elegantelliotoffen Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Not really the point The point is that this has absolutely nothing to do with kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 I am confused as to why sex even comes into play in the argument at all. Why can't two random people get married even though they do not have sex with each other. This way they can get all the benfits of being married and be seen as equal. If marriage doesn't limit itself to heterosexuality and homosexuality should be included, why is asexuality discriminated against? I am confused as to why none of the geniuses on here will answer this so maybe I should clarify. By asexual I am not talking about Sage or Ed 12 minutes after his honeymoon, I am asking about two acquaitances or friends. They could be the same or different sex. What if these two just haven't met the right person yet and feel as if they never will? These two people do not love each other but they see eye to eye on many issues. They see gay and straight couples all around them getting married and receiving tax benefits, rights with regard to medical records and many other government based perks. Why can't they get married? I can see limiting it to two people but other than that why does sex and/or love or anything else come into play at all? Why should they have to say they are gay or straight or love each other to get married if they aren't or they don't? How can marriage be defined by sex at all? How can one person prove to a church or a state that they love another person? Should the government monitor couples to make sure they don't fight or they have a little fling every Friday night? How is saying only gay or straight couples can marry "well reasoned"? And still no answer from the geniuses. Why? Because there is no logic or reason behind keeping two non-sexual, non-loving couples from marriage as the geniuses have defined it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 The brow beating over this issue is juvenile. This issue has been decided by the voters in 30 states. In all 30 states, the outcome has been the same. Clearly, this is a personal issue that has broad support from every region of the country. For now. Thankfully, younger voters will correct this wrong once the older ones die. Same thing is happening with racial issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 No kids = you dont know what the @uck you are talking about. Walk a mile in our shoes first. That's childish. He's saying the same things I'm saying and I have kids. Argue with him as my proxy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Wow, you bash religion, then want people to respect your beliefs? I bashed religion because I'm critical of people who interpret the Bible literally? If so, so be it. People who interpret the Bible literally are not rational. They can't even explain their own inconsistencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 I bashed religion because I'm critical of people who interpret the Bible literally? If so, so be it. People who interpret the Bible literally are not rational. They can't even explain their own inconsistencies. THAT'S THE COUP DE GRACE! THAT'S THE EPILOGUE!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 I bashed religion because I'm critical of people who interpret the Bible literally? If so, so be it. People who interpret the Bible literally are not rational. They can't even explain their own inconsistencies. men who want to have sex with other men are not rational. Two can play that game. Your a bigot, admit it! Not only are you a bigot, but a hypocrite as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 The point is that this has absolutely nothing to do with kids. Oh boy.....maybe you go back to the beginning of the thread and start over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 That's childish. He's saying the same things I'm saying and I have kids. Argue with him as my proxy. OK. You and coli are trying to push your agenda against the popular vote, not surprised. Call the ACLU. Yes things may/will change when "older people die" Its been like that forever, look who you just elected president. Until then keep protesting, keep screaming that the man is keeping the man in the man. You'll get your way soon. The PTA here is talking about condoms for 1st graders. Wait. Obama will fix everything. Peggy told me so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 That's childish. He's saying the same things I'm saying and I have kids. Argue with him as my proxy. [/quot Yep....childish. Parenting is childish. I didn't realize there were so many @ucked up people on the PPP board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon in Pasadena Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 I would prefer that marriage not be discussed at school at all gay or otherwise. As for History this should not make that curriculum John, I understand your point and I know you are trying to be the best father you can be to your kids, just as I am to mine. One of the many system shocks I've endured this year has been the realization that, after I slick back my boy's hair and watch him boldly march off to join his new friends and classmates in Kindergarten, there's simply a whole new universe of things he's going to be exposed to before/without my participation. Some are likely to be earlier than I'd like in an ideal world, and in some cases I may have to scramble to catch up, but I have a ton of confidence in him & his little brother. The kids are alright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 For now. Thankfully, younger voters will correct this wrong once the older ones die. Same thing is happening with racial issues. Good...you can bring this back up again when we die Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 And from the opposition's standpoint, it is an easier political argument to make, legitimate or not. Take the time to write the law narrowly and you won't have the problem. The law is about 15 words long. It never mentions schools. The school thing is a giant smokescreen set up by the bill's opponents so people could jump on and be against the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 John, I understand your point and I know you are trying to be the best father you can be to your kids, just as I am to mine. One of the many system shocks I've endured this year has been the realization that, after I slick back my boy's hair and watch him boldly march off to join his new friends and classmates in Kindergarten, there's simply a whole new universe of things he's going to be exposed to before/without my participation. Some are likely to be earlier than I'd like in an ideal world, and in some cases I may have to scramble to catch up, but I have a ton of confidence in him & his little brother. The kids are alright. You bet and I get that to....I guess from my point of view my kids will look to me to keep things within certain boudries. Parents are the constant....the kids should know we are looking out for them without even asking. Call me old fashioned....fine. I am old fashioneed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 The law is about 15 words long. It never mentions schools. The school thing is a giant smokescreen set up by the bill's opponents so people could jump on and be against the bill. John do we really need to bring up the loophole thing again. Do you live in California? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 You don't get to always make that decision unless you raise your kids in a bubble. Prop 8 was not about teaching something in the schools. That was some domino way down the line and there's nothing stopping schools from teaching it anyways. Telling adults in loving relationships that they can't marry is a lot worse than the mere chance a kid might hear about gay marriage in school. Why do the adults have to be in a loving relationship for it to be called marriage? That doesn't seem to me to meet the criteria known as this. Why can't the marriage be 100% for the receipt of government benefits, or simply a whim? How does one prove a loving relationship to a church or government? Answer: No amount of logic or reason will permit an answer, so this post will be ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 The law is about 15 words long. It never mentions schools. The school thing is a giant smokescreen set up by the bill's opponents so people could jump on and be against the bill. Why can't you understand the people voted and rejected that proposition? You lost, get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 John, I understand your point and I know you are trying to be the best father you can be to your kids, just as I am to mine. One of the many system shocks I've endured this year has been the realization that, after I slick back my boy's hair and watch him boldly march off to join his new friends and classmates in Kindergarten, there's simply a whole new universe of things he's going to be exposed to before/without my participation. Some are likely to be earlier than I'd like in an ideal world, and in some cases I may have to scramble to catch up, but I have a ton of confidence in him & his little brother. The kids are alright. Johnny Coli knows exactly what you're talking about.... Wait.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 men who want to have sex with other men are not rational. Two can play that game. Your a bigot, admit it! Not only are you a bigot, but a hypocrite as well! What does men having sex with men have to do with rationality? I don't arrive at my desire to sleep with women by some reasoned process. Somehow, the literalist Bible folk live by the Bible when it's convenient and ignore it when it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 OK. You and coli are trying to push your agenda against the popular vote, not surprised. Call the ACLU. Yes things may/will change when "older people die" Its been like that forever, look who you just elected president. Until then keep protesting, keep screaming that the man is keeping the man in the man. You'll get your way soon. The PTA here is talking about condoms for 1st graders. Wait. Obama will fix everything. Peggy told me so. Man...it is amazing how we can agree on certain things and not others... I actually voted for Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts