Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

All of the BS About Gay Marriage earned me a big ol' ZOT!

Posted on 09/08/2012 9:03:55 AM PDT by Why So Serious

Here is a better way to look at this ... the government should not be in the marriage business, and marriage is not a political issue. Gay people, for the most part, express a desire to get married for the benefits that are extended to married couple [rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children]. Government should allow people to engage in civil unions [this includes men and women], only. Marriage should be left to the churches. Then, any one can have a civil union [man/lady, lady/lady, man/man, mom/son, dad/daughter, brother/sister, person/multiple people] which extends to that civil union the governmental rights that married couple now enjoy which include the marriage tax credit, right to pass assets without taxation upon death, the right to make life ending decisions [pulling the plug]. The whole issue dies in a blink. This should not have to be a political thing. Moving the line in the sand never works ... better just to erase it. I believe that my wife and I are married in GOD's eyes and believe that we have a civil union in the eyes of government. It should not be anything different then a partnership, LLC, or LP.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: anothervanity; asv; civilunions; homosexualagenda; libertarian; rumpranger; samesexmarriage; trollingforsuckers; vanity; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 241-253 next last
To: Texan5

Yeah, I’m a student of history also, and no, I don’t “care to research’ for “anecdotal evidence” to try to prove YOUR nonsense.

Your route to getting homosexual marriage and polygamy legalized is by destroying marriage, by removing the definition of it.


161 posted on 09/08/2012 6:00:46 PM PDT by ansel12 ( Aug. 27, 2012-Mitt Romney said his views on abortion are more lenient than the Republican Platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

If you think fag marriage is not important, why did you write a moronic vanity about it? if fag marriage is nothing, but the trillions of $ of debt is, why aren’t you posting about that on financial threads?

Hmm?


162 posted on 09/08/2012 6:02:55 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: duckworth

Homos only want civil unions as a step towards “marriage”. Any legal benefits that could be derived from civil unions other than partner benefits can be created via contracts.

As soon as a state creates the civil union thing for homos, they scream that it’s not enough, they want “real” marriage.


163 posted on 09/08/2012 6:03:08 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Oh, good grief-I can’t even imagine that you would think that someone at FR would be an advocate of homosexuality, polygamy, or any of that, but whatever...


164 posted on 09/08/2012 6:07:34 PM PDT by Texan5 ("You've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Texan5

We haven’t debated anything, and freerepublic is not a debate society.


165 posted on 09/08/2012 6:08:07 PM PDT by ansel12 ( Aug. 27, 2012-Mitt Romney said his views on abortion are more lenient than the Republican Platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

There should be no government “benefits” to marriage except the right to be left alone to raise your kids.


166 posted on 09/08/2012 6:14:48 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone

Exactly, with the basic traditional marriage as it has existed for millenia, civilization would not exist


167 posted on 09/08/2012 6:16:19 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Texan5
Oh, good grief-I can’t even imagine that you would think that someone at FR would be an advocate of homosexuality, polygamy, or any of that, but whatever...

Except that we are on a vanity about doing just that, a vanity that you are supporting.

168 posted on 09/08/2012 6:18:14 PM PDT by ansel12 ( Aug. 27, 2012-Mitt Romney said his views on abortion are more lenient than the Republican Platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell
Scott, if marriage is a "solemn affair which is a fusion of both church and state, altar and government. Tell me why they have the same rules on the way in but have different rules on the way out. Again, as I said earlier, if the government said that you could only marry once and that only with an annulment could the marriage be dissolved. If divorce was made to be much harder "by government" people would be arguing that the Government does not have the right to define marriage. Most people wear government like they wear socks .. whatever goes with MY outfit.

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

If the government came out and said that marriage is forever and there can be no divorce there are a couple of people here in this post who would argue that government does not have the right define marriage. Theme: I want government to define marriage my way, or they have no business defining marriage. I am saying it is not governments business. If they would just follow the US Constitution and provide me with freedom and defense.

169 posted on 09/08/2012 6:29:34 PM PDT by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I didn’t see anyone supporting it-the gist of discussion/debate was about how to keep it from being accepted on an equal footing with heterosexual marriage, and that is where the different opinions came in-get rid of civil marriage licenses, restrict them, make them different, get churches involved, etc. I was debating the method, not the substance (which I agree wholeheartedly with).


170 posted on 09/08/2012 6:30:09 PM PDT by Texan5 ("You've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: scottjewell

“...but in our society, marriage is a solemn affair which is a fusion of both church and state, altar and government.”

The homosexualists wouldn’t have it any other way, in my opinion. They can’t use someone’s faith to punish them for rejecting ‘gay marriage’ when the faith in question also rejects it (as it always will in many faiths). They can easily use the state, and have. They can also use the fact many have been conditioned to think that marriage comes from the state, and that any group with the proper paper from the state are married.

Freegards


171 posted on 09/08/2012 6:33:28 PM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: avacado
It’s interesting that you do admit that there is a tax penalty based on married or not. Do you believe that people should be penalized/taxed based on marital status?

Do you think people should be taxed based on marital status? I kind of think that everyone should be taxed at one rate, and that should be a % of what you make. My tax return could be done on n index card with three lines ... how much did you make? ____ What is [blank %] ___________ send it in!

172 posted on 09/08/2012 6:33:48 PM PDT by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Maybe not, but there has always been always good debate here-the first discussion I entered into on FR nearly 12 years ago was a debate-I was so delighted at the ability of people to discuss and debate in a civil manner that I became a member. My opinion hasn’t changed, even though the civil attitude wears a little thin at times.


173 posted on 09/08/2012 6:39:22 PM PDT by Texan5 ("You've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Texan5

How does getting homosexual churches and polygamous Islamic churches, and cults of every flavor, defining marriage, help keep the definition of marriage as one man, one woman?


174 posted on 09/08/2012 6:40:33 PM PDT by ansel12 ( Aug. 27, 2012-Mitt Romney said his views on abortion are more lenient than the Republican Platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Texan5

Oops! Not necessary to repeat “always”...


175 posted on 09/08/2012 6:40:46 PM PDT by Texan5 ("You've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Here is your quote. Quit posting all the lies. If you think that you worded it badly then just say so, but quit denying you said it.

"Homos, lesbos cannot get married. The should pay more in taxes. We heterosexuals should get tax breaks."

Ansel, this DOES NOT say that homosexuals pay a different tax rate than heterosexuals. I said "should" not "do". Let me help you understand the difference between "should" and "do"

should: Indicating a desirable or expected state: "by now students should be able to read".

do: Perform, a current action.

176 posted on 09/08/2012 6:41:54 PM PDT by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious; scottjewell

On my way to watch TV, but I think any fusion of church and state is a devil’s pact at the very least...


177 posted on 09/08/2012 6:46:57 PM PDT by Texan5 ("You've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

So you want to raise taxes on someone who is a homosexual, and lower taxes for someone who is normal?


178 posted on 09/08/2012 6:49:46 PM PDT by ansel12 ( Aug. 27, 2012-Mitt Romney said his views on abortion are more lenient than the Republican Platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Texan5
Tex, ansel will never do any research on the subject. He has already said that marriage to be defined ... "That means a HIS common definition, not the definition of the Muslim church, or the FLDS church, or the definition of the liberal arm of the Episcopal church, or of the San Fran gay chapel church.

This means that he wants to determine who creates the definition. It was like Al Gore and his sill azz recounts in Florida. How many recounts did he want? Only as many as it took for him to win. Ansel wants the entity of his choice to define marriage and every one should live with that definition.

179 posted on 09/08/2012 6:50:11 PM PDT by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Good one Lil’ Jeremiah. Marriage has an age limit, as could a civil union. In fact I believe that in most states you have to 18 to enter into a contract. Besides, mentally ill perverts already have access to our children. It is called the public school system.


180 posted on 09/08/2012 6:53:36 PM PDT by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 241-253 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson