BS: 'Gay marriage' question

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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 10:24 PM

READ this one JACKASS.


You are saying that childless marriage is not marriage.

I am saying that my wife and I have no children and we are just as married as anyone else.

We are just as pair bonded as anyone else. And what kind of idiot are you for bringing that up? Here is some news. Lots of male/female parents get divorced while they are raising their kids. That means that the special pair bonding you are talking about only exists in your tiny insulting blowhard head.

Read your posts before you hit "Submit Message". You make about as much sense a chimp randomly banging a keyboard. Filter yourself. You jackass.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 09:11 PM

Far from it! We all recognize you as a cunning linguist.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 08:48 PM

I think MY brilliant analysis of the linguistic issue is being pointedly ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 07:44 PM

You're raving, Goofus! You've been busted!

You're terrified of coming out of the closet--especially to yourself!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 07:32 PM

Don: "..That has NOT been established AT ALL. In fact, geneticists are pretty well agreed that there is a major genetic component to the issue."

In theory....but without conclusive evidence..it's only a theory...perhaps borne of wishful thinking??
No gene, Ol' Bucko!

Until then, I'm sticking to the greater probability of 'receptors'.

And poor Jack, "I understand it very well. That is MY MARRIAGE you stupid asshole. I just said so. Go fuck yourself you arrogant idiot."

...and I posed the question back to you, that don't you think if you had children between you, that it might just affect the 'family dynamic'??
..or is it the thought of it that outrages you into a frothing idiot?
See, if you look back...wait, I'll cut and paste your post.....

Here:
"My marriage fits the latter definition. We got married in out forties.
Do you know what that makes you?
How can I say this nicely?
You are a short sighted stupid bigot and a blow hard."

So, what you are saying, is that because I accurately described your present marriage, that makes me a short sighted bigot and a blowhard'?????

Wow!! That marriage must be more fun than shaving your head with a cheese grater, while chewing tin foil!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 07:08 PM

It is rabid on pretty much every subject. It appears as though that it is often rabid before it reads other people's posts and thus does not comprehend them.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 07:01 PM

GoofuS: "....AND..as WELL established..it is NOT genetic either."

That has NOT been established AT ALL. In fact, geneticists are pretty well agreed that there is a major genetic component to the issue.

Remembering what you let slip in another thread a couple of years ago, I am aware of why you want to BELIEVE sexual orientation is a matter of choice rather than a matter of genetics.

You're afraid. Which is why you're so rabid on this subject!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 07:00 PM

"Hey 'Jack the Bright'......what about "..than two people living sexually together, sans the pair-bonding of rearing their own offspring.".. don't you understand??"


I understand it very well. That is MY MARRIAGE you stupid asshole. I just said so. Go fuck yourself you arrogant idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 06:50 PM

Hey 'Jack the Bright'......what about "..than two people living sexually together, sans the pair-bonding of rearing their own offspring.".. don't you understand??

Don't you think that if you were rearing your OWN offspring, between you, that it might just have a 'slight' effect on your own pair-bonding???
I never brought up the homosexual issue about it...and BTW, it DOES effect the relationship....I mean can you imagine how your family dynamics would change if you had a couple of children (young or grown) demanding your time and attentions,away from the things you'd normally have on your priorities??..Throw into the mix, that you and your wife conceived them..maybe even delivered them....and life would be the same, without them?????
So as to your query: "Do you know what that makes you?
How can I say this nicely?"

I was thinking of asking you the same question...now that you brought it up!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 06:26 PM

".and the idea of original people starting their own families, from parents who did the same, by conceiving their own offspring, from their own sexual activities, is a different idea, than two people living sexually together, sans the pair-bonding of rearing their own offspring."

My marriage fits the latter definition. We got married in out forties.

Do you know what that makes you?
How can I say this nicely?

You are a short sighted stupid bigot and a blow hard.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 06:19 PM

Don, Are you feeling alright??...You are saying it's not a political issue, it's a CIVIL RIGHTS issue?????????????????

..I'm pointing out the biological issue..which has nothing to do with the politics of any of it.....but we've been around this bush before...and let me see..a 'civil rights' issue...hmmm, that's because it is of what RACE, CREED or COLOR????......oh wait...let's re-interpret the law in order to spin a new definition.

How or what people do sexually in not a matter of race, creed or color....AND..as WELL established..it is NOT genetic either.

I have NOT attacked homosexual domestic partnerships on this thread, whatsoever!!!
I have alluded to distinct differences to original spouses and families, and homosexuality, though..and that is merely because there is...like it or not.
I have not attacked marriage to widowed, or or joining families of previous marriages, as alluded....all I've asked for is a word...because 'Words' are sounds or a group of sounds that relate an idea...and the idea of original people starting their own families, from parents who did the same, by conceiving their own offspring, from their own sexual activities, is a different idea, than two people living sexually together, sans the pair-bonding of rearing their own offspring.
That 'little specialness' which the child often creates, about his parents, having come from those same two parents, would be missing from the equation....I mean if anyone actually gives a damn.

So, do you actually have a point, or just trying to sound like it????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 05:17 PM

"...and as far as your accusation of bigotry, you are out of your mind!...but that word IS the 'left wing' refuge when running out of ideas!.."

Bulletin, GoofuS. The same-sex marriage issue is NOT a political issue—neither Left nor Right (although those who oppose it are mainly Right-Wing conservatives). It is a CIVIL RIGHTS issue.

Also, there ARE main-line Christian churches that are willing to marry same-sex couples (whether the local laws recognize them as "marriage" or not) and have done so! I attend such a church (Lutheran).

Also, GoofuS, I have yet to meet anyone who consistently uses works like "queer" and "fag" as you are wont to do who is NOT a bigot.

That's the liguistic equivalent of refering to a black man by the "N-word"!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 04:36 PM

Answering a question with a question is not an answer..and in certain etiquette, considered quite rude....unless you can answer the question, nor see a distinction... >>mistaken, rude and needless lecture.

That's what too many drugs will do to ya'! >> wild, unfounded accusation. Makes you appear to be extremely rude, uneducated, unhinged.

_____________

GfS

GfS, there's already a word for two people who live together in a formal legal arrangement without bringing children into the world.   That word is "married". >>Answer to question. Why do you need another one? >>New question to you.

_______

The simple fact, (because you apparently haven't been reading or comprehending), the fact homosexuals, by nature of their sexual acts with people of the same sex, cannot conceive with each other, in their 'domestic arrangement'....unless you want to argue that!

You guys are the ones who get all pissy for me pointing that out.<<
..and seeing if you have a word for those who DO conceive with each other, in their original marriage...and being as homosexuals do not, and can not, then why should it be the same word, defining two different circumstances?? <<< pointless attempted sarcasm

I mean YOU'RE all here by natural means....now you want to deny the means, or the importance of it??...assuming you were all raised by those parents....no word for it???...or are you just lost in the maze of bullshit rationalizations justifying other sexual <<
preferences??...and cannot distinguish the two???...so we accept the muddying of terms..<<< More insults, combined with illogical gibberish

Now you can squeak...<<< I'll give you this one because musket started it.


But maybe if you were to stop trying to insult other posters intelligence, and if you took the time to write coherent sentences, you would get along along better. But I warn you being logical would leave you with far less to say. In the above section you seem to be saying that the term "marriage" should be reserved for procreative, child rearing relationships. But in all of human history it has never been confined to that. Older couples could always remarry. Sterile couples did not have their weddings revoked, etc. If you had just written down your point and looked at it before pressing "send." You may well have thought, "this is horse manure" and found something else to talk about.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 03:56 PM

Ok... NOT a question!

I hereby declare that 'married' is sufficient to refer to two (at a minimum) people living in a formal, legal situation.

Expanded explanations of the gender and functional differences are at the discretion of the parties involved.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 03:52 PM

Answering a question with a question is not an answer..and in certain etiquette, considered quite rude..

No, I answered your question and asked one of my own.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 03:05 PM

Answering a question with a question is not an answer..and in certain etiquette, considered quite rude....unless you can answer the question, nor see a distinction...

That's what too many drugs will do to ya'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 02:44 PM

GfS, there's already a word for two people who live together in a formal legal arrangement without bringing children into the world. That word is "married". Why do you need another one?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 02:32 PM

Not squeaking at all..quite the contrary...

..and.."What facts are you referring to?"

The simple fact, (because you apparently haven't been reading or comprehending), the fact homosexuals, by nature of their sexual acts with people of the same sex, cannot conceive with each other, in their 'domestic arrangement'....unless you want to argue that!

You guys are the ones who get all pissy for me pointing that out...and seeing if you have a word for those who DO conceive with each other, in their original marriage...and being as homosexuals do not, and can not, then why should it be the same word, defining two different circumstances??
I mean YOU'RE all here by natural means....now you want to deny the means, or the importance of it??...assuming you were all raised by those parents....no word for it???...or are you just lost in the maze of bullshit rationalizations justifying other sexual preferences??...and cannot distinguish the two???...so we accept the muddying of terms..

Now you can squeak...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 01:03 PM

What facts are you referring to?

I am genuinely curious, it isn't just prodding you with a stick so we can all enjoy hearing you squeak.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 12:33 PM

another nominee for that all-important requested word"

REALLYTRULYMARRIED (be sure to use both caps and italics)

as opposed to all the other people who love each other, and children they are raising, dearly, under slightly different circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 12:27 PM

The last of my post evaporated somewhere:

With the next you let it be known that they don't deserve the word "FAMILY", in glorious upper case, in the same way that an entirely nuclear family group does.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 12:27 PM

OR...for the opposite, 'Queeried'...just a play on words..calm down!!

...or would that be 'Inqueering'??

It just seems that some of you have confused politics with reality!
Politics change with the winds...
Facts remain.

Maybe something to consider...then maybe some of you could get comfortable with FACTS....like, 'getting real'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 12:04 PM

Hey... I got another one!

supermarrified! Kinda special, hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 12:00 PM

I gave you a word!

"hetero-monogamo-viable-sancified-govtsanctioned"

You don't like my suggestion? YOU are the one who wants a 'special' word....YOU concoct one. Good luck getting it accepted. Most of us are happy with "marriage" for all legal relationships, with disclaimers tacked on for those who feel they must set themselves apart.

(It is clear you don't really want a new word.. you want all those who don't 'fit' to quit using yours.) (It didn't work with 'folk'... why should you get special privileges?)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 11:54 AM

Why do you want a word that indicates they are biologically capable of having children?

Presumably so they can be told they are not in the correct clinic if they accidentally go to an IVF clinic.

Why do you want a word to describe one type of marriage as opposed to any other? What about a marriage of convenience where they accidentally have children? Do they get another certificate?

Why are you interested in what a gay marriage is about? You can go on websites to find out if you are that interested.

Or is it so bigots can point, stare and judge?

I think we have finally got to the bottom as if were.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 11:27 AM

First of all, I'm NOT haggling about homosexuals..I've ONLY asked for 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....YOU are the ones with the knee-jerk re-actions!!!

YOU are the ones projecting the attitude that you think, (or imagine) that is behind the question.....and being that the name of the thread is 'Gay marriage' question'...I just asked a question.

You've conditioned yourselves into this hostility.
YOU ALL know there is a difference, of what I'm asking, and YOU are the ones intolerant of the possibility, that it does not include homosexuals, but that is only because homosexuals aren't breeding, in that scenario.....and YOU are the ones making an emotional issue of it, when in FACT, it is just a simple biological fact...and then YOU accuse others who aren't as emotionally disturbed as you, in this area, of being bigoted, hateful etc. etc..and blah blah.

Everything I've stated, or asked is just a plain FACT, without bias or anything hostile at all..(except responding to lame, wrongly placed hostile answers....but maybe that has more to do with political conditioning, rather that realistic thinking!

...and WHO has the bias???????????????????????????????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 09:17 AM

Maybe I should stop calling them bigots. How about hetero-supremacists?

Have you noticed that our "liberal" media regularly interviews rabidly anti-gay people when they write stories about gay rights? Why don't they interview neo-Nazis and KKK members when they write stories about race relations? This is part of why GfS, Henry Krinkle and Akenaton can get away with talking the way they do. Unless, as I suspect, they only talk this way on the internet.

All you hetero-supremacists out there are going to be SO embarrassed in fifteen or twenty years. Or, if you keep engaging in hate speech, you will be as ostracized as the KKK.

On another note, I'm wondering about the ethical aspects of outing bigots. I've always supported the right of gay people to be closeted if that's what they want. The only exceptions are public officials who talk anti-gay and then take up a wide stance. GfS says he places a high value on people taking responsibility for their actions. What are the ethics of outing him as an anti-civil rights potty mouth to his fans and clients? Opinions?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: frogprince
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 08:36 AM

"all the idealism of being a natural, nuclear FAMILY, with all the original members!!!..natural children included."

With one breath you say that I am being silly for noticing that you put down people who adopt children and raise them in love, or remarry after widowhood and raise merged families in love. With the next you let it be known that they don't deserve the word "FAMILY",

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 08:00 AM

"...none of you are here as the result of homosexual breeding...that is unless you are a hemorrhoid..."

"...and men being so feminized, including heteros..."

Yup. The words of a bigot.

And this multi-persona yahoo purports to be a counselor?!?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 07:30 AM

The Findlaw website has this to say about civil partnership in the UK:

"There is, essentially, very little difference legally between a marriage and a civil partnership. The difference exists principally due to protests from religious groups about recognising same-sex couples and heterosexual couples in the same way. Therefore, the main difference between a marriage and a civil partnership is religion."

It is therefore essentially a discussion over terminology rather than substance, and the right for some members of society to call their relationship by the same name as the rest of us do. It is the religions which seem to put particular store on the term "marriage" without being very clear exactly what they see as being the essential defining characteristic which makes it special. Apart of course from the obvious point about gender, but this is only relevant if procreation is essential to the concept of marriage, which as we've already discussed is not the case.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 03:05 AM

Whoever said anything about church? It is the term married as opposed to civil partnership that is on trial here.

The church aspect is a red herring put about by pious idiots to say thy will be forced to marry gay people. As we have religious equality, perhaps they are equally worried that they will have to provide prayer mats and an arrow showing where Mecca is? It is just as daft.

The huge amount of red herrings they throw on this bonfire leads me to start believing the fairy story of the loaves and fishes, they certainly can find the bloody fish.

It isn't a "leftish" plot. Now you are being stupid so deserve the huge raspberry that I would have blown if I otherwise respected you. But till you stop wanting to label people based on your fantasy of what they get up to in their bedroom, it is best not to encourage you.

Don't worry, you aren't in a lonely place. At least one person will stick his head out of the pond and support you. Trouble is, he isn't the nicest person on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 11:30 PM

John P: "Akenaton and GfS are so lost to bigotry that they willing shut down their logic centers on this topic."

Hey, you guys are the ones trying to re-define marriage...and as far as your accusation of bigotry, you are out of your mind!...but that word IS the 'left wing' refuge when running out of ideas!..Just accuse somebody of 'bigotry'..sounds good on paper.....toilet paper!..What next?..racist??..Tea Party??

Fact is, after so many FAILED marriages, and the institution of marriage so compromised, and men being so feminized, including heteros, I think a lot of you have lost the grasp of what it means....just a convenience..trying to 're-capture' the one of early youth, when it DID mean something!...Now, instead of making excuses for failures, we just include everyone with any excuse....but you still can't put a word on that first one, with all the idealism of being a natural, nuclear FAMILY, with all the original members!!!..natural children included.
Not only can't you put a name on it.....the very concept is buried under the tonnage of bullshit, people have made excuses for, for all their years of selfishness!...with, of course, the escape hatch of divorce!..Vows mean nothing..your word means nothing....except for hot air.....an there sure is a lot of it in here!

...and by the way, if homosexuals think the 'church' is so brain-locked and fucked up...then why is it so important to them they they are recognized by that same 'fucked up' brain-locked 'church'????

Hint:.....Because it's all bullshit!

GfS

P.S....and you all know it!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 06:44 PM

McGrath of Harlow says: But those who are sceptical about the redefinition should not be assumed to be bigots.

What else are we to call them? Everyone I have ever heard complain about redefinition has made it very clear that they think homosexuality is a perversion, a choice, a lifestyle, a sin, unhealthy, dangerous, destructive of hetero marriages, and dangerous to society. Since all of these ideas have been so thoroughly debunked, one has to assume that anyone who clings to them does so from unreasoning hatred of another group of people and a desire to limit the civil rights of that group. In other words, bigotry.

Can you come up with any other explanation that makes any sense?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 06:32 PM

On the subject of redefining the word marriage: It really seems to me that this is not happening at all. What's really happening is that people who dislike the idea of homosexuality are grabbing the word for their own private use and trying to deny the rest of us the use of it. As has been noted here numerous times, the concept remains the same no matter the sex of the people involved. No one has yet come up with anything that disproves that.

There is no conversation about homosexuality that isn't a conversation about what other people are doing in bed. The only queer (in the older sense of the word) people here are the ones that are so worried about it that they want to have laws against it and wail about "redefining" the word marriage. Get your minds out of other peoples' bedrooms, you filthy perverts!

But of course, saying that is a complete waste of time. Akenaton and GfS are so lost to bigotry that they willing shut down their logic centers on this topic. All of these points have been made to them hundreds of times in the past, and they have never offered any logical defense for their stances. That's because they can't -- such defenses simply don't exist. The amazing thing is that they are both fairly intelligent, but are so blind on this topic that they don't even realize how stupid they make themselves sound.

My offer still stands: a moderated debate on the issue. One where the logic has to add up, all facts come from mainstream news sources, and personal attacks get you kicked out. I haven't had any takers yet -- it seems they are, on this subject, cowards. Or maybe they're not cowards; maybe they retain enough intelligence to know that such a debate would be over very, very quickly, with themselves as the losers. It's so much easier to simply not respond to points made by other people and just keep lobbing little bigotry bombs into the conversation. After all, it's the internet, where they don't have to face any real repercussions for their hate speech.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 04:56 PM

GfS, If you don't agree you are a hemorrhoid.


Yawn...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 04:01 PM

Sing if you're glad to be illiterate!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 01:55 PM

But 'ball', like 'marriage' only NEEDS explaining and naming in certain circumstances.

"Come to the picnic and bring a 'ball'." needs a little clarification.
"No, I didn't mean a medicine ball!"

Marriage needs qualification only when someone NEEDS to know that you are..or are not.. a specific type of partnership.
"Have you even been married?" can be a simple question related to legal questions about taxes.... it need not refer to same-sex or 'standard'. It might just precede "list your co-filers on this form."

The **concept** of "legally committed for relationship and legal purposes" simply does not require specification of the sexes involved.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 01:25 PM

It's like the word 'ball'.....there are footballs, ping-pong balls, baseballs, basketballs, golf balls, tennis balls, soccer balls and of course testicles....yes, they are ALL balls, and all denote different functions. Nothing bigoted about it, nor denigrating....it appears that trying to be politically correct has left some of you less literate, as well. There is a distinction...or your politically correct homosexual arrangements marriage would not be prefaced with the word 'gay'.....so even according to you, there is a difference, and none of you are here as the result of homosexual breeding...that is unless you are a hemorrhoid.,,(an asshole on it's way down)....so unless you see yourselves as such, how about that distinct word, with a distinct meaning!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 12:46 PM

Akenaton says that marriage is much more than legally blah blah.

Quite so.

Glad that you agree with me that gay people need to be able to use the word marriage. After all, a gay couple can commit and love every bit as much as a heterosexual couple so have every right to use the same word to describe their marriage.

What was it that changed your mind? A barbequed donkey on the way to Damascus?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Howard Jones
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 12:34 PM

Even the churches seem to accept that a wedding may not be followed by children, and most seem to be very happy to marry couples who are well past the age at which conception is likely to occur.

Since it appears that conception is not actually essential to the concept of "marriage" but merely on the wish-list, then what is the fundamental characteristic that distinguishes "marriage" from an arrangement which is apparently identical in every way other than the gender of the participants?

If, as some people seem to be suggesting, that gender difference is of fundamental importance, could they please explain why, if conception is left out of the equation?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 11:51 AM

Oh, I can hear it now!

"Are you legally joined and committed"? Or perhaps..."Are you united civilly?"

YOU wish it to 'mean very much more'.