dontamend.com

[Sabastian]

One more point I would like to articulate is that even though the definition of marriage has been changed in Canada there has not been a mass of gays and lesbians getting married

Speculation, where's the proof?

Bah, I can't find the article it was in the globe and mail, ironically that is a very liberal biased media. But go ahead see if there are a massive number of homosexuals getting married. The paltry few that actually do are nothing but an insult to the institution traditionally speaking of course. Oh maybe a small number will get married but their political motivation is not monogamy, that is complete bullshit. It isn't about homosexuals being allowed to marry it is about advancing the left wing prerogative against the natural family that is inherently discriminatory and non egalitarian.

 

[RussSchultz]

Errr...did you mean so say monogomy? It just doesn't make sense in that context.

 

[Sabastian]

One more point I would like to articulate is that even though the definition of marriage has been changed in Canada there has not been a mass of gays and lesbians getting married. Extremely few have bothered. So in reality the motivation is not that they all want to get married, that is a farce. Rather they want to change the perception of marriage and family entirely. They are in reality only a small part but exceedingly important of the left wing political struggle to end popular distraction away from the state as apposed to the natural human inclination in favor of the natural family where people look after their own children..

Ok I've been restrained all this time. But you sir are a dumbass.

I suppose that since Marriage is available to all heterosexuals, and there is no rush to get married as a percentage of the population, that marriage must not be all that.

I suppose that since Marriage is available to all heterosexuals, and there is a greater than 50% divorce rate in this country, marriage must not be all that.

Idiot.......

Too bad you made what you do in your bedroom a political agenda, idiot.

 

[Natoma]

Too bad you made what you do in your bedroom a political agenda, idiot.

So you have to make stupid assertion after stupid assertion after stupid assertion. This is almost as bad as your "anal sex causes incontinence" theory, backed by the same science that said masturbation causes blindness and hairy palms.

The homophobia you exude is so palpable. It makes me wonder what happened to you in your life to get to this point. You have admitted that you are not religious by any stretch of the imagination. Yet you sure sound like you've got an axe to grind against homosexuals. Lord knows why.

 

[Sabastian]

Too bad you made what you do in your bedroom a political agenda, idiot.

So you have to make stupid assertion after stupid assertion after stupid assertion. This is almost as bad as your "anal sex causes incontinence" theory, backed by the same science that said masturbation causes blindness and hairy palms.

The homophobia you exude is so palpable. It makes me wonder what happened to you in your life to get to this point. You have admitted that you are not religious by any stretch of the imagination. Yet you sure sound like you've got an axe to grind against homosexuals. Lord knows why.

lol, I am not scared of saying what I think about homosexuals how does that make me fearful of them? Too fucking bad your sexuality is nothing in reality but the equivalent of a political pawn.

 

[zurich]

lol, I am not scared of saying what I think about homosexuals how does that make me fearful of them? Too fucking bad your sexuality is nothing in reality but the equivalent of a political pawn.

By that logic, I guess you support the Jewish conspiracy? Swap religion out for sexuality, and there you go!

 

[Natoma]

lol, I am not scared of saying what I think about homosexuals how does that make me fearful of them? Too fucking bad your sexuality is nothing in reality but the equivalent of a political pawn.

Oh my goodness! Another stupid assertion! You just keep letting them roll don't you.

You really need to stop. The depth of your stupidity grows with every comment coming out of your mouth.

 

[Sabastian]

lol, I am not scared of saying what I think about homosexuals how does that make me fearful of them? Too fucking bad your sexuality is nothing in reality but the equivalent of a political pawn.

By that logic, I guess you support the Jewish conspiracy? Swap religion out for sexuality, and there you go!

heh, the left wing Jewish conspiracy, what a joke. Just like the Nazis you guys go on and on about the Jewish religion because it is the daddy of Christianity. No I wouldn't support the notion. I point at the egalitarian platonic model as the template for the welfare state that would inevitably end in communism as a consequence of the dogmatic insistence for equality in all matters. That explains why there are so many Marxist feminist that are pro homosexual and anti natural family.

 

[Natoma]

heh, the left wing Jewish conspiracy, what a joke. Just like the Nazis you guys go on and on about the Jewish religion because it is the daddy of Christianity. No I wouldn't support the notion. I point at the egalitarian platonic model as the template for the welfare state that would inevitably end in communism as a consequence of the dogmatic insistence for equality in all matters. That explains why there are so many Marxist feminist that are pro homosexual and anti natural family.

Huh?? Go on and on about the jewish religion because it is the daddy of christianity??? Uhm, Zurich's comment about judaism is the first and only comment in this thread. :?

And now homosexuals and feminists are marxist too?? the fun never stops with you.

You're just digging in deeper and deeper... Good lord..

 

[Sabastian]

heh, the left wing Jewish conspiracy, what a joke. Just like the Nazis you guys go on and on about the Jewish religion because it is the daddy of Christianity. No I wouldn't support the notion. I point at the egalitarian platonic model as the template for the welfare state that would inevitably end in communism as a consequence of the dogmatic insistence for equality in all matters. That explains why there are so many Marxist feminist that are pro homosexual and anti natural family.

Huh?? Go on and on about the jewish religion because it is the daddy of christianity??? Uhm, Zurich's comment about judaism is the first and only comment in this thread. :?

And now homosexuals and feminists are marxist too?? the fun never stops with you.

You're just digging in deeper and deeper... Good lord..

Your denial of it does not make it any less relevant. You forget that I took the liberal arts and lived for 3 years with a radical feminist. The welfare state is a midway point to communism and feminist very much approve of a republic like model.

 

[zurich]

That explains why there are so many Marxist feminist that are pro homosexual and anti natural family.

Really? I thought they just enjoyed soaking the sheets all night long.

Care to explain how couplings of men whom love each other can destroy the American economy, culture, political freedoms, and civil liberties? In detail?

I'm interested to see how (your) "less than 1% of the population" can eradicate a nation as we know it.

edit:

Should also mention, that if you knew anything about gays, you'd know that the vast majority of them are apathetic playboys only interested in the next hot fuck and where the next circuit party is. To say that we're a politically motivated group hell bent on the destruction of life and culture is just.. well, funny Because really, I can't think of a group as insular and uncaring as scene-faring homosexuals.

So that said, loving couples such as Natoma (and this Eddie fellow) are the absolute minority of minorities.

Let's just amend the above, and find out how (in your eyes), 1% of 1% of the population can destroy the American economy, culture, political freedoms, and civil liberties? In detail?

Because really, if it was that easy, someone with greater aspirations and, well, who actually *cares* more, would have done it by now.

 

[zurich]

You forget that I took the liberal arts and lived for 3 years with a radical feminist

Ouch, must have been one fugly ass breakup :?

Don't tell me -- She left you for another woman! (and you weren't allowed to watch, or touch)

 

[Natoma]

Ouch, must have been one fugly ass breakup :?

Don't tell me -- She left you for another woman! (and you weren't allowed to watch, or touch)

Maybe that's why he hates gay people so much.

 

[Sabastian]

Ouch, must have been one fugly ass breakup :?

Don't tell me -- She left you for another woman! (and you weren't allowed to watch, or touch)

Maybe that's why he hates gay people so much.

lol, no in the end it was a mess, she was an out and out hedonistic libertine much like many of her students turned out to be after hypocritically believing in moral relativism but convinced that their social agenda was entirely correct in its motivations, needless to say I got an A in her class. She pretty much denounced sociology in the end as something that was legit but she still had her convictions against the naturally forming patriarchal family unit and that the welfare state was the solution to it. She was a social constructionist ethno methodologist. Sociology hates the traditional family and maybe one day after they advance their own logic of hate crimes they will be guilty of massive crimes against humanity, men and the natural family. I am working on a reply to zurichs questions, so I will not have much to contribute to this discussion for some time.

 

[Silent_One]

Natoma wrote:

You just don't seem to get it that religion and government are separate in the USA. I don't know what the story in Canada is, but that's the way it is here.

And I'm the one with illogical reasoning. I'm not the one sitting there trying to make an argument against same sex marriage by using my religious beliefs. I mean, you're an american. Basic US History classes will tell you that religious beliefs do not rule this country from a legal standpoint. You should know that your argument is doomed to failure when looking at this from a legal standpoint wrt the constitution.

"And I'm the one with illogical reasoning......"

As long as the government recognizes my marriage then that's fine and dandy. Your religion, nor any religion for that matter, does not run the government, and we have a little thing called separation of church and state, thus your arguments that it's against your religion are moot.

My country was created with a separation of church and state at its core to prevent such ridiculousness as what happened in South Africa epicstruggle. If you don't like it, you can see how the opposite of the spectrum was abused in your home country to deny you and your kind your right to get married to who you wished.

Seriously. Natoma you need a history lesson. There's plenty of cases to support the idea that the US government has a religious basis in it's affairs. And yes there are cases were the USSC has ruled the seperation of "church and state". However you can not keep saying that "My country was created with a separation of church and state at its core...." without recognizing the history religion has played in our country's laws and in our daily lives. It's simply not that clean cut. After all we have "In God we trust", The Pledge of Allegiance, Government chaplains, Prayers at government functions or activities, National Day of Prayer (first Thursday in May), direct or indirect funding of some religious activities by government, even religious displays on government property in some towns are still allowed.

There are 1049 federal statutes that are explicitly for marriage that are not covered by Civil Unions on a state by state basis.

I'd like to know what those 1,049 federal statutes are. Got the list? Link?

 

[Natoma]

Natoma wrote:

You just don't seem to get it that religion and government are separate in the USA. I don't know what the story in Canada is, but that's the way it is here.

And I'm the one with illogical reasoning. I'm not the one sitting there trying to make an argument against same sex marriage by using my religious beliefs. I mean, you're an american. Basic US History classes will tell you that religious beliefs do not rule this country from a legal standpoint. You should know that your argument is doomed to failure when looking at this from a legal standpoint wrt the constitution.

"And I'm the one with illogical reasoning......"

And you haven't addressed the fact that religion does not rule this government. Nor was it designed to.

As long as the government recognizes my marriage then that's fine and dandy. Your religion, nor any religion for that matter, does not run the government, and we have a little thing called separation of church and state, thus your arguments that it's against your religion are moot.

My country was created with a separation of church and state at its core to prevent such ridiculousness as what happened in South Africa epicstruggle. If you don't like it, you can see how the opposite of the spectrum was abused in your home country to deny you and your kind your right to get married to who you wished.

Seriously. Natoma you need a history lesson. There's plenty of cases to support the idea that the US government has a religious basis in it's affairs. And yes there are cases were the USSC has ruled the seperation of "church and state". However you can not keep saying that "My country was created with a separation of church and state at its core...." without recognizing the history religion has played in our country's laws and in our daily lives. It's simply not that clean cut. After all we have "In God we trust", The Pledge of Allegiance, Government chaplains, Prayers at government functions or activities, National Day of Prayer (first Thursday in May), direct or indirect funding of some religious activities by government, even religious displays on government property in some towns are still allowed.

Oh no doubt religion has played a part in this government. But "In God We Trust" and The Pledge of Allegiance were added because of the Red Scare in the McCarthy era to show that we were different than the "godless" communists.

It is most certainly unconstitutional (thank you for bringing the suit newdow) because not everyone in this country trusts in god, nor should you have to pledge your allegiance to this country and by proxy the god of this country.

No one said unconstitutional laws don't get passed. But they certainly do get revoked after a cogent argument is formed to debate the fear mongering that caused the creation of the original law.

Religious funding occurs as charities. Only Bush's new "Faith Based Initiative" would make it indeed direct religious funding Silent_One. That is why it has been knocked down time and time again in the congress.

There are 1049 federal statutes that are explicitly for marriage that are not covered by Civil Unions on a state by state basis.

I'd like to know what those 1,049 federal statutes are. Got the list? Link?

Google is your friend. That's where I found out about all of the rules, regulations, rights and privileges conferred upon marriage.

 

[Dave H]

You can have them. I paid about $4000 more in taxes the year I got married. This is that little thing in the news all the time referred to as "the marriage tax"

essentially, marriage meant:
-one less standard deduction
-all of one income was taxed at the highest rate of the other, passing up the graduated scales that both incomes would have used if filing separately
-No IRA deduction for one person

I believe the recent tax reforms have fixed a lot of these problems, but I haven't checked lately.

Then you and your wife should have filed seperately.

Marriage confers a very large tax benefit on one-income (or primarily one-income) couples. Now that most marriages are two-income, the benefits of joint filing are gone for most couples. But they always have the choice to file seperately; marriage is never a penalty for tax purposes.

 

[RussSchultz]

!? Filing seperately does NOT help.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/articles/tax/prepare/5228.asp

Married filing separately is not the same thing as two people filing separately.

edit: crap. left out the NOT

 

[epicstruggle]

hey people lets tone down the name calling and the insults. Lets keep this a civilized discussion.

later

 

[Silent_One]

And you haven't addressed the fact that religion does not rule this government. Nor was it designed to

Hey! Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing with you regarding the seperation of church and state. I'm all for that. And I agree that "Norwas it designed to". But there is an argument to be made that history is filled with examples of religion and the US laws and policys.

I'd still like to know what those 1,049 federal statutes are. Got the Link?