One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Marriage and common sense
Page 1 of 2 next>
May 23, 2022 13:39:44   #
LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago
 
This is my response to another topic, Marriage and the Constitution. I thought it deserved its own topic


I have no problem with separate and equal of it includes different and equal.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Although unmarried myself, I will never accept as equal, a union between two men, two woman, or a man and a woman, as equal in that they are inherently different in why they were created and the real sex of the people involved. The Homosexual unions will never be what my Mother and Father had.

Marriage was a creation to join, formally, a union between a man and a woman whereby whose actions might create children. This union would take care of the raising of these children.

Homosexual Unions are not about creating children and raising them.

There is overlap of course. A Heterosexual Union might be childless by choice or other reasons, but within a norm of society. A Homosexual Union might have children from a former relationship or adoption. Those children need the protections of a Union of two that might be stronger or better able to care for them then a single individual. But they are still inherently different.

One type can deliberately or accidentally procreate and the other can't, deliberately or accidentally, with their partner through a natural act.

Two people living together, heterosexual or homosexual, share housing, food costs. love(?) and time with each other, often acting as one. Is there a Government interest in creating formal unions that protect each individual in these unions and any kids involved? Yes. Is it marriage? Yes and No. Is it separate unions based on the type and sexes of people involved? Yes. One type, Heterosexual is called marriage. The other type, Homosexual, is called (?).

If some wackoos can have 62 different pronouns and types of sexuality, we can have different types of Unions. One is Marriage for a man and a woman, with or without the intent or ability to have children. The other type is just some other damn form of union and called something else. And you are not two wifes or two husbands, or a man called a wife or a woman called a husband. Find some different names to go with your pronouns.

Just my take on things

Logically Right

Reply
May 23, 2022 13:50:49   #
Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio
 
LogicallyRight wrote:
This is my response to another topic, Marriage and the Constitution. I thought it deserved its own topic


I have no problem with separate and equal of it includes different and equal.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Although unmarried myself, I will never accept as equal, a union between two men, two woman, or a man and a woman, as equal in that they are inherently different in why they were created and the real sex of the people involved. The Homosexual unions will never be what my Mother and Father had.

Marriage was a creation to join, formally, a union between a man and a woman whereby whose actions might create children. This union would take care of the raising of these children.

Homosexual Unions are not about creating children and raising them.

There is overlap of course. A Heterosexual Union might be childless by choice or other reasons, but within a norm of society. A Homosexual Union might have children from a former relationship or adoption. Those children need the protections of a Union of two that might be stronger or better able to care for them then a single individual. But they are still inherently different.

One type can deliberately or accidentally procreate and the other can't, deliberately or accidentally, with their partner through a natural act.

Two people living together, heterosexual or homosexual, share housing, food costs. love(?) and time with each other, often acting as one. Is there a Government interest in creating formal unions that protect each individual in these unions and any kids involved? Yes. Is it marriage? Yes and No. Is it separate unions based on the type and sexes of people involved? Yes. One type, Heterosexual is called marriage. The other type, Homosexual, is called (?).

If some wackoos can have 62 different pronouns and types of sexuality, we can have different types of Unions. One is Marriage for a man and a woman, with or without the intent or ability to have children. The other type is just some other damn form of union and called something else. And you are not two wifes or two husbands, or a man called a wife or a woman called a husband. Find some different names to go with your pronouns.

Just my take on things

Logically Right
This is my response to another topic, Marriage and... (show quote)


I partially agree. But it is not up to me to decide what other peoples hearts want .
That’s beyond me .
I have to go with …live and let live.
Those people pay taxes too. They have right to the pursuit of Happiness . This I have no business deciding ….good , bad or ugly.
Getting fired up about this will not change my life.
It only adds to the massive confusion I see everyday.
If we don’t start changing our ways we’re won’t be here much longer.
This is the 21st Century.
Living in the 4th Century is not helping Afghanistan.
Yet we try to instill Taliban logic here.
I don’t get it.

Reply
May 23, 2022 14:05:30   #
pegw
 
LogicallyRight wrote:
This is my response to another topic, Marriage and the Constitution. I thought it deserved its own topic


I have no problem with separate and equal of it includes different and equal.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Although unmarried myself, I will never accept as equal, a union between two men, two woman, or a man and a woman, as equal in that they are inherently different in why they were created and the real sex of the people involved. The Homosexual unions will never be what my Mother and Father had.

Marriage was a creation to join, formally, a union between a man and a woman whereby whose actions might create children. This union would take care of the raising of these children.

Homosexual Unions are not about creating children and raising them.

There is overlap of course. A Heterosexual Union might be childless by choice or other reasons, but within a norm of society. A Homosexual Union might have children from a former relationship or adoption. Those children need the protections of a Union of two that might be stronger or better able to care for them then a single individual. But they are still inherently different.

One type can deliberately or accidentally procreate and the other can't, deliberately or accidentally, with their partner through a natural act.

Two people living together, heterosexual or homosexual, share housing, food costs. love(?) and time with each other, often acting as one. Is there a Government interest in creating formal unions that protect each individual in these unions and any kids involved? Yes. Is it marriage? Yes and No. Is it separate unions based on the type and sexes of people involved? Yes. One type, Heterosexual is called marriage. The other type, Homosexual, is called (?).

If some wackoos can have 62 different pronouns and types of sexuality, we can have different types of Unions. One is Marriage for a man and a woman, with or without the intent or ability to have children. The other type is just some other damn form of union and called something else. And you are not two wifes or two husbands, or a man called a wife or a woman called a husband. Find some different names to go with your pronouns.

Just my take on things

Logically Right
This is my response to another topic, Marriage and... (show quote)


Robert Reich said it best. The LGBT people only want what other people have. They want the same rights.

Reply
 
 
May 23, 2022 14:15:12   #
LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago
 
I offer options for the various situations and respect for what was in the past.

As I see it, the homosexuals, etc. got a taste of liberty and are demanding we all get on our knees and kiss their asses. They are a small minority.

You among others have demanded the rule of the majority in Congress, a very thin majority, and ranted about that and how Republicans don't cave to the democrats. There is a difference in the sizes of the majority/minority divide.

Well, the minority of homosexuals in America are just that, a minority. A small minority. They demand that the large majority respect them and give into their demands. I say, you take what we give you and learn to work with the large majority and not demand of the large majority.

And there is no reason that they can't accept equal, different Unions, except their childish demands.

Reply
May 23, 2022 14:28:48   #
LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago
 
pegw wrote:
Robert Reich said it best. The LGBT people only want what other people have. They want the same rights.


I disagree. They want the same, but aren't the same. What they want wouldn't be the same. What I offered was fair and respects tradition and the differences whole offering equality of outcome.

There are those that yell for equity. There are those that dumb down schools and business, etc, demanding equity of outcome. Well, here it is. Different, and remaining different, but having an equity of outcome.


On another point, you say they want what other people have. I don't know what your life is like, but I have seen them in action and they don't want what other people have. They want what they want, when they want it, and expect everyone else to stand by and give it to them on demand. What I offered was fair. Get a different license, equal in all respects, but called something different to give Heterosexuals the respect they deserve for their institutions, like real marriage.

Reply
May 23, 2022 14:39:57   #
Oscar louks
 
My belief is in the Bible the constitution is second i respect other peoples view but don’t change what the Bible says

Reply
May 23, 2022 15:22:29   #
Strycker
 
LogicallyRight wrote:
This is my response to another topic, Marriage and the Constitution. I thought it deserved its own topic


I have no problem with separate and equal of it includes different and equal.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Although unmarried myself, I will never accept as equal, a union between two men, two woman, or a man and a woman, as equal in that they are inherently different in why they were created and the real sex of the people involved. The Homosexual unions will never be what my Mother and Father had.

Marriage was a creation to join, formally, a union between a man and a woman whereby whose actions might create children. This union would take care of the raising of these children.

Homosexual Unions are not about creating children and raising them.

There is overlap of course. A Heterosexual Union might be childless by choice or other reasons, but within a norm of society. A Homosexual Union might have children from a former relationship or adoption. Those children need the protections of a Union of two that might be stronger or better able to care for them then a single individual. But they are still inherently different.

One type can deliberately or accidentally procreate and the other can't, deliberately or accidentally, with their partner through a natural act.

Two people living together, heterosexual or homosexual, share housing, food costs. love(?) and time with each other, often acting as one. Is there a Government interest in creating formal unions that protect each individual in these unions and any kids involved? Yes. Is it marriage? Yes and No. Is it separate unions based on the type and sexes of people involved? Yes. One type, Heterosexual is called marriage. The other type, Homosexual, is called (?).

If some wackoos can have 62 different pronouns and types of sexuality, we can have different types of Unions. One is Marriage for a man and a woman, with or without the intent or ability to have children. The other type is just some other damn form of union and called something else. And you are not two wifes or two husbands, or a man called a wife or a woman called a husband. Find some different names to go with your pronouns.

Just my take on things

Logically Right
This is my response to another topic, Marriage and... (show quote)


Marriage is a private agreement or religious union. A government legal union is a civil union and provides legal protections depending on the states. The word marriage should have been removed from all government regulations and replaced with civil union. Problem solved.

Reply
 
 
May 23, 2022 15:29:24   #
EmilyD
 
Milosia2 wrote:
I partially agree. But it is not up to me to decide what other peoples hearts want .
That’s beyond me .
I have to go with …live and let live.
Those people pay taxes too. They have right to the pursuit of Happiness . This I have no business deciding ….good , bad or ugly.
Getting fired up about this will not change my life.
It only adds to the massive confusion I see everyday.
If we don’t start changing our ways we’re won’t be here much longer.
This is the 21st Century.
Living in the 4th Century is not helping Afghanistan.
Yet we try to instill Taliban logic here.
I don’t get it.
I partially agree. But it is not up to me to decid... (show quote)

It is not us that thinks homosexuality is wrong. It is God. We live by His Word, and it is crystal clear to us Christians that this is wrong behavior. (A true Christian would not live this sinful life.) It is the type of behavior that led God to cause the great flood that purged the earth of humanity except for a handful that He chose to live. You may try to justify the behavior with the word "love", but that's all it would be: an excuse. He won't use a flood again - he told us that. But he didn't say anything about fire or wind....

If you don't have faith and believe what God is telling us, that's the free will that you've been given. Good luck with that, though. God made it so we can decide which path to take in life: the faithful way or not.

Reply
May 23, 2022 15:39:09   #
American Vet
 
pegw wrote:
Robert Reich said it best. The LGBT people only want what other people have. They want the same rights.


And what rights do they not have?

Reply
May 23, 2022 16:33:37   #
working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina
 
pegw wrote:
Robert Reich said it best. The LGBT people only want what other people have. They want the same rights.


The solution is actually fairly simple: the government should get out of the marriage business and call all couples as engaged in 'civil unions'.

Marriage should be performed by religious authorities, as they see fit. It is a religious rite, after all.

Reply
May 23, 2022 17:34:46   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
LogicallyRight wrote:
This is my response to another topic, Marriage and the Constitution. I thought it deserved its own topic


I have no problem with separate and equal of it includes different and equal.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Although unmarried myself, I will never accept as equal, a union between two men, two woman, or a man and a woman, as equal in that they are inherently different in why they were created and the real sex of the people involved. The Homosexual unions will never be what my Mother and Father had.

Marriage was a creation to join, formally, a union between a man and a woman whereby whose actions might create children. This union would take care of the raising of these children.

Homosexual Unions are not about creating children and raising them.

There is overlap of course. A Heterosexual Union might be childless by choice or other reasons, but within a norm of society. A Homosexual Union might have children from a former relationship or adoption. Those children need the protections of a Union of two that might be stronger or better able to care for them then a single individual. But they are still inherently different.

One type can deliberately or accidentally procreate and the other can't, deliberately or accidentally, with their partner through a natural act.

Two people living together, heterosexual or homosexual, share housing, food costs. love(?) and time with each other, often acting as one. Is there a Government interest in creating formal unions that protect each individual in these unions and any kids involved? Yes. Is it marriage? Yes and No. Is it separate unions based on the type and sexes of people involved? Yes. One type, Heterosexual is called marriage. The other type, Homosexual, is called (?).

If some wackoos can have 62 different pronouns and types of sexuality, we can have different types of Unions. One is Marriage for a man and a woman, with or without the intent or ability to have children. The other type is just some other damn form of union and called something else. And you are not two wifes or two husbands, or a man called a wife or a woman called a husband. Find some different names to go with your pronouns.

Just my take on things

Logically Right
This is my response to another topic, Marriage and... (show quote)


Calling same sex unions, marriage, is an insult to upright God seeking people.

That being said, I'm ok with civil unions, but don't pretend it is marriage.

That being said, I am in agreement.

Reply
 
 
May 23, 2022 17:36:14   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
working class stiff wrote:
The solution is actually fairly simple: the government should get out of the marriage business and call all couples as engaged in 'civil unions'.

Marriage should be performed by religious authorities, as they see fit. It is a religious rite, after all.


I proposed that years ago. It seemed a bit odd to need a marriage license. Gawd don't need no stinking license.

Reply
May 23, 2022 18:23:48   #
EmilyD
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
I proposed that years ago. It seemed a bit odd to need a marriage license. Gawd don't need no stinking license.

The license could make a difference legally if one of the spouses dies. If not legally married, inheritance of any assets would legally go to relatives - not a girlfriend or boyfriend - and anyone else who comes out of the woodwork. So if that kind of thing matters, best to sign that paper.

Reply
May 23, 2022 19:07:18   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
pegw wrote:
Robert Reich said it best. The LGBT people only want what other people have. They want the same rights.


No...
They don't seek equal rights...
They seek special status...
Normal people don't hold parades displaying their sexuality to the world...
Or try to force their lifestyles into film and television...
Nor do they make their sexual proclivity the central point of their being...
If they did, society would ostracize them...
Imagine if a group of men started holding parades dedicated to how much they enjoy vaginal intercourse...
And insisted that all movies had characters that engaged in vaginal intercourse...
And made a point of telling everyone how important vaginal intercourse is to their identity...
Normal people keep their intimate lives private...

Reply
May 23, 2022 19:08:14   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
working class stiff wrote:
The solution is actually fairly simple: the government should get out of the marriage business and call all couples as engaged in 'civil unions'.

Marriage should be performed by religious authorities, as they see fit. It is a religious rite, after all.


Unite right...

But marriage was only the tip of the camel's nose...

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2022 IDF International Technologies, Inc.