General Music Chat

It's "Adam and Eve", not "Adam and Steve".. lol

There really isn't anything a marriage does that a civil union couldn't also do, except produce children naturally.

What is really being done is a small minority group of people demand that everyone accept their NEW private definition of an ancient word that has been in use since Adam met Eve. While we're at it, let's force people to say that blue is now red, also!

The fact that it's called "gay marriage" by homosexuals is proof enough that they know it's different. Everyone, even the supporters, know it's not really "marriage".

So you can call it whatever you want. That doesn't make it marriage.

Thank you Shreddi

I know of no other animal as loyal and trusting as a dog. It truly is a noble animal. The lion may be called the King of Beasts, but the dog is the prince of beasts. If only people would be so loyal.

"Gay Marriage" is simply a demand by the perverted to accept their perversion. No thanks, I'll pass on that one. I'll just lump it in with the child molester perversion, the necrophilia perversions, and the rest. After all, they all love their perversions just as much. I am not perversion biased, I try to look upon all perversions equally. Biblically speaking, they are all simply perversions. nothing less nothing more.

And that is why they will begin labeling the Bible as a hate book in the future.

dang, I should've known it'd be ten pages of juvenile humor, I feel like I got suckered.
For those who tried to take it seriously: thank you...
for those who put some laughs into my day: thank you too.

honestly the most fair thing would be to eliminate the state of marriage from any/all govt... but somehow I don't think that would make anyone happy.

keep on waitin' for the world to change.

dang, I should've known it'd be ten pages of juvenile humor, I feel like I got suckered.
For those who tried to take it seriously: thank you...
for those who put some laughs into my day: thank you too.

honestly the most fair thing would be to eliminate the state of marriage from any/all govt... but somehow I don't think that would make anyone happy.

keep on waitin' for the world to change.

I do find it rather ironic that getting married means something to homosexuals at a time when heterosexuals are abandoning it altogether.



.

you make a great point.

honestly I think there is truth in both sides of the argument...

the gay community unwilling to acknowledge that on some level they want to force feed the world a little acceptance...

the religious not willing to admit that on some level it's not "fair" that folks be dealt different rights based on their different beliefs, or that ultimately marriage is not as sacred as it used to be given divorce rates.

both are understandable... what I don't understand is very few willing to argue the separation of church and state: probably because the best outcome for either party doesn't involve that road.

keep waitin' on the world to change.

A) The Bible did not support slavery. It just accepted that there was slavery in the world. As there is to this day. News flash: this is a sinful fallen world. If you've missed this up until now it should be obvious enough for a salamander at this point.

B) Most pedophilia is homosexual men with boys. Sorry but there it is.

C) you've all missed (so far) the real goal of this horror which is to infiltrate and corrupt Christian churches. We will not perform 'gay' marriages. Sorry. But the FedGov pigs desperately want us to - why would that be?

So don't homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals? Yes they damn sure do under the law - but they have no place pushing their nonsense into our churches which is the ultimate goal. The legal side? Inheritance, insurance and such - absolutely. But don't phuq with our churches because we ain't buying it.

Talbot

I do not recall anyone pushing anything into churches.
Some churches are already more/less tolerant than others.
If a church doesn't want to marry someone, then don't.
That is their prerogative.
The legal side is largely what is at issue.
Honestly, I cannot imagine why the government is involved in marriage at all anyway.

Mike, the people of CA voted against it twice. Gavin Newson and the courts went ahead and spit in the face of the people.

p.s. ya'll are some weirded out, grumpy ass, angry men...

It's kind of sad.

I have to say I don't understand the gay/lesbian thing.
I'd think they'd just be happy to have each other? (ecch)

But to go through all this trouble just for a tax break and they can then say they are married?

Kinda like splitting hairs, no?

Even worse, I kind of wonder if there would be any negative consequences to letting them get married et cetera?

What could it hurt to let them have a little happiness?

(And don't give me some sh*t and degrading the moral fiber of America...it's already degraded.)

But to go through all this trouble just for a tax break and they can then say they are married?

(And don't give me some sh*t and degrading the moral fiber of America...it's already degraded.)

You are so right on. It is rather difficult to separate one immorality against another since they are so plentiful

But about the marriage thing: Married people get fewer tax breaks than single people. Go figure.

Do you suppose that is some sort of masochism on their behalf?

Good Question...

I'd have to guess that they want it because it gives validity to an otherwise invalid union. (imo)

But I really don't know and still I feel kind of bad for them.
They aren't doing the right thing as far as I know and now they want to be even more in the foreground. Yikes, they might be biting off more than they can chew, no pun intended.

If two men get married and adopt a kid are they not pedophiles and we can kill them? just sayin'

um, Yes
And Yes

I believe tax breaks are given to married couples due to the fact that they typically have children, and therefore need to retain more revenue than single people.
So I don't believe we should grant the same options for gays... If someone goes into a gay union having already conceived children from beforehand, they usually already have financial advantages given them for the children = child support, medical insurance programs ect.
As far as just becoming a married couple goes - who needs permission from the church or state to become a couple?!

I believe tax breaks are given to married couples due to the fact that they typically have children, and therefore need to retain more revenue than single people.
So I don't believe we should grant the same options for gays... If someone goes into a gay union having already conceived children from beforehand, they usually already have financial advantages given them for the children = child support, medical insurance programs ect.
As far as just becoming a married couple goes - who needs permission from the church or state to become a couple?!

YA KNOW MAYBE>>>
I don't have any problems with gay people. I have listened to all the arguments to call it marriage. I really don't care... Call it what you want.

BUT... The need for fair taxation is very important. The call for every free man being equal is being destroyed by politicians that feel they are MORE EQUAL. than the people they are supposed to represent.

So what is the difference from DIANE FEINSTEIN and CHUCK SCHUMER strutting around the senate telling all Americans they should give up their guns... While they have MAXIMUM, INCLUDING AUTHORITY TO POSSESS FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. I don't know... I'm just another regular American.

The problem is we are creating LAWS THAT ATTACK THE INDIVIDUAL.
We have created a government that is more important than the INDIVIDUAL.

This was not the intent of our constitution. (CAP LOCK)

Just wake up...

I think summing it up to taxation and calling themselves married is a bit of an oversimplification (no disrespect meant).
at risk of being a champion for a cause I care little about...
I think the more legitimate reasons are (as I recall)
-if a "life partner" is in the hospital about to die it's only family allowed in
-if one of them adopts and then croaks the child can't go to "the husband/wife"
-one of em dies and doesn't have a will the partner gets nothing

stuff like that.
all things that in my mind are reasonable, but the confused media and general population hysteria really aren't letting the issue "get there" in the mainstream. Both sides of the argument are equally to blame because a good portion of either side has an additional agenda.

-if a "life partner" is in the hospital about to die it's only family allowed in
-if one of them adopts and then croaks the child can't go to "the husband/wife"
-one of em dies and doesn't have a will the partner gets nothing
.

All of that can be addressed and solved with a civil union, so again, that's not really what the issue is.