verogue... gay marriage being legal is a really new thing. Many of these older people getting married are ones who have been with their partner a while and have waited for a chance to finally get married.
LindaH wrote: > Let me touch it in your place...
>
> The reason they are getting married so late in
> life is because they are going senile and losing
> their senses.
>
>
> How's that?
Nah.......... They are getting old, sex is long gone and they figure they might as well be like straight boring old couples.
There's only 1 real good reason to get married anymore: The legal benefits. If we extend those privileges and benefits to anyone who wants them, no one would need to get married. It would only be for people who merely 'want' to. I'd love to see that happen to marriage.
Could a large bird...say...% an eagle, fly with one wing? You know if the eagle only has a right wing or a left wing, then it couldn't fly at all. It would be sitting on the ground being a bit vulnerable, don't ya think?
LindaH wrote: > Let me touch it in your place...
>
> The reason they are getting married so late in life is because they
> are going senile and losing their senses.
>
>
> How's that?
EXACTLY!
And what are the extra benefits a gay marriage might give, more than the parternship?
verouge wrote: >
> And what are the extra benefits a gay marriage might give, more than the parternship?
Damn straight! And you know what else really grinds my gears? Where in the bible does it say that a man can't fire off some knuckle-children in the privacy of his own neighbor's living room while his neighbor's at work because I don't have a DVD player? Well, I don't know where it says it because the Bible was way too long to read!
cloudhugger wrote: > Could a large bird...say...% an eagle, fly
> with one wing? You know if the eagle only has
> a right wing or a left wing, then it couldn't
> fly at all. It would be sitting on the ground
> being a bit vulnerable, don't ya think?
I guess our analogy is being missed. But ya know... it's possible to sit on a fence with one wing.
icurok wrote: > verouge wrote: >>
>> And what are the extra benefits a gay marriage might give, more
> than the parternship?
>
> Damn straight! And you know what else really grinds my gears? Where
> in the bible does it say that a man can't fire off some knuckle-children
> in the privacy of his own neighbor's living room while his neighbor's
> at work because I don't have a DVD player? Well, I don't know where
> it says it because the Bible was way too long to read!
Well, the Bible does say something against gay guys having sex. But it doesn't say anything about gay marriage. And its not like you have to be married anymore to have sex these days anyway. Gay guys are already having sex (which goes against the Bible), so I don't get the Biblical opposition.
You don't get it? You said it - the Bible says gay sex is wrong. So they are sinners, wicked, depraved souls who must be punished by God and deprived of any right a normal, decent Christian would have, like marriage.
People should only have to get married because they want to, and not have to get married to receive benefits. That's the whole part of this marriage bit that rubs me the wrong way. No one would give a hoot if their marriage was 'legally recognized' by the state, if the state didn't require marriage for all the tax benefits, health benefits, automatic next-of-kin etc.
southernyankee wrote: > Wicksy wrote: >> I agree with Christopher Hitchins
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Is_Not_Great >
> Ah ha! So there is a God. Hitchins admitted it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
icurok wrote: > verouge wrote: >> I agree with the bible!
>
> well.. aside from that whole 'Jesus being the Son of God' thing. But
> to be fair, that was mostly a subplot.
Guess you know what I was talking about... Don't be ridiculous!
Well, it's true that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, but you might consider this: The attack on the USS Cole
happened while Clinton was still in the White House. Clinton's reaction to that was to reduce the Navy's refueling stops in Yemen where the attack occurred. In my opinion, this action invited the attack of 9/11. It was precisely the kind reaction the attackers were hoping to precipitate.
Just an aside: the media characterized the attack on the USS Cole as a "terrorist attack". I don't believe it was. Terrorism generally targets civilian populations. The USS Cole was a valid military target. Not that I am claiming the attack was justified. I just don't accept it as a terrorist action.
I think it's completely ridiculous to say that Bush let 9/11 happened. How can he be held any more accountable than any other president? On 9/11 Bush had been president for seven months and three weeks. I find it really hard to believe that anything that happened in those seven months was something that Clinton, or any previous president didn't know about.
Sure, you can say you don't like how he dealt with 9/11 after the fact (if you feel so inclined). But to say that HE let it happen...that's pretty fantastic. He had no more a part in letting it happen than Clinton did.
icurok wrote: > verouge wrote: >>
>> And what are the extra benefits a gay marriage might give, more
> than the parternship?
>
> Damn straight! And you know what else really grinds my gears? Where
> in the bible does it say that a man can't fire off some knuckle-children
> in the privacy of his own neighbor's living room while his neighbor's
> at work because I don't have a DVD player? Well, I don't know where
> it says it because the Bible was way too long to read!
Actually, so far as I know, it doesn't say that anywhere. The Sin of Onan is as close as it comes. The tale can be read in Genesis 38:7-10. Basically, under Mosaic law, if a married man dies without progeny, his brother is supposed to sleep with his widow in order to produce a child who will then legally carry on the dead man's line. Onan did not want to father a child that would not be legally recognized as his, so he "spilled his seed on the ground". The Medieval Catholic Church interpreted this as "masturbation", which in fact it was not. Onan's sin was not masturbation per se, but one of selfishness, denying his dead brother the opportunity to continue his line.
southernyankee wrote: > Well, the Bible does say something against gay guys having sex. But
> it doesn't say anything about gay marriage. And its not like
> you have to be married anymore to have sex these days anyway. Gay
> guys are already having sex (which goes against the Bible), so I don't
> get the Biblical opposition.
Saying that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch is kinda a dipcrap thing to say. For one, that would be like saying that the Oklahoma City bombing happened on Clinton's watch, or that the first attack on the WTC happened on Bush Sr (or was it Clinton's already?) watch.
My personal (read: I probably don't know what I am talking about because I am not a terrorist expert) theory is that the terrorists were smart enough to figure out that Bush was the new guy, so the statedgy is to attack during the transition period. Its pretty much terrorist tradition (and legitimate hostile governments) to test the new guy.
Also, this was before the Patriot Act and the neo-cons controlling W's foreign policy. Bin Laden must have thought W to be a Pat Buchanan type of conservative, the non-interventionist LJD type. Boy were they wrong.
cprasky wrote: > southernyankee wrote: >> Well, the Bible does say something against gay guys having sex.
> But
>> it doesn't say anything about gay marriage. And its not like
>> you have to be married anymore to have sex these days anyway.
> Gay
>> guys are already having sex (which goes against the Bible), so
> I don't
>> get the Biblical opposition.
>
> Oddly though, it says nothing about lesbians.
My theory is that some horrible STD was floating around at that time (think AIDS), which (surprise, surprise) affected gay men the most. Since gay guys get the most action, because they're trying to do dudes, they also tend to get the most STDs. Since biblical people didn't know anything about germs, and noticed the trend of gay guys dieing all the sudden, they all came to the only logical conclusion. That God was punishing them. Promiscuous straight people got STDs too, so thats probably why the Bible says so much stuff about being faithful.
Not that I actually read the Bible or anything, but I know more or less what it says.
llamamama wrote: > I think it's completely ridiculous to say that
> Bush let 9/11 happened. How can he be held any
> more accountable than any other president? On
> 9/11 Bush had been president for seven months
> and three weeks. I find it really hard to believe
> that anything that happened in those seven months
> was something that Clinton, or any previous president
> didn't know about.
> Sure, you can say you don't like how he dealt
> with 9/11 after the fact (if you feel so inclined).
> But to say that HE let it happen...that's pretty
> fantastic. He had no more a part in letting it
> happen than Clinton did.
Why would I remember something that happened August 6, 2001? Honestly.
Do you realize the attention span of a ten year old...During the summer? I doubt it. On 9/11, I remember being on the phone with my friend afraid that "they" (whoever they where) were going to drop a bomb on my house.
So asking me if I remember is stupid because no, I don't...and ten year olds really do not have a fantastic grasp on the world. I know, shocker, right?
Okay, first thing..'"He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."' I don't understand why we're still sitting on that issue. It's been done, and it was horrible..but how about we focus on the current issue instead of whether or not Bush could have stopped anything? Terrorism's been around since the dawn of time..so everytime there was a terrorist attack it was allowed to happen? Wondering if anything could have been done really isn't helping anything. Seriously, this is exactly like when any other bad things happen and the people on the news are always like, "Well, if we had done this...this wouldn't have happened." Hindsight is a dog, isn't it? Everyone thinks they're an authority on the issue and everyone thinks they know how they would have done it differently..And maybe it would have been done differently..but maybe not. It's really not helpful at all to sit there and wonder.
I am definitely inclined to think that everyone is incredibly biased anyway because of how much the general population hated Bush.
Yes, he has ignored it. Duh. And so have everybody else, up until the moment it happened. Maybe it had something to do with Bush being worried about China becoming an economic threat at the time (and they were, and remember that whole military plane crash near China).
Because of 9/11, we totally forgot about China. Does that mean that our trade deficit with China happened on Clinton's and Bush's watch because it happened over the last 16 years.
