I didn't say anything about race, you did. It plays no role in my argument.
The vast majority of heterosexuals entering into their first marriage are doing so with the intention of having children . Many fail because of medical issues they spend a small fortune trying to fix. Others adopt.
Yes, there is a "benefits package" (or was) associated with being married. Like all "benefits packages" I am against those who don't "pay in." Homosexuals for the large part won't pay in.
I work with both gays and lesbians in a Fortune 500 company. Some of them are in the closet, most aren't and some are simply discreet. A few want to get married or have been married (to a homosexual) but none want to have children. Many don't want to get married but want to put someone on their insurance. I don't blame them. If their friend was HIV+ and treatment was financially out of reach I can see them claiming them. If I was single and not in good conscious I could "sell" my benefits package for a quite tidy amount.
Again the purpose of marriage is to have and raise children. You and the Supreme Court have convoluted it. Originally Posted by gnadfly
Imagine the dilemmas created by this law. Originally Posted by DSKActually it is not "a law," but it has generated some problems in the future. Speaking of "fraud,' .... will "partners" who were unable to be "married" because of "government" prohibitions against it, be "grandfathered in" for SS benefits even though they haven't been "married" long enough but can get married NOW that they were deprived of the opportunity to be married long enough for the benefits due to an unConstitutional prohibition.
Ha ha, yeah I can't wait for that one.How long does it take you to come when another tranny sticks his dick up your ass?
How long did it take you to think that one up, you fucking simpleton? Originally Posted by timpage
Actually it is not "a law," but it has generated some problems in the future. Speaking of "fraud,' .... will "partners" who were unable to be "married" because of "government" prohibitions against it, be "grandfathered in" for SS benefits even though they haven't been "married" long enough but can get married NOW that they were deprived of the opportunity to be married long enough for the benefits due to an unConstitutional prohibition. Will the "new spouse" be able to claim "retroactive" community property to the beginning of the relationship, because the two were unConstitutionally deprived of the opportunity to be married and accummulate community property interests in their respective estates... Originally Posted by LexusLoverYou make a really great points. Under common law marriage, the dependent gay person gets half the property of the other little gay person.
Imagine the dilemmas created by this law. A gay man has a friend who is HIV positive. He creates a sham marriage to milk Starbucks for the marriage benefits of paid medical for the hugely expensive treatments.lol, a heterosexual male can get aids, and his female friend who works at Starbuck's can create a sham marriage for the medical benefits.
Starbucks sniffs this out and goes to civil court to recover their payments, and criminal court for fraud. To prove it isn't a sham, he needs to prove he has been fucking a gay man with HIV. He will have a hard time getting cock after that!!!! Originally Posted by DSK
Imagine the dilemmas created by this law. A gay man has a friend who is HIV positive. He creates a sham marriage to milk Starbucks for the marriage benefits of paid medical for the hugely expensive treatments.Sounds like you're describing the woomby and shammy relationship. They're not above scamming someone for their "right" to pack fudge, get HIV and make the rest of us pay for it with higher healthcare costs due to the fraud.
Starbucks sniffs this out and goes to civil court to recover their payments, and criminal court for fraud. To prove it isn't a sham, he needs to prove he has been fucking a gay man with HIV. He will have a hard time getting cock after that!!!! Originally Posted by DSK
How long does it take you to come when another tranny sticks his dick up your ass?Damn JL you are talking smack again, be sure to invite him to Love field...
Took me thirty seconds to come up with that one, you fucking degenerate. That is about 10 times the amount of time it would take me to flatten your punk bitch face with one well placed punch. Originally Posted by DSK
Answer my question, WeeEndowed, the white God Fauxing Christian? Why do you hold gays to a standard that you not only refuse to hold, but but brag about breaking? I will tell you why. You are a phony hypocrite. According to the Bible, which you pretend to believe, any sex outside of marriage is a sin. Why should gays be ashamed of their "sin" while you are proud of yours, and even boast about it? What makes you so much better than gays that you can judge them, but hold yourself blameless?I have answered your question nimwit- there's a big difference between the two- as I stated a million times- based on my religious belief I totally accept my sins- I have never justified my actions or said I am holy or free from sin- YOU made that implication. Homosexuals who were for legalization are justifying their actions and are making excuses for their behavior- they want everyone to think that their behavior is natural or godly- which it isn't- do you see the difference?
Oh, and before I forget, have you turned over those threatening pms yet? Or did you miss the part about "Thou shalt not lie?" Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to comeJohn 19:11 (NIV)
Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”Matthew 7:3 (NIV)
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
The idea that "all sins are equal in God's eyes" comes from the idea that any one sin will lead to death. If we commit a single sin, we are as guilty (in God's eyes) as if we had committed the worst sin--regardless of which sin we committed.
It's based on the idea that God's holiness is so extreme, that even one transgression is greater than he can accept. This idea is supported with two key verses
James 2:10 (NIV)For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.Romans 3:23 (NIV)
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of GodThe argument goes, therefore, that if even the smallest sin prevents us from attaining the perfection that God calls us to seek, then that one single sin is as great as the worst sin.
Pick up your Bible and know what you are reading before you ask me something COG.
In terms of sending pm's- I will not take your bait- you obviously know if I turn over any pm's to an outside source that by ECCIE rules it's grounds for points or to be banned, Obviously, you want me to slip and say I sent an attorney your pm's so I can incriminate myself- I am too smart for you- you old worthless POS- but keep stalking and harassing me- you will be in a world of legal trouble that you won't dig yourself out of- you have been duly warned to stop the harassment ad personal agendas.
I am too smart for you- you old worthless POS- but keep stalking and harassing me- you will be in a world of legal trouble that you won't dig yourself out of- you have been duly warned to stop the harassment ad personal agendas. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911I really loved that last bit there - I'm sure COG did too!
Isn't that two sins? Fornication AND breaking the law? That makes you better than a homosexual? What a riot!
<----- JLIdiot, errr DSKIdiot