Atheist acting up again

[newman]

Surprised that what was spelled correctly? Indivisible? Are you insinuating that atheists are generally lack intelligence?

I was actually referring to "under god"

[briansjacobs]

Not so fast...how about letting a mom and daughter marry or son and father? How far should the slippery slope go before we call off the immorality?

If that's really the case then why do Gays care?
Marriage was and has always been a man and a woman...period.
Maybe you need to understand why. See a man and a woman can pro-create. That means they can bring a child into this world. Marriage does in many cases bind two people together and helps the family unit.
Gays aren't fit to be parents generally. Just like a single parent in many cases has a serious problem raising a child alone. Because being Gay is immoral and unproductive to the human race. And it's unnatural.
A child needs a Mom (female) and Dad (male). Responsible ones that have a sense of morrality unlike Gays.
I can only imagine what some of the kids would be like being raised by two people of the same sex. Let alone most gays are very feminine both on the male and female side.

So no it's not semantics...

not fit to be parents? It is obvious to me that you have not spent time with gay couples. I would say that the gay couples I know are better parents than some straight people that I know. Furthermore just being straight does not make someone fit to be a parent nor does it make them moral, me for example as an atheist that support gay marraige and is pro choice I will assume that you would think of me as immorral. Ted Bundy, Charles Manson and other serial killers in your world would all be ok by you to be parents, but say Ellen Degeneres, no. Your arguement not only has no base, there is no research to back it up.

Good parenting is not influenced by sexual orientation. Rather, it is influenced most profoundly by a parent's ability to create a loving and nurturing home -- an ability that does not depend on whether a parent is gay or straight. The American Psychological Association, in a recent report reviewing the research, observed that "not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents," and concluded that "home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth." That is why the Child Welfare League of America, the nation's oldest children's advocacy organization, and the North American Council on Adoptable Children say that gays and lesbians seeking to adopt should be evaluated just like other adoptive applicants

[Inline Sex]

Also, science has shown that homosexuality is something that people are born with, not a choice.

[TwoJ's]

I'm surprised that was spelled correctly.

Surprised that what was spelled correctly? Indivisible? Are you insinuating that atheists are generally lack intelligence?

[LBJefferies]

Not so fast...how about letting a mom and daughter marry or son and father? How far should the slippery slope go before we call off the immorality?

If that's really the case then why do Gays care?
Marriage was and has always been a man and a woman...period.
Maybe you need to understand why. See a man and a woman can pro-create. That means they can bring a child into this world. Marriage does in many cases bind two people together and helps the family unit.
Gays aren't fit to be parents generally. Just like a single parent in many cases has a serious problem raising a child alone. Because being Gay is immoral and unproductive to the human race. And it's unnatural.
A child needs a Mom (female) and Dad (male). Responsible ones that have a sense of morrality unlike Gays.
I can only imagine what some of the kids would be like being raised by two people of the same sex. Let alone most gays are very feminine both on the male and female side.

So no it's not semantics...

All this crap about marrying a family member is completely irrelevant to the discussion here. Family members are already granted most of the same rights that marriage gives to people. Marriage simply grants those rights to people whom are not related according to the law. Perhaps you should completely remove the sexual element from this whole thing and realize that it's just some tax breaks and visitation privileges that were talking about, nothing more.

You think gays aren't fit to be parents? I think that gay couples should be allowed to adopt. There are many children all over the world who would be much better off with gay parents than in a crowded orphanage or starving on the streets of a third world country. Also, science has shown that homosexuality is something that people are born with, not a choice. As for it being immoral and unproductive to society, I don't see how you can argue that it is any different than using birth control or staying celibate or just choosing to be single and/or not have kids. Were not talking about rapists and murderers here, we are talking about normal people who simply prefer to be intimate with their own sex. If you disagree with this then fine, but it is never your place to tell someone that they cannot do this.

[joshh]

symantics Josh and you know it. dont be a chickenshit and hide behind symantics. keeping seperation of church and state in tact there is no legal ground to ban same sex marriage.

Not so fast...how about letting a mom and daughter marry or son and father? How far should the slippery slope go before we call off the immorality?

If that's really the case then why do Gays care?
Marriage was and has always been a man and a woman...period.
Maybe you need to understand why. See a man and a woman can pro-create. That means they can bring a child into this world. Marriage does in many cases bind two people together and helps the family unit.
Gays aren't fit to be parents generally. Just like a single parent in many cases has a serious problem raising a child alone. Because being Gay is immoral and unproductive to the human race. And it's unnatural.
A child needs a Mom (female) and Dad (male). Responsible ones that have a sense of morrality unlike Gays.
I can only imagine what some of the kids would be like being raised by two people of the same sex. Let alone most gays are very feminine both on the male and female side.

So no it's not semantics...

[briansjacobs]

symantics Josh and you know it. dont be a chickenshit and hide behind symantics. keeping seperation of church and state in tact there is no legal ground to ban same sex marriage.

[joshh]

Josh I will spell it out for you. This is what they want.

Besides the emotional component of simply being "married," there are quite a few legal differences between the two statuses, primarily that civil unions are only recognized in the state in which they are performed, while marriages are recognized in all 50 states. Because civil unions are recognized only in the state performed, civil unions do not get any federal protections. Moreover, if a same-sex couple were recognized in a civil union in Vermont, they would not be recognized in Texas, while a marriage in one state is recognized in all states.

Also, with a civil union, if the couple wants it dissolved, they must get it dissolved in the state it was conducted. For instance, in Vermont, civil unions can only be dissolved in Vermont and one of the partners must have been a resident of the state to get it dissolved. On the other hand, a married couple can get a divorce in any of the fifty states.

Moreover, civil unions - because they are not recognized by the federal government - do not gain any of the tax breaks that married couples get, such as the ability to file their taxes jointly. In all, there are over 1,000 benefits and protections afforded to married couples by the federal government that civil unions do not get.

any questions? any problems with them getting these rights if it is called a civil union as opposed to a marriage? Or basically you have so much hate for gays that you feel they should not have the same basic rights as you and they should be second class to you.

And I'll spell it out for you. Gays already have the same rights as the rest of us. They want an exception to marry the same sex.
I AM AGAINST THAT. GET IT YET?

[Inline Sex]

the day of becoming a godless country could not come soon enough!

However, to put up an atheist sign in nc and think it will not be defaced requires alot of faith. Lol

lol.

[briansjacobs]

Josh I will spell it out for you. This is what they want.

Besides the emotional component of simply being "married," there are quite a few legal differences between the two statuses, primarily that civil unions are only recognized in the state in which they are performed, while marriages are recognized in all 50 states. Because civil unions are recognized only in the state performed, civil unions do not get any federal protections. Moreover, if a same-sex couple were recognized in a civil union in Vermont, they would not be recognized in Texas, while a marriage in one state is recognized in all states.

Also, with a civil union, if the couple wants it dissolved, they must get it dissolved in the state it was conducted. For instance, in Vermont, civil unions can only be dissolved in Vermont and one of the partners must have been a resident of the state to get it dissolved. On the other hand, a married couple can get a divorce in any of the fifty states.

Moreover, civil unions - because they are not recognized by the federal government - do not gain any of the tax breaks that married couples get, such as the ability to file their taxes jointly. In all, there are over 1,000 benefits and protections afforded to married couples by the federal government that civil unions do not get.

any questions? any problems with them getting these rights if it is called a civil union as opposed to a marriage? Or basically you have so much hate for gays that you feel they should not have the same basic rights as you and they should be second class to you.

[briansjacobs]

You say it right in your own post but you fail to even understand it.
You're trying to us your failed logic to test your own failed logic. That's why it doesn't make sense to you.
Marriage is about a man and a woman. Otherwise it's just legal mumbo jumbo. But that's just not good enough for Gays.

the legal mumbo jumbo is what it is all about! nobody cares about sacred vows of matrimony, it is the legal aspects and rights they are fighting for.

[joshh]

You're an idiot. Marriage isn't a natural construct to begin with, it's a legal construct. Nature has determined that two men or two women cannot have babies together and there is nothing that gays or lesbians can ever do to change that. That is how nature "punishes" them for being gay. They aren't asking for the legal right to make mutant babies, they are just asking for the legal right to tax breaks and marital protections and such. If you won't allow two people of the same sex to get married then why should anybody be allowed to be married?

You say it right in your own post but you fail to even understand it.
You're trying to us your failed logic to test your own failed logic. That's why it doesn't make sense to you.
Marriage is about a man and a woman. Otherwise it's just legal mumbo jumbo. But that's just not good enough for Gays.

[joshh]

I do find it funny/sad that the first thing you think of when arguing against gay marriage is beastiality. With beastiality so close the front of your mind I can only assume that you fuck sheep, do you fuck sheep? or is it the family dog? Who in a million fucking years would ever think of marrying an animal?

Who in his right mind would marry and fuck the asshole of a man, if you're a man? That is beastiality.

[briansjacobs]

most- come on 1100 is a big fucking difference. In extreme cases it is the difference between a person going bankrupt after the death of their companion or not. It is the difference between a companion choosing medical care or a long lost relative that knows little or nothing about their relatives wishes. Yes, some of these things can be solved by hiring an attorney and filling out a mountain of paperwork, or by simply giving the same rights as marital couples have. What is so difficult about that.

why do I care, simple, many people that I know and care about are affected by this, as a friend what is important to them is important to me. That is the difference between friends and aquantances.

[mrsleeve]

yes I am aware, that is why I have been telling you for 5 pages you are wrong when you keep saying "THEY HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS" when it is now finally clear to you that they dont.

I have no problem with CCW being federal as opposed to state, Other licenses should be state specific because there are variations of law state to state and you should pass a test based on that states laws if you are going to represent another person.

A marriage license is between two people and affects no one else, so it is not relevant to the other conversation.

the way I see it, allow civil unions in all 50 states and have them recognized federally. Apply all marital rights to civil unions and hetro can have the term marriage and gays can have the term civil union. there problem solved. is that acceptable to you Josh?

I suppose I should have been a little more specific and said MOST not all rights. But that said I have never been against 2 consenting adults to do what ever they want. I dont give 2 shits