GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage [W:596, 1059]

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Buzz62 said:

Religiously of course. The religions traditionally have performed all marriages until recently.

Click to expand...

This isn't true. Many religions have refused to marry two people from different religions for a very long time, even since their very creation as religions. Some others have refused to marry people for another of other reasons, including parents not approving or race or even not recognizing a divorce or death of a spouse.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:

This isn't true. Many religions have refused to marry two people from different religions for a very long time, even since their very creation as religions. Some others have refused to marry people for another of other reasons, including parents not approving or race or even not recognizing a divorce or death of a spouse.

Click to expand...

Correct, the Roman Catholics are one of those types which won't marry if they aren't both Roman Catholic. They even make you take classes before getting married.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Gaugingcatenate said:

Reading comprehension and truth should be at the top of your own list.

Click to expand...

As they should be for everyone, even you.

Gaugingcatenate said:

First of all, cut and paste where I EVER, here there anywhere in my entire life made the straw man argument about there being a "requirement " of reproduction. Thats just a flat out bold faced LIE and you very well know it and lie anyway. Right? If its not a lie, cut and paste, with an associated post number where I said anything of the sort.

Click to expand...

I believe that "Hetros engage in the lifestyle of penis to vagina sex which results in the natural lifestyle of family creation." which included the term "family creation" pretty much has to refer to "reproduction" because if it doesn't then there is no argument against same-sex marriages.

I mean, my brothers and I are "family" and it's pretty damn difficult for us to get each other pregnant.

The post that "Hetros engage in the lifestyle of penis to vagina sex which results in the natural lifestyle of family creation." came from is Post 534 in this thread and was posted by someone using the name "Gaugingcatenate". Of course, if you are NOT "Gaugingcatenate" then I'm wrong.

Gaugingcatenate said:

If you cannot, and you cannot, that would make you a ...what?

Click to expand...

Good question. Now, since Post 534 in this thread does exist, what does that make the person who wrote it?

As far as I can determine (and I have been known to be wrong before) if Post 534 exists, then the person who posted it would appear to be someone who:

1. has an incredibly bad short term memory;
2. likes to invent reality;
3. thinks that "Now, don't get me wrong, because I don't oppose abortion, BUT I do object to terminating pregnancies prior to term and killing babies." is a sentence that makes sense;
4. doesn't actually understand what they write;
5. is incapable of thinking logically;
6. is incapable of thinking critically;
7. ignores everything that doesn't fit their preconceived prejudices; or
8. is a combination of two or more of the above.

Gaugingcatenate said:

I will not wait for your answer due to the fact that you wont have ever seen me make such a silly statement. Until and unless you can provide my statement to the fact that reproduction is, or ever was, a requirement of marriage, this will be my last post in response as I also dont truck with those who knowningly lie to make their arguments.

Click to expand...

I fully understand that you are making an incredibly subtle distinction between "purpose" and "requirement" and that distinction makes a lot of sense PROVIDED that you can have "family creation" without "reproduction".

However, the minute you abandon the connection between "reproduction" and "family creation" then the entire argument "Marriage is intended for 'family creation' and homosexuals cannot have children by each other therefore they shouldn't have the 'right' to get 'married'." becomes total nonsense at the same level of "Now, don't get me wrong because some of my best friends are __[fill in the blank]__, BUT ... .".

So, correct me if I'm reading you wrong, but your position actually appears to be


if it isn't, then possibly you'd like to clarify why you feel that NO people who CANNOT have children by each other should be allowed to get married (and do so without saying something along the lines of


PS - You might want to think on Matthew 7:1-3


Which you will find in an obscure theological tract the identity of which I leave for you to discover on your own. You might try actually reading it, it contains a lot of good Jewish theological thinking.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Bassman said:

Perhaps if you would listen to what God says about the abomination called homosexuality and other sins, then you would listen. But your problem is the hardness of your heart.

Click to expand...

Possibly you could explain to me what authority you have to challenge what God tells me I should do.

That God tells you to do something that is not the same as God tells me to do doesn't mean that God didn't tell me to do it any more than the fact that Whales can't live in the same environment as Elephants means that Elephants should all learn to swim in the oceans and live on krill.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Oborosen said:

1.)When you have people abusing a poorly worded law to get their way. Then yes, you get instances like that.
2.)This also accounts for when they point, stomp their feet and scream discrimination without the ever so coveted aspect of proof.
3.) Yet still get their way because of the bleeding hearts who watch on.
4.) This bill is a bit ill prepared, though it could help stem that kind of abuse.

Click to expand...

1.)I dont think its poorly worded though, i think its pretty clear. I think people just try to abuse others and treat them as lessers and theres just enough other people out there that dont care that also let it happens at times. I think the wording is clear and thats why when push comes to shove these snowflakes and bigots lose in the end.
2.) well there are nutters on both sides but again, if there no proof they loose :shrug:
3.) cant get thier way with no proof.
4.) no, this bill is crap and isnt needed. its a junk bill that will never servive the test of time rights and justice.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Oborosen said:

1.??? Born in the 70s and still not clear on just how broken our system can be... color me surprised.
2.The bill is a symptom, brought on by a sick and abused system. Maybe a more permanent fix will come along, though that is a few years off with how things are progressing.
3.Then you are kidding yourself if you believe that at this point.

Click to expand...

1.) didnt say that, try not to make stuff up. What I said is that in my life time anitidiscriitnion laws and public access laws have always existed. Im fully aware how the system can not work at times. fact remains though about what i said of how things work.
2.) no the bill is reflex and kneejerk panic from snowflakes that dont like people having equal rights and dont like that they cant treat people as lessers. They tried it before and it always loses to reality, equality and rights.
3.) its not a belief its fact your ignorance cant change that. AA by definition is for everybody. Disagree? provide one fact that proves otherwise you will fail.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Gaugingcatenate said:

... I didnt "imply" anything, I stated straight out what I meant, put it in stark historical, worldwide and independent practice terms.

Click to expand...

You appear to be overlooking the fact that in a "Patriarchal" society it is incredibly important to be able to accurately identify paternity and that the only way that that can be done is through either "chattel slavery" or "marriage".

Gaugingcatenate said:

I certainly never said, NOR IMPLIED, that reproduction was a requirement of marriage...so why would you place that lie on my plate?

Click to expand...

But you most certainly did state that "family creation" was the "purpose" of marriage and that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because they couldn't have children by each other.

Now if your actual position is that NO ONE who cannot have children by their "marital partner" should be allowed to get (I won't go so far as to say "or remain") married, that is a completely different proposition and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "same-sex marriages".

Is it your actual position is that NO ONE who cannot have children by their "marital partner" should be allowed to get married?

If your answer is "Yes." please explain why.

If your answer is "No." please specify what it is that separates a couple who cannot have children by each other because one or the other is incapable and a couple who cannot have children by each other because both of them are incapable.

Because you cannot argue against what I have actually asserted. Thanks for at least admitting you lied. Beyond that, its a worthless set of posts.

As stated earlier, I will not willingly continue to expose myself to the almost contagious negative vibe of the SSM threads, its almost the exact same nihilistic bad karmic black energy I feel from the infanticide folk... its creepy.[/QUOTE]

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Lursa said:

Wow. That's wrong, except we do need to ask for forgiveness but if we do, it will be granted. What a horrible state of mind you must live in.

It shows in the nastiness of your posting...about as unChristian as you can get.

Click to expand...

So would you like AT LEAST 95 references from the Bible concerning sin for starters?

https://www.openbible.info/topics/sin

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Bassman said:

So would you like AT LEAST 95 references from the Bible concerning sin for starters?

https://www.openbible.info/topics/sin

Click to expand...

If you would like to argue theology, could you please start you're own thread? This is going way off topic. Thank you.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

TU Curmudgeon said:

As they should be for everyone, even you.



I believe that "Hetros engage in the lifestyle of penis to vagina sex which results in the natural lifestyle of family creation." which included the term "family creation" pretty much has to refer to "reproduction" because if it doesn't then there is no argument against same-sex marriages.

I mean, my brothers and I are "family" and it's pretty damn difficult for us to get each other pregnant.

The post that "Hetros engage in the lifestyle of penis to vagina sex which results in the natural lifestyle of family creation." came from is Post 534 in this thread and was posted by someone using the name "Gaugingcatenate". Of course, if you are NOT "Gaugingcatenate" then I'm wrong.



Good question. Now, since Post 534 in this thread does exist, what does that make the person who wrote it?

As far as I can determine (and I have been known to be wrong before) if Post 534 exists, then the person who posted it would appear to be someone who:

1. has an incredibly bad short term memory;
2. likes to invent reality;
3. thinks that "Now, don't get me wrong, because I don't oppose abortion, BUT I do object to terminating pregnancies prior to term and killing babies." is a sentence that makes sense;
4. doesn't actually understand what they write;
5. is incapable of thinking logically;
6. is incapable of thinking critically;
7. ignores everything that doesn't fit their preconceived prejudices; or
8. is a combination of two or more of the above.

I fully understand that you are making an incredibly subtle distinction between "purpose" and "requirement" and that distinction makes a lot of sense PROVIDED that you can have "family creation" without "reproduction".

However, the minute you abandon the connection between "reproduction" and "family creation" then the entire argument "Marriage is intended for 'family creation' and homosexuals cannot have children by each other therefore they shouldn't have the 'right' to get 'married'." becomes total nonsense at the same level of "Now, don't get me wrong because some of my best friends are __[fill in the blank]__, BUT ... .".

So, correct me if I'm reading you wrong, but your position actually appears to be

"

Marriage is for family creation and there is no requirement that the people getting married have children in order to create a family - THEREFORE, since homosexuals cannot have children by each other they should not be allowed to get married."​

if it isn't, then possibly you'd like to clarify why you feel that NO people who CANNOT have children by each other should be allowed to get married (and do so without saying something along the lines of

"Oh, I didn't actually mean 'NO people who CANNOT have children' I meant 'THOSE people who CANNOT have children' and when I meant 'THOSE people' what I actually meant 'THEM' as opposed to 'US and just because I don't think that 'THEY' should have the same rights as 'WE' do that doesn't mean that I'm prejudiced or anything like that because I believe that everyone should have the same rights as everyone else, except when they shouldn't."​

PS - You might want to think on Matthew 7:1-3

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?​

Which you will find in an obscure theological tract the identity of which I leave for you to discover on your own. You might try actually reading it, it contains a lot of good Jewish theological thinking.

Click to expand...

Cart before the horse.

Marriage is not for...

Lets try to maybe read it with marriage is because of family creation by the relations between hetro couples...marriage came after the "invention" of sex. It is to protect these units created, creations that simply cannot occur between mating same sex folk. Does that help narrow that particular part down for you, since you and others have gone off the deep end in the other direction?

I am of no particular religion, so quoting scripture wont persuade. We judge, rightfully, constantly. Its how we decide to make friends, or not, decide who to vote for, which car is best.

I use the last, with the minor modification of rafter and splinter for beam and mote. That is applicable in the proper place. Right here is not one them

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

TU Curmudgeon said:

You appear to be overlooking the fact that in a "Patriarchal" society it is incredibly important to be able to accurately identify paternity and that the only way that that can be done is through either "chattel slavery" or "marriage".



But you most certainly did state that "family creation" was the "purpose" of marriage and that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because they couldn't have children by each other.

Now if your actual position is that NO ONE who cannot have children by their "marital partner" should be allowed to get (I won't go so far as to say "or remain") married, that is a completely different proposition and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "same-sex marriages".

Is it your actual position is that NO ONE who cannot have children by their "marital partner" should be allowed to get married?

If your answer is "Yes." please explain why.

If your answer is "No." please specify what it is that separates a couple who cannot have children by each other because one or the other is incapable and a couple who cannot have children by each other because both of them are incapable.

Because you cannot argue against what I have actually asserted. Thanks for at least admitting you lied. Beyond that, its a worthless set of posts.

As stated earlier, I will not willingly continue to expose myself to the almost contagious negative vibe of the SSM threads, its almost the exact same nihilistic bad karmic black energy I feel from the infanticide folk... its creepy.

Click to expand...

Dang, and I always thought the more modern way to determine paternity was with a paternity test.

No. Never said nor implied that, for what the third, 4th time now?

Marriage isnt based on the specifics of individual child bearing, its based on protecting the only types of couples with that capacity and doing the most good/least harm.

I agree, I will adhere to my own good counsel.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:

This isn't true. Many religions have refused to marry two people from different religions for a very long time, even since their very creation as religions. Some others have refused to marry people for another of other reasons, including parents not approving or race or even not recognizing a divorce or death of a spouse.

Click to expand...

True...but it was the churches which carried out the weddings.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Gaugingcatenate said:

Marriage isnt based on the specifics of individual child bearing, its based on protecting the only types of couples with that capacity and doing the most good/least harm.

Click to expand...

So, in the mountains of Panama, what harm can same sex couples do the couples with the capacity?

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Buzz62 said:

True...but it was the churches which carried out the weddings.

Click to expand...

That's not how it works now.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

prometeus said:

So, in the mountains of Panama, what harm can same sex couples do the couples with the capacity?

Click to expand...

He still cracks me up with this garbage. If a couple is infertile, then how are they the type of couple that have the capacity to bear children?

On another bizarre note- I think he truly believes that an entire society could turn gay if gay people are treated equally. I think that's what his real fear is. Why anyone would ever think that is beyond me. That would/could never happen, just as no society has ever been completely heterosexual.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

leekohler2 said:

He still cracks me up with this garbage. If a couple is infertile, then how are they the type of couple that have the capacity to bear children?

Click to expand...

Do you really expect better?

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

prometeus said:

Do you really expect better?

Click to expand...

No, after all my 50 years on this planet, it's been proven to me that I never should expect any better.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

leekohler2 said:

He still cracks me up with this garbage. If a couple is infertile, then how are they the type of couple that have the capacity to bear children?

On another bizarre note- I think he truly believes that an entire society could turn gay if gay people are treated equally. I think that's what his real fear is. Why anyone would ever think that is beyond me. That would/could never happen, just as no society has ever been completely heterosexual.

Click to expand...

I know. I think I could have made a cool $100,000.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

leekohler2 said:

He still cracks me up with this garbage. If a couple is infertile, then how are they the type of couple that have the capacity to bear children?

On another bizarre note- I think he truly believes that an entire society could turn gay if gay people are treated equally. I think that's what his real fear is. Why anyone would ever think that is beyond me. That would/could never happen, just as no society has ever been completely heterosexual.

Click to expand...

They are the "type of couples", you know, heterosexual couples, that have the capacity in the majority of the individual cases, and 100% of all cases resulting in children, as to "type of couple" that has a reason for marriage. Homosexual couples cannot create children...as nature or god intended...dont blame me, I am just the intelligent messenger.

I dont think that, never said or implied it. Please show me where you arrived at that deduction. In fact I very spcifically stated that homosexuality will probably always be with us, in the low single digit percentages. So what do YOU call it when somebody just makes up something, states it as if true when they should, or absolutely, know better. Disingenuous is the polite way.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Gaugingcatenate said:

Dang, and I always thought the more modern way to determine paternity was with a paternity test.

No. Never said nor implied that, for what the third, 4th time now?

Marriage isnt based on the specifics of individual child bearing, its based on protecting the only types of couples with that capacity and doing the most good/least harm.

Click to expand...

And that's outdated and no longer true. Gays do reproduce and have families. They do so biologically and use other methods (just like straight couples). You've been shown this already, yet you keep up with that outdated limited thinking.

There's no need to 'protect creation'. Gays have always reproduced (so many married in the closet anyway). They havent stopped.

Gaugingcatenate said:

EXACTLY.

Hetros engage in the lifestyle of penis to vagina sex which results in the natural lifestyle of family creation. To protect this creation we, societies across the globe independently and from time immemorial, have created these style systems that functioned pretty damned well up until the modern age.

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

Nah ah ah ah...if you are going to go there, please explain, in biological terms, how the 'gay lifestyle' is different than a 'straight lifestyle.'

Reproduction isnt a lifestyle but if it was, it's plain that both gays and straight people want to. Both have families and gays fight harder to do so. They have proven they want kids as much as straight people. They reproduce biologically, the same as a straight couple using a surrogate. They use IVF. And they adopt, just like straight couples. An they have blended families with step-kids, just like straight couples.

So...please tell us what it is *biologically* different in the lifestyles of gays, from that of straight people? LMAO...tell me what is *biological* about straight people's lifestyles! :lamo Hey....us straight people are dying to know. :mrgreen:

Otherwise, that is a buttload of useless words demonstrating you still got nuthin'.

Click to expand...

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Gaugingcatenate said:

...dont blame me, I am just the intelligent messenger.

Click to expand...

Please do no confuse blathering ignorant bigotry with intelligence.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Gaugingcatenate said:

Lets try to maybe read it with marriage is because of family creation by the relations between hetro couples...marriage came after the "invention" of sex.

Click to expand...

You are quite correct that "marriage" came after the invention of sex. "Marriage" happened when it became important to determine the father of a child, and that happened when it became important to protect the financial and political rights of the father.

Gaugingcatenate said:

It is to protect these units created, ...

Click to expand...

Quite correct, it was very important to protect those financial and political rights.

Gaugingcatenate said:

... creations that simply cannot occur between mating same sex folk.

Click to expand...

At least you have a basic knowledge of bi-sexual reproduction.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Does that help narrow that particular part down for you, since you and others have gone off the deep end in the other direction?

Click to expand...

Since your postulates are wrong, they don't help to "narrow" anything but the minds of those who are only willing to listen to preconceived and predigested "opinions".

Gaugingcatenate said:

I am of no particular religion, so quoting scripture wont persuade.

Click to expand...

Well, at least I don't have to worry about your immortal soul.

Gaugingcatenate said:

We judge, rightfully, constantly. Its how we decide to make friends, or not, decide who to vote for, which car is best.

Click to expand...

Other than the inclusion of the word "rightly" in your statement, I agree.

Gaugingcatenate said:

I use the last, with the minor modification of rafter and splinter for beam and mote. That is applicable in the proper place. Right here is not one them

Click to expand...

It is appropriate to be used when someone makes discriminatory judgments based on superficial characteristics.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

I got a VERY simple question:



If this bill passed and made active today what factual RIGHTS are now protected that weren't yesterday? Please list them, thanks!

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

Gaugingcatenate said:

Dang, and I always thought the more modern way to determine paternity was with a paternity test.

Click to expand...

Indeed it is. That,of course, isn't in the least bit relevant to what the situation was when "marriage" was "invented".

Gaugingcatenate said:

No. Never said nor implied that, for what the third, 4th time now?

Click to expand...

Fortunately I have a very large supply of these

Gaugingcatenate said:

Marriage isnt based on the specifics of individual child bearing, its based on protecting the only types of couples with that capacity and doing the most good/least harm.

Click to expand...

Obviously you don't understand when and why "marriage" was invented.

I repeat the questions from my earlier post - none of which you have seen fit to answer:


I would like you to actually answer the questions asked, but I have no expectation that you will.

Gaugingcatenate said:

I agree, ...

Click to expand...

I have no problem with the fact that you agree with yourself.

I do apologize for inadvertantly including the last two sentences (which came from your prior post and were most definitely not my thoughts).

Gaugingcatenate said:

I will adhere to my own good counsel.

Click to expand...

Other than the inclusion of the word "good" I agree that that is what you are going to do.

Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage

leekohler2 said:

If a couple is infertile, then how are they the type of couple that have the capacity to bear children?

Click to expand...

Why, when they get married that infertility miraculously vanishes - of course.

leekohler2 said:

On another bizarre note- I think he truly believes that an entire society could turn gay if gay people are treated equally.

Click to expand...

No, that's not it. It's that some "doom" will descend on any society that treats homosexual people the same way that it treats heterosexual people.

You will, of course, have taken note of the fact that he has stated that he does not belong to any particular religion, so, at least, we know that he isn't concerned with "God" wreaking vengeance on a society that treats all people (heterosexual AND homosexual) as equals.

leekohler2 said:

I think that's what his real fear is. Why anyone would ever think that is beyond me.

Click to expand...

The correct word is "believe" and not "think".

leekohler2 said:

That would/could never happen, just as no society has ever been completely heterosexual.

Click to expand...

I believe that you are going to get some disagreement from him on that point because "everyone knows" there were absolutely no homosexuals in the United States of America until the "Lefties" started their campaign to "Gayify" America.