Merged Threads Gay Talk
-
Because it's not marriage rights. It's creating something different for gays apart from straights. And people don't like "compromising" on fundamental rights. They want equality.
I'd ask you: if you're willing to grant gays all the rights of marriage, why do you feel the need to call it "civil unions"? Why call it something else?
-
The reason woody, I bring up the religious rites, ( or sham as Heck calls it) is that it has been a part of marriage.
Those with religious faith can be married in a church and be married in the eyes of whatever they consider God to be.
But if its true that all you folks want is a guarantee of equal rights responsibilities and benefits of actual marriage that can be taken care of by a civil union.
So what would be your problem with that compromise?
WSS
The reason woody, I bring up the religious rites, ( or sham as Heck calls it) is that it has been a part of marriage.
Those with religious faith can be married in a church and be married in the eyes of whatever they consider God to be.
But if its true that all you folks want is a guarantee of equal rights responsibilities and benefits of actual marriage that can be taken care of by a civil union.
So what would be your problem with that compromise?
WSS
My problem with compromise is that there should be no reason to compromise...
You still haven't given me a reason for why you think gay marriage should be illegal. And do you think that two straight atheists can't get married? What about two people of different religions? That's great of two people want to throw religion in there but I don't see how that makes it any more or less legitimate.
-
-
The reason woody, I bring up the religious rites, ( or sham as Heck calls it) is that it has been a part of marriage.
Those with religious faith can be married in a church and be married in the eyes of whatever they consider God to be.
But if its true that all you folks want is a guarantee of equal rights responsibilities and benefits of actual marriage that can be taken care of by a civil union.
So what would be your problem with that compromise?
WSS
The reason woody, I bring up the religious rites, ( or sham as Heck calls it) is that it has been a part of marriage.
Those with religious faith can be married in a church and be married in the eyes of whatever they consider God to be.
But if its true that all you folks want is a guarantee of equal rights responsibilities and benefits of actual marriage that can be taken care of by a civil union.
So what would be your problem with that compromise?
WSS
the GLBT agenda want children too. And for the most part, marriage has been an institution for procreation (DUH...) an exclusive benefit to 1 man 1 woman. Civil unions provide all that a gay partnership would ever need for sustainability, does not relegate them to a second class status as suggested elsewhere .(here)
-
You've got to love Steve. He's not even for the issue he's typing against. But he still types it.
-
The reason woody, I bring up the religious rites, ( or sham as Heck calls it) is that it has been a part of marriage.
Those with religious faith can be married in a church and be married in the eyes of whatever they consider God to be.
But if its true that all you folks want is a guarantee of equal rights responsibilities and benefits of actual marriage that can be taken care of by a civil union.
So what would be your problem with that compromise?
WSS
the GLBT agenda want children too. And for the most part, marriage has been an institution for procreation (DUH...) an exclusive benefit to 1 man 1 woman. Civil unions provide all that a gay partnership would ever need for sustainability, does not relegate them to a second class status as suggested elsewhere .(here)
the GLBT agenda want children too. And for the most part, marriage has been an institution for procreation (DUH...) an exclusive benefit to 1 man 1 woman. Civil unions provide all that a gay partnership would ever need for sustainability, does not relegate them to a second class status as suggested elsewhere .(here)
So you can't get married with the intent to adopt children? What about women that can't have children or men that can't?
I'm pretty sure that "and for the most part" part is a pretty big stretch...
-
the GLBT agenda want children too. And for the most part, marriage has been an institution for procreation (DUH...) an exclusive benefit to 1 man 1 woman. Civil unions provide all that a gay partnership would ever need for sustainability, does not relegate them to a second class status as suggested elsewhere .(here)
So you can't get married with the intent to adopt children? What about women that can't have children or men that can't?
I'm pretty sure that "and for the most part" part is a pretty big stretch...
So you can't get married with the intent to adopt children? What about women that can't have children or men that can't?
I'm pretty sure that "and for the most part" part is a pretty big stretch...
tell me how two men or two women procreate? thats your stretch.... nobody said you could nt adopt, plenty of families do...
what is not getting any support is the GLBT agenda acting as if they are providing a sound environment for children, I dont know about you, but this brand of social engineering has not been proven to work yet!
-
Actually, it has. It's been shown to be just fine. Here's one study. Here's another. Which is what you expect when you see gays as not superior, or inferior, but just other people who happen to have a different orientation than you do.
So all of the arguments you've put forth clearly don't work. Obviously, children or the ability to have children is not a condition of heterosexual marriage. And gays often adopt children, or have children themselves. I've got good friends who are lesbians who have children. Lots of people know gay people with children. It's quite common.
But that's okay. It's not like we're going to change your mind. Just as long as you acknowledge that you haven't made one valid argument against it yet, I'm happy.
-
So today North Carolina is expected to pass a ban not only same sex marriage, but also civil unions.
Here's the text that voters will see on the ballot: "Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."
How would you vote on this and why?
So today North Carolina is expected to pass a ban not only same sex marriage, but also civil unions.
Here's the text that voters will see on the ballot: "Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."
How would you vote on this and why?
good bait job there heck..... I dont live in NC, but Minn will have this on the ballot in the fall. and it is expected to pass the same way. The text will read "Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."
NOT changing the narrative to speak the downtroddens rights or lack thereof .... in other words, it is not about the same sexers... it is about the rest of us
-
-
Anyone of you chumps who voted no or would vote no want to explain why my sister and her partner should not have the same rights to get married that you enjoy? You think somethings wrong with her? You know she's not a good mom somehow? Is that it? Enlighten me.
Anyone of you chumps who voted no or would vote no want to explain why my sister and her partner should not have the same rights to get married that you enjoy? You think somethings wrong with her? You know she's not a good mom somehow? Is that it? Enlighten me.
I'd like to hear this too.
-
I have two questions.
1. Why aren't couples in civil unions not entitled to the same benefits as a married couple?
2. Why do gay people want to have a "marriage"? Why cant they be happy with Civil Union? If gay people get the same benefits as married people, then there is no technical difference between a Civil Union and a Marriage, correct?
-
I think I asked that question to the them 3 times now and haven't gotten a straight answer...
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
I think I asked that question to the them 3 times now and haven't gotten a straight answer...
I think I asked that question to the them 3 times now and haven't gotten a straight answer...
Perhaps I should have asked the members what their solution to the problem is.
-
I have two questions.
1. Why aren't couples in civil unions not entitled to the same benefits as a married couple?
2. Why do gay people want to have a "marriage"? Why cant they be happy with Civil Union? If gay people get the same benefits as married people, then there is no technical difference between a Civil Union and a Marriage, correct?
I have two questions.
1. Why aren't couples in civil unions not entitled to the same benefits as a married couple?
2. Why do gay people want to have a "marriage"? Why cant they be happy with Civil Union? If gay people get the same benefits as married people, then there is no technical difference between a Civil Union and a Marriage, correct?
Think "separate but equal." Same idea here.
They want the same rights, the same title, as everyone else gets. Otherwise known as equality.
I'll ask you the same question I asked someone else, and didn't get an answer to: if you don't mind giving them civil unions with the exact same rights as marriage, why would you have a problem calling it marriage instead? Why create a separate but legally equal institution for gay couples?
-
I think I asked that question to the them 3 times now and haven't gotten a straight answer...
Perhaps I should have asked the members what their solution to the problem is.
Perhaps I should have asked the members what their solution to the problem is.
Not your questions, ones from before
-
If Bunker is anything like the face of the opposition to gay marriage, and people like him often are, then we shouldn't have a hard time winning this one.
In due time. I have zero doubt that gay marriage will be the law of the land in 15 years or less.
-
If Bunker is anything like the face of the opposition to gay marriage, and people like him often are, then we shouldn't have a hard time winning this one.
In due time. I have zero doubt that gay marriage will be the law of the land in 15 years or less.
If Bunker is anything like the face of the opposition to gay marriage, and people like him often are, then we shouldn't have a hard time winning this one.
In due time. I have zero doubt that gay marriage will be the law of the land in 15 years or less.
Bunkers a moron. He got shut down and embarrassed himself in an earlier thread and now I guess he wants to again.
-
Bunker said:
no i had more important things to do than talk aboout yur whining. so if you dont mind stfu ya little bitch
You equated "using science to explain your rrasoning" as a negative. If I said something that Retarded I might not respond in that thread anymore either.
Bunker, you are a sad, pathetic person. How anyone your age can act the way you do I'll never know. You really just say dumber and dumber things each time you post.
If you could give even one remotely reasonable point to support your view I would be amazed.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login