are we really that naive?

@Frank Apisa,

This is the problem with arguing with old men . It is their way or nothing . I showed you a website where the difficulties experienced by homosexuals were clearly explained . Your spin on it is there is no problem . You are using your own personal circumstances to justify in your mind a ridiculous proposition : that marriage (being a legal framework) is not needed . That the only reason we will give marriage to homosexuals is so you will feel good . Admit to being silly .

Quote:

They are not going to throw you out of the Internet because you are lacking in ethics, integrity and honesty.

Duh...you're still here so obviously not ! Just admit you cant comprehend the difficulty that was explained in that article or are you going to continue to argue that difficulties do not justify a solution ? The current system has problems, and you are spinning that to say that technically marriage is not required . It is not working so how can it be a viable option because it is so in theory ?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

This is the problem with arguing with old men . It is their way or nothing . I showed you a website where the difficulties experienced by homosexuals were clearly explained . Your spin on it is there is no problem . You are using your own personal circumstances to justify in your mind a ridiculous proposition : that marriage (being a legal framework) is not needed . That the only reason we will give marriage to homosexuals is so you will feel good . Admit to being silly .

You asserted that one has to be married in order to transfer property at death and to allow for visiting rights in hospitals..

That is wrong...completely wrong.

The sites you pretend show you are right...actually show you are wrong, by offering alternative ways of taking care of that.

You obviously are not capable of acknowledging that you are wrong...you apparently do not have the ethics, integrity nor honesty for that.

So...you have got to live with that. I can just laugh at it.

Quote:

Quote:
They are not going to throw you out of the Internet because you are lacking in ethics, integrity and honesty.
Duh...you're still here so obviously not ! Just admit you cant comprehend the difficulty that was explained in that article or are you going to continue to argue that difficulties do not justify a solution ? The current system has problems, and you are spinning that to say that technically marriage is not required . It is not working so how can it be a viable option because it is so in theory ?

You asserted that one has to be married in order to transfer property at death and to allow for visiting rights in hospitals..

That is wrong...completely wrong.

Anyone can "comprehend the difficulty" mentioned in the articles...and still see there is no NEED to marry.

Nancy and I are not married. If one of us dies...we will be able to transfer property...and if one of us is in the hospital, the other will be able to visit and make end of life decisions for the other. We've seen to that.

There is no NEED for us to be married to do it.

But do continue to argue this, because it is fun. I love to see someone do what you are doing...and then see them double down. It actually is fun to watch...even if you are shaking your head while laughing! Wink

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Your head in the sand approach is not fooling anyone . Just because you have no need for marriage as a heterosexual couple, is because we had marriage for heterosexual couples for many a long year, probably since there have been people, so at least 75,000 years.

You say you dont care if a truck has no wheels, it is designed to deliver sand and you wash your hands of the whole matter . I am saying that truck has no wheels and you are silly to say so what, it is a truck isnt it therefore you are right .

Those people who have experienced difficulty with your wonderful non-functioning system have made it plain we need something else . You say you dont care, if the government says it is in place then it must be perfect .

I think you are just trying to avoid the issue because in your mind you cant be wrong . You are here to prove you still 'have it' and you will never admit the real cost to people of your wonderful non-functioning system .

Leave your missus and strike up a homosexual relationship and see if the system works . Put your body where your mouth is...see if you NEED marriage . Or do you think it will be an option, given the difficulties experienced by others ?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus...I have found out all I need to know about you...which really was my purpose.

I suspected you were a know-it-all...who even if shown to be incorrect, would never acknowledge error no matter how tiny.

I was correct.

For you to suggest I am never wrong...when I can show dozens of posts acknowledging error...is ludicrous for anyone other than someone like you.

Debating you would be like debating a concrete wall.

Play your silly games with people willing to accept them...but I doubt you will get many takers here in A2K.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I find your whole attitude of homosexuals dont need marriage to be devoid of any understanding of the problem . Unnecessary suffering is taking place, and the legal umbrella of marriage will prevent others from these awful situations that have occurred . I simply maintain this legal umbrella does not have to be called marriage . That is the desire of a very few homosexuals who are overcompensating for their abnormality .

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

I find your whole attitude of homosexuals dont need marriage to be devoid of any understanding of the problem . Unnecessary suffering is taking place, and the legal umbrella of marriage will prevent others from these awful situations that have occurred . I simply maintain this legal umbrella does not have to be called marriage . That is the desire of a very few homosexuals who are overcompensating for their abnormality .

I find your refusal to acknowledge that you were dead wrong when you asserted that marriage is necessary to transfer property and to gain hospital access at deathbed times...

...to be hilarious, Ionus.

Why not acknowledge that you were totally, completely wrong on the issue...and then we can move on.

It is what I would do...and it is what anyone with a sense of self-respect, honor, and ethics would do.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I find your refusal to acknowledge that a failed system is not working to "transfer property and to gain hospital access at deathbed times..." to be tantamount to lacking in self -respect, dishonourable, and totally lacking in ethics . It is the sort of bureaucratic response that makes problems worse .

Why not acknowledge that the system doesnt work and you were totally wrong and we can move on . It is what I would do...

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

I find your refusal to acknowledge that a failed system is not working to "transfer property and to gain hospital access at deathbed times..." to be tantamount to lacking in self -respect, dishonourable, and totally lacking in ethics . It is the sort of bureaucratic response that makes problems worse .

Why not acknowledge that the system doesnt work and you were totally wrong and we can move on . It is what I would do...

I was not wrong...you were.

You said that gays NEEDED marriage in order to transfer property and gain hospital access at deathbed times.

You are totally, completely wrong on that, Ionus.

Pretend you have some self-respect, honor, and ethics...and acknowledge that.

Or continue to stonewall...and provide laughs.

In any case, it now has been established that anyone who trusts you to debate ethically and honorable...when you cannot even acknowledge an error as small as this...is being absurd.

You simply are not capable of reasonable debate.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I have no dog in tis fight but it was true that gays were denied many of these fundamental benefits because of a lack of some kind of legally binding association under law.(it also excluded the first million and half of inheritence being tax-free, or shared property rights being recognized in many states)
Marriage seems to be but one method to right these wrongs but I suppose that some 'Association under law" would work also. I think it was more a mastter of choice by the gay community.
The Conservative Christian Minority of the US seemed to be the outfit that was most dead set against gay marriage (and to some degree, the Orthodox Jewish Rbbis, the Mullahs, and Catholic Church "professionals")

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Franky, Franky, Franky...only a bloody minded bureaucrat would say a system that doesnt work is working . Clearly you have no comprehension or choose to pretend ignorance . Your insistence on having the last word is because you are a grumpy old man who missed a lifetime of opportunities to grow . I'll let the record stand as is .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

overcompensating for their abnormality .

pot meet kettle

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I have no dog in tis fight but it was true that gays were denied many of these fundamental benefits because of a lack of some kind of legally binding association under law.(it also excluded the first million and half of inheritence being tax-free, or shared property rights being recognized in many states)
Marriage seems to be but one method to right these wrongs but I suppose that some 'Association under law" would work also. I think it was more a mastter of choice by the gay community.
The Conservative Christian Minority of the US seemed to be the outfit that was most dead set against gay marriage (and to some degree, the Orthodox Jewish Rbbis, the Mullahs, and Catholic Church "professionals")

I agree completely, FM.

My problem with Ionus was that he asserted marriage was NEEDED to do these things.

Marriage is not NEEDED...there are many ways around that. Nancy and I have not married...and we do not have to worry about transfer of property...or visitation rights.

It simply is not NEEDED.

All Ionus had to do was to grow up and acknowledge something that was right in front of him. He simply cannot do that.

Serious debate with him is futile. If he won't even concede something as easy as this...as sure as this...

...what chance is there that any difficult points will be?

Debate with him if you will...have fun with him as I am having...but don't for one second expect anything of value.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Franky, Franky, Franky...only a bloody minded bureaucrat would say a system that doesnt work is working . Clearly you have no comprehension or choose to pretend ignorance . Your insistence on having the last word is because you are a grumpy old man who missed a lifetime of opportunities to grow . I'll let the record stand as is .

When you grow the means to acknowledge that you were wrong, Ionus...it will be a banner day for you.

IF it ever happens!

0 Replies

Increasing number of exemples heading the news in past days, about deepening stupidity, for lack of other description, of our society in respect to gay issue. Now people tend to celebrate when their kid turn up transgender. It is getting to the point of being ridiculous.

Now I have learned what doctors are saying, which I talk about from the very beginning, that being transgender is not normal, and usually there is some other parallel problem or problems of psychological nature. Kids born that way need medical attention. There is more discussion today in the scince world (surprisingly!) naming abnormalities in the hormonal structure of gays and transgender.

It looks to me, like now the 14 states not giving marriage rihts to gay will likely stay that way. Especially after gays and gay activists sparking so much animosity among population by its bold moves, obnoxious behaviour, and arogance.

1 Reply

@andy31,

You have claimed that gays have rights you do not have.

You have been asked to name those rights they have...that you do not.

NAME THE RIGHTS YOU CLAIM GAYS HAVE THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE or acknowledge that was a false statement, Andy.

C'mon...do the right thing here.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank that's easy. As a matter of fact I've answer that question in a post you must have missed. But instead of looking for it, I'll just answer for you again: gays have an unrepentant right to harass, and aggrevate other citizens as well as businesses, who exercise THEIR constitutional rights. I have stated earlier, that gays can somehow do that with no recourse.

I tell you Frank, mark my words, this gay craze is generating lots of resentment among population, and it will eventually backfire on them with the vangeance. In my opinion, rightly or wrongly, they got what they want. In most states, acept 14, they can now married each other, so they should stay low, sit on their buts, and stop stiring trouble.

Another, very important right gays have that i don't, which I assume did not even cross your mind, is that now they are protected under hate speach law set as presedence few days back. A judge ordered a business owners to pay over $100 k for their employee to say things that gays apaerently didn't like. What you gonna say to this, Frank?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

By the way, I did not see your opinion, which would be very interesting to me, in my post : "can world survive Islam".

0 Replies

are we really that naive?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know