|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Gay marriage /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1435360992 Message started by Pine on 06/26/15 at 16:23:12 |
|
Title: Gay marriage Post by Pine on 06/26/15 at 16:23:12 I tried to post twice about the new rule of the land, but the board shut me down for spamming and then locked me out for a while. The USA .. is a changing. For the better or no... I don't think we will know for some time. :-X |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by Serowbot on 06/26/15 at 16:39:25 467F7873627964160 wrote:
Isn't that queer?... I mean odd?... ;D... |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by HovisPresley on 06/26/15 at 16:57:14 11282F24352E33410 wrote:
........................................................................ The world is changing......for good or for ill............. |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by Ed L. on 06/26/15 at 18:09:24 Guess you're gay (happy) that you finally got your feelings out instead of being stuck in the closet ;D |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by raydawg on 06/26/15 at 21:50:04 Quote:
Thats funny bot.... Just today I pulled as PC'er on a lib friend at work. He knows I am a registered American Indian ( Quapaw ). I was giving him directions on installing a part on the airplane. He wasn't grasping it, remember, he is a liberal.... He again ask, "How" I said if he doesn't stop using derogatory language and belittling me, I am going to take him to HR. ;D Crazy world, so many people get butt hurt, no pun intended, over stuff that really doesn't have the capacity to upset their lives the way they claim. Live, and let live, a lost concept perhaps...... |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/26/15 at 22:27:22 I have it on good authority that the past isnt nearly as nice as we remember..something like that,,, Can't remember just how he said it. |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by old.indian on 06/26/15 at 22:53:58 30233B26233525420 wrote:
Tut, tut.... Shame on you.... I'm going to fink you out to the mutual relations in Miami...... Picking on that poor, unsuspecting, gullible paleface like that....... :-[ |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by WebsterMark on 06/27/15 at 06:45:13 The reality is that society needs to rein in the child-like behavior of adults at times. Weakening the standing of the single most important aspect of child rearing in order for a few selfish adults with a disorder looking for some type of self-actualization WILL absolutely impact all of us. Children will suffer. Let me correct that a little bit, the few children Americans can be bothered to interrupt their education, careers, or the pursuit of some lite beer TV commercial lifestyle for, will pay the price. Why we are further emphasizing the imagined benefits of selfishness is beyond me….. Don’t celebrate this decision, mourn it. |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by HovisPresley on 06/27/15 at 07:41:43 526067767160774864776E050 wrote:
............................................................. What aspect is that? |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by raydawg on 06/27/15 at 07:59:53 It doesn't have to Webby..... You start off your post with the repair, then go on to justify your personal beliefs as the fix to "this" threat upon what you see as disruptive. If man extended to others, the freedom to believe, and behave, in a manner they readily extend to themselves, I believe the truth to really what is sustainable (living) would become manifest, and all diversionary options revealed as shortcomings. I know this looks good in theory ( too me :D ) and next to impossible to fulfill, however, if I find I practise it, I have freed myself from the energy to battle all these society skirmishes, that will never see resolution to the reason(s) for them. Am I copping out, no, it just that my "battle" is on a much smaller theater . Edit: let me give you a possible skirmish in the future with the hope it might show how these "battles" evolve around their own personal survival ( to their beliefs) and not about alliances. Let advance the possibility in the future medical science will find evidence that homosexuals have a distinct trait/marker, and their sexual behavior/preference is derived from that difference. Now armed with such information, many myths, and beliefs, will/should be dispelled re: homosexuality, and many of these "battles" ended, and all the energy it takes to wage them perhaps directed to a more peaceful endeavor. Now picture this, with this new discovery (truth) another element, or weapon, has given opportunity to wage a new skirmish, and break up societal alliances..... If a heterosexual couple, lets add some wood to the fire :o , say a evangelical zealot couple who interprets the bible to eradicate sin ( in others) finds through a prenatal study their "embryo" has a distinct possibility of being homosexual based on the findings that has linked those traits/markers, that they now will abort this "baby" instead of terming and raising. Wow, look how all those beliefs have been surrender to "justify" self. Would it be an easy assumption that the homosexual community would now be the driving force against abortion on the argument its a woman's right? Can you see what I mean webby? |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by Serowbot on 06/27/15 at 08:18:04 Web,.. you sound like a real fun guy... ;D... |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by WebsterMark on 06/27/15 at 10:06:29 you have opened the door to a perfect conversation to have.....but. later. I just bought a utility trailer, the ones with the mesh bottom, and I need to go beef up the flooring and put some eyebolts on it for tiedowns so I can carry my motocross bike around. but briefly while I slam a sandwich down real quick, I have no doubt that there is a homosexual gene, I also have new no doubt there is a pedophile gene, a necrophilia gene, serial adulterer gene, Beastiality gene, etc.... our behavior is influenced by all types of genes. but that doesn't change the fact that we can control those to a certain degree. The normal make up for the male human species is a sexual attraction for the female of that species. it's abnormal to be the other way. that's easily proven by the fact that there's only a couple of percent of the population who have same sex attraction. That's a disorder. We do not embrace other sexual disorders, why should we embrace this one? gotta run, later. |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by raydawg on 06/27/15 at 12:17:33 Cool, have fun, I am finishing the wiring on my boat.....BUT, it is so hot out here I had to steal the umbrella from the patio set to give me some shade, DANG..... Only thing missing from this furnace is Bot :-* |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by WebsterMark on 06/27/15 at 15:49:33 if you buy 5x8 utility trailer with mesh bottom from lowes, its not terrible but it will need some work. i want to haul my vstrom across missouri and kansas, unload it, and ride out west. i70 across missouri is some of the ugliest landscape in the us. Kansas is way better, but its a long way across. figure ill save my butt for the mountains. |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by HovisPresley on 06/27/15 at 18:58:09 So this thread is entitled 'Gay Marriage' and Mark figures he'll 'save his butt for the mountains', so I must ask this.... "Deliverance" meets "Brokeback Mountain"? :-[ |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by WebsterMark on 06/28/15 at 06:27:48 20332B36332535520 wrote:
I see your points, but I don't agree with them. Here's the bottom line: If you think you can predict with certainty all the ramifications as a result of officially changing the institution of marriage, hats off to you. I can bet by this time next week, now that the historical reason for human marriage has been washed away, we will have demands for other groups to join in the marriage party. Threesomes, brother-sisters, fill in the blank . And who could argue if a brother and sister wanted to call themselves married? You've already said all it takes to be married is to make a statement of commitment of marriage to one another. The historical basis is gone now. Are you saying a brother and sister could marry? Should we make polygyny the law of the land too? What colors will Obama light up the White House with then?! |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by raydawg on 06/28/15 at 06:55:10 Hippie chicks eh...... Gee, how to I begin to have an exchange when you lead with such utterance? I won't, futile I will tell you Jesus guides me to the spirit, and I therein live my life accordingly. I welcome challenge, as it reveals the strength of my belief, to myself..... The sin, infidel, or boogieman, is me in my weakness, not you, Obama, or a homosexual ( well, maybe bot ) :-* Enjoy your life, its yours to do with it whatever "floats your boat" |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by WebsterMark on 06/28/15 at 07:15:13 but hey, this is your world now not mine. You grew up in my world, say post-World War II. I get to live the rest my life and die in your world, say post Vietnam or whatever timeframe you want to insert. so if I live long enough, I guess I'll be able to judge which one was better. and lighten up a little bit dawg, that part was a joke. geez... |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by Serowbot on 06/28/15 at 07:33:38 10031B06031505620 wrote:
Ray,.. do you really think I'm gay?,... or this some wishful thinking on your part?... Either way... pull yer' pants back up, put away your kissy face, and stay on topic... Tired of your not-so-funny innuendo... Serow |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by WebsterMark on 06/28/15 at 07:40:54 I missed that in dawg's post.... I doubt that's what he meant. and I thought my hippie line was funny.... |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by old.indian on 06/28/15 at 09:41:30 Gay Marriage ??? I was brought up in the '40s and'50s, and wore a funny green costume in the early/mid '60s... In the late '60s early '70s I lived and worked in the Bay Area. At one point my room mate (the infamous "ole weird Johnson") myself, and the young married couple in the other half of the duplex, were the only "straight" persons in a half block radius. Big Deal. 90% of our "gay" neighbors were pretty good people and 10% were A-holes.. Funny thing is that the 90% thought that the 10% were A-holes too. I know of "gay" couples who have been together far longer than most "straight" marriages. I have friends who are "gay" . It doesn't bother me, it doesn't bother them. We have better things to do than make judgments about one another. (Well, it is pretty darn funny when one or the other of us puts a wrench in his back pocket, and then spends 5 minutes looking for it a little later.) |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by raydawg on 06/28/15 at 10:15:33 Holy smokes...... My goodness...... I think I will wrap a confederate bandana around my head, a rainbow fishnet speedo, and go ride my bike, actually I am taking the boat out, but that doesn't change a darn thing. Peace folks, its only life, I didn't make the rules, I don't enforce the laws, and none escape the outcome, deal with it, or not, ain't no free rent in my head. Life, what a concept...... :-* >:( :-/ ;D :P ::) ............ :) PS webby, I don't dig musk, I'd rather a person showers, instead. |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by thumperclone on 06/28/15 at 10:18:03 keep the bible/religion out of it "all men are created equal" |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by cobra0071 on 06/28/15 at 14:10:35 Who cares if they can get married |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by WebsterMark on 06/29/15 at 05:45:04 http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/26/15-reasons-marriage-equality-is-about-neither-marriage-nor-equality/ Some valid points. And by the way, if you think looking further down the line and extrapolating how this ruling will be used is silly, remember that the original Row v Wade ruling granted abortion for a very narrow set of circumstances. It didnt take long before it was expanded to include actions such as partial birth which if they had presented that back then as what they were asking approcal for, would have been instantly tossed out. like i said, its the liberal's world now so have at it fellas....do your best to shape society in your image! |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by HovisPresley on 06/29/15 at 06:17:50 "Your old road is Rapidly agin' Please get out of the new one If you can't lend your hand" Dylan |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/29/15 at 07:23:22 IIRC, Roe v Wade hinged onthe Born in part. Those not yet born weren't protected. Silly Founding Fathers, didnt they know that one day the desire to eliminate the unborn would become normal? The constitution can't protect an amoral society from its ways. |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by Serowbot on 06/29/15 at 07:28:04 The religious argument won't hold water, until people quit eating shellfish, leavened bread, and pork... stop cutting the hair on the sides of their head,... and wearing polyester blends... Cheeseburgers are out too... :-/... |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by HovisPresley on 06/29/15 at 08:12:17 And pepperoni pizza :'( |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by old.indian on 06/29/15 at 08:38:39 3B2D3A273F2A273C480 wrote:
Sounds like the diet my wife and doctor are trying to put me on.... I drew the line at giving up cheeseburgers, and the only hair I have left is on the side of my head. So, I guess I'm safe from the religious fanatics... ;) In fact, just to make sure, I'm going to fire up the thumper and head out to the 'burger joint for a nice juicy bacon cheeseburger ... :) |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by Serowbot on 06/29/15 at 09:07:40 Uh oh!... :-?... I see the slippery slope... :-/... ... ;D... Shabani The Gorilla Is So Handsome, Japanese Women https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kwt3F7RdHY [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kwt3F7RdHY[/media] |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by Pine on 06/29/15 at 13:13:00 Wow, ray and webby went in whole 'nother direction than I was thinking. I really do not care that bay's can marry. I do care that the Federal government stepped in and made the decision versus leaving it to the states. I also care that, bay marriage, really means gay's benefiting from an ancient tradition meant for tribes/people groups to support/maintain and grow their populations. Something that two same bex people cannot do. as has been mentioned... this tends to escalate: since bays must be allow to marry with full benefits, but they cannot meet any "traditional" obligations of marriage, I see benefits being withdrawn from ALL marriages. As benefits drop, the cost to have children go up, but not for bays.. As the cost goes up births will go down also as costs go up the Federal will be inclined to seek other venues for increasing the population.. such as open immigration to all Since marriage is right, ANY marriage should be a right.. not just those approved by bays... polygamy, xxxx, marring a chicken should all be required as legal. I do not support any of this of course... just agreeing that I cannot see how allowing gay marriage based on the right of happiness, and the federal courts overrulling the states to determine what can and cannot be discriminated against... well I dont see how this can be the end of it. It certainly would not be fair, if it were. I find it kinda odd that the churches are at such fuss over it ( locally). The Black churches are in a real bind about it. Most are very conservative and traditional, but that would be at odds with "progress". Others are being open, but seem reluctant about it. White churches are just as stuck, but not willing as willing to speak up it seems. More drama than CSI ... WOOHOO.. it took a bit.. but I found the SCOTUS ruling. The opinion was of course disappointing, and even I (backwoods) could see they were glossing over some things and highlighting others that met with their ideals. Boring read... But ahh the dissenting opinion... VERY GOOD READ: LIke this part: One immediate question invited by the majority’s position is whether States may retain the definition of marriage as a union of two people. Cf. Brown v. Buhman, 947 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (Utah 2013), appeal pending, No. 14- 4117 (CA10). Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. Bazinga! |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by WebsterMark on 06/30/15 at 05:18:40 whats the over/under on years before "Married, filing jointly" is removed from IRS language? 3? 4? cant be much more because it will only be a few short weeks before the first multiple wives case makes its way into federal court. |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/30/15 at 07:05:39 Reading the last two, nothing to argue. |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by WebsterMark on 06/30/15 at 15:12:45 just read this, too funny! The same people who told us 30 years ago that "marriage is just a stupid piece of paper" now insist that it's a "human right." The same people who told us that "a flag is just a meaningless piece of material" now want certain flags banned and others raised — or else. The same people who say you can't change who you want to f*ck tell us you CAN change the bits you f*ck them with... The same people who used to tell us to "lighten up" and "learn to take a joke" now fire people who make them. |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by pgambr on 07/01/15 at 14:54:32 427077666170675874677E150 wrote:
Where did that come from Web? Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by LostArtist on 07/01/15 at 15:42:52 4B797E6F68796E517D6E771C0 wrote:
SURPRISE!! change happens, stand still if you want though |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by WebsterMark on 07/01/15 at 15:49:20 Came from a post on mark steyn website. |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by Paraquat on 07/02/15 at 06:12:04 http://allenbwest.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CIbqQtmUwAAGdrb.jpg --Steve |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by pgambr on 07/02/15 at 18:16:18 Well that didn't take long. http://rt.com/usa/271387-montana-polygamist-marriage-license/ Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by govnor on 07/02/15 at 22:26:43 I knew this thread would be full of awesome! Wherever you stand on the issue think about the gay guys that were telling their boyfriend that they CAN'T get married because it's ILLEGAL! Now the boyfriend is going...well NOW it's legal!!! So every gay guy that never had to think about it before is being confronted with the same question we've all gotten from women: WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET MARRIED??? lol, enjoy! I'm sure the divorce lawyers are salivating right now... |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/03/15 at 08:32:53 Ohh, look, an angle I hadn't considered! Ohhh, I've just been Dreaming of the day when you marry me. I have all the dresses picked out.. ohhh, and where we go for our honeymoon. And the divorce lawyers,,, gee, I wonder just how much they contributed to getting it passed....As IF they need more work. |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by raydawg on 07/04/15 at 08:06:38 We have a very vibrant Gay citizenry here on the island. When I was doing plumbing, I worked for many of them, all nice people, and for the most part, well to do. Some of their homes were beautiful, and easy to envy :D Without the burden of rearing children and the drain on your finances, I think it is safe to say they attain more wealth, as a percentage, than hetrosexual couples. I have always thought about the politicians ( attorneys) feathering their own nest as the motivation behind the push to legalize. I am not privy to those Gay folks who claim they need this document to claim many rights that are granted to heteros, but I have thought about how we/I desire acceptance, and validation, of others, as it makes me feel batter about who I am. This political board is a case study in how that works, those of like mind use that testimony (of others) to bolster their own esteem, and "rightness" of thinking/believing and wage discerning energy/emotions toward opposition. Of course this weakness of mankind has been used by all sorts of entities to empower themselves, as history holds evidence to that fact. I wonder, has this community bought into the need to be recognized by document, that is so readily discarded by the straight community, that the only real benefactors of this marriage industry is the wedding purveyors and divorce lawyers? Or..... Maybe they will show the straights what commitment and honor reaaly mean.....???? |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by Serowbot on 07/04/15 at 08:25:04 7F6C74696C7A6A0D0 wrote:
Doubt it... but, they'll sure show us how to cater a divorce... ;D... |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by WebsterMark on 07/04/15 at 14:05:30 The gays who pushed hard for marriage rights did so to spit in the eye of those who had the ball$ to dare challenge this culture's acceptance of a sexual disorder. Look at what the fat lesbos did to the couple who owned the bakery. Honestly, the bakery could have said they were simply following Michelle Obama's lead regarding healthy eating and refused the fatties a cake on the grounds they were actually protecting them from themselves.... Homosexuals could have had any legal or tax implications of marriage granted them via civil union legislation much easier than demanding the definition of marriage be changed. Secondly, deep down inside, they know something not right with them but rather than face it, it's easier to get the culture to accept it. |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by HovisPresley on 07/04/15 at 19:48:52 794B4C5D5A4B5C634F5C452E0 wrote:
Hmmm, Mark? Geting a wee bit claustrophobic in there? Or are you planning to save it all up for the mountains? xx PS. Handsome gorilla, btw 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by raydawg on 07/05/15 at 07:56:21 4355425F47525F44300 wrote:
Doubt it... but, they'll sure show us how to cater a divorce... ;D...[/quote] I know you offer this observation in jest, and it is witty, but isn't it rather compelling that (a) sexual orientation trait also drags along some other associated wholesale similarities? My brother in law, who was Gay, him and a whole lot of his friends died from AIDS I am sad to say. I learned a great deal from them, gained a lot of insight from having asked many question, but as all of mankind, they too differ on many things, and beliefs, and are not "one size fits all" mentality that opportunis ( pro gay) and opposing factors, argue. Now where was I, oh yeah..... He was very good at putting clothes together, where hetero men seem lacking, and interior designing too. Had the knack to move furnishings around to make a space look much better, and color schemes, etc.... And a lot of Gay men take pride in maintaining fit and trim bodies and looking snappy, where the Lesbians seem to run a little porky and adopt the man slob sorta look, well, kinda like me I mean....but my momma didn't name me Butch ;D |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by WebsterMark on 07/05/15 at 14:18:19 I don't think it's a stretch at all to consider that the genes that make a man gay also tend to make him more capable in the more historical feminine traits. Or..... it could be that feeling a certain kinship with the female gender, that forces him to focus and perfect activities so he fits in more. Me, I can't fold a tee shirt straight, can't pick out what tie goes with what shirt, and don't even ask me what color to paint the living room.... If I had the gay gene from birth, would I have turned into a fashion guru?.... Who knows, but why does it seem like a disproportionate number of gay men have a lisp? What's up with that?... |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/05/15 at 14:51:05 Everybody is different. Some people have violent allergic reactions to what others don't even notice. What had an MRI years ago and the contrast agent messed me up. Couldn't drive for six weeks. Some, a drop of peanut oil, dead. Recently, BPA was eliminated from baby bottles, but, those receipts cyou get? BPA, why? Why are these chemicals used? Necessity? Baby bottles are working without it. EPA Initiates New Effort for Low-Dose, Hormone-Like Chemicals www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2012/epa-low-dose Spurred by mounting scientific evidence, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is initiating a new effort to examine whether low doses of hormone-mimicking ... Journalists - Environmental Hormones In The News | Fooling ... www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nature/... News stories on environmental threats from hormone mimics abound these days. Many focus on the potential breast-cancer risks posed by a woman's exposure to pollutants ... ENVIRONMENTAL HORMONES: New Dangers from Chemical Pollutants web-japan.org/trends98/honbun/ntj980516.html Environmental hormones, which are called endocrine disruptors or hormone mimics in scientific terminology, is a generic term for chemical substances that enter the ... An updated review of environmental estrogen and androgen ... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9699867 1. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 1998 Apr;65(1-6):143-50. An updated review of environmental estrogen and androgen mimics and antagonists. Sonnenschein C(1), Soto AM. Environmental Hormone Mimics - Psychology homework help www.homeworkmarket.com/.../environmental-hormone-mimics-0 Environmental Hormone Mimics Name Institution xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx. xxxx xx xxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx mimics"? xxx xx there a xxxxxxxxxxxx mimic hormones - Scientific American www.scientificamerican.com › … › Environmental Health News Some Food Additives Mimic Human Hormones ... This article originally ran at Environmental Health News, a news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, ... Do environmental hormone mimics pose a potentially serious ... answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=... Sep 24, 2009 · Do environmental hormone mimics pose a potentially serious health threat? Thanks!! :)) Follow . 1 answer . Report Abuse. internet research, find an article about environmental ... Notice how many girls look grown up, but aren't? If something is causing girls to hit puberty sooner, then wouldn't males exposed to the same stuff be less masculine? |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by WebsterMark on 07/05/15 at 15:29:11 girls looking grown up is just as easily explained by clothes manufacturers targeting "tweeners" and stupid parents falling for it. |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by Sonny on 07/05/15 at 16:07:17 It's a hot topic and we're being respectful for the most part on this board. My bottom line: I'm straight as the day is long, and married. My attraction to womankind is visceral and thrilling, always was, and I embrace it. Gay men and women attest they feel the same libidinal and emotional zap and thrill for their same sex, and it's just the way they are. They say it and live it like they're not kidding around. I simply do not know what it is to feel that. So I cannot presume to judge it. I wouldn't want anybody condemning the way I'm wired. Live and let live. Let everyone seek their own happiness and sense of what is right for them. I am threatened and diminished in no way by that. This is 'Murca and that's the basic idea after all. I keep my nose out of other peoples' bidness and want them to keep their noses out of mine. This Supreme Court ruling is no problem for my world. Onward, same as before... |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by WebsterMark on 07/05/15 at 20:12:54 Sonny your world has been targeted. Your bidness is only yours so long as you toe the company line.Good luck with that. |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by Art Webb on 07/14/15 at 10:09:08 The second we made marriage a LEGAL status, with a set of rights and privileges attached to it, it is no longer defined by religion (seperation of church and state) Married people even use a different tax schedule with lower tax burdens Wait, that's because kids, you say? Nope, that's taken care of by 'exemptions' take a married couple with one kid vs a single parent with two kids Who actually has more 'dependants' if the wife in the first couple works? And yet, give an equal and fairly high income, the single parent will pay more because he's 'single' rather than 'married filing jointly' Provided of course he;s in the higher income brackets For some reason, 'married filing jointly' and 'single' have the same tax burden at lower income levels, and the gap appears and widens as income goes up (can you guys tell I always did my own taxes? ;D) so no, the church doesn't get to define marriage along religious terms And BTW, at various point in the bible polygamy and other such things are allowed, so even the bible doesn't define marriage as 'between a man and a woman' consistently anyway my point is, once marriage contains certain automatic rights and privileges and financial incentives, you can't discriminate due to race, creed, religion, or sexual orientation if the church want to decide who gets married, the special treatment goes away oh and just to really blow your mind, marriage was never intended for the common man, anyway, it was created to protect the nobility's 'legacy' in a patriarchal monarchy |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by HovisPresley on 07/14/15 at 15:23:57 Art, I have to say; That was a great post 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/14/15 at 19:04:36 Good post.. and just to really blow your mind, marriage was never intended for the common man, anyway, it was created to protect the nobility's 'legacy' in a patriarchal monarchy Got anything handy for me to look at? |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by thumperclone on 07/14/15 at 19:20:08 I have a sil born a male her revelations have given me understanding and now because of her trail blazing many family members are "coming out" imo its been with us since we homo sapiens migrated out of africa |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by Art Webb on 07/15/15 at 10:52:40 64435A455F7C5E495F4049552C0 wrote:
Thanks Hovis |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by Art Webb on 07/15/15 at 11:07:50 223D3B3C21261727172F3D317A480 wrote:
Unfortunately not much comes up, as marriage predates written history, but i found this pretty quick http://www.historyofmarriage.org/history-of-marriage/ quick and easy extrapolation: who needs alliances? in feudal times, the Nobility, to maintain power Then, beliefs being what they were at the time 'Blood will tell' the people believed that a good king would produce sons who were good kings, regardless of upbringing, and paupers would beget bad kings,regardless of upbringing, and all wanted good kings also, the man wants to be sure his accumulated wealth and power is passed to his own progeny, and the only way to do that is to 'lock that baby maker up' so other men had no access (marriage had a requirement of faith on the part of the woman long before the man had to make any such pledge) since anyone who wasn't a noble was a serf, and property, they had no 'legacy' to pass on in a matriarchal society this would be unimportant, as, with the tech of the time (girl thingy, thingy) Maria queen of the Amazons could not possibly give birth to a child not hers ;D even late into the 1800's in America most couples were not formally married unless they had money, therefore the existence of 'common law' marriage in most states here in Texas, if you live with someone for six months, have clothes and property at their residence, and call them your spouse in public, even once, that can be proven, you're married I wish I could remember what books i found that info in, but it's what I've pieced together over time, from various sources, just from being a guy who, reading something in a 'historically correct' work of fiction, goes 'I wonder if that's true' and looks it up |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by Art Webb on 07/15/15 at 11:15:28 is better I think https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200505/marriage-history |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/15/15 at 17:50:33 Interesting stuff,, dang, I'm getting tired of having to unlearn stuff.. |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by MnSpring on 07/15/15 at 18:36:54 [/quote] " ... He again ask, "How" ..." [/quote] Reminds me of the time, I saw a video of a , 'nerd', (Pocket protector and white tape on black glasses). He walked into a crowed bar, and heard everyone saying: "Bit*ch, Beer". When it came his turn he said: "Beer, Bitc*h". (He got slapped) ;D (The name of the beer was, 'Bitc*h') Back on topic: Two women want to get married. Their State says OK. SO WHAT ! How does it affect you ????? Now, those two women, Seek/Find OUT, Who will NOT, make them a cake. EVERYBODY, now has a problem !!!!!! So, in that State, can I go into a, 'Delly' run by a certain person, who follows a particularity Regulus belief. Order a, 'PORK' product, and they tell me they don't have that, or will make that, because of their, Religion. Does that mean, I can SUE them, and WIN !!!!!!! Huston, we got a problem ! |
|
Title: Re: Gay marriage Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/15/15 at 18:49:01 The deli won't stock pork. They won't order it. The cake shop probably didn't have bride and bride cake topper. Feds to the rescue. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |