pajarito 0 #176 October 8, 2004 QuoteYes it is. There are no laws that prevent anyone from starting a small business. It's a choice people make. In the case of marriage, homosexuals do NOT have that choice. Correct. But you must meet the criteria for being classified as a small business before you can recieve the benefits. That's not discrimination. You went back to saying that "homosexuals do NOT have that choice." You've got to be more specific. Choice to be homosexual or choice to express the homosexuality. We talked about that before. You may not agree. That's ok. I'm just saying, regardless of whether they were born that way or learned it, they absolutely make the choice to act on it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #177 October 8, 2004 QuoteWhat about a small business run by a gay couple? Y'know, take away quiches or something. Uhu...uhu...uhu.... Did I mention above that I love quiche? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #178 October 8, 2004 well, with regards to the history of marriage and homosexuality, I'd suggest you do some reading about ancient greece and rome, and then we'll chat about that, ok? and, man + woman doesn't always equal child. many people are married and choosing to remain childless. by your argument, should they also remain celibate? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #179 October 8, 2004 >A union between a man & woman who are white, black, brown, red, >yellow or whatever is still a marriage. ?? I was with Amy exclusively for six years before we got married. Whether two people are united has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage, as discussed here, is a legal term used to indicate certain legal rights and protections. It also has a religious significance; you are free to interpret its religious significance however you see fit. It is wrong to deny people legal protections based on their sexual orientation. If you claim that you don't recognize a homosexual marriage as valid, that's fine. If the US does not - that's discrimination. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #180 October 8, 2004 >Man + Woman = Child >People didn't create it whether you believe in God or just the natural > evolutionary way of things. It is what it is. We formalize it in the > institution of marriage. As I am sure you are aware, non-married people can have children. Sterile people can have children with the help of technology. Married people often choose to not have kids. Married people can even have kids with OTHER people! I know several wonderful kids who are being raised by otherwise sterile parents. Marriage is a legal term that no longer has a lot to do with biology. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #181 October 8, 2004 QuoteThis is the arguement that makes the least sense to me. Whatever some guys or some women do, and whatever marriages are out there doesn't matter to me or my family. My marriage will never disintegrate regardless of how many guys decide they aren't all that interested in boobies. 50%ish of marriages end in divorce, so it seems as though marriage isn't taken all that seriously to begin with. How will gay marriage do anything to change that number? Or the number of kids in broken/divorced families? Or the amount of kids that are abused, mentally ill, uneducated or any other factor in raising a family? You’re right. You’re family will probably survive just fine regardless. Mine too. What a homosexual couple does in their relationship has no effect on me or anyone else and is none of my business or anyone else’s. That has nothing to do with marriage, however. If half of heterosexual marriages don’t last, should we punch holes in the foundational standard? Since many don’t take marriage seriously anyway, should we eliminate the institution altogether? Should we continue to blur the lines of the definition until it becomes unrecognizable to anyone other than the person, couple, or multiple couples who are in it? Will the standard then rest on whatever each person wants their particular standard to be? QuoteI'd rather see a kid grow up with two dads that love him than with a hetero abusive family. There's more to life than gender relations. My disclaimer is that I am fine with gay civil unions, legal rights, health insurance, etc. I am not fine with the term 'marriage' since that by definition is between a man and woman. I am reluctant to have that definition expanded. I'm just a bit old fashioned, I guess. There are always exceptions. I would prefer a child be with someone who will love and take care of him/her rather than them living in an abusive situation or starving to death on the street for instance. However, that should not be preferred nor should it be the standard. The healthiest environment for a child to grow up in is in a family consisting of a married heterosexual man & woman. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #182 October 8, 2004 QuoteMan + Woman = Child Man + Man = ____ Woman + Woman = ____ Sterile Man + Woman = _______ Woman with hystorectomy + man = ________ Paraplegic man + Woman = _________ Man who doesn't want kids + woman who doesn't want kids = ________ *** Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #183 October 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteMan + Woman = Child Man + Man = ____ Woman + Woman = ____ Sterile Man + Woman = _______ Woman with hystorectomy + man = ________ Paraplegic man + Woman = _________ Man who doesn't want kids + woman who doesn't want kids = ________ *** I don't think it's prudent to base your standard on an exception. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #184 October 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteMan + Woman = Child Man + Man = ____ Woman + Woman = ____ Sterile Man + Woman = _______ Woman with hystorectomy + man = ________ Paraplegic man + Woman = _________ Man who doesn't want kids + woman who doesn't want kids = ________ *** I don't think it's prudent to base your standard on an exception. I don't think it prudent to ignore exceptions when making rules for society as a whole. I like quiche too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #185 October 8, 2004 Gotta break the chain. Hurting my eyes! Saw your edit. Thanks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #186 October 8, 2004 Sorry, I'm bolding impaired Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #187 October 8, 2004 Quotewell, with regards to the history of marriage and homosexuality, I'd suggest you do some reading about ancient greece and rome, and then we'll chat about that, ok? What part of that do you think I don't know? If you're referring to their accepted homosexual practice, I am aware. So did the British and others I would assume. However, I doubt that was their standard for recognized marriage. I admit that I could be wrong. You lawyer or lawyer student types many times have history backgrounds. Let me know if I'm mistaken. I can take it. Quoteand, man + woman doesn't always equal child. many people are married and choosing to remain childless. by your argument, should they also remain celibate? Exceptions. They're still male + female. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #188 October 8, 2004 QuoteSorry, I'm bolding impaired So am I.... ...............now... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #189 October 8, 2004 I like you guys even though you're liberal as the day is long. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #190 October 8, 2004 QuoteI like you guys even though you're liberal as the day is long. days are getting shorter...... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #191 October 8, 2004 Quote?? I was with Amy exclusively for six years before we got married. Whether two people are united has nothing to do with marriage. Right. Mine was poorly worded. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ypelchat 0 #192 October 8, 2004 QuoteMan who doesn't want kids + woman who doesn't want kids = _______ [threadHijack]Man who want kids + Woman who doesn't want kids = DIVORCE [/threadHijack] Yves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #193 October 8, 2004 Quote>Man + Woman = Child >People didn't create it whether you believe in God or just the natural > evolutionary way of things. It is what it is. We formalize it in the > institution of marriage. As I am sure you are aware, non-married people can have children. Sterile people can have children with the help of technology. Married people often choose to not have kids. Married people can even have kids with OTHER people! I know several wonderful kids who are being raised by otherwise sterile parents. Marriage is a legal term that no longer has a lot to do with biology. It is a very basic standard for success, however. Round peg must go in round hole. Square peg will not go in round hole. Round peg will not go in square hole. I think God (or nature, if you prefer) was trying to tell us something. By the way, in the high altitude oxygen/pressure chamber, IT IS A BITCH, to maintain that standard at 35,000ft with that kids game. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #194 October 8, 2004 QuoteQuote>Man + Woman = Child >People didn't create it whether you believe in God or just the natural > evolutionary way of things. It is what it is. We formalize it in the > institution of marriage. As I am sure you are aware, non-married people can have children. Sterile people can have children with the help of technology. Married people often choose to not have kids. Married people can even have kids with OTHER people! I know several wonderful kids who are being raised by otherwise sterile parents. Marriage is a legal term that no longer has a lot to do with biology. It is a very basic standard for success, however. Round peg must go in round hole. Square peg will not go in round hole. Round peg will not go in square hole. I think God (or nature, if you prefer) was trying to tell us something. By the way, in the high altitude oxygen/pressure chamber, IT IS A BITCH, to maintain that standard at 35,000ft with that kids game. My understanding is that there are several holes that fit, only one of which results in propagation of the species. I think I read that somewhere.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #195 October 8, 2004 QuoteMy understanding is that there are several holes that fit, only one of which results in propagation of the species. I think I read that somewhere. Not properly, though. You're not really going to argue with me that a penis wasn't designed specifically to go into a vagina to produce a result? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Keith 0 #196 October 8, 2004 How did I attack you? You seem to be such an expert on the subject it would appear you have first hand knowledge.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,446 #197 October 8, 2004 Don't try to justify an honestly-held belief (the one-man-with-one-woman thing) with false justifications. A penis does fit well into a number of holes. For procreation purposes, the vagina is your best bet. But if you're going to use its "fitness" as a rationale, then you have to somehow make less acceptable its use in other orifices, lest those orifices turn out to be attached to someone of the wrong gender. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #198 October 8, 2004 QuoteDon't try to justify an honestly-held belief (the one-man-with-one-woman thing) with false justifications. A penis does fit well into a number of holes. For procreation purposes, the vagina is your best bet. But if you're going to use its "fitness" as a rationale, then you have to somehow make less acceptable its use in other orifices, lest those orifices turn out to be attached to someone of the wrong gender. Wendy W. That's simply one justification. The most basic one in my opinion. You could stick your penis (well, not you actually ) in a hole in a tree. That doesn't mean that it's suitable to marry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,446 #199 October 8, 2004 So is it the presence of a vagina? (we've already determined that it doesn't have to be a fertile vagina). Does the vagina have to have been there from the beginning? What about someone who has undergone male to female sexual reassignment? What about someone who has undergone female-to-male -- at one time they had a working vagina. I really like the idea of keeping the religious and legal ceremonies out of it -- that way, two consenting adults can grant each other the kind of influence in their lives that they wish and have those wishes respected legally, and the church (whichever one -- some do perform marriages of same-sex couples) can marry whomever it finds fit. I know ministers who won't marry members of their church to non-Christians, like, say, Methodists. That's OK because it's their church and their rules, and the poor Methodist can go get married somewhere else. But marriage is the name we have for it, and right now two men, or two women, cannot have a legal standing that will allow their families and companies to respect their own commitment. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,489 #200 October 8, 2004 Damn you guys type fast. I had some whole quiche vs pizza reply worked out but now its just way too late. Aah it was probably crap anyway.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next Page 8 of 15 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Nightingale 0 #178 October 8, 2004 well, with regards to the history of marriage and homosexuality, I'd suggest you do some reading about ancient greece and rome, and then we'll chat about that, ok? and, man + woman doesn't always equal child. many people are married and choosing to remain childless. by your argument, should they also remain celibate? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #179 October 8, 2004 >A union between a man & woman who are white, black, brown, red, >yellow or whatever is still a marriage. ?? I was with Amy exclusively for six years before we got married. Whether two people are united has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage, as discussed here, is a legal term used to indicate certain legal rights and protections. It also has a religious significance; you are free to interpret its religious significance however you see fit. It is wrong to deny people legal protections based on their sexual orientation. If you claim that you don't recognize a homosexual marriage as valid, that's fine. If the US does not - that's discrimination. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #180 October 8, 2004 >Man + Woman = Child >People didn't create it whether you believe in God or just the natural > evolutionary way of things. It is what it is. We formalize it in the > institution of marriage. As I am sure you are aware, non-married people can have children. Sterile people can have children with the help of technology. Married people often choose to not have kids. Married people can even have kids with OTHER people! I know several wonderful kids who are being raised by otherwise sterile parents. Marriage is a legal term that no longer has a lot to do with biology. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #181 October 8, 2004 QuoteThis is the arguement that makes the least sense to me. Whatever some guys or some women do, and whatever marriages are out there doesn't matter to me or my family. My marriage will never disintegrate regardless of how many guys decide they aren't all that interested in boobies. 50%ish of marriages end in divorce, so it seems as though marriage isn't taken all that seriously to begin with. How will gay marriage do anything to change that number? Or the number of kids in broken/divorced families? Or the amount of kids that are abused, mentally ill, uneducated or any other factor in raising a family? You’re right. You’re family will probably survive just fine regardless. Mine too. What a homosexual couple does in their relationship has no effect on me or anyone else and is none of my business or anyone else’s. That has nothing to do with marriage, however. If half of heterosexual marriages don’t last, should we punch holes in the foundational standard? Since many don’t take marriage seriously anyway, should we eliminate the institution altogether? Should we continue to blur the lines of the definition until it becomes unrecognizable to anyone other than the person, couple, or multiple couples who are in it? Will the standard then rest on whatever each person wants their particular standard to be? QuoteI'd rather see a kid grow up with two dads that love him than with a hetero abusive family. There's more to life than gender relations. My disclaimer is that I am fine with gay civil unions, legal rights, health insurance, etc. I am not fine with the term 'marriage' since that by definition is between a man and woman. I am reluctant to have that definition expanded. I'm just a bit old fashioned, I guess. There are always exceptions. I would prefer a child be with someone who will love and take care of him/her rather than them living in an abusive situation or starving to death on the street for instance. However, that should not be preferred nor should it be the standard. The healthiest environment for a child to grow up in is in a family consisting of a married heterosexual man & woman. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #182 October 8, 2004 QuoteMan + Woman = Child Man + Man = ____ Woman + Woman = ____ Sterile Man + Woman = _______ Woman with hystorectomy + man = ________ Paraplegic man + Woman = _________ Man who doesn't want kids + woman who doesn't want kids = ________ *** Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #183 October 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteMan + Woman = Child Man + Man = ____ Woman + Woman = ____ Sterile Man + Woman = _______ Woman with hystorectomy + man = ________ Paraplegic man + Woman = _________ Man who doesn't want kids + woman who doesn't want kids = ________ *** I don't think it's prudent to base your standard on an exception. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #184 October 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteMan + Woman = Child Man + Man = ____ Woman + Woman = ____ Sterile Man + Woman = _______ Woman with hystorectomy + man = ________ Paraplegic man + Woman = _________ Man who doesn't want kids + woman who doesn't want kids = ________ *** I don't think it's prudent to base your standard on an exception. I don't think it prudent to ignore exceptions when making rules for society as a whole. I like quiche too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #185 October 8, 2004 Gotta break the chain. Hurting my eyes! Saw your edit. Thanks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #186 October 8, 2004 Sorry, I'm bolding impaired Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #187 October 8, 2004 Quotewell, with regards to the history of marriage and homosexuality, I'd suggest you do some reading about ancient greece and rome, and then we'll chat about that, ok? What part of that do you think I don't know? If you're referring to their accepted homosexual practice, I am aware. So did the British and others I would assume. However, I doubt that was their standard for recognized marriage. I admit that I could be wrong. You lawyer or lawyer student types many times have history backgrounds. Let me know if I'm mistaken. I can take it. Quoteand, man + woman doesn't always equal child. many people are married and choosing to remain childless. by your argument, should they also remain celibate? Exceptions. They're still male + female. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #188 October 8, 2004 QuoteSorry, I'm bolding impaired So am I.... ...............now... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #189 October 8, 2004 I like you guys even though you're liberal as the day is long. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #190 October 8, 2004 QuoteI like you guys even though you're liberal as the day is long. days are getting shorter...... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #191 October 8, 2004 Quote?? I was with Amy exclusively for six years before we got married. Whether two people are united has nothing to do with marriage. Right. Mine was poorly worded. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ypelchat 0 #192 October 8, 2004 QuoteMan who doesn't want kids + woman who doesn't want kids = _______ [threadHijack]Man who want kids + Woman who doesn't want kids = DIVORCE [/threadHijack] Yves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #193 October 8, 2004 Quote>Man + Woman = Child >People didn't create it whether you believe in God or just the natural > evolutionary way of things. It is what it is. We formalize it in the > institution of marriage. As I am sure you are aware, non-married people can have children. Sterile people can have children with the help of technology. Married people often choose to not have kids. Married people can even have kids with OTHER people! I know several wonderful kids who are being raised by otherwise sterile parents. Marriage is a legal term that no longer has a lot to do with biology. It is a very basic standard for success, however. Round peg must go in round hole. Square peg will not go in round hole. Round peg will not go in square hole. I think God (or nature, if you prefer) was trying to tell us something. By the way, in the high altitude oxygen/pressure chamber, IT IS A BITCH, to maintain that standard at 35,000ft with that kids game. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #194 October 8, 2004 QuoteQuote>Man + Woman = Child >People didn't create it whether you believe in God or just the natural > evolutionary way of things. It is what it is. We formalize it in the > institution of marriage. As I am sure you are aware, non-married people can have children. Sterile people can have children with the help of technology. Married people often choose to not have kids. Married people can even have kids with OTHER people! I know several wonderful kids who are being raised by otherwise sterile parents. Marriage is a legal term that no longer has a lot to do with biology. It is a very basic standard for success, however. Round peg must go in round hole. Square peg will not go in round hole. Round peg will not go in square hole. I think God (or nature, if you prefer) was trying to tell us something. By the way, in the high altitude oxygen/pressure chamber, IT IS A BITCH, to maintain that standard at 35,000ft with that kids game. My understanding is that there are several holes that fit, only one of which results in propagation of the species. I think I read that somewhere.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #195 October 8, 2004 QuoteMy understanding is that there are several holes that fit, only one of which results in propagation of the species. I think I read that somewhere. Not properly, though. You're not really going to argue with me that a penis wasn't designed specifically to go into a vagina to produce a result? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #196 October 8, 2004 How did I attack you? You seem to be such an expert on the subject it would appear you have first hand knowledge.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,446 #197 October 8, 2004 Don't try to justify an honestly-held belief (the one-man-with-one-woman thing) with false justifications. A penis does fit well into a number of holes. For procreation purposes, the vagina is your best bet. But if you're going to use its "fitness" as a rationale, then you have to somehow make less acceptable its use in other orifices, lest those orifices turn out to be attached to someone of the wrong gender. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #198 October 8, 2004 QuoteDon't try to justify an honestly-held belief (the one-man-with-one-woman thing) with false justifications. A penis does fit well into a number of holes. For procreation purposes, the vagina is your best bet. But if you're going to use its "fitness" as a rationale, then you have to somehow make less acceptable its use in other orifices, lest those orifices turn out to be attached to someone of the wrong gender. Wendy W. That's simply one justification. The most basic one in my opinion. You could stick your penis (well, not you actually ) in a hole in a tree. That doesn't mean that it's suitable to marry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,446 #199 October 8, 2004 So is it the presence of a vagina? (we've already determined that it doesn't have to be a fertile vagina). Does the vagina have to have been there from the beginning? What about someone who has undergone male to female sexual reassignment? What about someone who has undergone female-to-male -- at one time they had a working vagina. I really like the idea of keeping the religious and legal ceremonies out of it -- that way, two consenting adults can grant each other the kind of influence in their lives that they wish and have those wishes respected legally, and the church (whichever one -- some do perform marriages of same-sex couples) can marry whomever it finds fit. I know ministers who won't marry members of their church to non-Christians, like, say, Methodists. That's OK because it's their church and their rules, and the poor Methodist can go get married somewhere else. But marriage is the name we have for it, and right now two men, or two women, cannot have a legal standing that will allow their families and companies to respect their own commitment. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #200 October 8, 2004 Damn you guys type fast. I had some whole quiche vs pizza reply worked out but now its just way too late. Aah it was probably crap anyway.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
