BS: 'Gay marriage' question

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 12:52 AM

OKAY, radical idiots.....:

Jack the Jack-Ass: "You are saying that childless marriage is not marriage."

I never said that..YOU DID!...I just asked for a word to describe a union comprised of original parents with their own children....and you are having a hard time conceiving of the notion!

TIA: "We all recognize you as a cunning linguist."

Eat your own heart out!

Bil D: "I think MY brilliant analysis of the linguistic issue is being pointedly ignored."

...and what again was that?? It wasn't very well articulated.

Don Froth: "You're raving, Goofus! You've been busted!
You're terrified of coming out of the closet--especially to yourself!"

Busted for what??...That certain ideological morons in here with big fat opinions, cannot think of a word, to describe a first time original family?????????????........and I'm terrified of coming out of the closet to myself??????.....You've REALLY outdone even your own 'clown factor' this time, 'Mr. Activist'...How about activating your brain, into reality?????

This is so much frothing nonsense, you all should be embarrassed to sign your names to it!

GfS!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 01:59 AM

You know exactly what I'm talking about, Goofus.

And everybody else here knows what your hang-up is as well.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 02:56 AM

Are you trying to program everyone else, AGAIN with your asinine assertions??? Do you REALLY think EVERY one is as dumb and stupid, as it takes for you to pull this shit...AGAIN????
Give it up!..You know as well as I, and anyone else who has ANY objectivity, that you are just up to your old games...of misquoting then commenting on your misquotes!..and misinterpretations, of things NEVER said!!!

Now, if you have a question on homosexual marriage, stick to your questions...if you have NO questions, then I guess you are an expert...and we all know that is a bunch of shit!...because you've been far too wrong, too many times!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 02:59 AM

Hello sailor!

Here. You let him off with one of his comments on the basis I started it.

You also once had a pop at me for Hurling insults.

Nice to see you have found your own limit to what you will read before exploding! I for once am in total agreement with you. He is seeming to fit your description of him perfectly.

I too was annoyed with his distinctions as like you, I married (second time lucky in my case) in my forties with no intention of having children. Hence his wanting to label me as different to my first marriage is rather obscene really.

Who knows, give it a year or so and there might be another debate with you broadly supporting the same as I do on a particular subject.

In the meantime, I'll sign off now to allow the goofer to squeak.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 05:17 AM

Did you have children from your first marriage??
..and your ASSUMPTIONS of wanting to 'label' you as anything, is just an empty assumption.
For that same reason, the cat seems to have everyone's tongue...
Just think, if I threw a 'label' at you, then you'd have a reason to bitch...until then, a lot of you just appear to be plain stupid, fearful and dishonest.

Think about it...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 07:48 AM

Yeah, goofy, everyone is stupid except for you. That's it. :-)
If you look around the card table and can't spot the sucker its you.

Also, if you look around a forum and everyone is crazy and stupid but you, it is you.

Its you, Get it? You are the frantic one. You are the stupid one. You are the one that hits "Submit Message" without understanding your own posts.

It is you.

understand?

You.

"Here. You let him off with one of his comments on the basis I started it."

I was trying to make a point about why everyone is convinced that GfS is a boorish idiot. No one is going to fault him for bantering with you. But the rest of that stuff. Pretty good evidence of astoundingly poor social awareness. All I can say is that he appears to have made 6590 posts without expressing a single coherent thought.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 09:57 AM

Idiot. You can't even tell that my pun was intended for BillD, not you. It's not all about you you know. Although you try desperately to make it so with all of your pathetic verbal flailing.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 10:06 AM

OK, you win. Let's go along with that..

You are saying then that my first marriage needs a different word to describe it than my second?

Why?

Just out of interest, I call it my marriage. I called my first attempt my marriage. The many differences include where we live, the restaurants we use, the cars we drive, the places we go on holiday, new friends, blah blah. The differences also include the fact that we had children in my first marriage as that was our intention. My second marriage hasn't, and that too was part of our plan.

If we accidentally had children, would we, and I repeat, need a new marriage certificate to denote the new term?

If it wasn't for the Mudelves, I would call you a disgusting pathetic, homophobic, covered in pondweed ... But they would not publish my post, so best not then.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 10:20 AM

I think I've come up with a way to make it possible for us to deny gay people the right to marry without running afoul of the equal treatment clause in the Constitution. All we have to do is remove any and all marriage benefits for everyone, including the right to be consulted and/or present during a medical emergency or death. No tax breaks, no assumption of common property, no family prices to get into National Parks. I think it will be an easy sell to the current crop of Republicans, since it fits in so well with their stated philosophy: we all ought to be completely on our own.

I know it's a waste of time to try to talk to GfS, but just in case he has one of his rare moments of coherence, here's a question:

GfS, please ignore, for the moment, definitions, health issues, your concept of normality, and everything else that goes on in your head. This is a straight-ahead, yes-or-no Constitutional question. Do you think gay people should enjoy the same legal rights and responsibilities as everyone else?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 10:34 AM

Musket, first of all, Thank You...your post was straight ahead,...and no, I don't think that they need different names...It is the supposition of all the fanatics that think that I'm trying to get people to draw a line, by asking the question that I did. That's their problem, not mine.
Did you find in your first marriage a different 'feeling' and 'motivation' than the second? I know that when marriages dissolve many people have the 'need' to have another, and some do not. In any event, going into a second has different trepidations than the first, which often was more 'innocent'. I don't know your exact situation, so I wouldn't venture a guess....but what I can say, is that the second usually has a different set of 'cautions'...as not to repeat the pains of the first...and those pains, I'm sure, affected the children, as well, and for that, I'm sorry for all concerned.
It just seems that for all intended purposes, that only if the first on, with the children could have gone to it's full measure.
I think what I'm getting at, is that one word, or feeling that separates those two experiences apart from each other....as opposed to a 'third. or fourth, or just co-cohabiting with no commitment whatsoever. Also, the pair-bonding that goes on between parents and each other, and that with your children, is in itself a unique experience for all concerned.
Thank you for your response.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: artbrooks
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 11:11 AM

"A word that describes two people of the opposite sex who wish to live together as man and wife, and bring children into the world, as a result of having sex with each other, and to be raised by the same two people as a family, as opposed to any other 'domestic' situation." Clearly, the plural noun "breeders" meets this requirement. If the individuals involved wish to have a legal or quasi-religious affiliation as well, than they can join the rest of us under the much broader heading of marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 11:37 AM

That's what I thought artbrooks. After all, in the quote you have repeated, I see no reason why marriage would be necessary in the first place. I know plenty of people who have raised children successfully without getting married.

In promoting marriage by giving the status financial incentives, government only manage to promote the financial rather than the spiritual reasons for marriage.

I suppose religious bodies feel they have some ownership on marriage. The Archbishop of York, someone who despite his eccentric stunts is a deeply thoughtful and for a Bishop, rational man. Even he said that governments cannot make marriage laws because only God can decide what is a marriage. He went down in my estimation for that as I am irreligious so wonder how he has the bare faced cheek to denigrate my marriage too.

I do seem to be defending my own status a bit here, and the thread is about "gay marriage" which as a term should be as obvious as "dark night" or "large double decker bus."

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: artbrooks
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 11:41 AM

Substitute "inter-racial" for "gay", and this becomes a subject that most of us hoped we had put behind us decades ago.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 05:47 PM

Misquoting you, Goofus? I don't think so.

For the enlightenment and education of all, shall I post a link to the post on that thread of some time ago where you inadvertantly revealed the REAL nature of your hang-up?

Keep it up, Goofus, and I'll blow your cover wide open.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Smedley
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 05:12 PM

Gone very quiet, hasn't it ?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 05:48 PM

Conversing with parrots soon becomes boring.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 07:09 PM

Y'Art!... "Substitute "inter-racial" for "gay", and this becomes a subject that most of us hoped we had put behind us decades ago."

There ya go.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 07:18 PM

Oh, come now: ya don't have a choice as to your racial identity, but everyone except people brainwashed with thatthere liberal agenda knows that "gay" is a sick, unnatural choice that some guys make because they weren't parented right.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 09:15 PM

I remember well the day I decided to be heterosexual. I was thirteen, and this girl at school suddenly became the only thing I could think about, specifically about kissing her and . . . stuff . . . that I didn't really know anything about yet. I remember thinking, "Gosh, I could be a homosexual if I want. I wonder if I should? I could try to kiss a boy . . ." And then, of couse, I decided to go ahead and like girls after all. I'm sure everyone remembers that moment when you decided what you will be turned on by. Fond memories . . .

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 09:43 PM

It happened kind of early for me. I had a good buddy who lived across the street. One day I crossed the street to see him. It turned out that he wasn't home, but his younger sister was there. We stood on the front porch and chatted for quite some time. Turned out I decided she was as cute as a bug's ear and she seemed to think I was kinda neat. I'd take her for rides in my little red wagon.

I was nine. She was also nine, but a couple of months younger than me.

So I decided that I wanted to be a heterosexual. I pulled out the questionnaire and checked the appropriate box. Been hetero ever since.

Don Firth

P. S. She WAS a cutey!!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 09:45 PM

And get this! I was living in California at the time!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 02:37 AM

I remember the day I found out I was heterosexual.

The doctor told me if I didn't follow a "straight" path, the alternative would make my eyes water.

Zzzzzzzzzzz.

I often wonder why some people are so quick to question the lifestyle of others. I do all the time. I question the lifestyle of burglars, fraudsters, gangsters etc. Mainly on the basis that I could be affected by what they do if I were unfortunate enough.

But questioning a choice that has no effect on me, driving lifestyle underground until gay relationships are frowned upon by society's sheep, leading to fractious and therefore short term relationships which leads to promiscuity which leads to public health issues which can affect us all?

There you go goofus and Akenhateon, there's your excuse to hate. Unfortunately it also shows the responsibility your odious views have in creating the rare but real concerns.

Just think, gay marriage and stability could neuter your somewhat irrational fears!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 04:59 AM

Homosexual "marriage" does not seem to have altered the abysmal health figures for MSM. They continue to rise steadily...but I suppose that doesn't concern you very much?

How high must hiv rates go before you understand that there is a problem that "equality" cannot fix?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 05:53 AM

The dropping figures (HPA) are a cause for celebration.

They need to go a hell of a lot higher before I stop celebrating the low figures in homosexual people. Now, the slight rise in heterosexual women is a cause for concern.

"But I suppose that doesn't concern you very much."



Mow many statistics will you twist till they suit your views? I say "views" as we are debating in polite company. I thought views like yours could have been consigned to history. I feel a Godwin moment coming on. (If you get a pair of calipers to measure people's noses, you might be able to check to see if they are gay? or is that Jews? I get confused when people are concerned that not everybody has their lifestyle.)

Or at least the lifestyle they say they have...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 06:04 AM

Asserting that homosexual marriage and public health are equivalent is willful ignorance. It is just not fact.

Ake, do you have anything musically folk, or folkly musical to share with us? Or is this just a playground for you to "share" your pathological fear of people who do not share your (presumably) perfect sexuality? Just wondering.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 06:44 AM

'Homosexual "marriage" does not seem to have altered the abysmal health figures for MSM.'




Homosexual marriage is still repressed in the vast majority of locales because of assholes like you, so how can this be a valid argument?

"MSM promiscuity is a risk factor for HIV, therefore we should vehemently oppose an institution that supports monogamy, awwwwk, Akenaton wants a cracker, awk."

Wow you're right...it does get boring.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 07:25 AM

It all seems nasty to me. Nasty.
(:-( o)=

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 01:16 PM

Only a tiny minority of homosexuals want anything to do with "marriage"

The people who want it are the same people who want nothing done about the exploitation of our children and who see any discussion of the immigration issue as "racism"
They of the wooly minded silencers of "liberalism".

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 01:16 PM

What seems nasty? Homophobia, pointing at homophobes and laughing at them or gay marriage???

This thread has the lot. I know because I purposely cause some of it!

Akenaton seems to not like a gay lifestyle, whilst the more correctly spelled Akhenaton had gay lovers, (or that hieroglyph had the bloke upside-down and was misinterpreted....)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 01:59 PM

I think Akhenaton had rather too many children to be a homosexual.

He was I believe, a bit of a family man, as he is often depicted amongst his wife and children.

Had he been a homosexual, I would still have admired his vision.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 02:13 PM

"Only a tiny minority of homosexuals want anything to do with "marriage"

Wow,,,and you did this survey where?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 02:22 PM

Just research any of the take up rates.....no survey.
They've had homosexual marriage for nearly fifteen years in Denmark.

Take up rates a low and "marriages" are of much shorter duration than hetero.

But I've already posted that on other threads ....why do you keep repeating the question?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 03:45 PM

In the UK the proportion of the population getting married has fallen by a third since 1981. Perhaps we'd better stop heterosexuals marrying too as it's not very popular.

The issue is not whether you approve of homosexuality. In a fair society you don't deny someone rights just because you don't like them. We are not even discussing what those rights should be, because they already exist under the name civil partnership. The debate is just over what to call them.

Marriage in this context is an arrangement under civil law which gives couples certain rights and obligations over and towards each other. I don't see the objectors suggesting that we need different words to describe a lease, a mortgage or other legal arrangements by same-sex couples. Could someone please provide me with a reasoned argument, without resorting to abuse, why we should need a different name for marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 04:09 PM

Ake says, "Only a tiny minority of homosexuals want anything to do with 'marriage.'"

Patently untrue.

And, as usual, Ake cobbles the information in a feeble effort to support his prejudices.

The Danish parliament voted 85-24 to legalize same-sex marriage law on June 15th, 2012!

Hardly enough time to develop any kind of meaningful statistics!

I know at least four couples, three male couples, one female couple, who have been in stable, monogamous relationships for a number of years—and would like to have all of the legal rights that heterosexual married couples have—but are denied them by people with the same kind of prejudices that Ake spouts.

In the coming November election, a same-sex marriage law is on the ballot for Washington State. Immense amounts of money are pouring into the state in an effort to defeat the measure—mostly from out-of-state religious groups! One of the major groups is Romney's very own Mormon Church.

The same thing happened in California when Proposition 8 repealed the California same-sex marriage law.

Some people are still living in the Dark Ages and are hanging onto their archaic beliefs like Grim Death.

#### By the way:

Ake and Goofus, have this made into a sampler and hang it on your wall, and have it tattooed backwards on your foreheads so that you can read it every time you look in the mirror:
There is a lot more to a marriage than just sex!
Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 06:37 PM

"The first country at all to introduce a legal recognition of same-sex unions was Denmark in 1989".

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 08:35 PM

Most homosexuals are too promiscuous to care about marriage. They'd rather hang out at some Glory Hole.
(:-( o)=

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 08:42 PM

Civil unions, yes. But NOT full-fledged marriage.

Fully recognized same-sex MARRIAGE was passed by the Danish parliament on June 15th of THIS YEAR.

Look it up!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 09:05 PM

Are there hetero glory holes?
Lesbian glory holes?
What is it about gay men?
And glory holes?
(:-( O)=

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 09:12 PM

Pull your head out of yours, Henry!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 10:16 PM

Glory be!
(:-( o)=

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 03:27 AM

Akenhateon would respect Akenhaton "even if" he had gay lovers. Added to "he had too many children to have had gay lovers" we finally get the disgusting old sod to come clean.

His comments are based on prejudice and bigotry. Nailed by his own words.

At least he doesn't have to fabricate conclusions from weird statistics any more as justification of his stance has its own malodour without spewing out bollocks to try and prove decent people are wrong.

I wondered where Harry Enfield got his inspiration for The Self Righteous Brothers from....

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 02:49 PM

There is a lot more to a marriage than just sex!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 03:14 PM

Yeah, but Hank the Crank doesn't understand that his deplorable comments that ignore the logical inferences involved in that regard may be taken in three ways... either he is an idiot or a troll or both.

Bet ya a dollar Crankle asks me to explain something to him or just shits on me if he can't figure this shit out or just ignores this post altogether or says something really fucking stupid again... oh, wait, strike that last one... that's a given.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 04:29 PM

Not having been gaily married yet, I feel underqualified to answer any questions about it. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 06:06 PM

I never married either. A lawyer said you get married to have children. If you don't plan to have children, there's no point in getting married. And I agree with him.
(:-( ))=

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 06:25 PM

My wife and I married thirty-five years ago. We like children, but we don't have any, and we never really considered it. We thoroughly enjoy each other's company, like the same things and the same people, and we share a lot of interests. And on a number of things, we work together.

Simple. We love each other. Sex, yes. But children? No. That's it.

And as I said above, there's more to marriage than just just sex. Or procreation.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 07:20 PM

Crank... "If you don't plan to have children, there's no point in getting married. And I agree..."

Told yas.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 07:33 PM

(:-( D)=

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 07:59 PM

Ian ...your last post was jibberish.....see a doctor.

You have the impudence to accuse me of hatred when you post stuff like that......perhaps you are drunk, but even that is no excuse

Calm down and try to get a grip on reality.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 08:28 PM

200 is enough. Right?