Rosie gets married

Whiskers,

Your logic escapes me.

Your premise is that this country is experiencing a rapid decline in personal responsibility. With this I whole heartedly agree.

What I do not understand is how the decline of personal responsibility has anything to do with gay marriage.

It seems to me that marriage is all about commitment and responsibility, isn't it?

Gays are often critisized because of their percieved promiscuity and now they are being critisized because they want to be able to legally commit to a life long partner.

I am honestly not sure where I land in this debate. I would probably leave it up to the individual states to decide whether to recognize it and also to decide whether there should be reciprocity in recognition. I don't know how I would treat it from a federal perspective.
 
I think the insurance argument was rendered meaningless years ago, when "Civil Unions" were allowed. Health insurance can be extended to same sex partners in most states, I believe.

CNN was showing 2000 debates with Bush telling Larry King that Gay Marriage is a State's rights issue. Now, 4 years later, it seems President Bush does not believe in State's Rights any more than he does in Individual's Rights.

First the so-called Patriot Act, and now the proposed ammendment.
 
WH- I guess I was a bit too touchy, but women in general includes my wife, as she has the same 'mommy-parts' (I don't want to offend those with children ;) ) as all other women. Yes, I'm lucky and I let her now that everyday. It's not the arrow, but the indian!!! :D

I also think the tides are turning in regards to the legal system favoring women just because. IMO, now it has more to do with the skill of the lawyer not the sex of the person getting divorced.
 
Elk Gunner - So Bush can't change his mind over a period of 4 years? Just because he is (pick one) a - President b - a Republican c - someone you don't like d - everyone is required to feel the same way about everything forever.

l-pointer - unfortunately, there is still way too much weight given to the woman's rights over the man's rights in divorce court and by the district attorneys. They flat tell men that they do not have time to track down an ex-wife who has run off with the kids, but they have lots of resources to track down a man who runs off from his support obligations.

Why is child support not tax deductible? The man pays taxes on money taken out of his check and given to his ex-wife, tax-free. The wife gets to claim the children as deductions. :rolleyes:
 
A couple months ago, at work a co-worker was telling a group of us (all women) about this "cute little couple" (lesbians) she knows that adopted a young boy and how everything was so great and they were all so "cute" together and the boy wasn't affected at all by the parent's alternative lifestyle.

The boy is three, so I pointed out that it's really hard to tell now if the lifestyle will affect the boy and historically I didn't think there was enough information as to if adopted children raised by gays are negatively affected. Certainly there would be wonderful parents and not so wonderful parents, just as in a straight couple.

While I was still on my soapbox, I went on to say that I thought homosexuality was weird and the older I got the weirder I thought it was.

So, I was glared at by this woman for promoting the straight lifestyle.

In the marriage thing, changing the constitution would mean that all the states would recognise the marriage. How does that work for the common law marriages?

I don't know what the amount of years common law marriage requires, but hypothetically lets say it's seven.

So, there are two straight guys that are room-mates for eight years.

After they had been roommates for seven years, one guy purchases a property they both move into.

A year later, the guy owning the property
decides to sell the property and his future living arrangements do not include the roommate.

Is the roommate then able to sue the owner under common law marriage rights?

Although they are both straight and friends, when it comes to money if there is a chance to get it, someone will sure for it.

AprilW
 
I look at it this way. If homosexuality is genetic, like most homosexuals claim, then let them come out of the closet and marry or whatever. In fact, encourage it. Homosexuality isn't viable, meaning they don't have the ability to reproduce (no matter how hard they try---sick thought). So the more that come out, get married or whatever, means that less of their homosexual (genetic) genes will be passed on. In the long run there won't be any homosexuals. Personlly I don't agree with them using the term "marriage". If they want to call it a "union", fine. But "marriage" should be reserved for historical reasons for man/woman relationships.
 
Two lesbian women adopting and raising a little boy is just plain wrong, and should not be allowed. Who is going to teach him how to hunt? For that matter, who is going to teach him how to pee? Those two women will have him sitting down to do it like a girl. A boy needs a father so he can grow up to be a man.
 
I always wondered the same thing - if homosexuality is genetic, how is it passed along? The trait should have disappeared long ago and certainly before artifical insemination or in vitro fertilization was developed. If it is a spontaneous mutation, wouldn't the percentage of gay people be waaaaay lower?
 
Ok I am just going to have April start typeing for me she made sence and didnt have any typo's ;)


Delw
 
the only problem i see with bush's idea for the amendment is by making this amendment is to cause prejudice{sp} in the constitution which clearly states against prejudices. besides they are getting married in a courthouse right? at least they haven't tried for a big church ceremony have they?? what gays and lesbians do or don't do isn't gonna effect my life one little bit.
soapbox.gif
 
Two lesbian women adopting and raising a little boy is just plain wrong, and should not be allowed. Who is going to teach him how to hunt?
Click to expand...
So you saying women don't hunt? I know a few ladies in here that might argue that one.

Maybe the gays should get married, perhaps then they will stop hitting on Rogue ;)

As for me, I am not gay, I do not know any gays so officially I figure I don't have an opinion here. (I did have to take that jab though just because it was funny).

One opinion that I do have though is that I respect anyone who is willing to adopt a child and raise them. There are enough children in this world who are unwanted. If I was an orphan, and it came down to having no parents or having two mommies I know which I would choose.
 
Originally posted by Calif. Hunter:
Elk Gunner - So Bush can't change his mind over a period of 4 years? Just because he is (pick one) a - President b - a Republican c - someone you don't like d - everyone is required to feel the same way about everything forever.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Cali,
I guess I just think the Federal Gov't should stay out of the Stat's business, and my business. And when I see Flip-Flops like this from Dubya, I know why I have gone from a financial backer of Governor Bush in 2000 to an advocate of ANYONE but Bush in 2004.

I guess we will have to disagree, I do not think we should have everything in our lives controlled by a Federal Government, and you apperantly support a more Socialistic/Communistic type of Rule. :eek: ;)
 
I never said I agreed with the President, but simply that I think he can change his opinion like anyone else.

Living in California, where the Liberals think they know best for everyone and that "they" or the government need to make the rules for the rest of us morons, I certainly do not favor government intrusion. For example, I love the irony in the fact that several of the anti-gun senators (like our own "beloved" Feinstein) have permits to carry concealed weapons, but don't want us common folks to have them.
 
Toonces, I may be wrong, but I don't think I said anything about gay marriage in that last post. In the one before I did and how I felt is perfectly clear.
 
So you saying women don't hunt? I know a few ladies in here that might argue that one.
Click to expand...
Mojave, you got me on that one. I actually meant to clarify my statement on that point, but I was at work and it's easy to get distracted with the phone calls and people interuppting me all the time. :rolleyes: It's just that I can't imagine two married lesbians being hunters. Not saying there absolutely aren't any lesbian hunters out there, just that it's most likely more the exception than the rule.
 
Ok I just have to say it, I have listened to all these same arguments on tv, the radio, at work blah blah blah.......
The one thing nobody ever says is

DRUM ROLL PLEASE........

IT IS JUST PLAIN WRONG.
Period end of argument..
I'm sure in my heart of hearts that God will agree with me come final judgement.
Suger coat it anyway you want, sometimes you just know something is wrong, it isn't a matter of debating it, it isn't something you have to even think about. It is something you feel, something you just know. Kinda like a little kid, there will be things a child has never experienced, has no knowledge about, but that child will know that it is either wrong, or it isn't.
Homosexuality is just plain wrong.
How much farther down the corruption superhighway do we go before we run out of road?
I applaud any of our elected officials that stand up to issues like this and try to slow down the ride.
 
Originally posted by Calif. Hunter:
I never said I agreed with the President, but simply that I think he can change his opinion like anyone else.

Living in California, where the Liberals think they know best for everyone and that "they" or the government need to make the rules for the rest of us morons, I certainly do not favor government intrusion.
Click to expand...
Cali,
I guess I don't see how Dubya can Flip-Flop on State's Rights issues. That would seem to be a core belief, that the State's issues should be managed by the States. I don't see how people can just excuse Dubya for a "change of opinion", when that is a fundamental change in platform. And are Campaign promises by Bush not to be believed? Is he allowed to change his opinion on every thing???? :mad:

And as for a state where Liberals make the rules, you should try living in a state where the Conservatives make the rules. We are told we can not buy a bottle of 12 Year Old Scotch on Sunday, as that would be bad for us. We are told we can not drive without a seat belt, as that would be bad for us. We will soon be told we can't smoke in public. We are also told that children do not need school buildings with safe roofs, we are told that it is ok to pay school teachers in the bottom quartile of the nation's salaries, and not to worry when Johnny can't read.

the government need to make the rules for the rest of us morons, I certainly do not favor government intrusion
Click to expand...
And our Conservatives who don't favor government intrusion insist on trying to restrict a woman's right to choose what she does with her reproductive system. And now we have Conservatives who are trying to pass a state law to decide who can and who can't get married to who.

It is kind of ironic, but our conservatives are guilty of "think they know best for everyone and that "they" or the government need to make the rules for the rest of us morons, I certainly do not favor government intrusion".

Perhaps it is not the Liberals that are the problem in Calif, or the Conservatives in Idaho (that sure sound like the same problem), but it is the Electorate's problem in both states who tolerate Flip-Flops and broken campaign promises like Dubya does. :rolleyes:
 
Elk gunner

this topic aint about Bush.
Why do you always try to turn topics into Bush bashes???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Five Bulls Linked to Canadian Mad Cow Case Sold in Montana
Replies
0
Views
818
Delw
D
Yeti GOBOX Collection

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,670
Messages
2,029,077
Members
36,277
Latest member
rt3bulldogs

Share this page

Back
Top