In response to:

Marriage Best Left to Churches

Cambermeister Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 1:25 PM
InsightingTruth,What 'truth' do we all understand. If the government doesn't know our orientation they can't discriminate against us because we're homosexual. Should government stop asking our orientation for licencing? Yes or no, would you be OK with deleting the words homosexual, gay, kweer, heterosexual, straight, bisexual, trisexual and triceratops from every marriage license in our nation?
Tincan Joey Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 1:42 PM
I'd be OK with deleting marriage licenses; with gubamint licensing of marriage there will always be gubamint conditions placed on it.
Cambermeister Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 1:47 PM
Tincan Joey, you'll need to grow up and stop pretending. Our government issues marriage licences, etc. If government doesn't know our orientation they can't discriminate against us because we're homosexual. Should government stop asking our orientation for licencing?
Tincan Joey Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 1:54 PM
Our government used to condone slavery. if it still existed I would not say that the gubamint should issue slavery licensing for one or another. I'd say get rid of slavery.
Just as some want gubamint to push what their definition of marriage is on society; you are wanting the same (just your definition). Do you think I am so dumb I cannot see that? Marriage is not a gubamint institution.
Cambermeister Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 2:12 PM
Tincan Joey, you're behaving rather childish, It's a simple yes or no question about discrimination. Should government stop asking our orientation for licencing?
Tincan Joey Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 2:19 PM
You call me childish while trying to backdoor me into approving your definition of marriage. I am the one actually trying to promote equality here. Your just promoting your agenda and are blind to it. There are rarely any simple yes or no questions. That is life.
Cambermeister Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 2:25 PM
I've done no such thing. My question is about discrimination of homosexuals. Please answer the yes or no question.
Tincan Joey Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 2:37 PM
And my response is about the discrimination of no one. Unless you can get your agenda police to arrest me, my response will be the same.
Cambermeister Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 2:45 PM
Joey, if you're a child posting on a school snow day, welcome to TH. Columnists express opinions and we get to say our peace and discuss the topic with others. This is a conversation. You'll ask me something topical. I'll answer, since my opinion certainly doesn't frighten me.
Then I'll ask you a question about the subject and you'll tell us your opinion.
If interaction with grown-ups makes you shy or scared, could I suggest another site?
Tincan Joey Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 2:50 PM
My action was very grown up, your wanting to make everything black or white for your benefit is not. Oh BTW I'm so young and school-ish that I have already retired once.
Cambermeister Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 2:54 PM
Tincan Joey, you're not being truthful.
Cambermeister Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 2:59 PM
Tincan Joey, I asked if government should ever ask our orientation for licencing?

Every adult and most children would answer without hesitation. Why are you frightened? You can't get the answer wrong since it"s an opinion question. Could you be scared of your own opinion. Straight males rarely exhibit this level of cowardice.
Tincan Joey Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 3:07 PM
Cowardice.....now the child continues to name call. I stand on my response as a matter of principle. MSNBC wants a yes or no. Adults want the truth. I have given you MY true response. It may not have answered your question how YOU wanted, but you asked it with conditions, and that is very childlike.
Cambermeister Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 3:21 PM
Tincan Joey, I didn't call you a name. I highlighted your behavior. Being afraid of one's own opinion is certainly cowardice. Wouldn't you agree?
Cambermeister Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 3:21 PM
Tincan Joey, I asked if government should ever ask our orientation for licencing?

There's no way to answer this quest except yes or no. You could say 'sometimes' but that's a yes. Give it a try. Man-up. Women despise men who are easily frightened. If nothing else, it'll help your love-life.
Dreadnaught011 Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 3:47 PM

Everybody knows the answer Tincan, You just won't face how hypocritical homosexual complaints are. WHY?

Because they don't need, or care about true marriage. They have rights now.

This agenda is all about harming real marriage as our parents married. Queers want to pollute marriage, calling this a matter of equal rights.



Tincan Joey Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 3:57 PM
If government gets involved, anyone's beliefs about marriage become as risk. Government changes with the winds. That is why the constitution only gave the FEDs their enumerated powers. Gubamint MUST stay out of marriage or otherwise it will surely find some way to destroy it. This is atypical of Neo-Cons. They preach the constitution and limited government. But when gubamint oversteps its bounds (in what they perceive) is in their favor, then it is okay. This always opens the door tyranny and ends up biting everyone in the @ss down the road.
Tincan Joey Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 3:59 PM
Camb, you can insult all you want. I will stand on my principle about gubamint role in marriage. That is Manning up.
Cambermeister Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 4:18 PM
Whatever you need to feel ok Joey.
Tincan Joey Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 4:31 PM
Neo-Cons and Neo-libs. Always short sighted and far blind.

The current conundrum regarding the legalization of same-sex marriage is what happens when church and state are mixed -- the topics become confusing and confused.

When I married my husband almost 15 years ago, I did so out of love and out of a desire to witness before God my commitment to him and his to me. The legal and tax ramifications did not enter into my head.

But for couples of the same sex, the legal and tax ramifications can be very important because their legal rights differ from those of heterosexual couples in a number of ways,...