- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 29,262
- Reaction score
- 10,126
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
She only supports FMA if the courts overturn the states.
IOW she wants to go in and meddle with State laws and Constitutions.
She only supports FMA if the courts overturn the states.
IOW she wants to go in and meddle with State laws and Constitutions.
So you don't think we could replace marriage on a government level with a family contract system? It would require smaller government. But aside from that, I don't see how you are going to redefine marriage without losing any plausible definition.
While we are at it, why adults? Once again you are showing that you have a definition in mind.
Replacing marriage with a bunch of different family contracts would involve a lot more government involvement, hence, larger government. The government would still be involved, since it is the government that ensures rights of family are enforced/given. The largest benefits for marriage come from government because of the way the government works, i.e. taxes and SS and how they relate to two people owning money jointly when it is earned by either or both.
Let me finish for now with this observation. If I had to guess, I would probably guess that the pro-gay marriage debaters on this site supported Barack Obama in 2008. If that is true, that would be interesting since Obama said he believes marriage is between one man and one woman and that he would support civil unions but not gay marriage. Contrast that with those ultra conservatives like Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain who said the states should decide and Ron Paul who believes marriage should be between a couple and their church without any government involvement.
Bachmann supports both a federal and state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and any legal equivalents.
Herman Cain believes that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. He states that the courts have let down the American people, and that he would support a constitutional amendment to define marriage.
Unnatural, UnChristian, bad example for kids, subversive toward the Judeo-Christian values upon which Western society is built. No thanks.
1.)Unnatural, 2.)UnChristian, 3.)bad example for kids, 4.)subversive toward the Judeo-Christian values upon which Western society is built. No thanks.
I would say gay marriage is wrong simply because it is started as an unproductive union.
It would be hard to prove that someone had a religious marriage - they might have had a "religious wedding ceremony" but to have a religious marriage is rather strange. Oh well, we know that you don't know the difference between the marriage and the marriage ceremony.say it 50 more times and it still wont be true.
this is your statement.
"There is no such thing as a religious marriage!"
Since you didn't indicate which statement you were addressing, it is hard to respond, but I know that I don't lie and nothing I said is false.this is 100% false and or you lying
Pick one what?pick one LMAO
Did you mean "Nothing else needs responding to" - "responded" is past tense and you can't have responded to something you don't intend to respond to. I know that would be too difficult for you to figure out.Nothing else needs responded to until you accept the facts.
When you can address the facts and talk reality instead of your fantasy world let me know.
The same response you gave the other poster when he challenged your inane arguments.we will all be waiting for something reality based instead of nonsensical and false statements based on your opinion and emotion .
I would say gay marriage is wrong simply because it is started as an unproductive union. There is no reason for gay to marry and can handle any legal matters under current law with a simple power of attorney. The purpose of most company health plans was children. Since I am totally against gays being able to adopt there is no justification for a company to be forced to cover a same sex partner under a marriage contract. That coverage should be up to the individual company to decide.
It would be hard to prove that someone had a religious marriage - they might have had a "religious wedding ceremony" but to have a religious marriage is rather strange. Oh well, we know that you don't know the difference between the marriage and the marriage ceremony.
Since you didn't indicate which statement you were addressing, it is hard to respond, but I know that I don't lie and nothing I said is false.
Pick one what?
Did you mean "Nothing else needs responding to" - "responded" is past tense and you can't have responded to something you don't intend to respond to. I know that would be too difficult for you to figure out.
The same response you gave the other poster when he challenged your inane arguments.
That will never happen because your mind is stuck on falsehoods and nothing is going to change that when you are unable to comprehend what others are trying to tell you.
According to you, and you don't count! LMAO!again just keep dodging
what you said is STILL 100% false whether you address it or not LMAO
What is a religious marriage?this is one of your false statements
""There is no such thing as a religious marriage!"
this ABOVE is 100% wrong
I understand the facts, and I'm not wrong, I'm just not able to dumb it down enough for you to understand it.again I repeat when you understand the facts lets us know and we can debate anything on topic you like, until then keep putting egg on your face.
You think you do, but based on your statements, it is plain to see that you don't.we will all be waiting for something reality based instead of nonsensical and false statements based on your opinion and emotion. I comprehend what you are saying just fine. I comprehend that it is false LOL
I live in NY and I want this ****ing bill passed. Thanks.
I voted Other.
The reason I don't approve of same-sex marriage is because I don't like calling a Ford F-150 a frog or call a horse an oak tree.
You just called same sex marriage what it is, same sex marriage.
No I didn't. I used the word marriage. For the sake of the poll, I had to call the Ford F-150 a frog. Doesn't mean that I believe the Ford F-150 is a frog. Thwppppppppt!
NPR was saying the anti gay marriage people were doing everything they could to stall this.
According to you, and you don't count! LMAO!
What is a religious marriage?
I understand the facts, and I'm not wrong, I'm just not able to dumb it down enough for you to understand it.
You think you do, but based on your statements, it is plain to see that you don't.
And, who is "we" - I didn't know two people were allowed to join as a team on this Forum. LMAO!
So what did you mean when you said and I quote "same sex marriage", Ford?
Oh, I'm pretty sure you knew what I was saying.
Oh, I'm pretty sure you knew what I was saying.