II: "then please explain why i cannot marry ... my stuffed animal". I'd love to! It's so convenient! If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

quote:

---

Originally posted by snake: i am assuming that you are joking otherwise you are just an idiot if you don't see the difference...

---

Apparently, I am an idiot. Snake, please explain to this idiot what the difference is. An intelligent person like you should be able to explain this to an idiot like me. "A sure cure for seasickness is to sit under a tree." -Spike Milligan II

---

I don't see a reason why have these problems. If they want to get married, whatever, let them do that, let people live their lives as they want. No tax exemptions for gay families though :))) But seriously, on the big scale, gay families would make up such a small percentage of all families that it's not even worth the trouble. Just let those freaks do whatever :)

---

Snake, you are missing the point… It is not about group of people! It’s about definition of marriage! Look at it like this: what is a definition of breakfast? Breakfast is a meal that you eat in the morning. When you go to an IHOP at 7 PM and order eggs from their breakfast menu - you are eating same thing that you would usually eat in the morning but it is now a dinner! Same thing is with marriage! The only place where it’s not clearly stated is our Constitution and an amendment should fix it! “The more things change, the more they stay the same...” (Machiavelli)

---

actually, from the historic point of view, marrige is a union between a man an womEn.... so let's not get the history into it.... or we can go into very wierd places... (remember the signs of the very recent history: no jews nor dogs allowed"?, "for whites only")... slavery was also defended as a historical fact...

quote:

---

Originally posted by TAP3AH: People, you are looking at this thing only from a sexual point! The fact that two people can have sex with each-other should not automatically qualify them to be able to get married!!! Let me repeat this again: marriage by its historical and legal definition is a union between man and woman! Union between man and another man is not marriage - call it whatever you like, give to it whatever rights you want, but do not call it marriage because marriage it is not! This is a simple example when government should protect the rights of its citizens from politically correct nutcases pushing their liberal agenda and undermining our moral values! Democrats are trying to use this issue to win some votes but they are the biggest hypocrites themselves (“Don’t ask - don’t tell”). “The more things change, the more they stay the same...” (Machiavelli)

---

lyosha http://www.mindspring.com/~snake76 ****************** What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

---

lyosha
******************
What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

i can eat breakfast anytime of day... it's the first meal i eat when i get up :) - could be 7pm.. :)

quote:

---

Originally posted by TAP3AH: Snake, you are missing the point… It is not about group of people! It’s about definition of marriage! Look at it like this: what is a definition of breakfast? Breakfast is a meal that you eat in the morning. When you go to an IHOP at 7 PM and order eggs from their breakfast menu - you are eating same thing that you would usually eat in the morning but it is now a dinner! Same thing is with marriage! The only place where it’s not clearly stated is or Constitution and an amendment should fix it! “The more things change, the more they stay the same...” (Machiavelli)

---

lyosha http://www.mindspring.com/~snake76 ****************** What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

---

lyosha
******************
What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by snake: hold on.. and you call yourself a conservative?.. government has to do something? it has to protect moral values?.. who's moral values?.. who says that your moral values are better then mine?.. government should stay away from enforcing any moral or religious values.... we already had communism and fasism.. enough of that!

quote:

---

Originally posted by TAP3AH: This is a simple example when government should protect the rights of its citizens from politically correct nutcases pushing their liberal agenda and undermining our moral values!

---

lyosha http://www.mindspring.com/~snake76 ****************** What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

---

Hey, I did not say enforcing - I said protecting and the protection of its citizen is a reason we pay taxes to our government. Constitution is the tool that government should use to protect my moral values (it's paid for by me). By the way, what are your moral values, Snake? I am trying to figure it out from day one… Well? “The more things change, the more they stay the same...” (Machiavelli)

---

TAP3H and II - the dictionary definition is irrelevant: the purpose of a family is to provide stability to children - and in that respect they deserve whatever tax breaks a couple needs, especially if that is their purpose when they get married, besides, they will be adopting youngsters which is a service to society, way better than these kids being raised in fostercare. - isn't ironic that the catholic church, the #1 institution in paedophilia cases, wants to impose its morals in society? wouldn't it make you think twice about whatever they say? - how about Bush's moral's? - II, if you would like to be have a tree, a stuffed animal or a sheep inside you, nobody cares (and thank god, there are no more sodomy laws for you). If you happen to get married, be faithful and raise some adopted kids, you too deserve your tax breaks (though im not sure how stable/loving your family could be).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tanja: TAP3H and II - the dictionary definition is irrelevant: the purpose of a family is to provide stability to children - and in that respect they deserve whatever tax breaks a couple needs, especially if that is their purpose when they get married, besides, they will be adopting youngsters which is a service to society, way better than these kids being raised in fostercare. - isn't ironic that the catholic church, the #1 institution in paedophilia cases, wants to impose its morals in society? wouldn't it make you think twice about whatever they say? - how about Bush's moral's? - II, if you would like to be have a tree, a stuffed animal or a sheep inside you, nobody cares (and thank god, there are no more sodomy laws for you). If you happen to get married, be faithful and raise some adopted kids, you too deserve your tax breaks (though im not sure how stable/loving your family could be).

---

- You are contradicting yourself - if definitions are irrelevant then why are you trying to define the purpose of the family? - Number one institution of pedophilia cases? I thought Michael Jackson had that spot? Nobody is trying to impose their morals on you - all they are trying to do is to preserve the tradition that survived many homosexual periods in human history. - What about Bush’s morals? Do you prefer Clinton’s morals? - Мойша, а ви знаете - Сема таки педераст! - Шо, он занял деньги и не отдает? - Не-ет, в хорошем смысле... “The more things change, the more they stay the same...” (Machiavelli)

---

I guess no one would lose in case they would allow gays to marry. They are allowed to be gays, i.e. to live together. The only difference that they will also be allowed to legally register their relationships. It is like when man and woman decide go and marry. What's wrong with that? The main point that that being gay is not against law. Since so it is ok that they can get married. And difintions sucks. They can create another word for this. The sense will not change with that anyway. Getting marriage with sheeps is something new. Well, maybe some few centuries ahead will see such phenomena. It is unpredictable now.

---

I don't care if a man loves a man or if their union gets tax breaks, just don't call it marriage. That's all. Snake, Roman Empire fall at about same time as the peak of homosexuality in Rome Greeks were conquered by Rome at about the same time they had a peak of homosexuality there. By the way - in Greece they just f..ked yung boys, but married the women Anyhow, homo is not a normal way. Human race as any other animals on this planet is heterosexual. I hope you see the difference between being not normal and being wrong ? For example - a hybrid of two different fruits is not normal, but there is certainly nothing wrong with nectarines Also, to which culture do you refering to when you say "marriage used to be when a man married to a women" ? tanja, Zacroy roat u 2. Very nice Узнаю милого по походке ..... - II, if you would like to be have a tree, a stuffed animal or a sheep inside you, nobody cares (and thank god, there are no more sodomy laws for you). If you happen to get married, be faithful and raise some adopted kids, you too deserve your tax breaks (though im not sure how stable/loving your family could be). That's liberals for you... khe..khe... "...Нашу песню не задушишь, не убьешь..."

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....

KGBMan, did I tell you that I like you? (No! Not in Greek or Roman way). “The more things change, the more they stay the same...” (Machiavelli)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TAP3AH: KGBMan, did I tell you that I like you? (No! Not in Greek or Roman way). “The more things change, the more they stay the same...” (Machiavelli)

---

nu, vi posmotrite na nih:) Tarzan to i delo vsem v lubvi priznaetsa, prichem vse bolshe muzhchinam...:) a sami protiv gayev. Ne stykovochka poluchaetsa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zoo_again: nu, vi posmotrite na nih:) Tarzan to i delo vsem v lubvi priznaetsa, prichem vse bolshe muzhchinam...:) a sami protiv gayev. Ne stykovochka poluchaetsa.

---

Zoo, First of all I did not say that I am against gays! Second, if you are jealous - just say a word and “stykovochka” poluchitsya!! “The more things change, the more they stay the same...” (Machiavelli)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TAP3AH:

quote:

---

Originally posted by zoo_again: nu, vi posmotrite na nih:) Tarzan to i delo vsem v lubvi priznaetsa, prichem vse bolshe muzhchinam...:) a sami protiv gayev. Ne stykovochka poluchaetsa.

---

Zoo, First of all I did not say that I am against gays! Second, if you are jealous - just say a word and “stykovochka” poluchitsya!! “The more things change, the more they stay the same...” (Machiavelli)

---

LOL net slov....

---