|
Joined: Mar 4, 2008
|
Blake wrote: You have no logical case for your cause. Your ridiculous political charade has been exposed as the fraud that it is. No homosexual relationshit shares the reasons for govenment involvement in marriage.
Call logic and justice "hate" all you want. That is no excuse for the unjustifiable tyranny you advocate. The ridiculous political charade of homosexual "marriage" remains exposed as the fraud that it is.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that permits the oxymoron.
Homosexuals are NOT the same as other people. They seldom form longterm exclusive
relationships, often completely obsess on perversion, and have much elevated rates of many diseases and social ills. THIS is the reality.
No homosexual "marriage" is recognized by the US Government. We have a democratically established national definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.
No law could ever make even one homosexual relationship into a real marriage. It is of course ludicrous to claim that "equal rights" are involved in trying to disenfranchise others on the legal definition of marriage.
Homosexual "marriage" is a complete FRAUD.
Two unequals will NEVER be equal.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage, and the two are VERY different.
No homosexual relationships is the "equal" of a real marriage.
Marriage is indeed very different from any homosexual relationship:
Here are some MAJOR differences between real marriage and any sort of homosexual relationship, especially regarding any governmental involvement:
Like it or not, marriage and family are the basic building block of American Society.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that allows the contrived oxymoron and only about 1.6% of the US population claims to be "GLBT" anyway, so homosexual "marriage" fails on this one!
Children are the usual and natural result of real marriage. No child will EVER be born as a direct result of a homosexual relationship, so homomarriage fails on this one, too!
Having both a mother and father in the home is one of the best statistical predictors of a child's future success in life. No homosexual relationship can provide this.
Marriage is recognized as moral and necessary by nearly all Americans. Americans overwhelmingly reject homosexual "marriage" and most find homosexual acts to be immoral and damaging. Hi Wil aka Blake! Constantly changing your name on Topix shows the world that you have lost the debate. Simply copying and pasting the same old refuted lies makes you look ignorant.
|
|
Joined: Nov 15, 2007
|
Judged:
1
You are so full of SHIT, I bet your eyes are brown... Blake wrote: You have no logical case for your cause. Your ridiculous political charade has been exposed as the fraud that it is. No homosexual relationshit shares the reasons for govenment involvement in marriage.
Call logic and justice "hate" all you want. That is no excuse for the unjustifiable tyranny you advocate. The ridiculous political charade of homosexual "marriage" remains exposed as the fraud that it is.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that permits the oxymoron.
Homosexuals are NOT the same as other people. They seldom form longterm exclusive
relationships, often completely obsess on perversion, and have much elevated rates of many diseases and social ills. THIS is the reality.
No homosexual "marriage" is recognized by the US Government. We have a democratically established national definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.
No law could ever make even one homosexual relationship into a real marriage. It is of course ludicrous to claim that "equal rights" are involved in trying to disenfranchise others on the legal definition of marriage.
Homosexual "marriage" is a complete FRAUD.
Two unequals will NEVER be equal.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage, and the two are VERY different.
No homosexual relationships is the "equal" of a real marriage.
Marriage is indeed very different from any homosexual relationship:
Here are some MAJOR differences between real marriage and any sort of homosexual relationship, especially regarding any governmental involvement:
Like it or not, marriage and family are the basic building block of American Society.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that allows the contrived oxymoron and only about 1.6% of the US population claims to be "GLBT" anyway, so homosexual "marriage" fails on this one!
Children are the usual and natural result of real marriage. No child will EVER be born as a direct result of a homosexual relationship, so homomarriage fails on this one, too!
Having both a mother and father in the home is one of the best statistical predictors of a child's future success in life. No homosexual relationship can provide this.
Marriage is recognized as moral and necessary by nearly all Americans. Americans overwhelmingly reject homosexual "marriage" and most find homosexual acts to be immoral and damaging.
|
|
Joined: Nov 15, 2007
|
Judged:
1
There are two kinds of marriage, civil and religious. Homosexual can already get married in the eyes of God, so why not in the eyes of the government that we support with not only our money, but also our lives. To those against same sex marriage, I promise not to get married in your church if you promise to let me get married in mine. What is so hard to understand about equal civil rights… And here’s a bet no one seems to want to take. I’ve offered it to Bill O’reily and to Wil, but they don’t have any donuts to bet against my dollars. Since same sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts, who do you think has the highest divorce rate? I will bet anyone, dollars to donuts, that the heterosexual divorce rate is higher. Any takers? I thought not. Well it’s straights by over two to one. Since homosexual marriage has been legal in Massachusetts, only 8% of same-sex marriages have ended in divorce, but almost 18% of opposite sex marriages have.
|
|
kooky
|
Judged:
2
Way to go Chief Bratton. For all the naysayers who claim our "charade has been exposed as the fraud it is", they sure seem to keep getting hit with this gay-acceptance thing from people in influential places. The chief and his wife have shown real class.
|
|
michael
|
ok all unchristian people First of all you need to understasnd the basics. Marriage is a government contract whether performed by a clergy person or government offical. Any of you married by a clergy person try and get a divorce from the church or synagoue you were married in. YOU Can't you have to go back to the state to get divorced. Why because the state married you the clergy were agents of the state. By the power vested in me by the state of ...... Love you neighbor as yourself, You shall not judge others. If it was a legal contract by a religious demoninations they would be able to divorce and You know what they CAN'T. We are one of a few countries in the world that legally allow clergy to soleminze marriages. IN most countries you must get married by a government offical for it to be legal. You can then have your religious ceremony afterwards. As to the comments about we don't have longterm relationships. I am together with my husband for 30 years, we have many fried together longterm one couple 63 years. got marriageequality.org and look at all the longterm couples married There As to the comment that homosexuals do not take advantage of marriage. we are small part of the population that logic is rididulous. It's about havign the choice. There are many heterosexual couples that do not get married as well.
|
|
“We are made Holy to each other”
Joined: May 7, 2007
Los Angeles
|
michael wrote: ok all unchristian people First of all you need to understasnd the basics. Marriage is a government contract whether performed by a clergy person or government offical. Any of you married by a clergy person try and get a divorce from the church or synagoue you were married in. YOU Can't you have to go back to the state to get divorced. Why because the state married you the clergy were agents of the state. By the power vested in me by the state of ...... Love you neighbor as yourself, You shall not judge others. If it was a legal contract by a religious demoninations they would be able to divorce and You know what they CAN'T. We are one of a few countries in the world that legally allow clergy to soleminze marriages. IN most countries you must get married by a government offical for it to be legal. You can then have your religious ceremony afterwards. As to the comments about we don't have longterm relationships. I am together with my husband for 30 years, we have many fried together longterm one couple 63 years. got marriageequality.org and look at all the longterm couples married There As to the comment that homosexuals do not take advantage of marriage. we are small part of the population that logic is rididulous. It's about havign the choice. There are many heterosexual couples that do not get married as well. Our civil marriage would have to be dissolved in California by the civil authorities. Our religious marriage would have to be dissolved by a Jewish court of three learned Jews. One of the reasons we went through all the formalities was to make it more difficult to end the relationship, although we have already been together for 26 years. May G-d grant that we will never need either proceedure.
|
|
michael
|
Judged:
1
yes but you would still be married in the eyes of the state if you only got your divorce from your jewish denomination. your religious divorce would not dissolve your marriage by the state. the jewish faith is one of few that has a procedure to disolve a marriage from a religious standpoint. The Golem wrote: <quoted text>
Our civil marriage would have to be dissolved in California by the civil authorities. Our religious marriage would have to be dissolved by a Jewish court of three learned Jews.
One of the reasons we went through all the formalities was to make it more difficult to end the relationship, although we have already been together for 26 years.
May G-d grant that we will never need either proceedure.
|
|
Skiri
|
How humorous. It seems that avowedly heterosexual guys read Topix regularly and then spew anti-gay venom. We all know, of course, that all too frequently those who are the most virulently anti-gay ultimately turn out to be gay themselves but just can't handle their feelings honestly---or they act them out on the sly when they think they won't be exposed. C'mon guys, get your lives together and live honestly with the rest of humanity.
|
|
|
|
“We are made Holy to each other”
Joined: May 7, 2007
Los Angeles
|
Judged:
1
michael wrote: yes but you would still be married in the eyes of the state if you only got your divorce from your jewish denomination. your religious divorce would not dissolve your marriage by the state. the jewish faith is one of few that has a procedure to disolve a marriage from a religious standpoint.
<quoted text> Right.That's what I said. We would actually require two divorces, if we wanted to be in compliance with both civil and our religious law. G-d grant that we never have to go throug either proceedure!
|
|
“Equality and nothing less”
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Oklahoma City
|
Judged:
2
Patrick in Texas wrote: <quoted text>
Hi Wil aka Blake! Constantly changing your name on Topix shows the world that you have lost the debate. Simply copying and pasting the same old refuted lies makes you look ignorant. C'mon, Patrick. Be fair. It doesn't make him LOOK ignorant. It proves he IS ignorant. It's all about semantics you know!!
|
|
Joined: Mar 4, 2008
|
Craig in OKC wrote: <quoted text>C'mon, Patrick. Be fair. It doesn't make him LOOK ignorant. It proves he IS ignorant. It's all about semantics you know!! Good point Craig! I will definitely use that next time. P
|
|
“I Am What I Am”
Joined: Sep 16, 2007
Palm Springs
|
Judged:
1
Craig in OKC wrote: <quoted text>C'mon, Patrick. Be fair. It doesn't make him LOOK ignorant. It proves he IS ignorant. It's all about semantics you know!! And a closet case as well. I've only seen him post his tired old statement when it concerns gay marriage. He's probably a fat ugly old queen who is jealous of the fact that no one would want to marry him. Probably the only way he gets off anyhow. But back to the topic at hand, I, for one, applaud Chief Bratton for donating to Equality California to defeat this discriminatory ballot measure. Since I live in California, I've donated to them as have most of my friends and family. From another Craig in Palm Springs, CA
|
|
“Sniffin out mudslinging trolls”
Joined: May 22, 2007
West Texas, USA
|
Judged:
1
Notice how this was a wedding gift for their FRIENDS. Police Chief Bratton and his wife has personally witnessed the positive result of two gay men who are in a loving relationship. Interesting what happens when you see first hand the benefits of allow us to marry. All those lies, made up statistics and slander by the religious right are seen for what they really are... prejudice and bigotry.
|
|
Jesus is the Way
|
Just a matter of time before California falls into the ocean.
|
|
“Reality is better than truth”
Joined: Jun 28, 2007
Indianapolis
|
And yet you are the one who sounds desperate. Why is that? How precisely is gay marriage "being exposed as a fraud"? You think that because every gay person in the country haven't gotten hitched that there is some kind of flaw? Maybe we just aren't going to rush into marriage, like heteros seem to do. And perhaps we are trying to avoid your 50% divorce rate. Not all straight people marry, and neither will all gay people. That has nothing to do with the right to do so. Some gays form life-long relationships, some form ling but finite relationships, and some don't have much interest in such things--just like heteros. As for "obsessing on perversion"--that's hysterical. Most gays are very vanilla despite what you think you know of us. And I don't know anyone who obsesses on gay sex the way homophobes like you do. The DOMA was passed but has never been enforced. That is because it was always meant to be symbolic; the authors knew that it would never stand up to a constitutional challenge. The federal government will also have to start recognizing these legal marriages one way or the other--by realization of what is really happening or by SCOTUS decision. Most of your rant is almost word-for-word the kind of claptrap they spewed against interracial marriage (right down to the "unequal" part). It's pathetic. Marriage has nothign to do with reproduction--there is no requirement whatsoever for being fertile or even n interest in having kids. Not to mention that many studies show that children raised by gay parents are just as well-adjusted as those raised by straights. BTW--a helluva lot of hetero-raised kids do so in a single-parent household. Every poll taken in the idea of gay marriage shows more approval than the poll before it; it simply isn't that much of a problem for most people. Blake wrote: You have no logical case for your cause. Your ridiculous political charade has been exposed as the fraud that it is. No homosexual relationshit shares the reasons for govenment involvement in marriage.
Call logic and justice "hate" all you want. That is no excuse for the unjustifiable tyranny you advocate. The ridiculous political charade of homosexual "marriage" remains exposed as the fraud that it is.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that permits the oxymoron.
Homosexuals are NOT the same as other people. They seldom form longterm exclusive
relationships, often completely obsess on perversion, and have much elevated rates of many diseases and social ills. THIS is the reality.
No homosexual "marriage" is recognized by the US Government. We have a democratically established national definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.
No law could ever make even one homosexual relationship into a real marriage. It is of course ludicrous to claim that "equal rights" are involved in trying to disenfranchise others on the legal definition of marriage.
Homosexual "marriage" is a complete FRAUD.
Two unequals will NEVER be equal.
...
|
|
“Reality is better than truth”
Joined: Jun 28, 2007
Indianapolis
|
Judged:
1
1
Just a matter of time until the sun goes nova. What's your point? Jesus is the Way wrote: Just a matter of time before California falls into the ocean.
|
|
“Sniffin out mudslinging trolls”
Joined: May 22, 2007
West Texas, USA
|
Judged:
1
Jesus is the Way wrote: Just a matter of time before California falls into the ocean. And a few more well placed tornadoes and flooding rivers throughout the bible belt wouldn't hurt either....
|
|
Disgusted American
|
Blake wrote: You have no logical case for your cause. Your ridiculous political charade has been exposed as the fraud that it is. No homosexual relationshit shares the reasons for govenment involvement in marriage.
Call logic and justice "hate" all you want. That is no excuse for the unjustifiable tyranny you advocate. The ridiculous political charade of homosexual "marriage" remains exposed as the fraud that it is.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that permits the oxymoron.
Homosexuals are NOT the same as other people. They seldom form longterm exclusive
relationships, often completely obsess on perversion, and have much elevated rates of many diseases and social ills. THIS is the reality.
No homosexual "marriage" is recognized by the US Government. We have a democratically established national definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.
No law could ever make even one homosexual relationship into a real marriage. It is of course ludicrous to claim that "equal rights" are involved in trying to disenfranchise others on the legal definition of marriage.
Homosexual "marriage" is a complete FRAUD.
Two unequals will NEVER be equal.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage, and the two are VERY different.
No homosexual relationships is the "equal" of a real marriage.
Marriage is indeed very different from any homosexual relationship:
Here are some MAJOR differences between real marriage and any sort of homosexual relationship, especially regarding any governmental involvement:
Like it or not, marriage and family are the basic building block of American Society.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that allows the contrived oxymoron and only about 1.6% of the US population claims to be "GLBT" anyway, so homosexual "marriage" fails on this one!
Children are the usual and natural result of real marriage. No child will EVER be born as a direct result of a homosexual relationship, so homomarriage fails on this one, too!
Having both a mother and father in the home is one of the best statistical predictors of a child's future success in life. No homosexual relationship can provide this.
Marriage is recognized as moral and necessary by nearly all Americans. Americans overwhelmingly reject homosexual "marriage" and most find homosexual acts to be immoral and damaging. Yawn...yawn...blah blah blah ....shake ,mix,stir...repackage tired ol' BS! Now ...GO EFF YOURSELF!
|
|
Disgusted American
|
Judged:
1
1
Jesus is the Way wrote: Just a matter of time before California falls into the ocean. ...said the White trash from Georgia Yaw!
|
|
“I Am What I Am”
Joined: Sep 16, 2007
Palm Springs
|
Jesus is the Way wrote: Just a matter of time before California falls into the ocean. Well we haven't yet and gay and lesbians have been getting married for about 6 weeks now. So to echo Cpetr13, what's your point???
|
Judge it!
Poll:
Sagittarius
Most Popular