Why have marriage at all?

wanderingbear said:
But why have civil marrage at all? It's not needed. Did you know that civil marrage it taxable while a simple religious ceremony isnt?Civil marrage is about nothing more then taxes.
Click to expand...

do you shit in the woods too?

there are numerous other benefits and rights the state bestows upon you for being married....
 
wanderingbear said:
Then you have a problem with Gays. If you want to be "religious" and "Moral" about it I have no problem with that. Just dont force it on others through legislation. Religon and Morality can not and should not be legislated.
Click to expand...

Morality has always and should always be legislated. It's immoral to steal your stuff and kill you. Shouldn't there be laws against that shit as well? :pke:
 
Southern Man said:
I call bullshit on this. Go fuck yourself with the hard-on you have for me.
Click to expand...

Bullshit?

You ignored the National Geographic article I linked and continued to post comments about homosexual acts in animals being about dominance.

You have cherry-picked numerous posts. You answer what you can deny or argue, and ignore that which makes a point you cannot counter.

You claim victory in a debate based solely on the fact that someone called you a name. You do this despite the fact that you call people names as often an almost anyone on this board.

And finally, it may be your fantasy that I have a hardon for you, but I have nothing but contempt for you. You make claims that have no basis in fact, and make demeaning remarks at others in order to try and overcome your own inferiority complex.
 
Southern Man said:
Morality has always and should always be legislated. It's immoral to steal your stuff and kill you. Shouldn't there be laws against that shit as well? :pke:
Click to expand...

Laws are made to protect people from being preyed upon.

General morality is a fine place on which to base laws. But you want (or demand) that our nation base its laws on christianity. And that is unconstitutional.
 
Southern Man said:
Queers can't give children the benefits of both a mother and a father, and without both kids are at a disadvantage. The government should not be in the business of promoting that.

The institution of marriage is attacked from many directions: poor partners as you point out, but mainly societal influences such as glorified sex, infidelity and violence. That's no reason to attack it further.
Click to expand...

Personally I think I would have been better off with two mothers.

Besides there again you are useing your particular oppinons on morality, Which is a religous philosophy, to back up you ideas about gay marriage.
But then sa Ive said. I think civil marage should be taken out of the law altogether as a violation of the seperation of church and state.
 
wanderingbear said:
Personally I think I would have been better off with two mothers.

Besides there again you are useing your particular oppinons on morality, Which is a religous philosophy, to back up you ideas about gay marriage.
But then sa Ive said. I think civil marage should be taken out of the law altogether as a violation of the seperation of church and state.
Click to expand...
Actually, as you requested, I left religion out of my argument. :)
 
WinterBorn said:
.....

And finally, it may be your fantasy that I have a hardon for you, but I have nothing but contempt for you. You make claims that have no basis in fact, and make demeaning remarks at others in order to try and overcome your own inferiority complex.
Click to expand...

Come, on, you can bend that pecker of yours around and jam it in your ass. Go for it! :lol:
 
WinterBorn said:
Its about gov't interference in private institutions.

The "building block of society" argument you use would also fit gay marriages. Which is why your arguments always seem so fake.

One some topics you pretend to be all about smaller gov't and less gov't interference. And then on other topics you take the opposite stance.
Click to expand...

So divorce your wife and be alone. That way all interference is over.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, morality has always and should always be legislated. It's immoral to steal your stuff and kill you. Shouldn't there be laws against that shit as well?
Click to expand...


Ethics should be legislated not morality. I know you conservatives think that ethics and morality are the same thing because they look a lot alike but their not.Ethics is a secular philosophy while Morality is a Religious belief.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, morality has always and should always be legislated. It's immoral to steal your stuff and kill you. Shouldn't there be laws against that shit as well?
Click to expand...

Theft and murder are immoral by secular standards as well as religious standards. And therein lies the problem. You wish to legislate morality in such a way as to force religious morality on everyone.
 
wanderingbear said:
Ethics should be legislated not morality. I know you conservatives think that ethics and morality are the same thing because they look a lot alike but their not.Ethics is a secular philosophy while Morality is a Religious belief.
Click to expand...
OK let's go with that. It's unethical to steal your stuff and kill you. Shouldn't there be laws against that shit as well?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top