toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
griffinsavard
New member
People can do what they want but same sex relationships will ultimately destroy theirself. This group has no way of reproducing and must rely on the opposite sex for procreation. Nature would euthinize same sex relationships by itself if they were left to theirself....:surf:
The idea of this social group must rely on some other group to exist, therefore men will always need woman and woman will always need men. Reminds me of a song by the Doors: riders on the storm, where morrison says
"Girl ya gotta love your man
Girl ya gotta love your man
Take him by the hand
Make him understand
The world on you depends
Our life will never end
Gotta love your man, yeah"
Of course you can do what you want in this country but there are consequences... you will face God one day.
I don't consider (e.g.) Social Security survivor benefits fundamental to marriage. They are a separate statutory provisions, which shouldn't (and in all other cases don't) control access to the institution. And it's true that homosexual couples that marry would be entitled to all of those benefits tied to marriage rather than child-raising, once the courts throw out the DoMA, as is only just.
I was referring to your offer of the last word after what amounted to little more than a series of insults couched as something other. I took you up on it and, unsurprisingly, you reneged, further illustrating a problem you compound here.
Kmo, I'm ready when you are. :e4e:
it is the child that joins them together
but
this can be construed as a religious belief
that
they apparently have no respect for
we have lost the battle
and
it is all over but the shouting
abortion, divorce, and a marriage that has no meaning are now the norm
but
there will always be some who will remind you that it is all about the child that you are supposed to protect
and
not kill
John Mortimer
New member
Yeah? I face God today and every day. Where are you, like?
The LGBT constituency has no desire, so far as I have ever seen, to suggest that men and women don't need each other for procreation. It's not about procreation - it's about sex. Deal with it.
We are sexual beings and we don't need to "justify" sex with procreation or anything else. I love myself as a sexual being and I don't see why the members of the LGBT can't love themselves and each other too.
so we shouldn't be surprised when twelve people let a baby killer walk
That's a fine vision of life. But, be careful. How many couples had a child to save the marriage? How often did the troubles continue and now with a child in the mix?
Also, why does human existence and meaning have to be one size fits all for you? Why is your model the only one to be meaningful. I know several marriages that are childless, and they work well. Both partners content, fulfilled, and well rested.
True, but no need for shouting.
Does a miserable mismatched couple staying together have great meaning?
Gay couples always have children who are wanted. No need to abort, and they have the number of children intended.
If we needed a one size fits all- all marriages should be same sexed. Thankfully, there is nothing wrong with variety.
I don't know about that, but I'm certainly not surprised when you guys bring up irrelevant unrelated issues to try to obscure the real one.
Actually, God joins them together as one flesh. And who has evidenced (let alone your sweepingly defensive 'they') a lack of respect for religious belief in rejecting your particular interpretation? Unless you believe that the only way to demonstrate respect would be to legislate it and subordinate their own religious notions (or want thereof) to yours.
In which case it could readily be said that the lack of respect difficulty is rather on the other foot.
Well, no. Or you need a new dictionary.
You mean there will always be those willing to presume and declare, which is something else and other.
So that's what you see as a reasonable either/or...
lain:
what kind of contract could you draw up to protect the child?
From what and how do you mean it?
you claim marriage is a contract
so
how would you draw up a contract that would protect the child?
No. I note that it is. If you don't believe that you're irrational.
Again, from what and how do you mean it?
from a single parent home
You don't/can't write a contract that will protect children from divorce unless you make divorce unlawful.
Now what does this have to do with same sex marriages?
Or: maybe you should start another thread on that topic.
so a contract between two people is no good unless there are laws that do the same?
What are you suggesting here, Chrys? That women or men not be allowed to divorce regardless of the circumstances?
For example, how is it in the best interest of the child/children (who you *claim* to care so much about) to be in the middle of a relationship where adultery or violence runs rampant?
IF the offending parent refuses to get treatment and correct their harmful behavior, would you tell the victimized children and spouse to just "get over it"?
don't you think it is important for a child to have a mother and a father?
- Status