[quote]Sloth wrote:
Can a network of non-sexually involved friends, seeking their pleasures outside of the group, get one of these civil unions? Or, is their bedroom behavior–or, with each other, the lack of it–suddenly our business?[/quote]
I don’t know?
Can a government regulate and issue licenses on couples who say they will love and cherish each other until death do they part? wow… hhmmm seems they can.
dammit.
I am all for less government oversight.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
A “religious predisposition”???
I really hope this gets expanded on.
I’m ALL ears.
Mufasa[/quote]
he wont.
he knows it was a retarded argument
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
A “religious predisposition”???
I really hope this gets expanded on.
I’m ALL ears.
Mufasa[/quote]
he wont.
he knows it was a retarded arguemnt[/quote]
Not according to Sloth.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
What is your criteria for a marriage? If you are saying procreation then anyone who can’t have children should be banned.
[/quote]
False, and easily cast aside. The model of male and female coming together is still present. The more widespread the model, the more reinforced it is as a norm. Nature handles the rest.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Why do you think to throw in this drinking buddy thing? Why do you insult homosexuals as if their love is on the same level of drinking buddies?
[/quote]
Love? Now you’re discerning between types of relationships? Now it’s suddenly your business?[/quote]
out of my whole post you choose to nit pick on a work, shows you really have no actual reasoning for this issue.
Just say it is your personal opinion because there isn’t anyway you can back up a “no on gay marriage” with facts.
[/quote]
Perhaps stop using words, and I’ll stop responding to those words? I don’t know.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
What is your criteria for a marriage? If you are saying procreation then anyone who can’t have children should be banned.
[/quote]
False, and easily cast aside. The model of male and female coming together is still present. The more widespread the model, the more reinforced it is as a norm. Nature handles the rest. [/quote]
humans don’t need the government reinforcing norms. very obama like.
nature handled procreation quite well before the concept of marriage (both for value transfer and love).
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
What is your criteria for a marriage? If you are saying procreation then anyone who can’t have children should be banned.
[/quote]
False, and easily cast aside. The model of male and female coming together is still present. The more widespread the model, the more reinforced it is as a norm. Nature handles the rest. [/quote]
Not true. History does show a long list of historic homosexual relationships. Even in the battle at Thermopylae.
What is great about the current times are we can correct traditions that subjugated groups in our society.
It used to be the norm to not bury women who died in childbirth in sanctified land because they were unclean. Thank goodness that changed.
It used to be Jews sacrificed their first born. Thank goodness that changed.
It used to be some cultures married brothers to sisters. Thank goodness that changed.
BUT, if the government is going to hold itself up to acknowledging relationships between consenting adults, it cannot discriminate.
Either equal for all, or none for all.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Why do you think to throw in this drinking buddy thing? Why do you insult homosexuals as if their love is on the same level of drinking buddies?
[/quote]
Love? Now you’re discerning between types of relationships? Now it’s suddenly your business?[/quote]
out of my whole post you choose to nit pick on a work, shows you really have no actual reasoning for this issue.
Just say it is your personal opinion because there isn’t anyway you can back up a "no on gay
marriage" with facts.
[/quote]
Perhaps stop using words, and I’ll stop responding to those words? I don’t know. [/quote]
okay that was stupid so I will assume you are tired.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
A “religious predisposition”???
I really hope this gets expanded on.
I’m ALL ears.
Mufasa[/quote]
he wont.
he knows it was a retarded argument[/quote]
Ask one of our atheist friends about the ‘God Spot.’ Ephrem? Mak?
Lol. What’s so funny about this is that atheists used research to argue that the religious are just predisposed to being religious. On this very forum!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
A “religious predisposition”???
I really hope this gets expanded on.
I’m ALL ears.
Mufasa[/quote]
he wont.
he knows it was a retarded argument[/quote]
Ask one of our atheist friends about the ‘God Spot.’ Ephrem? Mak?
Lol. What’s so funny about this is that atheists used research to argue that the religious are just predisposed to being religious. On this very forum![/quote]
whatever the case, not on point in regards to this topic.
focus people
and I am going to bed.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Why do you think to throw in this drinking buddy thing? Why do you insult homosexuals as if their love is on the same level of drinking buddies?
[/quote]
Love? Now you’re discerning between types of relationships? Now it’s suddenly your business?[/quote]
out of my whole post you choose to nit pick on a work, shows you really have no actual reasoning for this issue.
Just say it is your personal opinion because there isn’t anyway you can back up a "no on gay
marriage" with facts.
[/quote]
Perhaps stop using words, and I’ll stop responding to those words? I don’t know. [/quote]
okay that was stupid so I will assume you are tired.
[/quote]
If all you’re going to do is complain that I respond to the words which you chose to use…What the heck do you expect?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Why do you think to throw in this drinking buddy thing? Why do you insult homosexuals as if their love is on the same level of drinking buddies?
[/quote]
Love? Now you’re discerning between types of relationships? Now it’s suddenly your business?[/quote]
out of my whole post you choose to nit pick on a work, shows you really have no actual reasoning for this issue.
Just say it is your personal opinion because there isn’t anyway you can back up a "no on gay
marriage" with facts.
[/quote]
Perhaps stop using words, and I’ll stop responding to those words? I don’t know. [/quote]
okay that was stupid so I will assume you are tired.
[/quote]
If all you’re going to do is complain that I respond to the words which you chose to use…What the heck do you expect?[/quote]
No, not complaining, just emphasizing you are dodging the actual point.
It’s okay, I know you don’t have an actual rebuttal.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Can a network of non-sexually involved friends, seeking their pleasures outside of the group, get one of these civil unions? Or, is their bedroom behavior–or, with each other, the lack of it–suddenly our business?[/quote]
I don’t know?
Can a government regulate and issue licenses on couples who say they will love and cherish each other until death do they part? wow… hhmmm seems they can.
dammit.
I am all for less government oversight.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Can a network of non-sexually involved friends, seeking their pleasures outside of the group, get one of these civil unions? Or, is their bedroom behavior–or, with each other, the lack of it–suddenly our business?[/quote]
I don’t know?
Can a government regulate and issue licenses on couples who say they will love and cherish each other until death do they part? wow… hhmmm seems they can.
dammit.
I am all for less government oversight.
[/quote]
Is that a yes, or a no?
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
No, not complaining, just emphasizing you are dodging the actual point.
It’s okay, I know you don’t have an actual rebuttal.
[/quote]
A rebuttal to what? You started with one of those “the government should have no business…” type of deals, but you seem to be wavering. What is this civil union you support? Why is it even recognized at all?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Can a network of non-sexually involved friends, seeking their pleasures outside of the group, get one of these civil unions? Or, is their bedroom behavior–or, with each other, the lack of it–suddenly our business?[/quote]
I don’t know?
Can a government regulate and issue licenses on couples who say they will love and cherish each other until death do they part? wow… hhmmm seems they can.
dammit.
I am all for less government oversight.
[/quote]
Is that a yes, or a no?[/quote]
I answered that. If the government can regulate supposed romantic relationships between consenting adults than in my opinion it should extend that to all consenting adults or it should abolish the regulation to all.
there is not “separate but equal”
don’t come back about how men and women blah blah blah, because history has shown that there has been many cultures that have recognized homosexuality and polyamory.
the government should get out of regulating personal relationships. I don’t see any couples having to verify it is actual and true love before marriage or even that they are heterosexual.
I worked on a case where the husband was gay and waited 10yrs 6 months before applying for divorce so it would be a marriage of long standing and he could file for alimony. His supposed best friend the whole time was his lover.
Marriage does not guarantee sanctity and truth.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
A “religious predisposition”???
I really hope this gets expanded on.
I’m ALL ears.
Mufasa[/quote]
he wont.
he knows it was a retarded argument[/quote]
Ask one of our atheist friends about the ‘God Spot.’ Ephrem? Mak?
Lol. What’s so funny about this is that atheists used research to argue that the religious are just predisposed to being religious. On this very forum![/quote]
youre confusing religion with belief. it would be a predisposition to theism.
No one could claim to be part of a religion they don’t know about. Membership in a religion requires the person to at least know the name of the religion. You need to know who jesus is to call yourself christian.
attraction to sex doesn’t follow this line.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
No, not complaining, just emphasizing you are dodging the actual point.
It’s okay, I know you don’t have an actual rebuttal.
[/quote]
A rebuttal to what? You started with one of those “the government should have no business…” type of deals, but you seem to be wavering. What is this civil union you support? Why is it even recognized at all?
[/quote]
No, you just haven’t read my posts cogently.
I said either equal for all consenting adults or no regulation. The government should not be ratifying “to love and cherish until death do us part” for only a certain groups of our society.
And you keep passing over where I have said as such.
If you can’t read my posts in the entirety, please don’t respond to them.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Can a network of non-sexually involved friends, seeking their pleasures outside of the group, get one of these civil unions? Or, is their bedroom behavior–or, with each other, the lack of it–suddenly our business?[/quote]
I don’t know?
Can a government regulate and issue licenses on couples who say they will love and cherish each other until death do they part? wow… hhmmm seems they can.
dammit.
I am all for less government oversight.
[/quote]
Is that a yes, or a no?[/quote]
I answered that. If the government can regulate supposed romantic relationships between consenting adults than in my opinion it should extend that to all consenting adults or it should abolish the regulation to all.
there is not “separate but equal”
don’t come back about how men and women blah blah blah, because history has shown that there has been many cultures that have recognized homosexuality and polyamory.
the government should get out of regulating personal relationships. I don’t see any couples having to verify it is actual and true love before marriage or even that they are heterosexual.
I worked on a case where the husband was gay and waited 10yrs 6 months before applying for divorce so it would be a marriage of long standing and he could file for alimony. His supposed best friend the whole time was his lover.
Marriage does not guarantee sanctity and truth.
[/quote]
Ok, so you’re not for Civil Unions? That is, some kind of recognition of one relationship (a “Civil Union”) from another (such as roommates). So any and all relationships are invisible to the state, because it can’t adopt a definition for fear of discrimination (the greatest evil evah!). Not being able to define, it can’t regulate. So to be clear, these Civil Unions are nothing more, in the eyes of the State, than the relationship between…oh, I don’t know…Drinking buddies?! And so these, Unionists, only rely on the same resources as drinking buddies would to make arrangments between themselves?
That, or any and all number of consenting adults must be recognized (by the state)–in any and all configurations, or associations, in any communal or dispersed living arrangement, sexual or nonsexual, we imaginative humans can come up with–as being married.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
You need to know who jesus is to call yourself christian.
attraction to sex doesn’t follow this line.[/quote]
Who says there isn’t a pre-existing attraction to Jesus, for the Christianity-orientated? One that isn’t fullfilled until the predisposed person hears of this Jesus. And upon hearing, all the right pleasure and satisfaction switches are tripped in the old gray matter.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
You need to know who jesus is to call yourself christian.
attraction to sex doesn’t follow this line.[/quote]
Who says there isn’t a pre-existing attraction to Jesus, for the Christianity-orientated? One that isn’t fullfilled until the predisposed person hears of this Jesus. And upon hearing, all the right pleasure and satisfaction switches are tripped in the old gray matter.[/quote]
…sane people would call that a genetic defect and look to stemcell research for a cure!