[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]xfactor3236 wrote:
oh one more thing Tiribulus, your a real piece of shit , yeah im fuckin mean i know [/quote]
Just because he has an opinion that’s different from yours, it makes him a POS?
You’re a great representative for SSM. Thanks.
[/quote]
I lose my cool at Tirib from time to time as well, but I agree with imhungry.
Too far.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]xfactor3236 wrote:
oh one more thing Tiribulus, your a real piece of shit , yeah im fuckin mean i know [/quote]
Just because he has an opinion that’s different from yours, it makes him a POS?
You’re a great representative for SSM. Thanks.
[/quote]
I lose my cool at Tirib from time to time as well, but I agree with imhungry.
Too far.[/quote]
your right cool was lost, sincere apologies trib, i may or may not have a temper, i disagree with you ill leave it at that. I hate people talking shit over forums and that exactly what i was doing, in all honesty i admire strong faith and you have some very educated points.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
…People get jealous, period. What does that have to with binary or polyamorous arrangments that handle it?[/quote]
You mean the ones that are started within the confines of a kooky cult?
[/quote]
Bigot![/quote]
Or you could answer the question. Are those the ones he means? I’ve yet to see a polyamorous arrangement last a life time unless part of a stifling cult where men have all the power. I’ve seen gay couples last a lifetime outside of any religious influence.
So just answer the question.[/quote]
Well now, how does it feel to have a bigoted attitude when it comes to polygamous relationships? Because in your limited experience you’ve not seen those types of relationships last a lifetime they are therefore not acceptable? You’ve lived so long and have such vast experience that your funny little anecdotal example means something? LOL
BIGOT![/quote]
Your traditional age jab notwithstanding, are you capable of providing an answer? Does he mean an arrangement started within the confines of a cult like religion or not?[/quote]
I have no idea, but who are you to judge? You’ve never personally seen polygamy work? And you’ve seen what? one maybe two cases up close? It reminds me of two guys at a bar swilling beer and one says to the other “these f— want to get married and they never stay with each other anyway, how dare they want this right.” With one exception of course there is solid evidence that most homosexuals have a difficult time being monogamous.
Anyway enjoy your bigotry. If you’e done nothing else you’ve shown us that the politically correct (that’s you!) only care about what’s on their agenda, what’s currently hot. All other couples or groups of people are not worthy. And in fact you stand in judgment of them with little or no facts to back up your assertions.
And that makes you…a BIGOT!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
…People get jealous, period. What does that have to with binary or polyamorous arrangments that handle it?[/quote]
You mean the ones that are started within the confines of a kooky cult?
[/quote]
Bigot![/quote]
Or you could answer the question. Are those the ones he means? I’ve yet to see a polyamorous arrangement last a life time unless part of a stifling cult where men have all the power. I’ve seen gay couples last a lifetime outside of any religious influence.
So just answer the question.[/quote]
Well now, how does it feel to have a bigoted attitude when it comes to polygamous relationships? Because in your limited experience you’ve not seen those types of relationships last a lifetime they are therefore not acceptable? You’ve lived so long and have such vast experience that your funny little anecdotal example means something? LOL
BIGOT![/quote]
Your traditional age jab notwithstanding, are you capable of providing an answer? Does he mean an arrangement started within the confines of a cult like religion or not?[/quote]
I have no idea, but who are you to judge? You’ve never personally seen polygamy work? And you’ve seen what? one maybe two cases up close? It reminds me of two guys at a bar swilling beer and one says to the other “these f— want to get married and they never stay with each other anyway, how dare they want this right.” With one exception of course there is solid evidence that most homosexuals have a difficult time being monogamous.
Anyway enjoy your bigotry. If you’e done nothing else you’ve shown us that the politically correct (that’s you!) only care about what’s on their agenda, what’s currently hot. All other couples or groups of people are not worthy. And in fact you stand in judgment of them with little or no facts to back up your assertions.
And that makes you…a BIGOT![/quote]
You still haven’t addressed the question, meaning you don’t know my full views, meaning you’re sidestepping.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
…People get jealous, period. What does that have to with binary or polyamorous arrangments that handle it?[/quote]
You mean the ones that are started within the confines of a kooky cult?
[/quote]
Bigot![/quote]
Or you could answer the question. Are those the ones he means? I’ve yet to see a polyamorous arrangement last a life time unless part of a stifling cult where men have all the power. I’ve seen gay couples last a lifetime outside of any religious influence.
So just answer the question.[/quote]
Well now, how does it feel to have a bigoted attitude when it comes to polygamous relationships? Because in your limited experience you’ve not seen those types of relationships last a lifetime they are therefore not acceptable? You’ve lived so long and have such vast experience that your funny little anecdotal example means something? LOL
BIGOT![/quote]
Your traditional age jab notwithstanding, are you capable of providing an answer? Does he mean an arrangement started within the confines of a cult like religion or not?[/quote]
I have no idea, but who are you to judge? You’ve never personally seen polygamy work? And you’ve seen what? one maybe two cases up close? It reminds me of two guys at a bar swilling beer and one says to the other “these f— want to get married and they never stay with each other anyway, how dare they want this right.” With one exception of course there is solid evidence that most homosexuals have a difficult time being monogamous.
Anyway enjoy your bigotry. If you’e done nothing else you’ve shown us that the politically correct (that’s you!) only care about what’s on their agenda, what’s currently hot. All other couples or groups of people are not worthy. And in fact you stand in judgment of them with little or no facts to back up your assertions.
And that makes you…a BIGOT![/quote]
You still haven’t addressed the question, meaning you don’t know my full views, meaning you’re sidestepping.[/quote]
Sorry, not so fast. You’ve no reason to deny consenting polyamorous marriages if equality is the end all be all.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
…People get jealous, period. What does that have to with binary or polyamorous arrangments that handle it?[/quote]
You mean the ones that are started within the confines of a kooky cult?
[/quote]
Bigot![/quote]
Or you could answer the question. Are those the ones he means? I’ve yet to see a polyamorous arrangement last a life time unless part of a stifling cult where men have all the power. I’ve seen gay couples last a lifetime outside of any religious influence.
So just answer the question.[/quote]
Well now, how does it feel to have a bigoted attitude when it comes to polygamous relationships? Because in your limited experience you’ve not seen those types of relationships last a lifetime they are therefore not acceptable? You’ve lived so long and have such vast experience that your funny little anecdotal example means something? LOL
BIGOT![/quote]
Your traditional age jab notwithstanding, are you capable of providing an answer? Does he mean an arrangement started within the confines of a cult like religion or not?[/quote]
I have no idea, but who are you to judge? You’ve never personally seen polygamy work? And you’ve seen what? one maybe two cases up close? It reminds me of two guys at a bar swilling beer and one says to the other “these f— want to get married and they never stay with each other anyway, how dare they want this right.” With one exception of course there is solid evidence that most homosexuals have a difficult time being monogamous.
Anyway enjoy your bigotry. If you’e done nothing else you’ve shown us that the politically correct (that’s you!) only care about what’s on their agenda, what’s currently hot. All other couples or groups of people are not worthy. And in fact you stand in judgment of them with little or no facts to back up your assertions.
And that makes you…a BIGOT![/quote]
You still haven’t addressed the question, meaning you don’t know my full views, meaning you’re sidestepping.[/quote]
Try to understand this Mak, I don’t have to answer your question. The question is irrelevant. You are a bigot for trying to deny those interested in polygamous marriage that right. As for your full views that to is irrelevant. If someone stated that they were in favor of gay marriage only under certain conditions because “dem dar homosexuals have to be watched” you’d call that person a bigot. Now you must live up to your own standard.
And that makes you a BIGOT!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sorry, not so fast. You’ve no reason to deny consenting polyamorous marriages if equality is the end all be all. [/quote]
Ah, you’re getting dangerously close to the point.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Try to understand this Mak, I don’t have to answer your question. The question is irrelevant. You are a bigot for trying to deny those interested in polygamous marriage that right. As for your full views that to is irrelevant. If someone stated that they were in favor of gay marriage only under certain conditions because “dem dar homosexuals have to be watched” you’d call that person a bigot. Now you must live up to your own standard.
And that makes you a BIGOT![/quote]
The question is relevant because you still don’t know my views, ergo your assumptions about my supposed bigotry are unfounded.
Have I stated that I am for (or against) denying polyamorous marriages?
Stop stalling.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Stop stalling.[/quote]
Annoying, isn’t it?
[quote]imhungry wrote:
Anyway, you do know that the Bible is very much supportive of married couples having sex, just for pleasure, right? I ask, due to the “moral decay” portion of your post. Am I misunderstanding you?[/quote]
I am sure you know the Bible more than me, and I am not really aware of this verse. If you would show me (just the address of the verse is fine) what you are talking about, that would be very awesome.
I may have misunderstood someone, so I want to make a distinction.
There is having sex for pleasure and there is having sex and frustrating the procreative act withing the marital embrace.
If sex is not pleasurable…you’re doing it wrong. What I am saying is wrong is frustrating the procreative aspect. What I am not saying is that people should have sex for the sole purpose of creating babies, but that they should be open.
It’s like, being open to birthday gifts. You’re not trying to get birthday gifts necessarily (telling people they can only come to your party if they bring a gift), but you’re not locking your door and keeping people from coming to your birthday party either.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Stop stalling.[/quote]
Annoying, isn’t it?[/quote]
Not really, as I’ve come to expect as much.
[quote]xfactor3236 wrote:
not to believe everything you here, think for your fucking self?[/quote]
Yes, seek wisdom. Which the Holy Mother Church holds exclusively whole to her chest so that all can find it if they ask. Listen to her and hear God’s Wisdom.
[quote]but if there are gays on this planet, then god put them here
[/quote]
Just change gays for any number of criminals and you’ll have basically the same truth statement. What is your point?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
Anyway, you do know that the Bible is very much supportive of married couples having sex, just for pleasure, right? I ask, due to the “moral decay” portion of your post. Am I misunderstanding you?[/quote]
I am sure you know the Bible more than me, and I am not really aware of this verse. If you would show me (just the address of the verse is fine) what you are talking about, that would be very awesome.
I may have misunderstood someone, so I want to make a distinction.
There is having sex for pleasure and there is having sex and frustrating the procreative act withing the marital embrace.
If sex is not pleasurable…you’re doing it wrong. What I am saying is wrong is frustrating the procreative aspect. What I am not saying is that people should have sex for the sole purpose of creating babies, but that they should be open.
It’s like, being open to birthday gifts. You’re not trying to get birthday gifts necessarily (telling people they can only come to your party if they bring a gift), but you’re not locking your door and keeping people from coming to your birthday party either.[/quote]
I BARELY know anything about the bible, BC. But, there are certain parts that i’m a little familier with and this is one of them.
Genesis:2:24 and Proverbs:5:15-19
Now I understand what you’re saying. Thank you for the clarification.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Wading through this all is the basic idea that some sort of State recognition is needed. From a Jewish persepective, this is nonsense.*
A core element of a Jewish marriage ceremony is the Ketubah — it’s literally a pre-nuputual agreement, and while certain elements are mandatory under Jewish law, other things (like property division, children, all the crap people are worried about on this thread) can be spelled out, too.
You sign the ketubah; that’s your deal. If your religion (or lack thereof) recognizes it, so much the better.
If religions (or other religions) don’t recognize it, why do you care? It’s not your religion.
I suppose any two consenting adults can sign such an agreement, and call it whatever the hell they want to call it and have whatever the hell they want to go with it — powers of attorney, health care visitation, wills, whatever.
What “marriage” is to the State is a pre-made, state-approved, ketubah contract. It’s a one-size, fits all, contract, and fits all people as well as a a random off-the-rack suit that is not altered.
The solution, as always, is never MORE government interfereance. It’s less.
People get into whatever private contractual relationship they want to get into, and the State does get invovled in the process, at all.
The solution here is find where the State treats married people differently (e.g., marriage penalty under tax code) and remove those distinctions.
Well there is a problem here. We are a country based, now loosely, on Natural moral law. I would like to reform to an American Monarch with heavy subsidiarity principles and much of American problems would be gone, but the one thing that won’t leave is our reliance on Natural moral law. And, from studying Aristotle, Stoics, Aquinas, and contemporary American and English philosophers and adherents to natural moral law…homosexuality would go against natural moral law. It goes against the foundation of this countries constitution.
I have yet to read a reasonable theory on how homosexuality will help America flourish in a way that discrimination against other parties would make sense such as heterosexual unions do.
I am all for less government. Yes, I do want an American monarch AND less government.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Grneyes wrote:<<< Um, you might have been the norm when the Puritans were the only people here, besides the Indians of course. At the time of this country’s fight for independence, things had loosened up, not by much, but they had. In fact, people had become much more religiously tolerant than the Puritans had been. We had weathered the superstition of the witchcraft trials. Many things had improved from the Puritan times to the late 1770s. [/quote]Every single thing I believe to the minutest theological detail was absolutely common and mainstream during the 18th century here. 27 of the signers of the D.O.I. had seminary degrees. Without the Christian God this nation could not have been founded. He was the bedrock of limited and self government. Your atheistic moral permissiveness is what is killing families and thereby this nation.
There does not exist language possible to convince me otherwise. It is a truth just as plainly self evident as the rights endowed to us by our creator that you so progressively don’t believe in(even though He says otherwise). Like it or not the God you despise made this nation great. The God who abominates all sexual impurity including homosexuality. I’ll say again. He is doing what he always does. Giving us what we want and we are suffering the consequences.
The truly twisted thing is you see this all this death, debauchery and mayhem today as “progress” from the days of our founding because whew, now gays will be able to pollute the marriage covenant. How far we’ve “progressed” huh?[/quote]
I don’t despise your God, I just don’t believe in him.
Actually, I see the death and debauchery and mayhem as moral decay, the reasoning of today’s society that nothing is their fault, it’s all their parents’ faults or whatever. No one stands up and says “Yes, I did this.” Instead, it’s “I had a shitty childhood, so how could I have acted any other way? It’s not my fault.” Parents wanting to be friends instead of parents. That’s bullshit. You have plenty of time to be friends after your kids become adults. I do believe in the basic human morals which help govern society and are the basis for our laws and the world’s major religions. As much as it may seem otherwise because of this topic.
I just happen to not agree that homosexuality or allowing gays to marry is part of that moral decay.
Our Constitution was never meant to be concrete. I believe Jefferson himself said that the document should be thrown out and rewritten every generation or so. Yes, so many of the D.O.I. signers had seminary degrees because that was the kind of society they lived in. You learned Aristotle and Homer in the original Latin and Greek. You worked from sun up to sun down. Kids helped out on farms from the time they learned to walk. If you had money, you went to college. If you didn’t, you stopped attending school at age 16 or so and worked the family farm before marrying and starting your own farm. It was a different world then, with different morals and different societal norms. There is always a price for progress. Why can’t you see how this country has positively progressed from the days of our founding? Why do you only see the negative?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Wading through this all is the basic idea that some sort of State recognition is needed. From a Jewish persepective, this is nonsense.*
A core element of a Jewish marriage ceremony is the Ketubah — it’s literally a pre-nuputual agreement, and while certain elements are mandatory under Jewish law, other things (like property division, children, all the crap people are worried about on this thread) can be spelled out, too.
You sign the ketubah; that’s your deal. If your religion (or lack thereof) recognizes it, so much the better.
If religions (or other religions) don’t recognize it, why do you care? It’s not your religion.
I suppose any two consenting adults can sign such an agreement, and call it whatever the hell they want to call it and have whatever the hell they want to go with it — powers of attorney, health care visitation, wills, whatever.
What “marriage” is to the State is a pre-made, state-approved, ketubah contract. It’s a one-size, fits all, contract, and fits all people as well as a a random off-the-rack suit that is not altered.
The solution, as always, is never MORE government interfereance. It’s less.
People get into whatever private contractual relationship they want to get into, and the State does get invovled in the process, at all.
The solution here is find where the State treats married people differently (e.g., marriage penalty under tax code) and remove those distinctions.
Well there is a problem here. We are a country based, now loosely, on Natural moral law. I would like to reform to an American Monarch with heavy subsidiarity principles and much of American problems would be gone, but the one thing that won’t leave is our reliance on Natural moral law. And, from studying Aristotle, Stoics, Aquinas, and contemporary American and English philosophers and adherents to natural moral law…homosexuality would go against natural moral law. It goes against the foundation of this countries constitution.
I have yet to read a reasonable theory on how homosexuality will help America flourish in a way that discrimination against other parties would make sense such as heterosexual unions do.
I am all for less government. Yes, I do want an American monarch AND less government.[/quote]
It’s not about helping America flourish. It’s about giving a minority group the same rights as the majority. Since we were founded on that premise, why wouldn’t we want to do this?
maybe because this minority group already has the same right as the majority…
[quote]kamui wrote:
maybe because this minority group already has the same right as the majority…[/quote]
No, it doesn’t. Please refer back to the first few pages of this thread for all the benefits this minority does not share with heterosexual married couples.
a benefit is not a right.
“we the people” have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Gays have this right too, exactly like you and me.
It’s just that they doesn’t want it. They want to modify the rules to their own benefit instead.