a self confession... i'm guessing if you checked the caches on these peoples machines the links will be there.
as for them be lazy leeches... looks like gays put more effort into attaining equal rights then most divorced heteros did to save their marriages.
-
Take the current defenition and delete any reference to sex. Easy lazs.
Why does the current definition need to be changed to make a small group of people happy when this current definition has served mankind very well for thousands of years?
-
Why does the current definition need to be changed to make a small group of people happy when this current definition has served mankind very well for thousands of years?
Why not?
If the government is going to tell someone they can't do something they want to do, the government needs a good reason. There's no good reason for the government to interfere here.
-
MT.. you think that discrimination is fine so long as it does not have to do with race creed or gender? Why gender over other types?
Gays support hetro marriage.. asexual people support hetro marriage.. single people who never want to get married support it.. they all do and they all get something from it. they all get the same thing from their support.. they get the benifiet of the country raising kids in the best way possible.
If you start adding groups then gays should be the last.. take my girlfriend and her daughter for instance... or even me as a single... My girlfriend and her daughter are doing the raising of her grand daughter.. the parents are not doing a good job.. I am helping my ex raise my grand daughter...
It would make far more sense to give us the bennies of a marriage than to give them to gays.
Typical liberal feelgood crap on your part. Think with your heart instead of your head and mess things all up because of it... help a few feel good but be unfair to millions.
Your definition of marriage is just as unfair as the old one.. no.. it is much more unfair.. now you really are discriminating against any other relationship. you now only condone one that is conventional and works for everyone and... now.... you pick one worthless feel good one and add that.
It would have been much more fair to have made polygamy the new exception.. they at least are not lazy leeches and they at least give kids a parent from each gender and... they have fought a lot harder for their belief than any gay couple ever has. They have been hunted and hounded and imprisoned and even killed for their belief.
lazs
-
Why not?
If the government is going to tell someone they can't do something they want to do, the government needs a good reason. There's no good reason for the government to interfere here.
By changing the definition of marriage, the gov't is intervening. I agree, there is no good reason for the gov't to intere here.
-
Perhaps it is because the politicians have bigger fish to fry (passing laws) such as teaching Floridians how to vote without being confusedy? Or speak english? or allowing unlimited "Depends" purchases?
Or as the Roman's say, "When in Rome..."
(http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/more-horse-sex.jpg?w=292&h=172)
isee this thread being locked because of this pic?
-
A man and woman make a marriage. Not 2 women and a turkey baster.
I will always believe that marriage is between a man and woman. Will I treat a homosexual couple with contempt? Not at all. I treat human beings as human beings. I don't think the bible says any different. In fact I always say God will judge them like he will me. However that does not mean I have to condone that behavior. We've had abortion laws for what, over 30 years, and I don't condone that at all.
Perhaps, the best solution is to get government out of marriage all together. On tax forms and everything else.
A man and a woman were meant to raise children.
I will find it facinating at the divorce rate since homosexuals have way more sexual encounters than the average heterosexual. Will they all have to go back to California to get divorced. Extra expense there. Might be a great time to be a divorce attorney. Uh if you don't mind holding the same sexes hand. :rofl
-
I can say that I don't necessarily agree with, or condone homosexuality or same sex "marriage". Am I an avid anti gay marriage activist? Absolutely not. It really isn't a big deal to me. But.............
As far as an economic boon (that's what this post began about, right?) I would have to say yes. To me, at least.
My DJ company does about 25-50 wedding receptions a year. We have even performed at a few "same sex" ceremony receptions. Because I don't agree with or condone it as a personal opinion does that mean I will refuse their patronage? Hell no!
Will I, in the service of the almighty dollar, keep taking their money because it is the same color green as everyone else's, and spends just the same
You're damn skippy! :aok
well said sir!!
i think that's what this post was originated to find out. i own my own auto repair shop in cherry hill......and your Golly-gee straight that i'll be all too happy to take their business. they're the same as you and me. if we don't pry into their lives then they won't bother us. period. they use credit cards just like us. they write checks just like us. they spend cash just like us. when they do the marriage thing, they'll get to experience the joys of divorce eventually too, just like us. it's their business, not ours. who are we to tell them they can't do this? by some of the posts here, that would mean that me having a black girlfriend is bad.
anyway..wtg VM<<S>>
-
by some of the posts here, that would mean that me having a black girlfriend is bad.
I've only seen a strawman argument brought up that would suggest that. No one is seriously suggesting that interracial marriages are something that should be forbidden. After all, as long as they involve a male and a female, they fit the definition of marriage.
-
MT.. you think that discrimination is fine so long as it does not have to do with race creed or gender? Why gender over other types?
If you start adding groups then gays should be the last..
It would make far more sense to give us the bennies of a marriage than to give them to gays.
soooo..you're saying gays can't raise kids?
-
soooo..you're saying gays can't raise kids?
People use to think that a single female or male could raise a kid. It's be proven that doesn't work out so well.
My logic is yeah they can raise a child but overall 2 of the same sex aren't going to do a very good job.
Especially boys, Boys do not listen to their mom like they do their dad. I've seen it over and over. My wife would tell the kids a hundred times to do something. I just had to say it once.
-
I have nothing against gays getting married.. they always could.. they just needed to follow the rules and marry someone of the opposite gender.
What they are trying to do is horn in on something that is already established with it's own rules.
I really don't understand why they didn't work to make their own form of marriage.. just lazy leeches I guess.
It will be a boon for lawyers and skip chasers but it will clog the courts... the burden of increased benifiets for this new "marriage" will of course.. come down to us.
So.. what are the rules now? Isn't multiple partner marriages discrimination? Don't they love each other and.. at least they can provide a family with both genders. Why not sexless marriage? marriage between close relatives to get the tax and other bennies?
They, the gays, are just lazy leeches and whiners to me. they don't want the wedding gown.. they want the money.
lazs
Off topic a little bit, but if there is a god, a gay mixed race couple will move in next to you Larz. :rofl
-
People use to think that a single female or male could raise a kid. It's be proven that doesn't work out so well.
My logic is yeah they can raise a child but overall 2 of the same sex aren't going to do a very good job.
Especially boys, Boys do not listen to their mom like they do their dad. I've seen it over and over. My wife would tell the kids a hundred times to do something. I just had to say it once.
i was raised by my single mother. i came out fine. well......i at least came out better than 80% of the people i went to school with.
<<S>>
-
Especially boys, Boys do not listen to their mom like they do their dad.
Gender of the kids doesn't matter, boy or girl they don't listen to mom like they do dad. :)
-
i was raised by my single mother. i came out fine. well......i at least came out better than 80% of the people i went to school with.
<<S>>
I was raised in a Foster home and I can tell you it would have been so neat to have a dad. Having said that I have a Masters degree and my brother is at the top of his field. My brother and I both feel the affects of being raised that way. So yeah we do better than many but still it could have been better. When I see those pictures of those guys going fishing with their dad I am jealous and yet happy for them.
If you have 2 guys are two women raising you it won't replace what's missing.
-
I was raised in a Foster home and I can tell you it would have been so neat to have a dad. Having said that I have a Masters degree and my brother is at the top of his field. My brother and I both feel the affects of being raised that way. So yeah we do better than many but still it could have been better. When I see those pictures of those guys going fishing with their dad I am jealous and yet happy for them.
If you have 2 guys are two women raising you it won't replace what's missing.
well, yes and no........like i said, i never knew my dad....from what i'm told, he came home drunk one night right after i was born, and almost shot my uncle. that was the end of that. grandpop kicked him out, and he was never heard from again.
anyway, being as i never knew him, it was perfectly normal to me......sometimes kids would ask me if it was weird not having a father. i'd simply reply with a question.....""isn't it weird HAVING"" a father? they usually didn't know how to react to that, but as i said, to me it was normal. i would imagine it would be about the same for kids with same sex parents, although i don't really know. only time will tell the story on that, but if they're doing a good job, and teaching their kids to keep out of trouble, then again, although there may be something missing, their kids will come up better than those who have hetero parents that just don't give a dam....and there are PLENTY of them.
BTW......WTG on the masters!!
<<S>>
-
lots of tap dancing here by liberals who know they are wrong from a logical and fairness standpoint but just can't get over the whole feelgood thing.
Of course anyone can raise a kid.. a couple consisting of a man and a woman in a loving relationship if far better tho.
crock-it.. my brother is gay as is my girlfriends.. I probly have less misconceptions about gays than most people here. It would not bother me in the least to have them move next door. they might even be so far as I know.. I, of course, do not want to see them in any displays of gay affection (unless they are hot lesbians) tho.
This is quite normal and is what makes us human.. we empathize.
As for their business.. unless you are a divorce lawyer or a wedding planner.. that will not change.. you can fix their cars if they are married or not. If you own the shop and you now have to cover a gay workers "partner" for medical tho.. .you might see what I mean.
Marriage is exclusionary and gives extra bennies to a group that we all think is in our best interest.. if you add gays to it then it is only feelgood pap that creates a problem where none existed before.. you now have a marriage definition that is discriminatory to everyone not gay.
the gays themselves are simply shrill, lazy leeches.. it is not the wedding gown they want.
the definition that you liberals now give me for marriage is that every relationship except between two people of any gender is now discriminated against. and.. worse.. for no reason.
When it was two people of the opposite gender it at least had a realistic reason to support for the citizen.. now it has none.. it is simply discrimination against all but a few.
lazs
-
the gays themselves are simply shrill, lazy leeches.. it is not the wedding gown they want.
lazs
my brother in florida is gay. he's the one i mentioned that is raising his daughter. my neighbor is lesbian. the neighbor on the other side of her is gay. a gay couple own the house 7 houses up from me. know what? almopst without exception, these are some of the hardest working people i know. oo ya...a friend that owns a couple stores on south street in philly is too.....and she works horrendes hours. the lazy people are the ones collecting welfare, while they're perfectly able to work, and people like them. like i said earlier, these people don't push their ways on me, so to me they're people exactly like you or anyone else. i'm not liberal, and i don't feel good about it, but i don't think it's my business to worry about what they want or whqat they do either, as long as they don't push their ways on me.
<<S>>
-
crock-it.. my brother is gay as is my girlfriends..
lazs
Did you say girlfriendS? As in plural? And they are GAY?? Lazs, you are the luckiest guy I've ever known- I envy you, man.
:aok
-
if Gays can marry now why cant Sen. Gorden Smith practice his lifestyle choice now as well?
http://news.opb.org/article/2365-gordon-smith-apologizes-comments-marriage/
equal rights for everyone you know.
-
cap.. by lazy, whiney leeches I mean only in the context of this discussion.. they are to lazy and they are whiney leeches so far as leeching off of the straight marriage thing.
When I say my girlfriends I mean my brother is gay as is my girlfriends brother.
Point is... as anyone who takes the time to THINK about it... the gay marriage idea has created more discrimination instead of less...
Just as... english being the official language is in our best interests and is not near as discriminatory as adding spanish as the only other language that is recognized.. it created more discrimination instead of less.
Typical know nothing, think nothing, feel good liberal moronic behavior.
lazs
-
Lazs, as usual your logic is downright amazing...
If A & B are allowed to do something, but C thru Z are not, that is LESS descriminatory than allowing A & B & C & D but not E through Z?
Yep, amazing logic there.
-
cap.. by lazy, whiney leeches I mean only in the context of this discussion.. they are to lazy and they are whiney leeches so far as leeching off of the straight marriage thing.
When I say my girlfriends I mean my brother is gay as is my girlfriends brother.
Point is... as anyone who takes the time to THINK about it... the gay marriage idea has created more discrimination instead of less...
Just as... english being the official language is in our best interests and is not near as discriminatory as adding spanish as the only other language that is recognized.. it created more discrimination instead of less.
Typical know nothing, think nothing, feel good liberal moronic behavior.
lazs
i see your point on the lazy thing. and i agree with the spanish language too......hate having to press one to continue in english.......
<<S>>
-
Lazs, as usual your logic is downright amazing...
If A & B are allowed to do something, but C thru Z are not, that is LESS descriminatory than allowing A & B & C & D but not E through Z?
Yep, amazing logic there.
It's not fair to sheep lovers, MT- doh???
-
I certainly have no desire for more than one wife but how can you justify laws prohibiting polygamy when homosexual marriages are now protected by law? Tell me how one of these lifestyles is more deserving of expression over the other? Please don't say it's because of what most people want because it surely isn't. Homosexual marriages are being allowed based on constitutionality, not popular opinion.
-
Homosexual marriages are being allowed based on constitutionality, not popular opinion.
Constitutionality trumps popular opinion, Iron- as it should. Would you want it any other way?
-
I certainly have no desire for more than one wife but how can you justify laws prohibiting polygamy when homosexual marriages are now protected by law?
How can you justify laws prohibiting polygamy when you allow heterosexual marriage?
-
Constitutionality trumps popular opinion, Iron- as it should. Would you want it any other way?
I would not. I'm all for keeping the government out of our private lives and out of my pocket. Seems that some of those who support the former have no problem with the latter though.
-
mt.. it is amazing that you can't follow simple logic. If it is "unfair" that one group gets a bennie over all others then that is unfair to all the others... in this case.. hetro couples get a bennie that "discriminates" against all other relationships.
If there is a reason for it that is good for everyone.. in this case... raising children in a two parent home with a man and a woman to influence their development.....
Then it is not quite so unfair.. there is a plus for everyone involved and a reason to support the "discrimination"
If you add one more group (of many) to the mix but still exclude all others it is not more "fair" unless you can prove that the same rules apply.. in this case.. that this new group is giving the rest of us the same bennie (that of raising our future citizens in the best way possible with a man and a woman to influence them)
It is even more idiotic and unfair if you realize that several of the groups like polygamists would have been more logical to include than gays given the rules and the reasons for marriage.
You will at least admit I hope that polygamy has would be better than gay marriage at achieving a goal of raising kids?
lazs
-
You will at least admit I hope that polygamy has would be better than gay marriage at achieving a goal of raising kids?
lazs
Prove it.
-
now you are getting desperate... and avoiding the debate...
polygamy has one advantage over gay marriage and no disadvantages... it gives a child the influence of a male and a female role model to grow up with.. and....they are not sexual minorities that he can't (if he or she is hetro).. can't identify with and who can't identify with him/her.
If polygamy were legal then there would be no stigma so it would be accepted and there would be no disadvantage to the child at all... with gays raising kids.. it is like martians raising em so far as sexuality and all that implies and all that goes along with our sexuality is concerned. Like I said.. I have gay relatives and they don't get me and I don't get them so far as that is concerned..
I certainly don't mind that kids are exposed to gay lifestyles but gays raising them is a whole nother level. Kids need to be around loving parents who are like them. Not some small sexual minority with a chip on its shoulder at worst and simply alien to them at best.
With polygamy the kid would be exposed to loving parents who had the same sexual orientation.. who would understand them.. they would be able to see the differences between men and women... both good and bad .
lazs
-
So you proved it based on your feelings and intuition? Maybe some hard evidence would be better...
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm
Research suggests that they turn out about the same, no better, no worse and no more likely to be gay than other kids
http://www.rossde.com/editorials/childrenofgays.html
Children are not harmed when raised by same-sex couples, studies confirm.
-
Laz your opinion offers no proof, and as far as MT avoiding the debate, you can only have a debate with open minded people, which you Laz are not. Your ability to stereotype everything you come in contact with, limits your chances to see things from different perspectives.
-
These are not studies in any sense of the word.. they are tiny little control groups.. did you see how many were studied?
One the one hand... you have the entire hetro community with all the marriages that are made... good and bad.. and on the other..you have a tiny little group of gays who are outstanding in their dedication and education and are far above average in just about every category.
As any tom tom and jane jane is allowed to marry you will find the numbers swinging.. the fact is that gays are far more prone (at least males) to infidelity and dangerous lifestyles including drinking and drugs.
lazs
-
You're a control group of 1 lazs, I think these studies have you beat.
-
mt.. hardly a group of one... It is unfortunate that science has become so agenda driven and politicized...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,29901,00.html
I linked fox out of laziness.. the real study is stacey and biblarz but the gist of there study is that the ones you link are flawed in some very important ways.. not to mention...
your studies admit that lesbians raising children create feminized males and that girls raise by them experiment more with gay sex in significant numbers along with being more promiscuous..
these results are not what I consider the best way to raise our future generation...
lazs
-
but... even so.
We are not talking about raising a future generation here... gay couples can not have children..it is impossible.
No, we are talking about a tiny little fraction of the population.. gays.. of which a tiny little fraction want to get married of which a tiny little fraction of that tiny little fraction want to have kids by adopting the tiny fraction of unwanted children or those who have escaped the abortion factories or by being impregnated outside of their union.
No, the future of Americas child rearing still is best done with the institution of marriage as we have defined it. hell.. with the exception of insemination and loveless couplings.. the gays have only the castoffs of the misguided portion of the straight population to raise. The population could not sustain with gays.
If anything.. gays should have to wait in line behind polygamists who are really the ones being discriminated against here if anyone is... they absolutely can concieve and raise their own children and have a history of doing so and would have done so even more if they had not been persecuted and hunted down for the last couple of centuries here.
Nope... just as adding one language out of hundreds to the ones recognized and catered to by our people and government makes it more unfair not less... grafting gay marriage onto the conventional one makes things less fair.. it points out even more that every other kind of relationship is discriminated against and... for no reason now.
lazs
-
but... even so.
We are not talking about raising a future generation here... gay couples can not have children..it is impossible.
technically, not true..........ask your gay friends.....they'll be able to tell ya how it can be done.
-
No amount of law will make gays be any less ghey.
-
no cap.. why don't you tell me how it is possible. My gay friends don't know how it can be done without the help of one or the other of the opposite gender.
lazs
-
Turkey baster, for the Lesbians. Close your eyes and pretend it's Funkedup, for the gays.
-
no cap.. why don't you tell me how it is possible. My gay friends don't know how it can be done without the help of one or the other of the opposite gender.
lazs
my brother did it. a friend of his carried the baby for them. she also is gay.......and so far, their daughter is comming up just like a normal 8 year old brat of a kid :D
-
so it took a male and a female to do it. The female in this case had to engage in straight sex.
In other cases they are inseminated. It still takes two of the opposite sex.
lazs
-
In recent decades, developmental biologists have been researching and developing techniques to facilitate same-sex reproduction [4]. The obvious approaches, subject to a growing amount of activity, are female sperm and male eggs, with female sperm closer to being a reality for humans, given that Japanese scientists have already created female sperm for chickens. More recently, by altering the function of a few genes involved with imprinting, other Japanese scientists combined two mouse eggs to produce daughter mice.
Not so fast there lazs....
-
well... won't that be just special when it happens. We do need more people.. and especially more self absorbed people on the planet.
lazs
-
Don't worry too much, with asexual reproduction you almost invariably get only females. Might not be such a bad thing.
-
That's about as natural as say........ gay marriage. :lol