Page 18 of 89 FirstFirst ... 816171819202868 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 884

Thread: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

  1. #171
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,359

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    A straight man participating in straight sex (Vagina to Penis) using protection is very unlikely to catch AIDS....It is much more prevalent in the gay community where anal sex is the most popular.
    I prefer oral myself, but I'm open to the use of strap-ons
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  2. #172
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Illinois
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,335
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    A straight man participating in straight sex (Vagina to Penis) using protection is very unlikely to catch AIDS....It is much more prevalent in the gay community where anal sex is the most popular.
    Its only prevalent if you engage in high risk behaviors. If you are careful about who you sleep with and use protection you will most likely not get AIDS.

  3. #173
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Illinois
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,335
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I agree And because society makes up marriage they also have the right to define or change it.
    As long as their definition doesnt discriminate against a group of people for no logical reason then yes.

  4. #174
    Educator barbarian_style's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Existing between 2 entities of darkness
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 03:31 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    761

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    The needle on my meter on this issue usually hangs out around don't give a crap or lower. Sometimes it goes up with a question like now;

    What if no one had the piece of paper saying they were married or if a government didn't recognize any marriage, what changes between the couples that are or want to get married?
    Last edited by barbarian_style; 02-18-12 at 08:55 PM.

  5. #175
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Omgitsme View Post
    As long as their definition doesnt discriminate against a group of people for no logical reason then yes.
    Logical according to who?
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  6. #176
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:46 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    AIDS started in the country in the Gay community and crossed over into the straight community by bisexuals........Gays are still the most prone to get AIDS though because of their lifestyle.
    Please, research before saying things like this. AIDS is beleived to have started in this country through a single Haitian immigrant, and spread through the gay male community, those who shared needles, and through hospitals. People who engage in unprotected anal sex are more prone to get AIDS, regardless of orientation. Those who engage in promiscuous sex are more likely to get AIDS, regardless of orientation. Facts are good.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #177
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Illinois
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,335
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Logical according to who?
    Do you have a logical reason to deny SSM?

  8. #178
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I agree And because society makes up marriage they also have the right to define or change it.
    Not according to the 14th Amendment and the SCOTUS, they don't. Otherwise we would still have interracial marriage.

    Society could not decide tomorrow that atheists could not get married, legally, without a Constitutional Amendment (federal) declaring that atheists can not legally get married. The same should apply to same sex couples.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #179
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by barbarian_style View Post
    The needle on my meter on this issue usually hangs out around don't give a crap or lower. Sometimes it goes up with a question like now;

    What if no one had the piece of paper saying they were married or if a government didn't recognize any marriage, what changes between the couples that are or want to get married?
    Those couples would have to get a lot of legal paperwork done, which would cost a lot of money. They would also very likely get screwed over by employers and insurance companies who now get to make a determination of who they want to include in benefits.

    And any couples that were military or got bennies from the government based on marriage would have some big issues regarding housing, BAH, medical, dental, base access, ID cards, and about 100 more things that the military and other the government gives legal spouses of employees or for being legally married.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  10. #180
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Applause to Governor Christie!!!!

    Why? To answer that I have to express my veiw on "what is marriage". Some form Marriage of course goes back to pre-writing (pre-Biblical also) times and has arrisen in almost all societies no matter how remote or seperated. Incest is bad genetically, somehow ancient peoples found this out and most societies up to the present have had some sort of taboo about incest (OK, Pharoahs, Roman Emporers, and European Royalty thought it was ok because they also thought that they had special bloodlines and normal rules shouldn't apply to them). Most, if not all forms of marriage historiclly have been based around what woman was reproducing with what man and whose kids are those. For men, it gave them "ownership" of a dedicated sexual partner(s), for women it gave them a dedicated provider and protecter theoretically giving her a ensured means of support for her and her children. The core of marriage is to identify blood lines and legalise some form of support for women and children. It has, mostly, only been the last 30-40 years that women have started to move away from this support structure.

    The modern US version of marriage has mainly been around for less than a century (it actually changes over time). The modern version primarily altered things like providing insurance and benefits to a wife through her husband. Our current manifestation still has those ideas which are largely based upon the fact that women needed that linking because they did not, normally, go out into the job market; instead, they stayed at home, cared for and nurtured their children. (interesting side note: Most of our social/political problems we face increased at a lagtime of about 18 years from a similiar increase of single mothers and women working outside the home. (Topic for another thread there)). Now, many, if not the majority of wifes do work outside the home and sometimes are the provider of the benefits. The whole concept of marriage giving a wife (normally, sometimes husband) benefits derived from being married was based upon the fact that women are the ones who are limited and for a time, unable to actually work. Also, they were historically expected to be the one to nuture and educate the children (hey, their mammary glands produce milk for infants, a man's don't and formula is a rather modern invention).

    So now we come to homosexual marriage. Homosexuals feel they are not being treated equally because their "life partner" cannot receive the benefits of a spouse and that partnership is not socially or legally recognised. But, is this really true? I don't think so. Since marriage and benefits linked to marriage are centered around the fact that married couples reproduce and children must be cared for, there is no reason for homosexuals to be married. Homosexual conduct does not lead to reproduction and therefore there is no need for one partner to remain at home and care for children. The only reason for homosexual couples to get marred would be so that the lazy, non-working or under-employed partner can gain benefits by forcing employers to pay for additional benefits. There is absolutely no reason this should be necessary, there are no children, so both partners can and should work outside the home and receive benefits based upon that employment. Some of you may point out that some homosexuals come out late and may have already had children from a normal relationship, not really a problem, since I consider homosexualality to be a mental disorder, children should never remain in the primary custody of the aberrated parent, they should always go to the normal parent.
    Except those benefits are not linked to procreation, as has been shown numerous times. IF they were, old people, particularly women past menopause, would not be allowed to marry. Infertile men and women would not be allowed to marry. There would not be 5 states that deny legal marriage to certain couples if they can procreate.

    In fact, there is no question on any marriage license in the US that asks about a couples' ability or even desire to ever raise children, let alone make them with each other.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Page 18 of 89 FirstFirst ... 816171819202868 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •