Gay Marriage Is An Oxymoron!

dollbabi

Earth Angel
The children cry is just a tool of lawyers. As a woman choose to keep a child then she also chooses to care for that child. If she marries for the right reasons then there is no issue of child support. Extracting the government from any legal union has consequences which I'm sure for the people who push papers day in/out will heavily object. So the government keeping out of the marriage business isn't happening. You have to advocate for inclusion into a club (business) that excludes fringe groups on something a lot stronger, because people livelihoods are on the line.
So men have no responsibilty to care/provide for the child they created with the woman? If "she" marries for the right reasons, what about the men? It takes two parties to make a child and two to marry. No matter what the issue between the parents, the child should be provided for emotionally and financially. The failure to recognize responsibility on the part of men is a huge reason for the ills of society today...societal decay to put it in your words.

I agree that the government will likely never leave the business of marriage. Thus, as long as it is involved, there is the chance that it will "redefine" marriage under the law as well as its benefits. So those who continue to complain about redefinition of marriage and related child support responsibilities should realize the results of giving such issues to the courts...

LOL@ tool of lawyers. Lawyers are hired by everyday people. They would have no purpose in the area of child support if people would be responsible.
 

Swollen

Players Play I Coach
You mean immorality right? :tease:
Smart A

If used in the right context it is meant to be mortality since sex between like kind is a decline in the birthrate, hence the immortality of mankind is imminent..

Now tek dat...
 

dollbabi

Earth Angel
Smart A

If used in the right context it is meant to be mortality since sex between like kind is a decline in the birthrate, hence the immortality of mankind is imminent..

Now tek dat...
*steups* Yuh really showing yuh age now! :kicks
 

SKBai1991

Registered User
You think so?

I guess you won't argue with this:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/b9f2n0xPZ3k?list=PL5EA49DC8258413FC" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
even worse, more trivial garbage than the garbage you had posted earlier. The idea that someone could die, go to hell, and make it out is ridiculous...pure stupidity
 

TOLOMB

Red Man
So men have no responsibilty to care/provide for the child they created with the woman? If "she" marries for the right reasons, what about the men? It takes two parties to make a child and two to marry. No matter what the issue between the parents, the child should be provided for emotionally and financially. The failure to recognize responsibility on the part of men is a huge reason for the ills of society today...societal decay to put it in your words.

I agree that the government will likely never leave the business of marriage. Thus, as long as it is involved, there is the chance that it will "redefine" marriage under the law as well as its benefits. So those who continue to complain about redefinition of marriage and related child support responsibilities should realize the results of giving such issues to the courts...

LOL@ tool of lawyers. Lawyers are hired by everyday people. They would have no purpose in the area of child support if people would be responsible.
Men take care of their kinds, even those not biologically theirs!!!
Females need to understand the difference from having a baby with someone vs having a baby or having a baby for someone!!! This can be done before or after.

Not to get of subject but to redefine marriage under the law is not the same as extending benefits to same sex couples... Fringe relationships (although tolerated) are not the standard for procreation. On top of this the group seeking admission is not advocating for others in the same situation. Is this a moral dilemma or the homosexual cause has exclusivity?
 

dollbabi

Earth Angel
Men take care of their kinds, even those not biologically theirs!!!
Females need to understand the difference from having a baby with someone vs having a baby or having a baby for someone!!! This can be done before or after.

Not to get of subject but to redefine marriage under the law is not the same as extending benefits to same sex couples... Fringe relationships (although tolerated) are not the standard for procreation. On top of this the group seeking admission is not advocating for others in the same situation. Is this a moral dilemma or the homosexual cause has exclusivity?
If the bold was true, there wouldn't be so many fatherless children running around. It's a shame that men want to put the blame on women when they laid down and made their children. When they neglect their children, that is a decision that they make - no one else.

Regarding the redefinition & benefits, no one said the two were the same. The statement was simply that "as long as it (the government) is involved, there is the chance that it will 'redefine' marriage under the law as well as its benefits." That's reality.

It seems the homosexual cause has exclusivity but that's a question for them really...
 

Ananci_7

Registered User
no sex, no babies, no procreation, death of mankind
I was just reminiscing that that is exactly how the early Christian thinkers idealised it which is why they tried to attach guilt to and stamp out sex......thus hastening the return of the Jesus character.....so they thought.
 

MJ7

New member
What always gets me is how atheists love to quote the Bible--in their skewed way; and counter Christian theology; yet, they claim THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD.

Hhmmmm....
 

SKBai1991

Registered User
What always gets me is how atheists love to quote the Bible--in their skewed way; and counter Christian theology; yet, they claim THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD.

Hhmmmm....
you don't need to believe in God to quote the Bible, especially since it was written by people and not God. Atheists quote the Bible to point out the inconsistencies in the way fundamentalist Christians choose to observe and apply certain biblical teachings but ignore or outright contradict others.
 
Top