Nothing Like Tolerance

Mongo wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

You do realize that your views against gays were quite offensive right? I guess I don't understand why people are so nuts about men and women being the only ones who should get married because it's so sacred, etc. If that is the case why do so many marriages end in divorce? People don't take it seriously at all anymore. I'm with Dolly Parton on this one...

Quote :

Of course I believe in gay marriage — why shouldn’t they have to suffer just like us straight couples do?

Offensive? Why? That's the problem I have with the view of gays and those that support their agenda, they expect no resistance. If you say you think marriage is between a man and a woman, then you MUST hate gays and are naturally a bigot. Such nonsense!
I don't like people getting special privileges because of their lifestyle. You have to draw the line. Are we then supposed to allow those that engage in bestiality to marry? What about polygamy? Why should we allow gays to marry but then tell someone how many wives or husbands you're allowed to have?
Divorce is a problem, so why add to it? Marriage should be sacred, but too many people these days couldn't care less about their religion, we've become a society of selfish people that care about what's next for us and how much can we get. Sad.

Oh boy. Comparing gay marriage to beastiality? And you wonder why people think your point of view is offensive? We are talking about two people who love each other. Not sexual deviants. And how could that add to the divorce problem? I don't consider Britney Spears marriage to Kevin "sacred" at all and that was a hetero marriage. I'm not gay and neither are you obviously. I know as Christians we aren't supposed to be gay because of what it says in the Bible but I'm not God. And I'm sorry but being gay is not a "lifestyle" or a choice and I found your remarks to be disturbing especially comparing gays to people who have sex with animals. If you can't see how you sound lin that comment you are obviously very misguided. You can disagree without comparing these people with sexual deviants for heavens sake.

Something to think about.

I am a white heterosexual male. Name one right I have that a white homosexual male don't have. I challenge you to come up with one.

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Something to think about.

I am a white heterosexual male. Name one right I have that a white homosexual male don't have. I challenge you to come up with one.

The right to marry the person you love?

Annie Oakley wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Something to think about.

I am a white heterosexual male. Name one right I have that a white homosexual male don't have. I challenge you to come up with one.

The right to marry the person you love?

Is it a right or a privilege?

Annie Oakley wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Something to think about.

I am a white heterosexual male. Name one right I have that a white homosexual male don't have. I challenge you to come up with one.

The right to marry the person you love?

Nope! I have the right to marry someone I love as long as they are of the opposite sex. A homosexual has the same right to marry someone as long as they are the opposite sex. Therefore, we have the exact same rights.

I'm heterosexual and can't marry someone of the same sex. As a heterosexual, I can love someone of the same sex, but still can't marry them. Please try again.

You are putting conditions on the rights. It's no use "trying again." We see things differently.

This is not to say that I necessarily agree that homosexuals should be granted marriages. I have no problem with allowing them civil unions, however.

Annie Oakley wrote:

You are putting conditions on the rights. It's no use "trying again." We see things differently.

This is not to say that I necessarily agree that homosexuals should be granted marriages. I have no problem with allowing them civil unions, however.

I may have been a little missleading by "putting conditions on the rights" when Gay rights had not been mentioned. But seriously, all this about "Gay Rights" is crazy...We all have the same rights.

I am a Christian, Jesus is my Savior. If people want to be gay, that's their business. As a Christian I fall short daily, just as every other human on earth. When the gay community wants to start changing the definition of words (marriage) on the basis of rights, it seems they want different rights than the rest of us.

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

You are putting conditions on the rights. It's no use "trying again." We see things differently.

This is not to say that I necessarily agree that homosexuals should be granted marriages. I have no problem with allowing them civil unions, however.

I may have been a little missleading by "putting conditions on the rights" when Gay rights had not been mentioned. But seriously, all this about "Gay Rights" is crazy...We all have the same rights.

I am a Christian, Jesus is my Savior. If people want to be gay, that's their business. As a Christian I fall short daily, just as every other human on earth. When the gay community wants to start changing the definition of words (marriage) on the basis of rights, it seems they want different rights than the rest of us.

I don't see it that way. It seems to me that they just want to marry the person that they love, just like heterosexual people do. I don't see it as a gay rights issue, but as an issue of equality.

Again, I would be fine with going fully to civil unions and let churches establish their own criteria for marriages.

Some may have seen something like this before, but I prefer to take a slightly different look at marriage. It really depends on how you want to define the purpose of a marriage in reference to the state and how it suits the state's purposes.

As the state should have no innate religious trappings for the institution of marriage it does indeed call into the question what defines a marriage. Moreover why would a state with no religious connotations even bother with recognizing any sort of union between couples, heterosexual or homosexual for that matter. So the driving we question we have here is this: What benefit do we have for the state with the recognition of any sort of marriage?

As an entity that is to be based on prudence and pragmatism our amoral state should not be swayed by notions such as "love." No because "love" is of no practical relevance, you can't tax love. You can't measure or quantify love, devotion or affection thus rendering that benefit moot. Married couples tend to get tax breaks and incentives, to what end though? For what purpose would the government wish to treat them differently?

The only thing that a married couple has that is of use to the state is the eventual production of future citizens. These citizens, provided they make it to adulthood, are an eventual source of revenue via taxation and/or of use in their contributions to society through their careers or through civil service. The state's primary goal, outside of self perpetuation(the same as any good bureaucracy), is to "promote the general welfare." Thus through the enrichment of the population via said production of citizens the government would attain an eventual benefit.

With this as the primary motivating factor as a benefit to the state it would stand to reason that the only "marriages" that would be worth recognizing would be those capable of producing said benefit to the state.

While the relationship of Bob and Horatio may be healthier than that of Eamon and Sally, B&H are biologically incapable of what E&S can do. This is of course provided that the terrible film Junior was truly ficticious.

Outside of that I personally can see no reason, this is not taking into account religious connotations that is, as to why a couple that uses the same public restroom should not be granted some benefits, tax break wise, if they were to adopt a child. However I personally find that calling it a marriage is not politically prudent. I don't take personal issue with those who wish to subscribe to religion, thus no reason to want to annoy them.


Just throwing that thought out there.

Tom Gladius wrote:

Some may have seen something like this before, but I prefer to take a slightly different look at marriage. It really depends on how you want to define the purpose of a marriage in reference to the state and how it suits the state's purposes.

As the state should have no innate religious trappings for the institution of marriage it does indeed call into the question what defines a marriage. Moreover why would a state with no religious connotations even bother with recognizing any sort of union between couples, heterosexual or homosexual for that matter. So the driving we question we have here is this: What benefit do we have for the state with the recognition of any sort of marriage?

As an entity that is to be based on prudence and pragmatism our amoral state should not be swayed by notions such as "love." No because "love" is of no practical relevance, you can't tax love. You can't measure or quantify love, devotion or affection thus rendering that benefit moot. Married couples tend to get tax breaks and incentives, to what end though? For what purpose would the government wish to treat them differently?

The only thing that a married couple has that is of use to the state is the eventual production of future citizens. These citizens, provided they make it to adulthood, are an eventual source of revenue via taxation and/or of use in their contributions to society through their careers or through civil service. The state's primary goal, outside of self perpetuation(the same as any good bureaucracy), is to "promote the general welfare." Thus through the enrichment of the population via said production of citizens the government would attain an eventual benefit.

With this as the primary motivating factor as a benefit to the state it would stand to reason that the only "marriages" that would be worth recognizing would be those capable of producing said benefit to the state.

While the relationship of Bob and Horatio may be healthier than that of Eamon and Sally, B&H are biologically incapable of what E&S can do. This is of course provided that the terrible film Junior was truly ficticious.

Outside of that I personally can see no reason, this is not taking into account religious connotations that is, as to why a couple that uses the same public restroom should not be granted some benefits, tax break wise, if they were to adopt a child. However I personally find that calling it a marriage is not politically prudent. I don't take personal issue with those who wish to subscribe to religion, thus no reason to want to annoy them.


Just throwing that thought out there.

Interesting food for thought here. Of course we know that just because one partner is male and one female does not make them capable of producing offspring. Likewise, we know that a marriage certificate is not a requirement of doing such either. As such, why not civil unions for government purposes (for all) and keep marriages as religious institutions granted by churches?

Annie Oakley wrote:

Interesting food for thought here. Of course we know that just because one partner is male and one female does not make them capable of producing offspring. Likewise, we know that a marriage certificate is not a requirement of doing such either. As such, why not civil unions for government purposes (for all) and keep marriages as religious institutions granted by churches?

Which is why no benefits outside of a title should be handed out for couples without children. They are of no benefit to the state without children and as such aren't relevant in a cost-benefit analysis.

Tom Gladius wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

Interesting food for thought here. Of course we know that just because one partner is male and one female does not make them capable of producing offspring. Likewise, we know that a marriage certificate is not a requirement of doing such either. As such, why not civil unions for government purposes (for all) and keep marriages as religious institutions granted by churches?

Which is why no benefits outside of a title should be handed out for couples without children. They are of no benefit to the state without children and as such aren't relevant in a cost-benefit analysis.

So, keep the "benefits" for children produced, not marriage/union, correct?

Annie Oakley wrote:

Tom Gladius wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

Interesting food for thought here. Of course we know that just because one partner is male and one female does not make them capable of producing offspring. Likewise, we know that a marriage certificate is not a requirement of doing such either. As such, why not civil unions for government purposes (for all) and keep marriages as religious institutions granted by churches?

Which is why no benefits outside of a title should be handed out for couples without children. They are of no benefit to the state without children and as such aren't relevant in a cost-benefit analysis.

So, keep the "benefits" for children produced, not marriage/union, correct?

The benefits only go to those in union/marriage. Be it between Gary and Steve or Tom and Sally, I do not care.

Tom Gladius wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

Tom Gladius wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

Interesting food for thought here. Of course we know that just because one partner is male and one female does not make them capable of producing offspring. Likewise, we know that a marriage certificate is not a requirement of doing such either. As such, why not civil unions for government purposes (for all) and keep marriages as religious institutions granted by churches?

Which is why no benefits outside of a title should be handed out for couples without children. They are of no benefit to the state without children and as such aren't relevant in a cost-benefit analysis.

So, keep the "benefits" for children produced, not marriage/union, correct?

The benefits only go to those in union/marriage. Be it between Gary and Steve or Tom and Sally, I do not care.

I'm not following you. I thought you were promoting that the only economic benefit of a marriage was the production of offspring? If that's the case, why is marriage even needed?

Annie Oakley wrote:

Tom Gladius wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

Tom Gladius wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

Interesting food for thought here. Of course we know that just because one partner is male and one female does not make them capable of producing offspring. Likewise, we know that a marriage certificate is not a requirement of doing such either. As such, why not civil unions for government purposes (for all) and keep marriages as religious institutions granted by churches?

Which is why no benefits outside of a title should be handed out for couples without children. They are of no benefit to the state without children and as such aren't relevant in a cost-benefit analysis.

So, keep the "benefits" for children produced, not marriage/union, correct?

The benefits only go to those in union/marriage. Be it between Gary and Steve or Tom and Sally, I do not care.

I'm not following you. I thought you were promoting that the only economic benefit of a marriage was the production of offspring? If that's the case, why is marriage even needed?

I figured you were heading in that direction. I honestly am indifferent to whether they are married or not. The fact is though that a marriage/union has no benefit to the state outside of production of citizens, it can be argued on both sides as to the inherent value to society of those born in or out of said bond.

I am only in this thread to play devil's advocate.

Tom Gladius wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

Tom Gladius wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

Tom Gladius wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

Interesting food for thought here. Of course we know that just because one partner is male and one female does not make them capable of producing offspring. Likewise, we know that a marriage certificate is not a requirement of doing such either. As such, why not civil unions for government purposes (for all) and keep marriages as religious institutions granted by churches?

Which is why no benefits outside of a title should be handed out for couples without children. They are of no benefit to the state without children and as such aren't relevant in a cost-benefit analysis.

So, keep the "benefits" for children produced, not marriage/union, correct?

The benefits only go to those in union/marriage. Be it between Gary and Steve or Tom and Sally, I do not care.

I'm not following you. I thought you were promoting that the only economic benefit of a marriage was the production of offspring? If that's the case, why is marriage even needed?

I figured you were heading in that direction. I honestly am indifferent to whether they are married or not. The fact is though that a marriage/union has no benefit to the state outside of production of citizens, it can be argued on both sides as to the inherent value to society of those born in or out of said bond.

I am only in this thread to play devil's advocate.

I agree. Civil unions for all, marriage rights reserved for churches, tax breaks not based on marriage, but for children produced/cared for.

Annie Oakley wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Something to think about.

I am a white heterosexual male. Name one right I have that a white homosexual male don't have. I challenge you to come up with one.

The right to marry the person you love?

Annie, that was just about the most awesome answer that I have ever heard!

Ms. Kitty wrote:

Annie Oakley wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Something to think about.

I am a white heterosexual male. Name one right I have that a white homosexual male don't have. I challenge you to come up with one.

The right to marry the person you love?

Annie, that was just about the most awesome answer that I have ever heard!

May be awesome, but wrong.

Her response wasn't "The right to marry someone of the opposite sex" it was "the right to marry the person that you love". Therefore, she is correct. A homosexual man or women cannot marry the person that they love because the law doesn't give them that right!!!

Ms. Kitty wrote:

Her response wasn't "The right to marry someone of the opposite sex" it was "the right to marry the person that you love". Therefore, she is correct. A homosexual man or women cannot marry the person that they love because the law doesn't give them that right!!!

My question was...Name one right a heterosexual has that a homosexual doesn't have.

We all have the right to marry anyone we choose as long as they are of age and of the opposite sex.

I (as a heterosexual) can't marry a man either. Therefore we have the same identical rights. What is so hard to understand about "rights"?

Ms. Kitty wrote:

Her response wasn't "The right to marry someone of the opposite sex" it was "the right to marry the person that you love". Therefore, she is correct. A homosexual man or women cannot marry the person that they love because the law doesn't give them that right!!!

If "the law doesn't give them that right!!!" why do you have a problem with it? Don't you think we should be law abiding citizens?

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Ms. Kitty wrote:

Her response wasn't "The right to marry someone of the opposite sex" it was "the right to marry the person that you love". Therefore, she is correct. A homosexual man or women cannot marry the person that they love because the law doesn't give them that right!!!

My question was...Name one right a heterosexual has that a homosexual doesn't have.

We all have the right to marry anyone we choose as long as they are of age and of the opposite sex.

I (as a heterosexual) can't marry a man either. Therefore we have the same identical rights. What is so hard to understand about "rights"?

Huh? We don't all have the right to marry anyone we want. That is what this is all about. You should be able to marry the person you love. It's discrimination if you aren't. Besides, why would a gay man want to marry a woman for? That doesn't even make any sense.

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Ms. Kitty wrote:

Her response wasn't "The right to marry someone of the opposite sex" it was "the right to marry the person that you love". Therefore, she is correct. A homosexual man or women cannot marry the person that they love because the law doesn't give them that right!!!

If "the law doesn't give them that right!!!" why do you have a problem with it? Don't you think we should be law abiding citizens?

It used to be perfectly legal for people to keep slaves as well. Sometimes laws become outdated and need to be changed. Doesn't make the people asking for the change criminals.

gringaloca wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Ms. Kitty wrote:

Her response wasn't "The right to marry someone of the opposite sex" it was "the right to marry the person that you love". Therefore, she is correct. A homosexual man or women cannot marry the person that they love because the law doesn't give them that right!!!

My question was...Name one right a heterosexual has that a homosexual doesn't have.

We all have the right to marry anyone we choose as long as they are of age and of the opposite sex.

I (as a heterosexual) can't marry a man either. Therefore we have the same identical rights. What is so hard to understand about "rights"?

Huh? We don't all have the right to marry anyone we want. That is what this is all about. You should be able to marry the person you love. It's discrimination if you aren't. Besides, why would a gay man want to marry a woman for? That doesn't even make any sense.

No, but we all have the same right when it comes to marriage. Love is love, are you making the issue sex?

SKINNYPIG wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Ms. Kitty wrote:

Her response wasn't "The right to marry someone of the opposite sex" it was "the right to marry the person that you love". Therefore, she is correct. A homosexual man or women cannot marry the person that they love because the law doesn't give them that right!!!

My question was...Name one right a heterosexual has that a homosexual doesn't have.

We all have the right to marry anyone we choose as long as they are of age and of the opposite sex.

I (as a heterosexual) can't marry a man either. Therefore we have the same identical rights. What is so hard to understand about "rights"?

Huh? We don't all have the right to marry anyone we want. That is what this is all about. You should be able to marry the person you love. It's discrimination if you aren't. Besides, why would a gay man want to marry a woman for? That doesn't even make any sense.

No, but we all have the same right when it comes to marriage. Love is love, are you making the issue sex?

What? You aren't making any sense to me. You usually want to marry the person you fall in love with. If that person happens to not be the opposite sex, it doesn't mean that you love them any less. If you are in love with someone, you should have the right to marry that person no matter what their sex is. Do you view homosexuals as human beings with feelings? Or do you believe that they are messed up creatures who are suffering from some sort of disease or mental problem that makes them the way they are? Being gay isn't a choice. Do you think that anyone would choose to suffer the way those people do because of the discrimination and hate they have to face on a daily basis?