Brandon9000 wrote:kuvasz wrote:How does a man and man or woman and a women marrying each other destroy the sanctity of marriage?
Does gay marriage sneak into the bedrooms of married heterosexuals and cause some sort of rampant erectile dysfunction or vaginitis amongst heterosexuals?
Having the power does not mean you have the right to control the way other people live their lives.
Why is it that those who are such advocates of small government and getting the government out of their economic concerns are those most likey to call upon the government to enfore a moral code based upon fairy tales rooted in the late Neolithic Period of human history.
Plus every other time in history and location on Earth......
....since there has never been a place or time where the government legally recognized gay marriage.
ah brandon, is it? still proudly showing off your cultural and historical illiteracy I see.
Yes, except in places like western Europe today where gay marriage is legal.....and slavery was found everywhere in the world too until a couple of hundred years ago, so we as a species have move on lately vis-a-vis socal mores. so try another rhetorical device. that one is still-born.
I ask again; what is it about letting a man and man or woman and woman marry that destroys the sanctity of marriage?
Does thinking about it prevent you from getting an erection? are you so worried about it you cannot successfully have intercourse with your own sweetie? do you weep in anguish thinking about homosexuals enjoying themselves?
Can't you leave other people alone?
dyslexia wrote:cjhsa wrote:Not a very good 40-years for the looney left either.
Kennedy - Womanizer, got shot
Johnson - Just an idiot
Carter - Once a peanut farmer, always a peanut farmer
Clinton - Womanizer, lucky his wife didn't shoot him
\
Kennedy got the missles out of cuba
Johnson got the right of african americans to be real people
Carter the man of integrity following Nixon
Clinton respected by th world even thought he was a republican at heart.
Not to burst your bubble,but Gerald Ford came after Nixon in the WH.
Jimmy Carter followed Ford,not Nixon.
Hate to burst your bubble but kuvasz didn't say Carter immediately followed Nixon. If you are going to fact check, try learning the language first. Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush all followed Nixon.
mysteryman wrote:dyslexia wrote:cjhsa wrote:Not a very good 40-years for the looney left either.
Kennedy - Womanizer, got shot
Johnson - Just an idiot
Carter - Once a peanut farmer, always a peanut farmer
Clinton - Womanizer, lucky his wife didn't shoot him
\
Kennedy got the missles out of cuba
Johnson got the right of african americans to be real people
Carter the man of integrity following Nixon
Clinton respected by th world even thought he was a republican at heart.
Not to burst your bubble,but Gerald Ford came after Nixon in the WH.
Jimmy Carter followed Ford,not Nixon.
Yeppers indeed MM you really bust my bubble, I guess it's your witty repartee taht does me in (as well as your depth of knowledge)
Apparently the loonie left considers taking it up the rear "depth of knowledge".
cjhsa
cjhsa wrote:Not a very good 40-years for the looney left either.
Kennedy - Womanizer, got shot
Johnson - Just an idiot
Carter - Once a peanut farmer, always a peanut farmer
Clinton - Womanizer, lucky his wife didn't shoot him
Actually, Jimmy Carter was a Nuclear Engineer and served in the Navy. Growing up, he helped his peanut farmer father on the farm. What's wrong with growing peanuts? Washington and Jefferson were farmers. Did that make them idiots?
BBB
kuvasz wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:kuvasz wrote:How does a man and man or woman and a women marrying each other destroy the sanctity of marriage?
Does gay marriage sneak into the bedrooms of married heterosexuals and cause some sort of rampant erectile dysfunction or vaginitis amongst heterosexuals?
Having the power does not mean you have the right to control the way other people live their lives.
Why is it that those who are such advocates of small government and getting the government out of their economic concerns are those most likey to call upon the government to enfore a moral code based upon fairy tales rooted in the late Neolithic Period of human history.
Plus every other time in history and location on Earth......
....since there has never been a place or time where the government legally recognized gay marriage.
ah brandon, is it? still proudly showing off your cultural and historical illiteracy I see.
Yes, except in places like western Europe today where gay marriage is legal...
Oh, so you're accusing me of being ignorant. That impplies that you're saying that you're right and I'm wrong. Okay, let's see.
Please list for me one single country which has ever existed on the Earth in which, prior to 10 years ago, the government conferred legals status on gay marriage. If you do, then you're right and I'm wrong. If you cannot list even one, then I was right, no matter how many distractions you put into your post.
Homosexuality and marriage
Homosexuality and marriage
The question: Should same-sex couples committed to a long-term and monogamous relationship be allowed to marry?
Why should marriage be regulated at all?
Marriage has been one of the fundamental organising principles of human society since history began. It is important to the future of society because it provides the best social structure within which to bear and raise children.
Most people accept that marriage and family are key institutions in society, and something that it is appropriate for the law to regulate.
"In a real sense, there are three partners to every civil marriage: two willing spouses and an approving State." Marshall CJ, 18 November 2003
And because marriage is thought by many people to be an inseparable part of the nature of the family, the proper rearing of children, the regulating of human relationships and the nature and stability of human society, there is little doubt that it is a suitable area for ethical analysis.
Why is same-sex marriage so topical? Same-sex marriage has become a live ethical issue in recent decades for several reasons:
Same-sex marriage has become legal in some countries - Belgium, Canada and the Netherlands have recently legalised it. civil partnerships are legal in the UK as of December 2005.
US court decisions in 2003 suggested that it would soon be legal there - however, elections in 2004 showed that the opponents of gay marriage had not abandoned the fight to stop it.
The family laws of many countries now treat same-sex and opposite-sex couples equally, or almost equally. There is no longer a single code of sexual morality.
Personal freedom of choice is now a significant element in morality. People are now more accepting of different sexualities and see restrictions on consensual adult sexual behaviour as unacceptable.
The link between sex and procreation has been weakened by reliable contraception. Enjoyment and the expression of affection are just as or more important aims of sex than conceiving children. Reproductive technology allows same-sex partners to have children. Gay activists have made the issue a priority.
Court action in Europe and the USA has made discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal.
Let's see...
Brandon wrote:
Quote:..since there has never been a place or time where the government legally recognized gay marriage.
Kuvacz pointed out that there are countries that legally recognize gay marriage.
Now
Brandon is saying:
Quote:Please list for me one single country which has ever existed on the Earth in which, prior to 10 years ago, the government conferred legals status on gay marriage. If you do, then you're right and I'm wrong. If you cannot list even one, then I was right, no matter how many distractions you put into your post.
My question is: Is Brandon stupid or crazy???
Frank
Frank, how about all of the above?
BBB
Re: Frank
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Frank, how about all of the above?
BBB
Oops...forgot that option!
Frank Apisa wrote:Let's see...
Brandon wrote:
Quote:..since there has never been a place or time where the government legally recognized gay marriage.
Kuvacz pointed out that there are countries that legally recognize gay marriage.
Now
Brandon is saying:
Quote:Please list for me one single country which has ever existed on the Earth in which, prior to 10 years ago, the government conferred legals status on gay marriage. If you do, then you're right and I'm wrong. If you cannot list even one, then I was right, no matter how many distractions you put into your post.
My question is: Is Brandon stupid or crazy???
Name one country that legally recognized gay marriage prior to 10 years ago. Being right doesn't imply stupidity or craziness.
Brandon9000 wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:Let's see...
Brandon wrote:
Quote:..since there has never been a place or time where the government legally recognized gay marriage.
Kuvacz pointed out that there are countries that legally recognize gay marriage.
Now
Brandon is saying:
Quote:Please list for me one single country which has ever existed on the Earth in which, prior to 10 years ago, the government conferred legals status on gay marriage. If you do, then you're right and I'm wrong. If you cannot list even one, then I was right, no matter how many distractions you put into your post.
My question is: Is Brandon stupid or crazy???
Name one country that legally recognized gay marriage prior to 10 years ago. Being right doesn't imply stupidity or craziness.
Brandon...get your head out of your ass.
Your assertion was:
Quote:since there has never been a place or time where the government legally recognized gay marriage...
You don't become "right" on that by changing it to "...prior to 10 years ago."
Egad...why do we have to explain so goddam much to you conservatives?
Isn't English a first language with any of you????
Frank Apisa wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:Let's see...
Brandon wrote:
Quote:..since there has never been a place or time where the government legally recognized gay marriage.
Kuvacz pointed out that there are countries that legally recognize gay marriage.
Now
Brandon is saying:
Quote:Please list for me one single country which has ever existed on the Earth in which, prior to 10 years ago, the government conferred legals status on gay marriage. If you do, then you're right and I'm wrong. If you cannot list even one, then I was right, no matter how many distractions you put into your post.
My question is: Is Brandon stupid or crazy???
Name one country that legally recognized gay marriage prior to 10 years ago. Being right doesn't imply stupidity or craziness.
Brandon...get your head out of your ass.
Your assertion was:
Quote:since there has never been a place or time where the government legally recognized gay marriage...
You don't become "right" on that by changing it to "...prior to 10 years ago."
Egad...why do we have to explain so goddam much to you conservatives?
Isn't English a first language with any of you????
Kuvasz had written:
Quote:....call upon the government to enfore a moral code based upon fairy tales rooted in the late Neolithic Period of human history.
Your claim to be a better expert on what I meant than I am is a typical liberal ploy to defeat an argument without addressing it. I meant prior to the present events. Now, I repeat - name one country that legally recognized gay marriage prior to 10 years ago. I defy you to list even one. Being right doesn't imply stupidity or craziness.
Most of you liberals appear incapable of debating without a lot of very undignified attempts to win by impeaching the opposing poster's character. It doesn't reflect well on the viewpoints you represent.
Brandon9000 wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:Let's see...
Brandon wrote:
Quote:..since there has never been a place or time where the government legally recognized gay marriage.
Kuvacz pointed out that there are countries that legally recognize gay marriage.
Now
Brandon is saying:
Quote:Please list for me one single country which has ever existed on the Earth in which, prior to 10 years ago, the government conferred legals status on gay marriage. If you do, then you're right and I'm wrong. If you cannot list even one, then I was right, no matter how many distractions you put into your post.
My question is: Is Brandon stupid or crazy???
Name one country that legally recognized gay marriage prior to 10 years ago. Being right doesn't imply stupidity or craziness.
Brandon...get your head out of your ass.
Your assertion was:
Quote:since there has never been a place or time where the government legally recognized gay marriage...
You don't become "right" on that by changing it to "...prior to 10 years ago."
Egad...why do we have to explain so goddam much to you conservatives?
Isn't English a first language with any of you????
I repeat - name one country that legally recognized gay marriage prior to 10 years ago. I defy you to list even one. Being right doesn't imply stupidity or craziness.
Most of you liberals appear incapable of debating without a lot of very undignified attempts to win by impeaching the opposing poster's character. It doesn't reflect well on the viewpoints you represent.
TO EVERYONE ELSE BUT BRANDON....
...can you get over this character insisting he is correct...even though he is
absolutely and irrefutably wrong?
Can you get over someone trying this hard to bravo his way past having to acknowledge that he was
absolutely and irrefutably wrong?
What is it with the conservative mentality that causes them to be so purposefully blind?
Is it stupidity?
Is it madness?
Is it parts of both?
Frank Apisa wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:Let's see...
Brandon wrote:
Quote:..since there has never been a place or time where the government legally recognized gay marriage.
Kuvacz pointed out that there are countries that legally recognize gay marriage.
Now
Brandon is saying:
Quote:Please list for me one single country which has ever existed on the Earth in which, prior to 10 years ago, the government conferred legals status on gay marriage. If you do, then you're right and I'm wrong. If you cannot list even one, then I was right, no matter how many distractions you put into your post.
My question is: Is Brandon stupid or crazy???
Name one country that legally recognized gay marriage prior to 10 years ago. Being right doesn't imply stupidity or craziness.
Brandon...get your head out of your ass.
Your assertion was:
Quote:since there has never been a place or time where the government legally recognized gay marriage...
You don't become "right" on that by changing it to "...prior to 10 years ago."
Egad...why do we have to explain so goddam much to you conservatives?
Isn't English a first language with any of you????
I repeat - name one country that legally recognized gay marriage prior to 10 years ago. I defy you to list even one. Being right doesn't imply stupidity or craziness.
Most of you liberals appear incapable of debating without a lot of very undignified attempts to win by impeaching the opposing poster's character. It doesn't reflect well on the viewpoints you represent.
TO EVERYONE ELSE BUT BRANDON....
...can you get over this character insisting he is correct...even though he is
absolutely and irrefutably wrong?
Can you get over someone trying this hard to bravo his way past having to acknowledge that he was
absolutely and irrefutably wrong?
What is it with the conservative mentality that causes them to be so purposefully blind?
Is it stupidity?
Is it madness?
Is it parts of both?
Your insults are off topic, and only reflect negatively on you. I repeat yet again, I defy you to name any instance of a government legally recognizing gay marriage prior to current events. Go ahead and post a distraction rather than an on topic response. It's your best bet.
1994 in Sweden
Sweden: The Registered Partnership Act of 1994 grants same sex couples a full range of protections, responsibilities and benefits as marriage, including arrangements for the breakdown of the relationship.
BBB
Re: 1994 in Sweden
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Sweden: The Registered Partnership Act of 1994 grants same sex couples a full range of protections, responsibilities and benefits as marriage, including arrangements for the breakdown of the relationship.
BBB
I said a recognition of the institution of marriage between gay people. Was that act a legal recognition of a marriage ceremony?
Brandon9000 wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:Let's see...
Brandon wrote:
Quote:..since there has never been a place or time where the government legally recognized gay marriage.
Kuvacz pointed out that there are countries that legally recognize gay marriage.
Now
Brandon is saying:
Quote:Please list for me one single country which has ever existed on the Earth in which, prior to 10 years ago, the government conferred legals status on gay marriage. If you do, then you're right and I'm wrong. If you cannot list even one, then I was right, no matter how many distractions you put into your post.
My question is: Is Brandon stupid or crazy???
Name one country that legally recognized gay marriage prior to 10 years ago. Being right doesn't imply stupidity or craziness.
Brandon...get your head out of your ass.
Your assertion was:
Quote:since there has never been a place or time where the government legally recognized gay marriage...
You don't become "right" on that by changing it to "...prior to 10 years ago."
Egad...why do we have to explain so goddam much to you conservatives?
Isn't English a first language with any of you????
I repeat - name one country that legally recognized gay marriage prior to 10 years ago. I defy you to list even one. Being right doesn't imply stupidity or craziness.
Most of you liberals appear incapable of debating without a lot of very undignified attempts to win by impeaching the opposing poster's character. It doesn't reflect well on the viewpoints you represent.
TO EVERYONE ELSE BUT BRANDON....
...can you get over this character insisting he is correct...even though he is
absolutely and irrefutably wrong?
Can you get over someone trying this hard to bravo his way past having to acknowledge that he was
absolutely and irrefutably wrong?
What is it with the conservative mentality that causes them to be so purposefully blind?
Is it stupidity?
Is it madness?
Is it parts of both?
Your insults are off topic, and only reflect negatively on you. I repeat yet again, I defy you to name any instance of a government legally recognizing gay marriage prior to current events. Go ahead and post a distraction rather than an on topic response. It's your best bet.
Sure...right after you acknowledge that you were
WRONG in your original comment!
Sweden : Registered partnership act, 1994
Sweden : Registered partnership act, 1994
THE REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP ACT
Issued on 23 June 1994
In accordance with the decision of the Parliament the following is enacted:
Chapter 1: Registration of partnership
Section 1: Two persons of the same sex may request the registration of their partnership.
Section 2: Registration may only take place if at least one of the partners is a Swedish citizen, domiciled in Sweden.
Section 3: Registration may not take place in the case of a person who is under the age of 18 years or of persons who are related to one another in the direct ascending or descending line or who are sisters or brothers of the whole blood.
Neither may registration take place in the case of sisters or brothers of the half blood without the permission of the Government or such authority as is stipulated by the Government.
Registration may not take place in the case of a person who is married or already registered as a partner.
The right to register a partnership shall be determined according to Swedish law.
Section 4: Before registration takes place, inquiry shall be made as to whether there is any impediment to registration.
Section 5: The provisions of Chapter 3 and Chapter 15 of the Marriage Code applicable to the procedure for inquiries into impediments to marriage shall apply correspondingly to this inquiry.
Section 6: Registration shall take place in the presence of witnesses.
Section 7: At the registration both partners shall be present at the same time. Each of them separately shall, in response to a question put to them by the person conducting the registration, make it known that they consent to the registration. The person conducting the registration shall thereafter declare that they are registered partners.
A registration is invalid if it has not taken place as indicated in the first paragraph or if the person conducting the registration was not authorized to perform the registration.
A registration which is invalid under the second paragraph may be approved by the Government if there are extraordinary reasons for such approval. The matter may only be considered on the application of one of the partners or, if either of them has died, of the heirs of the deceased.
Section 8: Registration may be conducted by a legally qualified judge of a district court or a person appointed by a county administrative board.
Section 9: In other respects the provisions of Chapter 4, Sections 5, 7 and 8, of the Marriage Code and regulations issued by the Government apply to registration.
Decisions concerning registration may be appealed against in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 15 Sections 3 and 4 of the Marriage Code.
Chapter 1, Sections 4-9, of the Act concerning certain International Legal Relationships relating to Marriage and Guardianship (1904:26 p. 1) apply to international circumstances relating to registration.
Chapter 2: Dissolution of registered partnership
Section 1: A registered partnership is dissolved by the death of one of the partners or by a court decision.
Section 2: The provisions of Chapter 5 of the Marriage Code apply correspondingly to issues concerning the dissolution of a registered partnership.
Section 3: Cases concerning the dissolution of registered partnerships and cases involving proceedings to determine whether or not a registered partnership subsists are partnership cases. Provisions stipulated by statute or other legislation relating to matrimonial cases also apply to issues concerning partnership cases.
Section 4: Partnership cases may always be considered by a Swedish court if registration has taken place under this Act.
Chapter 3: Legal effects of registered partnership
Section 1: Registered partnership has the same legal effects as marriage, except as provided by Sections 2-4.
Provisions of a statute or other legislation related to marriage and spouses whall be applied in a corresponding manner to registered partnerships and registered partners unless otherwise provided by the rules concerning exceptions contained in Sections 2-4.
Section 2: Registered partners may neither jointly nor individually adopt children under Chapter 4 of the Code on Parents, Children and Guardians. Nor may registered partners be appointed to jointly exercise custody of a minor in the capacity of specially appointed guardians under Chapter 13, Section 8 of the Code on Parents, Children and Guardians.
The Insemination Act (1984:1140) and the Fertilization outside the Body Act (1988:711) do not apply to registered partners.
Section 3: Provisions applicable to spouses, the application of which involves special treatment of one spouse solely by reason of that spouse's sex, do not apply to registered partners.
Section 4: The provisions of the Ordinance concerning Certain International Legal Relationships relating to Marriage, Adoption and Guardianship (1931:429) do not apply to registered partnerships.
This Act enters into force on 1 January 1995.
On behalf of the Government
CARL BILDT
GUN HELLSVIK, Ministry of Justice
