Atheist acting up again

[LBJefferies]

They have those rights, they just have to marry like nature and marriage were meant to be. Man and woman or woman and man. They have the same rights. What they are asking for is an exception to those rights.

One doesn't give up morality because they are tired of hearing about it.

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?

[briansjacobs]

you are aware that homos married in IA or CA or VT or where ever, their licenses are not recognized by most other states, arent you. Thanks to a bill from the clinton era

If you want to look at it that way, then CA IA and all the other states that have a Gay "marriage" deal want the rest of the states to recognize those unions They should have to have a accept the CCW permits of all the other states or the Veterinarian Licensees of other states, or the Bar exam from other states ect ect...

If they get a federal "civil union" bill passed there would be no argument. If they were to go about it as such they would find much less resistance to the idea. Because like it or not this country was /is founded by a bunch of religious people and the bulk of the people here still hold those morals that Marriage for 1000's of years has been defined as Man+woman = Marriage. If the gay community were to approach it from a civil union or domestic partner ship, rainbow ceremony, perspective I would more than bet it would pass on through with little no resistance even at the federal level.

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?

[dvs909]

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 said this like 3 pages ago.

[Turf1600]

This thread is ridiculous.

[briansjacobs]

must have missed it. I am sure there is still some sort of problem that we are not morally fit to understand

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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...