sundevil777 102 #101 February 13, 2006 Also, why shouldn't cousins marry? I know about the problems of inbreeding, but what if one of them was sterile? Why shouldn't two brothers or sisters or father-son (over 18) be allowed to marry? I've asked this question before, with the only response basically being that I'm a troublemaker/troll, and that because nobody/not enough people are seeking this 'right to marry' within their family, that it is not important. I also get told that slippery slope arguments are fallacies, etc. I think not. I think that because the same sex marriage advocates make the specific argument that because 1) it does not affect the marriage of others, and 2) what goes on in the bedroom is nobodys business, these same arguments apply to other less tolerated scenarios. To just brush these comparisons aside is not being intellectually honest, I think.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vallerina 2 #102 February 13, 2006 If you're going to do that, then you can go the opposite way as well. If it's just not "natural" to have two guys together, then why do those people saying that have oral sex? Having oral sex is just as unnatural since it's ejaculation without a chance of procreation (yes, I know some people do feel that way, but not the majority of those against homosexual relationships.)There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #103 February 13, 2006 How about the argument that the arrangements people make for sex and rearing children, i.e., families, are private, to the extent that they are not abusive. Our way is not the only way, and there have been many different arrangements for both down through our history and even today. Should it really matter to your neighbor how many wives or husbands you have, or the nature of your sexual relations, as long as you don't infringe on their right to live as they choose? rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ROK 0 #104 February 13, 2006 Wow! I bet the parties kick ass in your neighborhood! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #105 February 13, 2006 QuoteIf you're going to do that, then you can go the opposite way as well. If it's just not "natural" to have two guys together, then why do those people saying that have oral sex? Having oral sex is just as unnatural since it's ejaculation without a chance of procreation (yes, I know some people do feel that way, but not the majority of those against homosexual relationships.) You are exactly right, Val. The difference, however, is that in "traditional" sexual relations, it has been viewed that oral sex is an acceptable thing if it is something that assists in the process that leads up the intercourse, which can be procreative. It has been traditionally thought that it is wrong to blow one's wad in another's mouth. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,485 #106 February 13, 2006 QuoteIt has been traditionally thought that it is wrong to blow one's wad in another's mouth.Oh. So "I won't come in your mouth" is a Catholic thing 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
micro 0 #107 February 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteIt has been traditionally thought that it is wrong to blow one's wad in another's mouth.Oh. So "I won't come in your mouth" is a Catholic thing Wendy W. wow, you get me all hot and bothered when you say that. um... no, not really, the world "traditionally" was used intentionally. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ROK 0 #108 February 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteIt has been traditionally thought that it is wrong to blow one's wad in another's mouth.Oh. So "I won't come in your mouth" is a Catholic thing Wendy W. ---------------------------------------------------------- Uh, not anymore. Don't you watch the news? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #109 February 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt has been traditionally thought that it is wrong to blow one's wad in another's mouth.Oh. So "I won't come in your mouth" is a Catholic thing Wendy W. ---------------------------------------------------------- Uh, not anymore. Don't you watch the news? not. funny. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #110 February 13, 2006 QuoteHow about the argument that the arrangements people make for sex and rearing children, i.e., families, are private, to the extent that they are not abusive. Our way is not the only way, and there have been many different arrangements for both down through our history and even today. Should it really matter to your neighbor how many wives or husbands you have, or the nature of your sexual relations, as long as you don't infringe on their right to live as they choose? rl How many could really say that it wouldn't bother them if their friend confessed that their brother/sister/mother/whatever was their lover? Apparently it wouldn't matter to you, but not many could honestly do that, I think.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #111 February 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI think most opposition to SSM can be generally boiled down to xeno-phobia. Fear of warrior princesses? Xeno would be a boy. Forget your noun endings now you're a manager, Bill? Or are you calling the boy "Princess"? In en ingenneering ferm, speelign is not a prerecwisatz ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #112 February 13, 2006 QuoteYou may be interested in what happened here in NZ: apparently nobody was enough to respond to you - even though it seems to be the most reasonable response to 'government' involvement in legal sanctioned partnering......without disrepect to the religious tradition But since it's not an all or nothing kick in the teeth of religion solution, apparently it's not worth commenting on. Good for NZ. Same legal rights, call it something else. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #113 February 13, 2006 QuoteIt has been traditionally thought that it is wrong to blow one's wad in another's mouth. Really? World-wide? Religion wide? Since the dawn of homo sapiens? I find that hard to swa..- um..believe. Source citations, please? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RhondaLea 4 #114 February 13, 2006 QuoteHow many could really say that it wouldn't bother them if their friend confessed that their brother/sister/mother/whatever was their lover? Apparently it wouldn't matter to you, but not many could honestly do that, I think. Straight to incest, huh? Nice.If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #115 February 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteIt has been traditionally thought that it is wrong to blow one's wad in another's mouth. Really? World-wide? Religion wide? Since the dawn of homo sapiens? I find that hard to swa..- um..believe. Source citations, please? swa... that was cute. i'm talking about the western hemisphere's traditionally judeo-christian heritage. I'd also venture to say more religions have prohibitions against this, but I don't have any supportive evidence of this. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #116 February 13, 2006 QuoteWhat they did instead was introduce the civil union bill and a companion bill which ammended hundreds of other acts of law (everything from tax, immigration, pensions, even defence law) so that wherever the word 'spouse' cropped up, the words 'or civil union partner' were added. This means that a civil union has Exactly the same legal standing as a marriage. Perfect solution. Logical, reasonable, fair... I don't think we'll be seeing such a solution from the Bush administration. QuoteIt saddens me when I hear of all the shit that is going on in the US (ie president planning on a constitution ammendment, against a section of his own people) It saddens me too... especially since this is the president of my country. One of the things I was reading pointed out that if this "gay marriage ban" amendment was approved, it would be the second time in US history that an amendment was made to the US Constitution to take rights away from the people rather than to protect our rights. (The first one being prohibition, which fortunately didn't last.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MC208B 0 #117 February 14, 2006 Narcimund is a very bitter guy, hope he gets over it and finds happiness in his life since majority approval of gay marraige won't happen. And Narc, try this, you're right, everyone else is wrong, happy with my posts now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #118 February 14, 2006 QuoteNarcimund is a very bitter guy I have some righteous anger from being treated very poorly. When your state votes to cause your involuntary divorce from your loving spouse, I suspect you'll be peeved too. By the way, you got pissy when I ignored your question. I answered yours but now you're ignoring several of mine. I won't get pissy, but we can all guess what it means. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MC208B 0 #119 February 14, 2006 I already answered all you questions, you're right and everyone else is wrong, not good enough for you?!? Time for me to head for the beach, have a good one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #120 February 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteNarcimund is a very bitter guy I have some righteous anger from being treated very poorly. When your state votes to cause your involuntary divorce from your loving spouse, I suspect you'll be peeved too. By the way, you got pissy when I ignored your question. I answered yours but now you're ignoring several of mine. I won't get pissy, but we can all guess what it means. Would you like some cheddar, gouda, pepperjack, or bleu to go with that?Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #121 February 14, 2006 QuoteI already answered all you questions. You must have forgotten to press "Post Reply" because your answers do not appear anywhere in this thread. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RhondaLea 4 #122 February 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteI already answered all you questions. You must have forgotten to press "Post Reply" because your answers do not appear anywhere in this thread. Forget it, LJ. It has now devolved into the same old thing: don't have an argument? Confuse the issue with a personal attack instead. It never ceases to amaze me. But then again, this is not the old college debate team. rl Edited to add: I do find a certain amount of ironic humor in the characterization of you as "bitter." It's been quite some time back, but I remember once that in a similar context, someone called me a "prude." If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #123 February 14, 2006 Knock it off already. Sheesh. To some degree Narcimund has a legitimate gripe. I personally don't agree w/ his beliefs, but in his heart it's obvious that he believes that his love is true and valid. And there is something noble and and honorable about that. Perhaps it would be nice to see you actually trying to really see things from his perspective instead of just accusing him of being nothing but a whiner. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Dolph 0 #124 February 14, 2006 Hi Narcimund. Am wondering what your position is to the following situation: All people, regardless of gender can have a recognized union with anyone they wish, limited only by some arbitrary age decided on a state level. These union holds the exact same legal rights as marriage currently does. It'd be fair to call this union a "secular marriage" although I'd advise against it, given the religious connotations marriage has. If such a situation should arise, the religious folks of whatever persuasion can exclude those whom they feel are not worthy. Basically, organised religions are private clubs on a large scale that for some reason must be treated differently because of their spiritual foundation - a whole other thread, getting off on a tangent there. Would you be satisfied with a situation where you could not be married in the Christian marriage because of some silly rules they have from their Dude at the Top, but where you'd get an alternative that provides you with the same legal rights? Or do you think it is within your rights to be married in Christ name so to speak? Just intended for clarification and personal curiosity. Perhaps I am presenting a false choice to you - if there are other acceptable solutions, how do you see them? hear hear Micro. I find it strange that people seem incapable of understanding that love can flourish between members of the same gender - in many forms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #125 February 14, 2006 QuoteAm wondering what your position is to the following situation: Excellent question and respectfully posed. How refreshing :) So long as you understand I'm answering for myself ONLY, that solution sounds great to me. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page 5 of 19 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 Go To Topic Listing
micro 0 #109 February 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt has been traditionally thought that it is wrong to blow one's wad in another's mouth.Oh. So "I won't come in your mouth" is a Catholic thing Wendy W. ---------------------------------------------------------- Uh, not anymore. Don't you watch the news? not. funny. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #110 February 13, 2006 QuoteHow about the argument that the arrangements people make for sex and rearing children, i.e., families, are private, to the extent that they are not abusive. Our way is not the only way, and there have been many different arrangements for both down through our history and even today. Should it really matter to your neighbor how many wives or husbands you have, or the nature of your sexual relations, as long as you don't infringe on their right to live as they choose? rl How many could really say that it wouldn't bother them if their friend confessed that their brother/sister/mother/whatever was their lover? Apparently it wouldn't matter to you, but not many could honestly do that, I think.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #111 February 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI think most opposition to SSM can be generally boiled down to xeno-phobia. Fear of warrior princesses? Xeno would be a boy. Forget your noun endings now you're a manager, Bill? Or are you calling the boy "Princess"? In en ingenneering ferm, speelign is not a prerecwisatz ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #112 February 13, 2006 QuoteYou may be interested in what happened here in NZ: apparently nobody was enough to respond to you - even though it seems to be the most reasonable response to 'government' involvement in legal sanctioned partnering......without disrepect to the religious tradition But since it's not an all or nothing kick in the teeth of religion solution, apparently it's not worth commenting on. Good for NZ. Same legal rights, call it something else. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #113 February 13, 2006 QuoteIt has been traditionally thought that it is wrong to blow one's wad in another's mouth. Really? World-wide? Religion wide? Since the dawn of homo sapiens? I find that hard to swa..- um..believe. Source citations, please? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RhondaLea 4 #114 February 13, 2006 QuoteHow many could really say that it wouldn't bother them if their friend confessed that their brother/sister/mother/whatever was their lover? Apparently it wouldn't matter to you, but not many could honestly do that, I think. Straight to incest, huh? Nice.If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #115 February 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteIt has been traditionally thought that it is wrong to blow one's wad in another's mouth. Really? World-wide? Religion wide? Since the dawn of homo sapiens? I find that hard to swa..- um..believe. Source citations, please? swa... that was cute. i'm talking about the western hemisphere's traditionally judeo-christian heritage. I'd also venture to say more religions have prohibitions against this, but I don't have any supportive evidence of this. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #116 February 13, 2006 QuoteWhat they did instead was introduce the civil union bill and a companion bill which ammended hundreds of other acts of law (everything from tax, immigration, pensions, even defence law) so that wherever the word 'spouse' cropped up, the words 'or civil union partner' were added. This means that a civil union has Exactly the same legal standing as a marriage. Perfect solution. Logical, reasonable, fair... I don't think we'll be seeing such a solution from the Bush administration. QuoteIt saddens me when I hear of all the shit that is going on in the US (ie president planning on a constitution ammendment, against a section of his own people) It saddens me too... especially since this is the president of my country. One of the things I was reading pointed out that if this "gay marriage ban" amendment was approved, it would be the second time in US history that an amendment was made to the US Constitution to take rights away from the people rather than to protect our rights. (The first one being prohibition, which fortunately didn't last.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MC208B 0 #117 February 14, 2006 Narcimund is a very bitter guy, hope he gets over it and finds happiness in his life since majority approval of gay marraige won't happen. And Narc, try this, you're right, everyone else is wrong, happy with my posts now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #118 February 14, 2006 QuoteNarcimund is a very bitter guy I have some righteous anger from being treated very poorly. When your state votes to cause your involuntary divorce from your loving spouse, I suspect you'll be peeved too. By the way, you got pissy when I ignored your question. I answered yours but now you're ignoring several of mine. I won't get pissy, but we can all guess what it means. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MC208B 0 #119 February 14, 2006 I already answered all you questions, you're right and everyone else is wrong, not good enough for you?!? Time for me to head for the beach, have a good one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #120 February 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteNarcimund is a very bitter guy I have some righteous anger from being treated very poorly. When your state votes to cause your involuntary divorce from your loving spouse, I suspect you'll be peeved too. By the way, you got pissy when I ignored your question. I answered yours but now you're ignoring several of mine. I won't get pissy, but we can all guess what it means. Would you like some cheddar, gouda, pepperjack, or bleu to go with that?Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #121 February 14, 2006 QuoteI already answered all you questions. You must have forgotten to press "Post Reply" because your answers do not appear anywhere in this thread. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RhondaLea 4 #122 February 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteI already answered all you questions. You must have forgotten to press "Post Reply" because your answers do not appear anywhere in this thread. Forget it, LJ. It has now devolved into the same old thing: don't have an argument? Confuse the issue with a personal attack instead. It never ceases to amaze me. But then again, this is not the old college debate team. rl Edited to add: I do find a certain amount of ironic humor in the characterization of you as "bitter." It's been quite some time back, but I remember once that in a similar context, someone called me a "prude." If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #123 February 14, 2006 Knock it off already. Sheesh. To some degree Narcimund has a legitimate gripe. I personally don't agree w/ his beliefs, but in his heart it's obvious that he believes that his love is true and valid. And there is something noble and and honorable about that. Perhaps it would be nice to see you actually trying to really see things from his perspective instead of just accusing him of being nothing but a whiner. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Dolph 0 #124 February 14, 2006 Hi Narcimund. Am wondering what your position is to the following situation: All people, regardless of gender can have a recognized union with anyone they wish, limited only by some arbitrary age decided on a state level. These union holds the exact same legal rights as marriage currently does. It'd be fair to call this union a "secular marriage" although I'd advise against it, given the religious connotations marriage has. If such a situation should arise, the religious folks of whatever persuasion can exclude those whom they feel are not worthy. Basically, organised religions are private clubs on a large scale that for some reason must be treated differently because of their spiritual foundation - a whole other thread, getting off on a tangent there. Would you be satisfied with a situation where you could not be married in the Christian marriage because of some silly rules they have from their Dude at the Top, but where you'd get an alternative that provides you with the same legal rights? Or do you think it is within your rights to be married in Christ name so to speak? Just intended for clarification and personal curiosity. Perhaps I am presenting a false choice to you - if there are other acceptable solutions, how do you see them? hear hear Micro. I find it strange that people seem incapable of understanding that love can flourish between members of the same gender - in many forms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #125 February 14, 2006 QuoteAm wondering what your position is to the following situation: Excellent question and respectfully posed. How refreshing :) So long as you understand I'm answering for myself ONLY, that solution sounds great to me. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page 5 of 19 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
sundevil777 102 #110 February 13, 2006 QuoteHow about the argument that the arrangements people make for sex and rearing children, i.e., families, are private, to the extent that they are not abusive. Our way is not the only way, and there have been many different arrangements for both down through our history and even today. Should it really matter to your neighbor how many wives or husbands you have, or the nature of your sexual relations, as long as you don't infringe on their right to live as they choose? rl How many could really say that it wouldn't bother them if their friend confessed that their brother/sister/mother/whatever was their lover? Apparently it wouldn't matter to you, but not many could honestly do that, I think.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #111 February 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI think most opposition to SSM can be generally boiled down to xeno-phobia. Fear of warrior princesses? Xeno would be a boy. Forget your noun endings now you're a manager, Bill? Or are you calling the boy "Princess"? In en ingenneering ferm, speelign is not a prerecwisatz ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #112 February 13, 2006 QuoteYou may be interested in what happened here in NZ: apparently nobody was enough to respond to you - even though it seems to be the most reasonable response to 'government' involvement in legal sanctioned partnering......without disrepect to the religious tradition But since it's not an all or nothing kick in the teeth of religion solution, apparently it's not worth commenting on. Good for NZ. Same legal rights, call it something else. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #113 February 13, 2006 QuoteIt has been traditionally thought that it is wrong to blow one's wad in another's mouth. Really? World-wide? Religion wide? Since the dawn of homo sapiens? I find that hard to swa..- um..believe. Source citations, please? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #114 February 13, 2006 QuoteHow many could really say that it wouldn't bother them if their friend confessed that their brother/sister/mother/whatever was their lover? Apparently it wouldn't matter to you, but not many could honestly do that, I think. Straight to incest, huh? Nice.If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #115 February 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteIt has been traditionally thought that it is wrong to blow one's wad in another's mouth. Really? World-wide? Religion wide? Since the dawn of homo sapiens? I find that hard to swa..- um..believe. Source citations, please? swa... that was cute. i'm talking about the western hemisphere's traditionally judeo-christian heritage. I'd also venture to say more religions have prohibitions against this, but I don't have any supportive evidence of this. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #116 February 13, 2006 QuoteWhat they did instead was introduce the civil union bill and a companion bill which ammended hundreds of other acts of law (everything from tax, immigration, pensions, even defence law) so that wherever the word 'spouse' cropped up, the words 'or civil union partner' were added. This means that a civil union has Exactly the same legal standing as a marriage. Perfect solution. Logical, reasonable, fair... I don't think we'll be seeing such a solution from the Bush administration. QuoteIt saddens me when I hear of all the shit that is going on in the US (ie president planning on a constitution ammendment, against a section of his own people) It saddens me too... especially since this is the president of my country. One of the things I was reading pointed out that if this "gay marriage ban" amendment was approved, it would be the second time in US history that an amendment was made to the US Constitution to take rights away from the people rather than to protect our rights. (The first one being prohibition, which fortunately didn't last.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC208B 0 #117 February 14, 2006 Narcimund is a very bitter guy, hope he gets over it and finds happiness in his life since majority approval of gay marraige won't happen. And Narc, try this, you're right, everyone else is wrong, happy with my posts now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #118 February 14, 2006 QuoteNarcimund is a very bitter guy I have some righteous anger from being treated very poorly. When your state votes to cause your involuntary divorce from your loving spouse, I suspect you'll be peeved too. By the way, you got pissy when I ignored your question. I answered yours but now you're ignoring several of mine. I won't get pissy, but we can all guess what it means. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC208B 0 #119 February 14, 2006 I already answered all you questions, you're right and everyone else is wrong, not good enough for you?!? Time for me to head for the beach, have a good one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #120 February 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteNarcimund is a very bitter guy I have some righteous anger from being treated very poorly. When your state votes to cause your involuntary divorce from your loving spouse, I suspect you'll be peeved too. By the way, you got pissy when I ignored your question. I answered yours but now you're ignoring several of mine. I won't get pissy, but we can all guess what it means. Would you like some cheddar, gouda, pepperjack, or bleu to go with that?Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #121 February 14, 2006 QuoteI already answered all you questions. You must have forgotten to press "Post Reply" because your answers do not appear anywhere in this thread. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #122 February 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteI already answered all you questions. You must have forgotten to press "Post Reply" because your answers do not appear anywhere in this thread. Forget it, LJ. It has now devolved into the same old thing: don't have an argument? Confuse the issue with a personal attack instead. It never ceases to amaze me. But then again, this is not the old college debate team. rl Edited to add: I do find a certain amount of ironic humor in the characterization of you as "bitter." It's been quite some time back, but I remember once that in a similar context, someone called me a "prude." If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #123 February 14, 2006 Knock it off already. Sheesh. To some degree Narcimund has a legitimate gripe. I personally don't agree w/ his beliefs, but in his heart it's obvious that he believes that his love is true and valid. And there is something noble and and honorable about that. Perhaps it would be nice to see you actually trying to really see things from his perspective instead of just accusing him of being nothing but a whiner. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dolph 0 #124 February 14, 2006 Hi Narcimund. Am wondering what your position is to the following situation: All people, regardless of gender can have a recognized union with anyone they wish, limited only by some arbitrary age decided on a state level. These union holds the exact same legal rights as marriage currently does. It'd be fair to call this union a "secular marriage" although I'd advise against it, given the religious connotations marriage has. If such a situation should arise, the religious folks of whatever persuasion can exclude those whom they feel are not worthy. Basically, organised religions are private clubs on a large scale that for some reason must be treated differently because of their spiritual foundation - a whole other thread, getting off on a tangent there. Would you be satisfied with a situation where you could not be married in the Christian marriage because of some silly rules they have from their Dude at the Top, but where you'd get an alternative that provides you with the same legal rights? Or do you think it is within your rights to be married in Christ name so to speak? Just intended for clarification and personal curiosity. Perhaps I am presenting a false choice to you - if there are other acceptable solutions, how do you see them? hear hear Micro. I find it strange that people seem incapable of understanding that love can flourish between members of the same gender - in many forms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #125 February 14, 2006 QuoteAm wondering what your position is to the following situation: Excellent question and respectfully posed. How refreshing :) So long as you understand I'm answering for myself ONLY, that solution sounds great to me. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
