Gay Marriage
- Thread starter ARogueTrader
- Start date
From the state and federal point of view, marriage is a legally recognized pact carrying with it an entire set of legal obligations and entitlements.
You don't need a church to get married in the eyes of the state, once you sign that piece of paper, you are hitched. From the states' point of view, the ceremony is irrelevant.
Gays are not asking the churches to perform marriages, they are asking the state to recognize them. The issue of "marriage" is I think, being pushed to hard by the gay lobby, and a widespread acceptance of civil unions has to precede the request of Americans to alter their traditional understanding of what marriage is.
You have to examine this issue from a social policy point of view.
Alfonso doesn't like the idea of one man dicking another up the ...
but I don't think most lawmakers are too concerned about this. I am sure there are many hetero couples who engage in sexual practices that disgust people like Alfonso, but I doubt people will make sexual acts the standard by which to allow marriage or not. His example of prison men going gay is pretty silly. Half of those performing gay sex acts are punks, the other half are psychos. I certainly don't want to create laws for civil society based on the behaviors of sociopaths who are doing heavy time in the joint. Does anyone here disagree with me?
There are many children being raised now by same sex couples and as such, certain protections and entitlements afforded families headed by hetero parented families will need to be extended to these families: civil benefits, health benefits extending to families, insurance protection, tax benefits intended for families raising children, social security protections. Gay couples are already raising families, and it is not something we can stop.
To deny same sex couples, even those without children, is punitive and destabilizing. It would be important and frankly good social policy to encourage monogamous and stable pairings of gay people. Doing so will not create more gays, and continuing a system of prejudice will not reduce the amount of gay people. Good social policy dictates recognizing a commitment between gay partners and allowing them to treated by the state and under law as a "married couple".
Monogamous pairings has as a goal social stability, and security garnered from the commitment of one to another. In this case, it may even result in less promiscuity among gay men.
PS. Alfonso, are you telling us that one hot babe chowing down on another is disgusting to you? Personally, I would miss the opening for that scene.
You don't need a church to get married in the eyes of the state, once you sign that piece of paper, you are hitched. From the states' point of view, the ceremony is irrelevant.
Gays are not asking the churches to perform marriages, they are asking the state to recognize them. The issue of "marriage" is I think, being pushed to hard by the gay lobby, and a widespread acceptance of civil unions has to precede the request of Americans to alter their traditional understanding of what marriage is.
You have to examine this issue from a social policy point of view.
Alfonso doesn't like the idea of one man dicking another up the ...
but I don't think most lawmakers are too concerned about this. I am sure there are many hetero couples who engage in sexual practices that disgust people like Alfonso, but I doubt people will make sexual acts the standard by which to allow marriage or not. His example of prison men going gay is pretty silly. Half of those performing gay sex acts are punks, the other half are psychos. I certainly don't want to create laws for civil society based on the behaviors of sociopaths who are doing heavy time in the joint. Does anyone here disagree with me?
There are many children being raised now by same sex couples and as such, certain protections and entitlements afforded families headed by hetero parented families will need to be extended to these families: civil benefits, health benefits extending to families, insurance protection, tax benefits intended for families raising children, social security protections. Gay couples are already raising families, and it is not something we can stop.
To deny same sex couples, even those without children, is punitive and destabilizing. It would be important and frankly good social policy to encourage monogamous and stable pairings of gay people. Doing so will not create more gays, and continuing a system of prejudice will not reduce the amount of gay people. Good social policy dictates recognizing a commitment between gay partners and allowing them to treated by the state and under law as a "married couple".
Monogamous pairings has as a goal social stability, and security garnered from the commitment of one to another. In this case, it may even result in less promiscuity among gay men.
PS. Alfonso, are you telling us that one hot babe chowing down on another is disgusting to you? Personally, I would miss the opening for that scene.
Church Love:
woman ejaculating male by licking and sucking male genitalia
male licking and sucking female genitalia
male genitalia to female genitalia
Heretic Love:
male genitalia in male anus
femal genitalia with female genitalia
female mouth to female genitals
It's all quite carnal. Does the queen of England have orgasms? She definately defecates like an animal.
Alfonso may aesthetically dislike male to male sex, yet he reveres female genitalia as sacred. Females shit, piss, suck dick, bleed every month, have snot, bacteria, and have large bovine mamory glands, which are a personal fixation, and at the same extermely banal.
And so somehow when a female gives a man head its more god like than when a male gives a male head even though genitalia is genitalia.
If rubbing genitals is sacred, and an act of godly LOVE, then what is defecating, sublime?
woman ejaculating male by licking and sucking male genitalia
male licking and sucking female genitalia
male genitalia to female genitalia
Heretic Love:
male genitalia in male anus
femal genitalia with female genitalia
female mouth to female genitals
It's all quite carnal. Does the queen of England have orgasms? She definately defecates like an animal.
Alfonso may aesthetically dislike male to male sex, yet he reveres female genitalia as sacred. Females shit, piss, suck dick, bleed every month, have snot, bacteria, and have large bovine mamory glands, which are a personal fixation, and at the same extermely banal.
And so somehow when a female gives a man head its more god like than when a male gives a male head even though genitalia is genitalia.
If rubbing genitals is sacred, and an act of godly LOVE, then what is defecating, sublime?
What tax break? AFAIK it's called "the marriage _penalty_" and (I presume) cancels out the ability to claim the spouse as a dependent.
Otherwise, I agree with you.
--laz
I did not want to waste my time on this one but rowenwood left this one out.
"Church love"
penis - vagina -- humans live on "procreate"
"Man love"
penis - anus -- "discreate"
Please let us continue to blame everything on the churches. Might not the status quo, have something to do with nature.
And by the way I have never heard blow jobs being promoted in Chruch. I have been in plenty of protestant churches and never heard it once.
And I know the foundation of the Catholic postion on sex is that you are supposed to be open to the possiblity of procreation. I would suspect the chruch is not that big a supporter of blow jobs.
"Church love"
penis - vagina -- humans live on "procreate"
"Man love"
penis - anus -- "discreate"
Please let us continue to blame everything on the churches. Might not the status quo, have something to do with nature.
And by the way I have never heard blow jobs being promoted in Chruch. I have been in plenty of protestant churches and never heard it once.
And I know the foundation of the Catholic postion on sex is that you are supposed to be open to the possiblity of procreation. I would suspect the chruch is not that big a supporter of blow jobs.
It's a break in certain cases, but much of the "marriage penalty" argument is based on the comparison between a joint return and two individual returns. And people can debate endlessly on whether that's a fair comparison. If my spouse and I each earn $90K, should we be taxed the same as a single person earning $180K, or as a couple earning $180K, or as two single people earning $90K each? Couples share most expenses, so maybe they should be taxed as a single person, but on the other hand they have higher expenses because they're in a 4-bedroom house instead of 2 1-bedroom apartments, have kids to feed and educate, etc. And it's to the economy's benefit to encourage home ownership and production of kids to fund SSI...
Getting back to gay marriage, although personally I think gays have as much a right to marry, raise kids, and get spousal benefits (SSI, family medical coverage, court testimony protection) as anyone else, the government has never shied away from making laws about social and moral issues, so I suspect lawmakers will introduce a constitutional amendment about marriage (but only after the election).
You know that part of your brain that processes thoughts and interprets them before you say or write what is in your mind? Is that piece broken? I mean, do you wake up each morning with the thought, "How can I be revolting, disgusting and obscene in a platonic way?"
I mean, really. That part of your brain that goes, "Oh man, maybe I shouldn't say that -- it is really out in left field and has absolutely no relation to what everyone else is talking about."
I'm sure in your mind that you firmly believe that there is nothing wrong with how you write, but I guarantee you that there is a large majority of people who read your posts and say, "wow, I'm glad I'm not that guy."
Ahh, that makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification!
--laz
"Church love"
penis - vagina -- humans live on "procreate"
"Man love"
penis - anus -- "discreate"
Please let us continue to blame everything on the churches. Might not the status quo, have something to do with nature.
And by the way I have never heard blow jobs being promoted in church. I have been in plenty of protestant churches and never heard it once.
And I know the foundation of the Catholic position on sex is that you are supposed to be open to the possibility of procreation. I would suspect the church is not that big a supporter of blow jobs.
My reply is, So what?
I blame the churches because they righteously teach that people shouldn't think for themselves. Adults mimic better than children.
Blow jobs may not be officially promoted but....
Procreate, like animals. After all, stupid minded adults created stupid minded children all of which the world can do without. Sorry to throw you off with the blow jobs. Forget the blow jobs and reply to the rest. I just figured those small minded child molesters that pretend to feint from the holy ghost must surely like blow jobs.
Bottom line, I dislike religion because it stunts the growth of mankind.
Answer this question, if the church finds genitalia rubbing to be godly LOVE, then what is defecating considered?
penis - vagina -- humans live on "procreate"
"Man love"
penis - anus -- "discreate"
Please let us continue to blame everything on the churches. Might not the status quo, have something to do with nature.
And by the way I have never heard blow jobs being promoted in church. I have been in plenty of protestant churches and never heard it once.
And I know the foundation of the Catholic position on sex is that you are supposed to be open to the possibility of procreation. I would suspect the church is not that big a supporter of blow jobs.
My reply is, So what?
I blame the churches because they righteously teach that people shouldn't think for themselves. Adults mimic better than children.
Blow jobs may not be officially promoted but....
Procreate, like animals. After all, stupid minded adults created stupid minded children all of which the world can do without. Sorry to throw you off with the blow jobs. Forget the blow jobs and reply to the rest. I just figured those small minded child molesters that pretend to feint from the holy ghost must surely like blow jobs.
Bottom line, I dislike religion because it stunts the growth of mankind.
Answer this question, if the church finds genitalia rubbing to be godly LOVE, then what is defecating considered?