Iowa court rules same-sex couples can marry

Juberoo

prism wrote:

here's an idea: if you find gay marriage so disgusting then don't divorce your husband then go on to marry a woman!

what two other consenting gay or lesbian adults do has not a damn thing to do with you or your marriage

It has absolutely nothing to do with my marriage. It has to do with marriage as a whole. Homosexual marriage goes against the tradition of original marriage. It was designed to incorporate one man and one woman. To allow same sex marriages trivializes that institution.

Juberoo

prism wrote:

show me where in that post I called anyone a name or personally attacked anyone...hell, show me where I mentioned any person in particular?



how hypocritical of you to refer to me as stupid...wouldn't that be "name calling?"

you personally attacked me by assuming that I was fearful of my husband running away to another man. Again, a bright person would have seen that. Sorry, it seems you are quite challenged. I'll dumb down my responses for you from now on.

prism

Juberoo wrote:

you personally attacked me by assuming that I was fearful of my husband running away to another man. Again, a bright person would have seen that. Sorry, it seems you are quite challenged. I'll dumb down my responses for you from now on.

no, i said that that was the only logical rational someone would have for thinking it to be a threat to hetrosexual marriage. why are you so defensive? you took it personally, and for all you know i was talking about my sister.

you've refered to me as stupid and now challenged, so to say that what you're saying is hypocritical, judgemental and moronic would just be me using adjectives that describe you, being that you're a something or someone....or is it only okay for you to hurl insults?

I think you know how the lyric goes: "if you hate something, don't you do it to"

Juberoo

prism wrote:

no, i said that that was the only logical rational someone would have for thinking it to be a threat to hetrosexual marriage. why are you so defensive? you took it personally, and for all you know i was talking about my sister.

you've refered to me as stupid and now challenged, so to say that what you're saying is hypocritical, judgemental and moronic would just be me using adjectives that describe you, being that you're a something or someone....or is it only okay for you to hurl insults?

I think you know how the lyric goes: "if you hate something, don't you do it to"

Youre right..Ill be the bigger person and let you have the last word now. Obviously that concept is lost on you.

For the record, it is quite obvious that you were not talking about your "sister" The post you quoted was directed at me. Are you 12? Twisting and lieing to get out of a tough spot? Tisk tisk.

keeponrockin

Juberoo wrote:

because it is natural and serves a purpose

By that logic, couples should be forced to procreate.

jamtemplechains

ah, the sea-deep void of ignorance....i'm sure people who oppose gay marriage are REALLY oh so worried about the sanctity of marriage. i mean, god...if gays marry, society will absolutely crumble. with the tradition of marriage tainted with the likes of freddy mercury and ellen degeneres, how can we all go on? i, for one, am reeeeaaaally worried about keeping the traditional idea of marriage the same forever. it's sooooooo relevant to day-to-day life. so pathetic.

jeffbr

keeponrockin wrote:

By that logic, couples should be forced to procreate.

Right. I love that logic. So infertile hetero couples obviously shouldn't be allowed to marry, since they can't procreate. And what's up with condoms and the pill? Don't they create an unnatural union? People who enter into a marriage contract should also contract with the state to shun birth control, right? Afterall, procreation is the standard by which we measure the validity of a union now.

Deni

hippiemom wrote:

I like to combine the two, because I think Barroom Whore has a nice ring to it

Ha ha ha! That made me laugh!

Deni

Juberoo wrote:

Guess I'm a bigot then if you feel the need to label. Funny too how people who don't like others views don't feel they are bigots. But really, you are if you are unwilling to accept my opinion too. By your statement, I only lose my label if I agree with you. Isn't it amazing how tolerance tends to be one sided.

I am perfectly happy to be a bigot of bigots! I don't have a problem with that. If that's your argument... that I, or in this case jeffbr, is being bigoted against bigots... well, I find THAT to be funny!

Deni

Juberoo wrote:

It is discrimination to force everyone to accept the homosexual lifestyle.

I don't ask you to accept it. I just demand that you mind your own damn business.

Deni

Juberoo wrote:

nope..when you strip them of their rights and incarcerate them, by your reasoning, you are discriminating. You are labeling them and lumping them into a category.

My point to this analogy was that discrimination is necessary sometimes.

But the flaw in this logic is that I didn't do it. By all intense and purposes they (by committing the crime) did it to themselves.

Wow. They are discriminating against themselves. Forcing themselves to be oppressed and lose their privileges and individual rights.

See, I have nothing to do with that.

Now, bring it around to how gays are also doing it to themselves. How by being gay they deserve to have their rights taken away.

I can't wait to hear this...

Deni

Juberoo wrote:

It has absolutely nothing to do with my marriage. It has to do with marriage as a whole. Homosexual marriage goes against the tradition of original marriage. It was designed to incorporate one man and one woman. To allow same sex marriages trivializes that institution.

Weren't you touting individual responsibility in the homeschooling thread?

So why don't you as an individual be responsible for your own marriage and mind your own business when it comes to the personal relationships of other people?

I find it interesting how you can pick and chose what you want to believe based on the situation.

jamtemplechains

thank god; this sudden flow of reason, intelligence, and humanitarianism has made this thread so much less frustrating. i was dangerously close to changing my major to psychology so i could at least attempt to come to understand how some people could subscribe to such hideously moronic thought processes.

lucylespian

jamtemplechains wrote:

just because a couple has one person with a penis, and one person with a vagina, doesn't make them any more well-rounded or appropriate to raise a child.

ACtually, I'm gonna diagree with you. Lots of parents taks can be provided by either parent, but only Fathers can provide fathering, and only mothers can provide mothering. I also agree that there are plenty of heterosexual marriages not providing that, and single parents in the same boat, but and you don't have to look far to see the results.

HOwever, hetero marriages provide the opportunity for that, gay marriages don't.

Time will tell just how well- adjusteed and balanced the child raised in those marriages really are. Some will do well, some won't probably.

jamtemplechains

lucylespian wrote:

ACtually, I'm gonna diagree with you. Lots of parents taks can be provided by either parent, but only Fathers can provide fathering, and only mothers can provide mothering. I also agree that there are plenty of heterosexual marriages not providing that, and single parents in the same boat, but and you don't have to look far to see the results.

HOwever, hetero marriages provide the opportunity for that, gay marriages don't.

Time will tell just how well- adjusteed and balanced the child raised in those marriages really are. Some will do well, some won't probably.

yes, some will do well, and some won't. that's how it has always been for ANY family, and how it always will be. it doesn't matter whether there is a father fathering or a mother mothering; what's important is there are responsible and caring parents who are PARENTING.

lucylespian

jamtemplechains wrote:

yes, some will do well, and some won't. that's how it has always been for ANY family, and how it always will be. it doesn't matter whether there is a father fathering or a mother mothering; what's important is there are responsible and caring parents who are PARENTING.

Ah, but it is necessary for someone to be fathering, and someone to be mothering. They are distinct things which are unique to each sex. You don't have to be the biological parent though to provide it.

I think that accepting gay parents raising kids means accepting a LOT of assumptions, and is ALL about the parents with very littel thought put into the long term effects on kids. Not that that is unique to gay couples of course !!

jamtemplechains

lucylespian wrote:

Ah, but it is necessary for someone to be fathering, and someone to be mothering. They are distinct things which are unique to each sex. You don't have to be the biological parent though to provide it.

I think that accepting gay parents raising kids means accepting a LOT of assumptions, and is ALL about the parents with very littel thought put into the long term effects on kids. Not that that is unique to gay couples of course !!

what is it that you think is so threatening to a child's wellbeing by having same sex parents? so what if a child raised by two fathers adopts a more masculine set of traits? so what if a person raised by two women is more effeminate? nothing is wrong with either of these things. there are certainly things that are distinct to each sex, but what's so wrong with accepting an androgynous upbringing that doesn't stress strict gender roles as hard as the traditional nuclear family has?

Jeanie

lucylespian wrote:

ACtually, I'm gonna diagree with you. Lots of parents taks can be provided by either parent, 1/~ but only Fathers can provide fathering, and only mothers can provide mothering. I also agree that there are plenty of heterosexual marriages not providing that, and single parents in the same boat, but and you don't have to look far to see the results.

HOwever, hetero marriages provide the opportunity for that, gay marriages don't.

2/~Time will tell just how well- adjusteed and balanced the child raised in those marriages really are. Some will do well, some won't probably.

1/~ I would dispute that. I've seen more than enough examples of uncles, aunts, and grandparents providing excellent parenting for children. Not to mention mentoring programs like Big Brother, Big Sister and the adoption and foster parent programs. Then there are teachers, Scout leaders, Football/Netball coaches and a plethora of other adults in mentoring/role model positions in a child's life. The idea that it's all going downhill for a child if either or both of their biological parents don't provide adequate parenting is just another pressure/worry to put on smart kids that aren't in a "conventional" family situation.
I stand by the adage, "It takes a whole village to raise a child."

2/~ Just as time will only tell how balanced and well adjusted a child raised in a heterosexual, conventional marriage will be.
Many do well and many do not.

jamtemplechains

Jeanie wrote:

1/~ I would dispute that. I've seen more than enough examples of uncles, aunts, and grandparents providing excellent parenting for children. Not to mention mentoring programs like Big Brother, Big Sister and the adoption and foster parent programs. Then there are teachers, Scout leaders, Football/Netball coaches and a plethora of other adults in mentoring/role model positions in a child's life. The idea that it's all going downhill for a child if either or both of their biological parents don't provide adequate parenting is just another pressure/worry to put on smart kids that aren't in a "conventional" family situation.
I stand by the adage, "It takes a whole village to raise a child."

2/~ Just as time will only tell how balanced and well adjusted a child raised in a heterosexual, conventional marriage will be.
Many do well and many do not.

very well said.

Juberoo

Deni wrote:

I don't ask you to accept it. I just demand that you mind your own damn business.

and why are you sticking your nose into the business of those who ae against it?