Question: Now that expensive militaristic fascism is going out, will these boards still retain their vitriol?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, September 19, 2025 19:30
VIEWED: 17791
PAGE 21 of 25

PREV PAGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEXT PAGE

HERO

Friday, November 21, 2008 2:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Easy. There's in inherent attempt at deception w/ the faux marriages, by both parties. It matters not whether either party is gay or not, if 2 people get married because they're simply trying to gain citizenship for one , then it's fraud.

I disagree with ICE on this issue. I don't think the government has any business delving into the hearts and minds of the folks getting married.

So long as the forms are met, that should be sufficient to make a marriage legal. In most states these forms include forms (ie a legal document or license), blood test, vows (the legal term is solemnization), and consumation. Failure to properly execute these requirments can lead to the marriage being nullified.

H

AURAPTOR

Friday, November 21, 2008 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So if a gay mand were to marry a woman, or a lesbian to marry a man, isn't there "deception" there too?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

That's been going on for ages, and for all sorts of reasons, not just gaining citizenship.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

HERO

Friday, November 21, 2008 2:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So if a gay mand were to marry a woman, or a lesbian to marry a man, isn't there "deception" there too?

That depends on the circumstances.

For example, if the man concealed his sexuality from the woman, then that could be grounds for divorce or annullment.

If she knew and they didn't consumate, same thing.

If she knew and they did consumate (which is physically possible, especially if the person is bisexual), then no fraud.

One possibility is neither knew...such as the man does not realize he's gay till he sees his wife gain a lot of weight. That would be grounds for divorce, but not for fraud.

H

SIGNYM

Friday, November 21, 2008 2:38 PM

Quote:
That's been going on for ages, and for all sorts of reasons, not just gaining citizenship.

So if something's been going on for "ages" it's OK?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

AGENTROUKA

Friday, November 21, 2008 2:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Anecdotal incidents of elderly or couples who choose NOT to have kids, etc do not change the fact that the vast majority of man and woman who come together to share their lives with each other will have children, and that bond is found no where else in our society.

And who says that the vast majority of gay couples choosing marriage will not want to be parents to children? Through adoption, through artificial methods, or whichever way.

They face the same challenges that infertile heterosexual couples face, in both cases the willingness is perfectly evident and should be honored accordingly. I see no difference between these two special cases at all. In fact, the number of couples who have trouble conceiving is at about 15%, which is higher than the generally assumed percentage of homosexual people in a population. To me, homosexual couples fall into this category of fertility-challenged families.

Why is the theoretical ability to biologically create children together so much more fundamental than the desire and choice to form a family together? Can you explain that?

AURAPTOR

Friday, November 21, 2008 2:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
That's been going on for ages, and for all sorts of reasons, not just gaining citizenship.
So if something's been going on for "ages" it's OK?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

Absolutely! Slavery went on for 400+ yrs, so it ( I'm joking here ) should never ( This is only sarcasm , not real ) have been removed.

I love how you twist and distort my words. You HAVE to know that wasn't my point, in the least. The issue was fraud marriages for the sake of gaining citizenship, and now you're off on a segue to some ever open ended tangent. My POINT was that gays have been marrying for fear of being found out, because they were lying to themselves, their friends and family, etc......it's not the same when 2 people knowingly set out to commit fraud, as when 1 person is trying to hide the truth, or thinks that by marrying a woman, he'll FIX himself and fall into society's norm.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Friday, November 21, 2008 3:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

And who says that the vast majority of gay couples choosing marriage will not want to be parents to children? Through adoption, through artificial methods, or whichever way.

Same sex couples can't have children as married couples can. Sure, both may adopt, or artificially carry to term, but the can't have a child, genetically made of those 2 individuals, as a result of their union.

Quote:
They face the same challenges that infertile heterosexual couples face, in both cases the willingness is perfectly evident and should be honored accordingly. I see no difference between these two special cases at all. In fact, the number of couples who have trouble conceiving is at about 15%, which is higher than the generally assumed percentage of homosexual people in a population. To me, homosexual couples fall into this category of fertility-challenged families.

Why is the theoretical ability to biologically create children together so much more fundamental than the desire and choice to form a family together? Can you explain that?

What's to explain? Nature has equipped man and women to perform specific task which can't be duplicated. The 'man' who gave birth to a child was born a woman, by nature. Surgery and chemicals aside, she's still a woman. Under no circumstance can a homosexual couple have children, naturally. ( I'm not commenting on adoption here ) THAT'S THE BIG DEAL! Survival of the species, and not merely taking care of other's offspring, is what makes marriage between a man and woman such a vital basis for humanity . I don't see how anyone can argue or even contend any of that. It's how life works. Period.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AGENTROUKA

Friday, November 21, 2008 3:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

And who says that the vast majority of gay couples choosing marriage will not want to be parents to children? Through adoption, through artificial methods, or whichever way.

Same sex couples can't have children as married couples can. Sure, both may adopt, or artificially carry to term, but the can't have a child, genetically made of those 2 individuals, as a result of their union.

They bring to marriage the same equipment that infertile heterosexual couples do. To me, they are both equally qualified to form a family.

Either you DO make fertility the only deciding factor, or you don't, but do not make silly exceptions like "most hetero couples aren't infertile". 15% need help. That's just inconsistent with your supposed priorities.

And I maintain that it is not the making of babies that creates family, but the raising of them in a loving home. Ask Joss, I'm sure he would agree. All his shows are about family, at their heart and it is pretty much never biological family.

Quote:

Quote:
They face the same challenges that infertile heterosexual couples face, in both cases the willingness is perfectly evident and should be honored accordingly. I see no difference between these two special cases at all. In fact, the number of couples who have trouble conceiving is at about 15%, which is higher than the generally assumed percentage of homosexual people in a population. To me, homosexual couples fall into this category of fertility-challenged families.

Why is the theoretical ability to biologically create children together so much more fundamental than the desire and choice to form a family together? Can you explain that?

What's to explain? Nature has equipped man and women to perform specific task which can't be duplicated.

So why would they need marriage in order to have sex until the woman is pregnant? They don't.

Sex makes babies. Artifical means make babies.

Marriage isn't about making babies. It's about possibly providing a home for them.

Quote:
Survival of the species, and not merely taking care of other's offspring, is what makes marriage between a man and woman such a vital basis for humanity . I don't see how anyone can argue or even contend any of that. It's how life works. Period.

And yet that baby would not have been born to the woman-turned-man and his wife, had it not been the choice of that married couple to have it created. A choice made because they want to be a family. Do you not appreciate their contribution to the survival of the species? A baby is a baby and counts toward the final tally.

Or do you oppose the awful artificiality that should not be supported by marriage? Au naturale only? Again I point at infertile hetero couples.

Also:

Heterosexual men and woman have sex, and have babies. Inside of marriage or outside of it. Marriage is not the thing that guarantees a stable number of babies being born. Babies were born before there was marriage. Species without any gay marriage can die out. (Hello, pandas.)

Sex and choice make babies.

Hell, we can have baby farms all over the planet to ensure that even more people are produced and all we would end with is chaos and pain.

We do not need an indiscriminate number of more homo sapiens. We need decently raised people.

Now, what is more likely to actually make decent people of the babies born? Families. Whether born into them or adopted into them, conceived naturally or through artificial means, families are what babies need. The babies that are being born, whether to a heterosexual marriage or a heterosexual one-night-stand or to a pregnant teen or whichever the circumstances.

Marriage is the choice of two peole to form a family together. THAT is what is honored by the term, not the fact that they have sex that can lead to pregnancy.

AURAPTOR

Friday, November 21, 2008 3:52 PM

Infertile heterosexual couples are anecdotal, not the norm. The basics don't change. Man + woman = baby. 2 of the same sex = no baby ,ever.

No one is saying same sex partners can't join to make a home, but they can't have kids naturally, and their union should not be called a 'marriage'.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AGENTROUKA

Friday, November 21, 2008 3:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Infertile heterosexual couples are anecdotal, not the norm. The basics don't change. Man + woman = baby. 2 of the same sex = no baby ,ever.

No one is saying same sex partners can't join to make a home, but they can't have kids naturally, and their union should not be called a 'marriage'.

The number of heterosexual couples who cannot have babies is larger than the number of homosexual couples who cannot have babies. How is 15% anecdotal?

PREV PAGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEXT PAGE