Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223

    Swedish feminist partys latest suggestion

    They want to get rid of marridges TOTALY and replace it with just a legal union kind of law thing that people can get into.

    But basicly as I understand it they dont want people to be able to be married in church ect. They claim marridge is a sign of the man owning the women not a sign of a loving bond betwen a man and a woman.

    and to belive those c*nts(no offence to women but these ARE c*nts) can even get into the newspaper with those ridicilous ideas!

  2. #2
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    I dont even know why they are pushing this because it just seems like they want the terms husband and wife erased but legaly everything would be just like married anyway.

    The femnazi strikes again.

  3. #3
    MASTERDBOL's Avatar
    MASTERDBOL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    moving to austin
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by johan
    They want to get rid of marridges TOTALY and replace it with just a legal union kind of law thing that people can get into.

    But basicly as I understand it they dont want people to be able to be married in church ect. They claim marridge is a sign of the man owning the women not a sign of a loving bond betwen a man and a woman.

    and to belive those c*nts(no offence to women but these ARE c*nts) can even get into the newspaper with those ridicilous ideas!
    most feminazis that i've ever heard arent concerned about a man and a woman getting married. its usually a woman and a woman getting married that they enjoy. but wait........we've already had that discussion, havent we johan?

  4. #4
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    they also want more then 2 people to be able to comit to that legal bond btw. I can se this scenario in school "so little steve what do your mom and dad do" and all the kid answere is "do you mean steve, bob, mary, alice or hugo"

  5. #5
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by MASTERDBOL
    most feminazis that i've ever heard arent concerned about a man and a woman getting married. its usually a woman and a woman getting married that they enjoy. but wait........we've already had that discussion, havent we johan?

    lol I dont mean I dont think gays should be able to marry. But allowing more then 2 to marry and getting rid of the whole marridge process that many cherris that is stupid.

  6. #6
    MASTERDBOL's Avatar
    MASTERDBOL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    moving to austin
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by johan
    they also want more then 2 people to be able to comit to that legal bond btw. I can se this scenario in school "so little steve what do your mom and dad do" and all the kid answere is "do you mean steve, bob, mary, alice or hugo"
    well.....not to start the same ole argument over again.....but i would think that you wouldnt have a problem with that? as long as they dont effect you in any way!!!

  7. #7
    MASTERDBOL's Avatar
    MASTERDBOL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    moving to austin
    Posts
    1,455
    you know johan......you and i should have our own political discussion forum. what do you think? i went to a very liberal university in southern california (us liberal), and was one of the only conservative republican in my political science classes (which i majored in). so i love these topics.

  8. #8
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    I wouldnt have a problem if the gays and multi partners could get into that legal bond but leave classical marridge the way it is. That IMO shouldnt piss of the church in anyway and would still let gays marry and let the multi partner freaks marry aswell.

    I think you and me agree on alot except just this gay topic so the forum would be quite boring

  9. #9
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Even though I dont care for marrying I understand that its a very special and "holy" moment for many. Getting rid of it to please some man hating bitches aint a good enough reason for me

  10. #10
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    ohh btw I wouldnt want any gay couple or any multi partner wierdness to be able to adopt either. Not because I think the kid would get a bad situation at home. But simply because the risk of them getting teased and bullied would be to big.

    Just the backside of human nature and something we have to come to terms with before allowing those things.

  11. #11
    MASTERDBOL's Avatar
    MASTERDBOL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    moving to austin
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by johan
    Even though I dont care for marrying I understand that its a very special and "holy" moment for many. Getting rid of it to please some man hating bitches aint a good enough reason for me
    i certainly agree with you on that one. they are some man-haters arent they? and yes....marriage is a holy moment, that i cherish.

  12. #12
    MASTERDBOL's Avatar
    MASTERDBOL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    moving to austin
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by johan
    ohh btw I wouldnt want any gay couple or any multi partner wierdness to be able to adopt either. Not because I think the kid would get a bad situation at home. But simply because the risk of them getting teased and bullied would be to big.

    Just the backside of human nature and something we have to come to terms with before allowing those things.
    now johan....that goes against everything you were saying earlier. i said it effects our children in a negative way and got beat up for it. they should have that personal freedom as well, shouldnt they???!!!

  13. #13
    MASTERDBOL's Avatar
    MASTERDBOL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    moving to austin
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by johan
    ohh btw I wouldnt want any gay couple or any multi partner wierdness to be able to adopt either. Not because I think the kid would get a bad situation at home. But simply because the risk of them getting teased and bullied would be to big.

    Just the backside of human nature and something we have to come to terms with before allowing those things.
    i think i had an effect on your thinking today johan.

  14. #14
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by MASTERDBOL
    now johan....that goes against everything you were saying earlier. i said it effects our children in a negative way and got beat up for it. they should have that personal freedom as well, shouldnt they???!!!

    well I missunderstod what you meant with "our children" I though you meant it would negativly impact children in society in general.
    I for sure agree that it effects children in those particular familys negatively. Im sure they could be just as loving as any regular couple but the other kids would be to ruthless.
    But a childless gay couple wouldnt have a negative effect on any child imo.

    There is ALOT of people I wouldnt want to se be allowed to raise children. Alcoholics, junkies, fat asses that stuff there kids with candy to shut them up ect....in those situations it isnt about personal freedom anymore its about what is best for the kid:

  15. #15
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by MASTERDBOL
    i think i had an effect on your thinking today johan.
    maby on a subliminal level

  16. #16
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by johan
    They want to get rid of marridges TOTALY and replace it with just a legal union kind of law thing that people can get into.

    But basicly as I understand it they dont want people to be able to be married in church ect. They claim marridge is a sign of the man owning the women not a sign of a loving bond betwen a man and a woman.
    I think what they're pushing for is legal recognition to be established by a secular process instead of a religious ceremony. There shouldn't be any restriction on folks who want to participate in a religious ceremony, though. So, anyone who wants their relationship recognized for civil purposes (legal custody of kids, wills, ownership of property, etc) should get a marriage license from the government, and anyone who wants their relationship sanctified by their religion should consult their church.

    IMHO, there's no legitimate role for religious organizations to affect the legal standing of citizens. Why should a preacher have the legal capacity to change the standing of 2 people in the eyes of the law? If a preacher can pronounce 2 people married, why can't they pronounce them divorced? If a preacher can pronounce 2 people married, why not 3 or 4, if that's what the church beleives?

    Nah, it's best to keep anything that changes the legal relationship between people in the hands of the civil authorities. After that, if someone wants to go through a religious ceremony with holy water or hand-binding or hot steamy mud huts, that should be their option.

    -Tock

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •