419 views and no answer!?!? Not very Progressive.

[MarAzul]

Come now progressive young men, tell us Why.

Why are some young men seeking to enter
the institution sanctified by the church they shun. The same institution
named after the term for Young women, mari, but now without the young women!

What is the point?

 

[crowTrobot]

to get SlyPokerDog to shut up and mind his own business for one

 

[MarAzul]

Is that all there is?

 

[speeds]

Are there any non-religious persons opposing gay marriage or religious persons opposing it on non-religious principles? Asking for real.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

meh, name calling..lemme see, hows this go

not

impressed

 

[crowTrobot]

monogamous partnership as an institution predates written language and organized religion. it wasn't invented by the church.

 

[crowTrobot]

meh, name calling..lemme see, hows this go

nah it's more just a coarse way of expressing what's actually going on here. slypokerdog is a homophobic bigot.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

monogamous partnership as an institution predates written language and organized religion. it wasn't invented by the church.

no, nor was multi partner groupings

 

[DaLincolnJones]

nah it's more just a coarse way of expressing what's actually going on here. simple homophobic bigotry.

man, you assume too much

could be a fair question...is this only driven by tax advantages or is this to change religous acceptance?

 

[MarAzul]

monogamous partnership as an institution predates written language and organized religion. it wasn't invented by the church.

I notice you didn't say they were Married through.

 

[crowTrobot]

man, you assume too much

could be a fair question...is this only driven by tax advantages or is this to change religous acceptance?

you presume too much credit for the OP. that's not the question being asked.

 

[crowTrobot]

I notice you didn't say they were Married through.

why would I when my point was the institution predates language.

is marriage applied in a case without young females confusing to you because of word origins? would you ask the same question of OLD women who want to get married?

 

[DaLincolnJones]

you presume too much credit for the OP. that's not the question being asked.

hmm I did read his other post that mentions this..

 

[Further]

I see it as, no matter where it came from, or who was permitted in the past, marriage has become a hallmark institution in our society. And anyone who feels they are being barred from being a full fledged member of society, with rights and all, are going to grumble and want to have those rights as well.

It's true about monetary, tax, and family reasons exist, but mostly it breaks down to ones societal rights. If you were not permitted a certain right, any right, wouldn't you fight to abolish the inequity? You may not see it as a right, but most LGBT's do, and hence, they are full of conviction to right the perceived wrong.

 

[MarAzul]

why would I when my point was the institution predates language.

is marriage applied in a case without young females confusing to you because of word origins? would you ask the same question of OLD women who want to get married?

Of course the name of the institution is important. And no I am not curious about old women.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

183 Posts and total Nonsense??!?!?! Maybe an elaborate performance art peice,

When a Poster like I myself insists on making Nonsensical posts ab out gay marrirage
thinking that the origin of the Word Married makes a compelling argument, the whole board, suffering

Indeed what is the point indeed

 

[MarAzul]

183 Posts and total Nonsense??!?!?! Maybe an elaborate performance art peice,

When a Poster like I myself insists on making Nonsensical posts ab out gay marrirage
thinking that the origin of the Word Married makes a compelling argument, the whole board, suffering

Indeed what is the point indeed

But you have no answer?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

But you have no answer?

I'll have an answer as soon as you can form a coherent question.

 

[Further]

But you have no answer?

I gave you a very honest answer, but you chose to overlook that. I'll post it again.

I see it as, no matter where it came from, or who was permitted in the past, marriage has become a hallmark institution in our society. And anyone who feels they are being barred from being a full fledged member of society, with rights and all, are going to grumble and want to have those rights as well.

It's true that monetary, tax, and family reasons exist, but mostly it breaks down to ones societal rights. If you were not permitted a certain right, any right, wouldn't you fight to abolish the inequity? You may not see it as a right, but most LGBT's do, and hence, they are full of conviction to right the perceived wrong.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I gave you a very honest answer, but you chose to overlook that. I'll post it again.

No no you have to speak his language. Here, I'll translate.

Marriage, is the way which the people in the Nation are known to be as Citizens of the NAtion. If you can't be a Citizen,
then we can't be having the Nation as great as if it not weren't the united America.

Some people just Want money or Tax code schemes, Hmmm. Most of the time, people want to be with Freedom no matter what
the Freedom they can't have and/or are denied. Make's Sense yet?

 

[Further]

And here I though he was speaking English.

 

[GriLtCheeZ]

No no you have to speak his language. Here, I'll translate.

Marriage, is the way which the people in the Nation are known to be as Citizens of the NAtion. If you can't be a Citizen,
then we can't be having the Nation as great as if it not weren't the united America.

Some people just Want money or Tax code schemes, Hmmm. Most of the time, people want to be with Freedom no matter what
the Freedom they can't have and/or are denied. Make's Sense yet?

That's funny!

 

[jlprk]

Are there any non-religious persons opposing gay marriage or religious persons opposing it on non-religious principles? Asking for real.

Me. I oppose the institution of marriage for any sexual orientation.

 

[crandc]

Come now progressive young men, tell us Why.

Why are some young men seeking to enter
the institution sanctified by the church they shun. The same institution
named after the term for Young women, mari, but now without the young women!

What is the point?

Since I'm not young, nor a man, nor a member of any church I can't answer a question clearly not addressed to me.

 

[Eastoff]

Marriage should be between one young woman and another young woman.

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

Come now progressive young men, tell us Why.

Why are some young men seeking to enter
the institution sanctified by the church they shun. The same institution
named after the term for Young women, mari, but now without the young women!

What is the point?

I do not think they would have a problem with the church keeping the term marriage if it meant the government afforded the same rights and tax advantages as a male/female couple.

 

[speeds]

Me. I oppose the institution of marriage for any sexual orientation.

Noted.

 

[Eastoff]

I do not think they would have a problem with the church keeping the term marriage if it meant the government afforded the same rights and tax advantages as a male/female couple.

Without a doubt this is the biggest reason.

 

[MarAzul]

I do not think they would have a problem with the church keeping the term marriage if it meant the government afforded the same rights and tax advantages as a male/female couple.

But the Government, that is Congress changed the tax law to expressly promote the institution of Marriage by giving them the tax advantages. Right or wrong, that is what happen. It seems the answer is to lobby Congress
to correct the blunder not change the meaning of Marriage so that the reason the tax advantage in the code, no longer isolates the intended targets.

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

My last response to anything written in Yoda.