(08-14-2013 01:46 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:08 PM)psualltheway5 Wrote:  If two people love each other, why should they have less rights than your average male and female marriage?

Because this country was founded on Christian values. This is nothing more than gay couples being mad that they can't marry. They knew when they decided to be with each other that they couldn't get married in certain states. Quit the bitching and move to a state where it's allowed. F*ck dude.. Cigarette prices are $20 per pack in NY, but $3.48 per pack down here in Louisiana... What does someone in NY do if they want a $3.48 pack of smokes? Cry or deal with it? Why is it so different for them up there? Poor babies...

LSU seems to be okay with some adults getting particular legal privileges and protections that other adults can't.

That's immoral and un-American.

(08-14-2013 01:34 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:31 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  It has to do with being open to procreation. It isn't that difficult to grasp.

We're not currently open to procreation. I have no plans to be in the future.

I'm living in sin?

That's what you're telling me?

Yall aren't a gay couple, what is your point?

(08-14-2013 01:53 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:49 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Marriage gives women having babies more legal stability and security.
How is that needed between two gays?

Inheritance laws. Life insurance laws.

Life insurance is private. Inheritance can be willed to whomever you want with a document from Legal Zoom that is cheaper than a marriage license.

If a gay couple is together (but not married) for 40+ years and are happy together but one of them were to die, why shouldn't their partner get to control their assets?

(08-14-2013 01:35 PM)psualltheway5 Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:33 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  It's amazing how gay topics are so popular with the same select few posters. I see several topics on this forum that have a bigger impact on the country, yet go untouched.

I guess this is the point I am trying to make. We have much larger issues in our country than debating gay marriage. The sooner we resolve this and legalize this, the more our country can focus on actual issues.

So put it on the back burner like other more important issues and come back to it... Why is it so important to hurry and resolve, resolution being only that it's legalized?

(08-14-2013 01:55 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:34 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:31 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  It has to do with being open to procreation. It isn't that difficult to grasp.

We're not currently open to procreation. I have no plans to be in the future.

I'm living in sin?

That's what you're telling me?

Yall aren't a gay couple, what is your point?

But if his wife gets pregnant, they plan to abort it. That would be worse than being a gay couple.

(08-14-2013 01:47 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:43 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:34 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:31 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  It has to do with being open to procreation. It isn't that difficult to grasp.

We're not currently open to procreation. I have no plans to be in the future.

I'm living in sin?

That's what you're telling me?

So if your wife got pregnant, you would abort it, is that what you are telling me because that is what it means to be not open to procreation? Not planning and not open are not the same concept. If that is the case than you are living in sin. Whether you be elderly, infertile, on birth control, or using natural family planning, your sex act has to come with openness to procreation, even if chances are 0.0001% of that happening. You don't have to answer the question, but that would be my position.

Okay, so according to you, I'm living in sin, because there are no additional children in my future.

Now that that's settled, is my marriage any less valuable than someone who's churning them out like Model A Fords?

Because I made a promise to a woman in front of God and a church full of people, and I think it kinda is.

You know what's immoral to me? That certain adults get certain legal protections and privileges that other adults don't. Hell, that's un-American.

What about 2 60 year olds having sex? They are living in sin too because they can't have kids either. Maybe these guys think that married couples should stop having sex when the woman can no longer have children?

(08-14-2013 01:56 PM)psualltheway5 Wrote:  If a gay couple is together (but not married) for 40+ years and are happy together but one of them were to die, why shouldn't their partner get to control their assets?

That's what a Will is for.

(08-14-2013 01:56 PM)psualltheway5 Wrote:  If a gay couple is together (but not married) for 40+ years and are happy together but one of them were to die, why shouldn't their partner get to control their assets?

Because the partner that died was too lazy to draft a will?

(08-14-2013 01:56 PM)psualltheway5 Wrote:  If a gay couple is together (but not married) for 40+ years and are happy together but one of them were to die, why shouldn't their partner get to control their assets?

Here is the crux of my problem with gay "marriage". It's never been about marriage, it's always been about the benefits. You don't need one to get the other. Civil Unions accomplish the same thing without redefining what's largely been a religious institution.

Why do more breeders care about gay "marriage" than gays?

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

(08-14-2013 01:58 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:47 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:43 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:34 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:31 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  It has to do with being open to procreation. It isn't that difficult to grasp.

We're not currently open to procreation. I have no plans to be in the future.

I'm living in sin?

That's what you're telling me?

So if your wife got pregnant, you would abort it, is that what you are telling me because that is what it means to be not open to procreation? Not planning and not open are not the same concept. If that is the case than you are living in sin. Whether you be elderly, infertile, on birth control, or using natural family planning, your sex act has to come with openness to procreation, even if chances are 0.0001% of that happening. You don't have to answer the question, but that would be my position.

Okay, so according to you, I'm living in sin, because there are no additional children in my future.

Now that that's settled, is my marriage any less valuable than someone who's churning them out like Model A Fords?

Because I made a promise to a woman in front of God and a church full of people, and I think it kinda is.

You know what's immoral to me? That certain adults get certain legal protections and privileges that other adults don't. Hell, that's un-American.

What about 2 60 year olds having sex? They are living in sin too because they can't have kids either. Maybe these guys think that married couples should stop having sex when the woman can no longer have children?

You missed the part in bold.

(08-14-2013 01:57 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:55 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:34 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:31 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  It has to do with being open to procreation. It isn't that difficult to grasp.

We're not currently open to procreation. I have no plans to be in the future.

I'm living in sin?

That's what you're telling me?

Yall aren't a gay couple, what is your point?

But if his wife gets pregnant, they plan to abort it. That would be worse than being a gay couple.

I never said that. Interesting, though, that you place degrees on sin level.

My Baptist pastor once told me, God doesn't weight sins, but man does. I asked him what he meant by that. He said, to God, sin is sin is sin, but would you rather live next door to a liar or a murderer?

Not that any of this is material to whether or not gays should enjoy the legal sanction of marriage, which I don't believe has been addressed much.

(08-14-2013 01:48 PM)psualltheway5 Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:46 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:08 PM)psualltheway5 Wrote:  If two people love each other, why should they have less rights than your average male and female marriage?

Because this country was founded on Christian values. This is nothing more than gay couples being mad that they can't marry. They knew when they decided to be with each other that they couldn't get married in certain states. Quit the bitching and move to a state where it's allowed. F*ck dude.. Cigarette prices are $20 per pack in NY, but $3.48 per pack down here in Louisiana... What does someone in NY do if they want a $3.48 pack of smokes? Cry or deal with it? Why is it so different for them up there? Poor babies...

I was unaware it was a choice...

So can you not get married in certain states?

Being against gay marriage doesn't mean one is also against civil legal contracts.

(08-14-2013 01:51 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:49 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Marriage gives women having babies more legal stability and security.
How is that needed between two gays?

So, people who don't want or can't have children don't need marriage, either?

Irrelevant.

(08-14-2013 02:01 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:48 PM)psualltheway5 Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:46 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:08 PM)psualltheway5 Wrote:  If two people love each other, why should they have less rights than your average male and female marriage?

Because this country was founded on Christian values. This is nothing more than gay couples being mad that they can't marry. They knew when they decided to be with each other that they couldn't get married in certain states. Quit the bitching and move to a state where it's allowed. F*ck dude.. Cigarette prices are $20 per pack in NY, but $3.48 per pack down here in Louisiana... What does someone in NY do if they want a $3.48 pack of smokes? Cry or deal with it? Why is it so different for them up there? Poor babies...

I was unaware it was a choice...

So can you not get married in certain states?

Sorry I misread that one...

(08-14-2013 02:03 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:51 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:49 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Marriage gives women having babies more legal stability and security.
How is that needed between two gays?

So, people who don't want or can't have children don't need marriage, either?

Irrelevant.

No, it's not. He was differentiating between who needed marriage and who didn't. I was throwing out another example for his review.

(08-14-2013 02:03 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:51 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-14-2013 01:49 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Marriage gives women having babies more legal stability and security.
How is that needed between two gays?

So, people who don't want or can't have children don't need marriage, either?

Irrelevant.

You are correct. Your posts are irrelevant.

Notice how the righties always accuse lefties of "When we don't like something we just don't do it. When you don't like something you want to prevent anybody from doing it."

Seems we've got a pot/kettle moment here.