West Point men become first to marry at academy

[Trigg]

Civil Unions in a state do not match up with marriage benefits that are at a federal level. 1 != 2. Thanks for showing your westboro baptist colors.

So NOW if people disagree with fundamentally changing the definition of marriage they're fanatics

No matter that practically everyone on this board has said that they agree with civil unions giving rights to committed same sex couples.

the Gay community is fixated on a WORD when they should be working on the benefits they want.

[Larrymc]

So NOW if people disagree with fundamentally changing the definition of marriage they're fanatics

No matter that practically everyone on this board has said that they agree with civil unions giving rights to committed same sex couples.

the Gay community is fixated on a WORD when they should be working on the benefits they want.

Exactly Trigg, the continued fight has nothing to do with benefits or Government recognition, it about changing the very foundation of what is considered Normal.

[Arbo]

Civil Unions would have gave you every thing,

When the federal law says that 'marriage' get's you those benefits, then civil unions do not.

Huh? Where did this come from?

I just wanted to be the fucker that replied to you far too early in the morning.

I think the entire board would agree that those people are nutty as can possibly be.

Some might, but some put forth the same BS and hate.

[Arbo]

So NOW if people disagree with fundamentally changing the definition of marriage they're fanatics

The definition has changed continually since the start of mankind. Do you believe marriage should be as it was initially meant to be rather than what it is today?

[logroller]

Civil Unions would have gave you every thing, except Marriage,but would have had no problem getting other benefits desired added to a Union, but as i said that's not the real agenda. Religious Extremist, which is what you decided to label me and others with in your WB comment, i thought it fitting to remind you there are labels other than Gay for you, if you want to go there,

No if ands or buts-- you're mistaken. Not to mention, they (civil unions) would give yo the same benefits too then, would that make you gay?

I've posted a link in this very thread that detailed a long list, on the order of hundreds of benefits that a civil unions/domestic partnership DO NOT receive. So they DO NOT receive the same treatment by government.

But let's just say that laws were changed making them equal. If either receive the same benefits, why define marriage in law at all?

[fj1200]

Acceptance via legislation. And don't reply to me, fucker, as it's way too early for me to be debating today.

How about now? FWIW, equal treatment is not acceptance.

[fj1200]

This is getting old, it has been explained as simple as possible, They want to be recognized as another class of people, at best they are a group of people who share a particular Sexual desire, Hardly making another Race or Ethnicity, Infidelity could be argued born that way, should we be offering Marital benefits to all Mistresses, and Booty Calls. I suppose it could fall under Polygamy, Ooops that's against the law. Let me warn once again don"t hurt your self, trying to understand, Play it safe and stick to your equality for all the perverted stance

How do they want to be "another class of people"? But excellent use of strawman in keeping it "simple."

Civil Unions, offered all the above, and with little resistance, But that's not the real agenda, You Faggots intend to push until its the Norm, Rather than Traditional Relationships,

Well that's testy. And no, civil unions do not offer all of marriage. Will you support removing marriage from the Federal code and replacing it with unions?

[Larrymc]

No if ands or buts-- you're mistaken. Not to mention, they (civil unions) would give yo the same benefits too then, would that make you gay?

I've posted a link in this very thread that detailed a long list, on the order of hundreds of benefits that a civil unions/domestic partnership DO NOT receive. So they DO NOT receive the same treatment by government.

But let's just say that laws were changed making them equal. If either receive the same benefits, why define marriage in law at all?

Its been said many time on this forum, but you still come back to the same argument, Isn't That The Definition Of A Fool, Marriage is an age old Institution from Biblical times, as a Union between a Man and a Woman, Period Accepted and Recognized by the Government, Open Homosexuality is new just like the Phobias you made up for it, Like wise you should make up a Tittle for your commitments, Civil Unions was good, and and had little opposition, if it didn't include the benefits you fell entitled to, then fight for that, but as i have said many times the last few days, its not about benefits, Its about forcing your agenda on society until ones Deviant Sexual Preference is seen as normal as the railing sun, Even distinguishing between Marriage and Union is unacceptable even if it came with all the Government recognition. If it were only about benefits and Government recognition, the Homosexuals would have ran with Unions, and began a fight to include benefits, and left our schools, privet business, Traditions and Laws alone.

[Arbo]

Marriage is an age old Institution from Biblical times,

And it's definition has been changed since those times. I don't know why nobody that is against gay marriage refuses to answer this (or perhaps I do), but do you prefer marriage go back to what it was in biblical times? Isn't it being anything but what it was back then a redefinition of marriage?

[Larrymc]

And it's definition has been changed since those times. I don't know why nobody that is against gay marriage refuses to answer this (or perhaps I do), but do you prefer marriage go back to what it was in biblical times? Isn't it being anything but what it was back then a redefinition of marriage?

No a redefinition is what you Homosexuals want, some Traditions of marriage may have changed over time, but Marriage by definition is still a Union of a Man and a Woman.

[Arbo]

No a redefinition is what you Homosexuals want, some Traditions of marriage may have changed over time, but Marriage by definition is still a Union of a Man and a Woman.

You really accentuate the bigot in you when you spout off with 'faggots' and 'you homosexuals'. What's wrong little man, did another man try to touch you at some point?

Nice job with the spin on tradition vs definition. So you don't support marriage in it's original form… you could have just said that.

[Larrymc]

You really accentuate the bigot in you when you spout off with 'faggots' and 'you homosexuals'. What's wrong little man, did another man try to touch you at some point?

Nice job with the spin on tradition vs definition. So you don't support marriage in it's original form… you could have just said that.

Faggot and Homosexuals bother you Huh, or are you just upset that you didn't get to run on about how Marriage relationships have changed the definition of it. I have debated this issue very civil until you took it to the next level, if you don't like to hear true description of your Sexual Preference, than don't, Obese about it for days, in public on a forum, I mean you have twisted this every way imaginable in an attempt to justify your sexual behavior, I know your desperate for someone to affirm it for you, but whats it going to take for you to see, its not going to happen here.

[jimnyc]

How about now? FWIW, equal treatment is not acceptance.

That's a loaded statement for me to reply to, no way to win! Let's just say that I agree, the legislation isn't going to bring acceptance.

[Arbo]

Faggot and Homosexuals bother you Huh

So around we go back to your lack of comprehension? No, NOTHING bothers me, unlike you and your fellow westboro baptist types.

I have debated this issue

You'd have to respond on topic to have a discussion. You want to continue to bitch about how gays want to 'redefine' something that you don't even support in terms of it's original intent and meaning. You shy away from the reality that it has been 'redefined' across time because that kills your argument… or you actually believe in the original version where you can marry kids and you get your brothers wife if he dies. So which is it?

[logroller]

Its been said many time on this forum, but you still come back to the same argument, Isn't That The Definition Of A Fool, Marriage is an age old Institution from Biblical times, as a Union between a Man and a Woman, Period Accepted and Recognized by the Government, Open Homosexuality is new just like the Phobias you made up for it, Like wise you should make up a Tittle for your commitments, Civil Unions was good, and and had little opposition, if it didn't include the benefits you fell entitled to, then fight for that, but as i have said many times the last few days, its not about benefits, Its about forcing your agenda on society until ones Deviant Sexual Preference is seen as normal as the railing sun, Even distinguishing between Marriage and Union is unacceptable even if it came with all the Government recognition. If it were only about benefits and Government recognition, the Homosexuals would have ran with Unions, and began a fight to include benefits, and left our schools, privet business, Traditions and Laws alone.

I didn't say anything about phobias. Once again you rest your position on false pretense and when faced with reason and facts that refute your claim you fall back on "that's tradition." --Thus to foolishness, I yield to your qualified expertise. Do you still abide by the rule of thumb as well?

Bottom line is that I'm secure with my sexuality and my marriage and neither need government protection. Perhaps you are not but, rest easy, the government's there to help. Godspeed.