Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[innocentbystander]

...is insulting. You are insulting me personally just because I stick my hand in the air and say "Wait a minute, what are we doing here?" You are de-legitimizing my argument without even taking the time to listen to it.

Oh, no doubt, I can be insulting. You throwing out the "shame" comments and your de rigueur Alabama comment and I will elevate my rhetoric. I know I will. As Ron White says, I've seen me do it.

Anyway, I asked you for your argument. You told me you didn't have to prove a negative (heh).

So, is your argument: "Gay marriage should be illegal because if everyone did it population rates would go to zero?" How about, "God meant for it to be between a man and a woman?" Maybe, "marriage is for procreating and gays can't procreate without assistance"?

I never said either of those things. You probably have me confused with another poster.

All I have said (and continue to say) is that the New York state legislature was not in the proper position to reform marriage law. They shouldn't be doing that because they haven't properly defined why marriage law (in the state of New York) was to be between just one man and one woman. Even a young child knows NOT to put the cart before the horse. These legislators should be dragged out into the streets of Albany and be taunted mercilessly for being a bunch of ignorant fools.

[AlabamAlum]

I never said either of those things. You probably have me confused with another poster.

No I don't have you confused with another poster. That was conjecture. I have no idea what your position is. Other than the clues that you found insult in the fact that I dismissed your views and that you didn't have to state your side because you didn't have to 'prove a negative'.

They shouldn't be doing that because they haven't properly defined why marriage law (in the state of New York) was to be between just one man and one woman.

Apparently they did examine it and found that there was no reason to continue to disallow gays for marrying. Now, the committed gay couples get a piece of paper, and if they work for an airline, they get free flights to Tahoe or whatever.

[Dora]

Now, the committed gay couples get a piece of paper, and if they work for an airline, they get free flights to Tahoe or whatever.

And after the weekend, they can get a no-fault divorce like the rest of us.

[AlabamAlum]

Those devious bastards! They've been pushing this whole gay marriage crap down our thoughts for the free flights to Vegas and then the joys and benefits associated with no-fault divorce.

[BigRedMan]

Gay marriages are good for the economy. Just think how much money will go into planning the wedding. The wedding planning and catering business alone will put enough money back into the system to get us going again.

And then think about gay divorce. The Talent's of the world (spits on ground), will have even more clients to fleece...errr..assist in this and thus put more money in the system. This will cause a sudden surge in the stock for Bed, Bath, and Beyond so buy now while the stock is low and you will be uber rich later on.

Win-Fucking-Win Baby!!!

[AlabamAlum]

Gay marriages are good for the economy. Just think how much money will go into planning the wedding. The wedding planning and catering business alone will put enough money back into the system to get us going again.

And then think about gay divorce. The Talent's of the world (spits on ground), will have even more clients to fleece...errr..assist in this and thus put more money in the system. This will cause a sudden surge in the stock for Bed, Bath, and Beyond so buy now while the stock is low and you will be uber rich later on.

Win-Fucking-Win Baby!!!

Gay couples do NOT register at the provincial Bed, Bath and Beyond. They are much more Williams-Sonoma and Restoration Hardware types.

[BigRedMan]

Well I was thinking of the recenlty divorced gay couples that would need home stuff for their new apartments.

I'm telling you Win-Win for everyone involved.

[AugustWest]

IB doesnt want to change the status quo because we dont know why the status quo was there in the first place. which may be the stupidest reason for not changing something I've ever heard.

[Toemeesleather]

two men werent allowed to marry for the same reason blacks werent allowed to vote


Good lord...comparing short term politics to the evolution of man.

[AlabamAlum]

IB doesnt want to change the status quo because we dont know why the status quo was there in the first place. which may be the stupidest reason for not changing something I've ever heard.

Ahh, but we do. It wasn't in keeping with the predominant religions. It existed, as I said, in ancient Rome, Greece, China and places in Europe, but around 1700 years ago, the Theodosian Code was issued. It put the kibosh on official homo unions.

[sardis]

AA's and DSL's knowledge of Biblical matters is quite comical in their ignorance. At least DSL acknowledges the Bible's, and also Christ's, position of two gender marriages as being God's plan for society. DSL asks why not have laws against homosexuality, anal sex, etc? Well, there used to be laws against those but as this country became less Christian those gradually fell by the way-side. We live in a country that separates religion from the state so the allowance of "civil unions" is inevitable in such a democracy when less and less citizens are biblicists.

Same sex marriage is a red herring argument. There are studies that support both left and right positions on this issue. Those studies come in with a bias because reality says there has not been enough time and samples to come to a conclusion. Doesn't really matter anyway, only 6-8% of homosexual couples desire to have children (which is a testament in of itself). Researchers think that about 170,000 children live in same-sex households and half of those were the result of a divorced traditional home situation. So, to me, same sex families are too much of a statistical insignificance for it to negatively effect the family unit in our society. is it Biblically and morally wrong? Yes, but there are many other legal activities that are immoral as well.

What IS damaging to our society and EVERY study OVERWHELMINGLY says is that single parent households breed wide more disfunctional citizens than two parent households. Why won't the left publically decry single parenthood? Why do they promote policies that encourage such households among their constituency? Either the liberal politicians are ignorant or they know that keeping the citizenry in such a state bodes well for their personal political situations...

[DooKSucks]

Gay marriages are good for the economy. Just think how much money will go into planning the wedding. The wedding planning and catering business alone will put enough money back into the system to get us going again.

And then think about gay divorce. The Talent's of the world (spits on ground), will have even more clients to fleece...errr..assist in this and thus put more money in the system. This will cause a sudden surge in the stock for Bed, Bath, and Beyond so buy now while the stock is low and you will be uber rich later on.

Win-Fucking-Win Baby!!!

As the one around here practicing family law, I am all for gay marriage. I have no problems with increasing the number of people who will need the services of family law attorneys, the people who are the salt of the earth.

[AlabamAlum]

Sardis,

I would put my knowledge of the Bible up against most true believers. My love of the Book of Leviticus is well known. I will look for any chance to discuss the high comedy therein (as well as select readings from Exodus, Genesis, Kings and a few others - it's great reading). I ask that you indulge and excuse me when I seek out opportunities to insert the teachings it contains.

Otherwise, I agree with most of what you say. There are far more serious matters to be concerned about wrt marriage and family. And I've conceded from the onset that same-sex religions are anathema to the practitioners of Judeo-Christian religions.

[Dora]

Why won't the left publically decry single parenthood? Why do they promote policies that encourage such households among their constituency? Either the liberal politicians are ignorant or they know that keeping the citizenry in such a state bodes well for their personal political situations...

What policies encourage single parenthood?

[Toemeesleather]

What policies encourage single parenthood?


Sooo, you slept through the 60s, 70s and 80s.

[TheBigMook]

What policies encourage single parenthood?


Sooo, you slept through the 60s, 70s and 80s.

Yeah, fucking Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush! Commies! String 'em up!

[Dr. Strangelove]

Heterosexuals disgrace and diminish the "sanctity" of marriage far more successfuly and pervasively than 5% of the population that's gay (and of that 5%, maybe only 10% are interested in marriage).

My point about anal sex is that you shouldn't use the Bible as being reason enough to justify a law's existence while other biblical prohibitions that are equally as serious go completely ignored by our justice system.

It's never been against the law to lie about your neighbor or covet his wife or disobey your parents, yet OT God clearly considers them equal sins to murder. He didn't create the 5 Commandments and then the Other 5 Commandments you really need to take seriously.

[Dora]

Nah, I wasn't sleeping. I lived in NY & NJ in liberal areas & I don't recall any of my liberal representatives instituting programs to encourage single parenthood where I lived. Can you give some examples?

[Toemeesleather]

My point about anal sex is that you shouldn't use the Bible as being reason enough to justify a law's existence


Had to post this, because I actually agree w/DSL.....it's all about civil society, biology, and propagation of the species.

[Toemeesleather]

Can you give some examples?

I really have a hard time understanding this level of ignorance....Ever hear of the "war on poverty"???..."
great society".... Read anything on the breakdown of the black family in the past 40 years??