Discussion: Gay Rights

[Admiral_N8]

Why?

Because I guess I am a caring human being. I care about the people starving in AFrica, people dying because of terrorism, people not being able to afford food.....ALL even though they dont directly affect me in any way.


Why wouldnt I?

[Addendum]

Because I guess I am a caring human being. I care about the people starving in AFrica, people dying because of terrorism, people not being able to afford food.....ALL even though they dont directly affect me in any way.Why wouldnt I?

Because unless you're one of the people getting married, it's not your damn business who marries who

[Matt]

Because I guess I am a caring human being. I care about the people starving in AFrica, people dying because of terrorism, people not being able to afford food.....ALL even though they dont directly affect me in any way.


Why wouldnt I?

Because unlike the examples you mentioned...two consenting adults having sex do not need help.

[taskmaster]

Just look a page or two back and you'll see this whole arguement. It'll save a lot of time.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I've been waiting years now to hear how exactly it harms me if two chicks want to commit themselves to monogamy like all of my married friends have done.

[Admiral_N8]

Because unlike the examples you mentioned...two consenting adults having sex do not need help.

He asked why I care about things that dont directly affect me, and I answered. Simple.

[Calvin]

I've been waiting years now to hear how exactly it harms me if two chicks want to commit themselves to monogamy like all of my married friends have done.
It undermines your religious definition of marriage! Can't you feel the sting already? If gay people marry, it's going to KILL God. Do you really want that?

[Addendum]

He asked why I care about things that dont directly affect me, and I answered. Simple.

So you're just nosy :o

[Wilhelm-Scream]

He asked why I care about things that dont directly affect me, and I answered. Simple.
since we're in the "Same Sex Marriage" thread, I obviously meant that I wondered why you care who is in love with who, who is having sex with whom and who wants to legally commit to monogamy.

[Swiftman]

same sex marriages....HELL NO!!! :down
*ENOUGH SAID*

[Calvin]

I revoke your vote for me.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

It undermines your religious definition of marriage! Can't you feel the sting already? If gay people marry, it's going to KILL God. Do you really want that?heh, I've heard that it undermines the traditional concept of marriage, which is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard.

It implies that the only reason my Mom and Dad decided to get married, and have stayed married for 30 years, is because it was illegal to marry people of the same sex, and that if it had only been legal at the time, they would've run out to find a gay guy and a lesbian to marry instead.

If Richard Simmons and Elton John decided that they wanted to get married, it would have absolutely no effect on my parents desire to be married to eachother.

God we're trudging through a swamp full of morons.

[Calvin]

It's funny that they're all for God testing them and their faith, but they can't bear the thought of something undermining (which it doesn't even do) their faith. There's your goddamn test. If it scares you so much that something might undermine your traditional religious definition, live with it and show how strong your religion is. If it can't handle that much, your religion must be pretty weak and insecure.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

same sex marriages....HELL NO!!! :down
*ENOUGH SAID*No! Since there are gay people that want to be married, you saying "No" to them means that you wish to impose your will on others.
It is not "enough said". If you're going to dictate like that you have to explain why?

WHY?

[Admiral_N8]

since we're in the "Same Sex Marriage" thread, I obviously meant that I wondered why you care who is in love with who, who is having sex with whom and who wants to legally commit to monogamy.

oh obviously :rolleyes:

I dont care who loves who or who wants to have sex with what...but if they want to change the law then we need to allow everyone to marry whoever they want.

[Calvin]

oh obviously :rolleyes:

I dont care who loves who or who wants to have sex with what...but if they want to change the law then we need to allow everyone to marry whoever they want.
All consenting people, yeah.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

It's funny that they're all for God testing them and their faith, but they can't bear the thought of something undermining (which it doesn't even do) their faith. There's your goddamn test. If it scares you so much that something might undermine your traditional religious definition, live with it and show how strong your religion is. If it can't handle that much, your religion must be pretty weak and insecure.

Yes, well, here's a thing. An example of their desire to force everyone else to conform to their standards is when, say, they don't want strip joints inside city limits, or gambling establishments, etc. And one reason for that is that they they fear that ordinarily "good" people will become tempted by exposure to these "evils" and will be corrupted.

So I guess they're scared that if there's no longer any shameful stigma excluding "homos" from "decent" society, then once "good" people will catch Gay.

[Admiral_N8]

All consenting people, yeah.

More than one, family members?

[Wilhelm-Scream]

oh obviously :rolleyes:

I dont care who loves who or who wants to have sex with what...but if they want to change the law then we need to allow everyone to marry whoever they want.So you don't mind if a woman has romantic feelings for another woman, and you don't mind if they take off their clothes and play with eachothers genitals and errogenous zones, but you're against them ceremoniously, publically declaring a vow to remain faithful to eachother for the rest of their lives....

Wow, that makes a boatload of sensenot.

:confused:




And could you please answer this for me?
I've been waiting years now to hear how exactly it harms me if two chicks want to commit themselves to monogamy like all of my married friends have done.


The lifestyles of my best friends who are married have no bearing on my life, it's between THEM, for THEM. I liked this one chick and her boyfriend before they got married, I like 'em now that they are. No difference in my life whatsoever.

[Calvin]

More than one, family members?
If it's all consensual, why not. Doesn't endanger anyone else's freedom.

[Admiral_N8]

If it's all consensual, why not. Doesn't endanger anyone else's freedom.

Its fine with me if we let everyone marry whoever they want, multiple people, themselves, family members, etc.

[Swiftman]

No! Since there are gay people that want to be married, you saying "No" to them means that you wish to impose your will on others.
It is not "enough said". If you're going to dictate like that you have to explain why?

WHY?sorry, what i wanted to say is if these ppl want to have same sex marriages then let them be, but if they want to have same sex marriages while in a religion such as catholicism then it's...
HELL NO!!!
if you beleive in god then you would know that he did not intend for men to partner up with men and women to partner up with women. thats why he created adam and eve. but hey, other than that, those ppl can do whatever the **** they want.
*ENOUGH SAID*

[Wilhelm-Scream]

How does my daily quality of life suffer if some attention seeking wacko on the other side of the globe marries himself?

I live my life, he lives his.

[Calvin]

Its fine with me if we let everyone marry whoever they want, multiple people, themselves, family members, etc.
Since marriage is a union, or a joining, by the most basic notion of it, that would rule out marrying yourself, but everything else, sure. Doesn't limit or endanger anyone else's liberty. Equal freedom all around.

[Admiral_N8]

So you don't mind if a woman has romantic feelings for another woman, and you don't mind if they take off their clothes and play with eachothers genitals and errogenous zones, but you're against them ceremoniously, publically declaring a vow to remain faithful to eachother for the rest of their lives....

Wow, that makes a boatload of sensenot.

:confused:




And could you please answer this for me?

No, they can ceremoniuosly and puclically declare a vow to remain with each other forever, Ihave no prob with that. When did I say that?

[Calvin]

If your case is that marriage is stricly a religious thing, should athiests not be allowed to marry? Should anyone that's not christian be allowed to marry?

[Wilhelm-Scream]

sorry, what i wanted to say is if these ppl want to have same sex marriages then let them be, but if they want to have same sex marriages while in a religion such as catholicism then it's...
HELL NO!!!
if you beleive in god then you would know that he did not intend for men to partner up with men and women to partner up with women. thats why he created adam and eve. but hey, other than that, those ppl can do whatever the **** they want.
*ENOUGH SAID*

Well there we agree. I'm disgusted by these idiots that think you can be a gay christian. The Bible is very clear about how God considers homosexuality to be an abomination.

If you think there's nothing wrong with being gay, then find a new religion, because you don't believe in Christianity.

[Matt]

The real irony of your view Admiral, is your signature is a quote from a homosexual :p

[Sandman138]

sorry, what i wanted to say is if these ppl want to have same sex marriages then let them be, but if they want to have same sex marriages while in a religion such as catholicism then it's...
HELL NO!!!
if you beleive in god then you would know that he did not intend for men to partner up with men and women to partner up with women. thats why he created adam and eve. but hey, other than that, those ppl can do whatever the **** they want.
*ENOUGH SAID*

All right, but this argument has never been about relgiously recognized marriges. It's about civil marrige, in other words what marriges the government chooses to endorse.

[Calvin]

sorry, what i wanted to say is if these ppl want to have same sex marriages then let them be, but if they want to have same sex marriages while in a religion such as catholicism then it's...
HELL NO!!!
if you beleive in god then you would know that he did not intend for men to partner up with men and women to partner up with women. thats why he created adam and eve. but hey, other than that, those ppl can do whatever the **** they want.
*ENOUGH SAID*
Agreed, but that doesn't give any reason to outlaw gay marriage in the eyes of a government that's supposed to be seperate from church.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

If your case is that marriage is stricly a religious thing, should athiests not be allowed to marry? Should anyone that's not christian be allowed to marry?No, he said he was talking about religious marriages specifically, like these fools who think the Episcopalians should allow for gay ministers.

[Swiftman]

Agreed, but that doesn't give any reason to outlaw gay marriage in the eyes of a government that's supposed to be seperate from church.you have a point there, unless..... you start mixing religion with politics.

[Admiral_N8]

Since marriage is a union, or a joining, by the most basic notion of it, that would rule out marrying yourself, but everything else, sure. Doesn't limit or endanger anyone else's liberty. Equal freedom all around.

Marrige is a union between a man and a woman.


Since we are changing the definition of marriage to allow gays to marry etc., what right do you have to tell someone they cannot publicly vow their love to themselves forever?

We dont have a right to tell anyone what they cant do with marriage if we change it to satisfy one group of people.

[Admiral_N8]

The real irony of your view Admiral, is your signature is a quote from a homosexual :p

So? I dont have anything against gays.

[Calvin]

Marrige is a union between a man and a woman.


Since we are changing the definition of marriage to allow gays to marry etc., what right do you have to tell someone they cannot publicly vow their love to themselves forever?

We dont have a right to tell anyone what they cant do with marriage if we change it to satisfy one group of people.
That's not the most basic definition of marriage, that's just the religion endorsed one. But, if that's a sticking point for you, sure, let people marry themselves. We'll just not give them a tax break since there isn't any joint accumulation of wealth distribution taking place.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

No, they can ceremoniuosly and puclically declare a vow to remain with each other forever, Ihave no prob with that. When did I say that?So you just want to keep them from enjoying the same legal, financial and societal benefits of such a union when it's between, say you and your wife

[Spider-Bite]

Because I guess I am a caring human being. I care about the people starving in AFrica, people dying because of terrorism, people not being able to afford food.....ALL even though they dont directly affect me in any way.


Why wouldnt I?

wait so you want to pass laws agaisnt them because you are a caring person?

basically you care about people as long as they aren't gay. you see I care about their civil rights because I'm a caring person. because I'm a liberal bleeding heart. because I care about freedom.

and in case your wondering the terrorists agree with you on gay marriage.

[Admiral_N8]

If your case is that marriage is stricly a religious thing, should athiests not be allowed to marry? Should anyone that's not christian be allowed to marry?

If youre talking to me, I dont think marriage is a religious thing at all.


All marriage is is a State License....nothing more.

[Calvin]

If youre talking to me, I dont think marriage is a religious thing at all.


All marriage is is a State License....nothing more.
Then what the hell is your argument against allowing gay marriage?

[Admiral_N8]

That's not the most basic definition of marriage, that's just the religion endorsed one. But, if that's a sticking point for you, sure, let people marry themselves. We'll just not give them a tax break since there isn't any joint accumulation of wealth distribution taking place.


Ya the tax break wouldnt matter ha.

The definition of marriage in society for the last many many hundreds of years is a union between a man and a woman.

My point is that if we change that definition to satisfy one group, why right to we have to tell another group of people "no"?

[Admiral_N8]

So you just want to keep them from enjoying the same legal, financial and societal benefits of such a union when it's between, say you and your wife

No thats not what I "just want".

[Swiftman]

If youre talking to me, I dont think marriage is a religious thing at all.


All marriage is is a State License....nothing more.where's this coming from? a state license? :confused:

[Wilhelm-Scream]

So? I dont have anything against gays.If they want to be legally married and you won't let them then yes, you do have something against gays.

Imagine living in an alternate world that was run by gays and you wanted to marry your girlfriend but they just said, "Nope, we won't allow you two to do that, that's just for us."
And then they had the nerve to say, "Hey, but nothing against you personally, buddy."

:rolleyes:

[Wilhelm-Scream]

No thats not what I "just want".Sure, you want other things, but those are some things you want. :confused:

[Calvin]

Ya the tax break wouldnt matter ha.

The definition of marriage in society for the last many many hundreds of years is a union between a man and a woman.

My point is that if we change that definition to satisfy one group, why right to we have to tell another group of people "no"?
I was just saying that you can break down the notion of marriage down all the way, but it really ceases to have a notion at all if there isn't any actual joining taking place, but, if a person thinks of himself as enough of a seperate entity, fine, let's allow it. But for wealth distribution purposes, he wouldn't really deserve a tax break since there isn't any joint pooling of resources or whatever.

[Swiftman]

Imagine living in an alternate world that was run by gays hahaha, thats priceless! :up:

[Spider-Bite]

Originally Posted by Swiftman
sorry, what i wanted to say is if these ppl want to have same sex marriages then let them be, but if they want to have same sex marriages while in a religion such as catholicism then it's...
HELL NO!!!
if you beleive in god then you would know that he did not intend for men to partner up with men and women to partner up with women. thats why he created adam and eve. but hey, other than that, those ppl can do whatever the **** they want.
*ENOUGH SAID*


Not everybody who believes in God believes the same thing about God.

How do you know what the will of God is? Are you God? Are you authorized to speak for him? who are you to decide what the will of God is? Is this very attitude that caused the deaths of millions of people all around the world.

[blind_fury]

I've been waiting years now to hear how exactly it harms me if two chicks want to commit themselves to monogamy like all of my married friends have done.
Why can't they be content with civil unions? They get legal rights and such.

Why do they need the church to support their beliefs?

If I am a nudist I still can't get married naked in a church or by a priest. Why? Because I can't change religion to suit my lifestyle choice. I can't expect a thousand year old religion to accomodate me for personal reasons.

The church and the institution of marraige is sacred for a reason. It maintains higher ideals that provide spirtual guidance. We can't go to church naked without distorting that spirtual guidance into something less disciplined, something less pure. If gay marraige becomes part of our religious ideals we discredit the discipline and purity of those religious ideals simply to legitimize an escapist view.

Religion is about reaching for higher ideals for the sake of salvation. Not shifting those ideals for the sake of comfort or self-assurance.

[Admiral_N8]

wait so you want to pass laws agaisnt them because you are a caring person?

basically you care about people as long as they aren't gay. you see I care about their civil rights because I'm a caring person. because I'm a liberal bleeding heart. because I care about freedom.

and in case your wondering the terrorists agree with you on gay marriage.

Why do people make things up on here?

When did I ever say I want to pass ANY laws agains "them"?? The terrorists agree with me on gay marriage? So? That was silly.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

My point is that if we change that definition to satisfy one group, why right to we have to tell another group of people "no"?If another "group's" marriage victimized someone or caused some harm, then that would be the reason to disallow it. But that's irrelevant here because we're talking about consenting adults.

[Spider-Bite]

If youre talking to me, I dont think marriage is a religious thing at all.


All marriage is is a State License....nothing more.

it's to promote family life. a two parent household works better for children than a one parent household. it's so married couple can afford to buy a house and the married life.

why only allow that to heteros? why not be accepting and tolerant of diverse cultures and lifestyles.

why shouldn't the law allow my sister to marry her girlfriend? why not?

I actually want a reason. because you haven't actually given one unless I missed it.

[Calvin]

Why can't they be content with civil unions? They get legal rights and such.

Why do they need the church to support their beliefs?

If I am a nudist I still can't get married naked in a church or by a priest. Why? Because I can't change religion to suit my lifestyle choice. I can't expect a thousand year old religion to accomodate me for personal reasons.

The church and the institution of marraige is sacred for a reason. It maintains higher ideals that provide spirtual guidance. We can't go to church naked without distorting that spirtual guidance into something less disciplined, something less pure. If gay marraige becomes part of our religious ideals we discredit the discipline and purity of those religious ideals simply to legitimize an escapist view.

Religion is about reaching for higher ideals for the sake of salvation. Not shifting those ideals for the sake of comfort or self-assurance.
Civil unions as they exist right now often don't carry the same benefits, and often aren't able to be carried over to other states, unlike "marriage." If you're so concerned that marriage has to be a religious thing, then let the government recognize all unions as civil unions, whether it's between heterosexuals or homosexuals, and let the church classify it however they want privately.

[Sandman138]

Marrige is a union between a man and a woman.


Since we are changing the definition of marriage to allow gays to marry etc., what right do you have to tell someone they cannot publicly vow their love to themselves forever?

We dont have a right to tell anyone what they cant do with marriage if we change it to satisfy one group of people.

Anthropology says differently, and this has already been discussed. The defining charactertistic of marrige is the creation of afinal ties, not solidifying a gender binary

[Admiral_N8]

Then what the hell is your argument against allowing gay marriage?

Because I dont believe marriage should be changed for just one group, because it will allow anyone to marry whoever, families, more then one, and so on.

I think civil unions with full benefits n such is the way to go.

[Spider-Bite]

Why do people make things up on here?

When did I ever say I want to pass ANY laws agains "them"?? The terrorists agree with me on gay marriage? So? That was silly.

you want the federal constitution to be changed to stop them from getting married. you want the law of massachucets overuled to stop them. they are already getting married there. It's been happening for over a year.

[Calvin]

Because I dont believe marriage should be changed for just one group, because it will allow anyone to marry whoever, families, more then one, and so on.

I think civil unions with full benefits n such is the way to go.
What's your problem with consenting people marrying each other?

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Why can't they be content with civil unions? They get legal rights and such.GLAD YOU ASKED

if you'd really like to educate yourself about all of the priveleges that married couples enjoy and people in a civil union can NOT enjoy
Here You Go (http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm)

It isn't about religion.

Taxes:

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.


Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.


But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?

No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.


1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.


2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.


3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.

[Calvin]

I'm glad you're a less lazy man than I, sir. :up:

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I actually want a reason. because you haven't actually given one unless I missed it.I've been asking for straight and valid answers for years. You're not going to get any because there's no easy way for them to get down to the core truth and say "Because I'm a fascist bigot".

[Admiral_N8]

where's this coming from? a state license? :confused:


Uh are you serious?

'Marriage' is nothing more than a license, given out by the state.


I have to believe you already knew that...

[Calvin]

Admiral Nate, I really don't get your stance of "we shouldn't change definitions." Definitions for many things have always been changing throughout society as time goes on. I'm guessing you'd have been one of the guys saying "The definition of a citizen is a white male, we can't change that! It's changing definitions!"

[Addendum]

And if a state allows Billy and Chuck to get married, that in no way affects Bobby and Peggy Sue's marriage at all.

[Admiral_N8]

you want the federal constitution to be changed to stop them from getting married. you want the law of massachucets overuled to stop them. they are already getting married there. It's been happening for over a year.

Wow, apparently we have psychic wannabes on here.

When did I ever say anything about an amendment of the federal constitution??

Stop making things up.

[Calvin]

Wow, apparently we have psychic wannabes on here.

When did I ever say anything about an amendment of the federal constitution??

Stop making things up.
If you voted no in the poll, that's essentially what you're advocating.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I'm guessing you'd have been one of the guys saying "The definition of a citizen is a white male, we can't change that! It's changing definitions!"Totally.

[Swiftman]

who here is white? just wondering

[C. Lee]

This is from Encarta

marriage




mar·riage [ márrij ] (plural mar·riages)


noun

Definitions:

1. legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners


2. specific marriage relationship: a married relationship between two people, or a somebody's relationship with his or her spouse
They have a happy marriage.


3. joining in wedlock: the joining together in wedlock of two people


4. marriage ceremony: the ceremony in which two people are joined together formally in wedlock


5. union of two things: a close union, blend, or mixture of two things
Civilization is based on the marriage of tradition and innovation.


6. card games king and queen of same suit: in card games such as pinochle and bezique, a combination of the king and queen of the same suit


[13th century. < French mariage < marier (see marry)]

[Wilhelm-Scream]

who here is white? just wonderingLol, what? :confused:

[C. Lee]

who here is white? just wondering
Michael Jackson.....:mad:

[Wilhelm-Scream]

How many of you are Puerto Rican? Speak Up!

[Swiftman]

Michael Jackson.....:mad:hahaha :up: , besides him.

[Addendum]

How bout that. The definition of marriage says nothing about "gender".

[Swiftman]

How many of you are Puerto Rican? Speak Up!im half mexican and half salvadorean, hey thats latino...

[C. Lee]

hahaha :up: , besides him.
Conan O'Brian

[Swiftman]

Conan O'Brianyes,.... but im talkin about in here, in this thread.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

How bout that. The definition of marriage says nothing about "gender".But...but...Admiral_N8 told me that the definition of "marriage" is "a union between a man and a woman". :(

I'm so confused. Should I believe Encarta...or the dude with the purple font....mmmmm

[Calvin]

yes,.... but im talkin about in here, in this thread.
Why?

[C. Lee]

But...but...Admiral_N8 told me that the definition of "marriage" is "a union between a man and a woman". :(

I'm so confused. Should I believe Encarta...or the dude with the purple font....mmmmm
Hard decision...purple IS the color prefered by Prince, so he has that going for him.......:confused:

[blind_fury]

Civil unions as they exist right now often don't carry the same benefits, and often aren't able to be carried over to other states, unlike "marriage." If you're so concerned that marriage has to be a religious thing, then let the government recognize all unions as civil unions, whether it's between heterosexuals or homosexuals, and let the church classify it however they want privately.
Marraige is not purely secular. Making it purely secular discredits it's spiritual worth. The government could put marriages in the civil union category. That's not a bad idea. But marriage wanting gays don't want that, they want their relationships to be blessed by God via priest and church ceremonies. They do this without regard for the well being of children or the status of religion.

[Calvin]

Marraige is not purely secular. Making it purely secular discredits it's spiritual worth. The government could put marriages in the civil union category. That's not a bad idea. But marriage wanting gays don't want that, they want their relationships to be blessed by God via priest and church ceremonies. They do this without regard for the well being of children or the status of religion.
No, that's not what all gay people want. There is a HUGE number that just want equal treatment from the government. If there are gay people that want a religious marriage, they need to take that up with the priest. This isn't the issue we're discussing though, we're talking about marriages in the eyes of the government.

[Johnny Drama]

:mad: :mad: :mad: Those of you who plead no are just plain ignorant. Somebody cannot live their lives the way they wish because you think it's "gross" or

"unnatural". You disgust me. It's people like you that are the reason my

best friend is suicidal and is afraid to tell people he is gay. Fu<k off, rot in

hell and tell your ****bag mothers I said hi when you get their.

[C. Lee]

:mad: :mad: :mad: Those of you who plead no are just plain ignorant. Somebody cannot live their lives the way they wish because you think it's "gross" or

"unnatural". You disgust me. It's people like you that are the reason my

best friend is suicidal and is afraid to tell people he is gay. Fu<k off, rot in

hell and tell your ****bag mothers I said hi when you get their.
Talking that way is as bad as the people you are complaining about.

DO NOT BYPASS THE CENSORS TO CURSE AGAIN.

DO NOT BRING PEOPLE'S PARENTAGE INTO THIS.

ACT CIVILY.

[Swiftman]

Why?becaus someone said the definition of a citizen is a white male, now thats racist. :down: :mad:

[Calvin]

Parentage should only be brought into the equation if someone misuses "your."

[Calvin]

becaus someone said the definition of a citizen is a white male, now thats racist. :down: :mad:
Um, I think you misread the post.

[Admiral_N8]

If you voted no in the poll, that's essentially what you're advocating.

Wow, that is stretching things a lot.

ME simply saying "no" to "same sex marriage" means I wan a constitutional amenment from the fed govt??

Still making things up ey...

[Johnny Drama]

Talking that way is as bad as the people you are complaining about.

DO NOT BYPASS THE CENSORS TO CURSE AGAIN.

DO NOT BRING PEOPLE'S PARENTAGE INTO THIS.

ACT CIVILY.

I apologize but this is a very touchy subject for me.

[Swiftman]

Um, I think you misread the post.i did? whatever, i gotz to go anywayz so see ya laterz! :)

[Calvin]

Wow, that is stretching things a lot.

ME simply saying "no" to "same sex marriage" means I wan a constitutional amenment from the fed govt??

Still making things up ey...
You've been trying to argue that gay marriage should not be legalized throughout this entire thread, how can you even say that it's not your position?

[C. Lee]

becaus someone said the definition of a citizen is a white male, now thats racist. :down: :mad:
Re-read it. He was saying that at one time in the United States....the definition of a citizen was a "white male"......and he was showing how that has changed over the years...just as the definition of a "married couple" has and will change over the years.

[blind_fury]

GLAD YOU ASKED

if you'd really like to educate yourself about all of the priveleges that married couples enjoy and people in a civil union can NOT enjoy
Here You Go (http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm)

It isn't about religion.
Well the obvious answer is to expand the benefits of civil unions instead of expanding the concept of marraige.

Something tells me many gays wouldn't be happy with civil unions with full benefits. They want their sexual orientation to be endorsed by every segment of society especially the church. It is extremely selfish to try to change and distort religion for personal reassurances. That's like a black man demanding membership in the KKK to improve his self-image. It's pointless and counter-productive.

[Johnny Drama]

I understand being repramanded for bypassing the censors, but please C.Lee, don't be upset with me for bringing parentage into ythis if you are going to let Calvin get away with his signature.
It's only fair.

[Calvin]

Well the obvious answer is to expand the benefits of civil unions instead of expanding the concept of marraige.

Something tells me many gays wouldn't be happy with civil unions with full benefits. They want their sexual orientation to be endorsed by every segment of society especially the church. It is extremely selfish to try to change and distort religion for personal reassurances. That's like a black man demanding membership in the KKK to improve his self-image. It's pointless and counter-productive.
All the gay friends I have don't care about church endoresement, they just want to be equal under the eyes of the law.

[Johnny Drama]

And I'm not trying to get you into trouble Calvin, I'm just pointing out that I'm not the only one...

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I apologize but this is a very touchy subject for me.Must be to play the "****bag mother" card :eek:

[Calvin]

I understand being repramanded for bypassing the censors, but please C.Lee, don't be upset with me for bringing parentage into ythis if you are going to let Calvin get away with his signature.
It's only fair.
Hey now, Morg OKed it. Don't play that sibling "well he did it" stuff.

Plus, mine's clearly facetious.

[C. Lee]

I understand being repramanded for bypassing the censors, but please C.Lee, don't be upset with me for bringing parentage into ythis if you are going to let Calvin get away with his signature.
It's only fair.
I hadn't noticed.


Calvin....take the mother part out of your sig please.

[Johnny Drama]

I wasn't trying to do that, Calvin. I just don't see what the difference is, that's all.

[C. Lee]

Hey now, Morg OKed it. Don't play that sibling "well he did it" stuff.

Plus, mine's clearly facetious.
Morg Okd it?

[Calvin]

C. Lee, it's comedic, big difference. Morg oversaw my sig edits while we were getting the sizing down, and he gave me the ok on it. Seriously, it's not the same thing at all. There's nothing malicious about my sig, as opposed to calling someone's mother a ****bag with anger.

[C. Lee]

I wasn't trying to do that, Calvin. I just don't see what the difference is, that's all.
I personally don't like either one...but the main difference I see is...Calvin is using it as a stupid joke....you were using it as a specific insult and attack towards certain people.

[Johnny Drama]

Well, yes it was in anger because I am angry. Let's not detour from the topic at hand...

[C. Lee]

C. Lee, it's comedic, big difference. Morg oversaw my sig edits while we were getting the sizing down, and he gave me the ok on it. Seriously, it's not the same thing at all. There's nothing malicious about my sig, as opposed to calling someone's mother a ****bag with anger.
I just said that.

[Calvin]

I personally don't like either one...but the main difference I see is...Calvin is using it as a stupid joke....you were using it as a specific insult and attack towards certain people.
I should also point out that the last bit should be read in Celebrity Jeopardy's Connery voice.
I just said that.
I was typing that up while you said it.

edit - wait, I said it first, you're confusing me

[blind_fury]

No, that's not what all gay people want. There is a HUGE number that just want equal treatment from the government. If there are gay people that want a religious marriage, they need to take that up with the priest. This isn't the issue we're discussing though, we're talking about marriages in the eyes of the government.
I'm against constitutional bans of gay marraige. I'm all for expanding civil union benefits. I even support the government categorizing marraiges as a form of civil unions. But the name of the thread is "Yes or No on Same Sex Marraiges" and marraige is not a purely secular concept.

[Calvin]

I'm against constitutional bans of gay marraige. I'm all for expanding civil union benefits. I even support the government categorizing marraiges as a form of civil unions. But the name of the thread is "Yes or No on Same Sex Marraiges" and marraige is not a purely secular concept.
Depends on which dictionary you use.

[C. Lee]

I was typing that up while you said it.

edit - wait, I said it first, you're confusing me
You may have said it first...but I thought it first...so technically I win.:mad:

[Calvin]

You may have said it first...but I thought it first...so technically I win.:mad:
I wish many messy diapers upon you.

From your new son, as well.

[Johnny Drama]

the name of the thread is "Yes or No on Same Sex Marraiges" and marraige is not a purely secular concept.

You are right. It is not. "The whole marriage should be between a man and a woman" pretains to the christian beliefs and most homosexuals aren't exactly poster boys for christianity, are they?

[blind_fury]

Depends on which dictionary you use.
OK so we should just ignore the fact that all over the world and for thousands of years people have been married by priest and in churches?

Why do you think people get married in churches by priest???

[Calvin]

OK so we should just ignore the fact that all over the world and for thousands of years people have been married by priest and in churches?

Why do you think people get married in churches by priest???
People all over the world are religious in general, doesn't mean our government should legislate according to it, we're not living in a theocracy.

[Johnny Drama]

People all over the world are religious in general, doesn't mean our government should legislate according to it, we're not living in a theocracy.

:up: Thank you, Calvin...

[Spider-Bite]

Well the obvious answer is to expand the benefits of civil unions instead of expanding the concept of marraige.

Something tells me many gays wouldn't be happy with civil unions with full benefits. They want their sexual orientation to be endorsed by every segment of society especially the church. It is extremely selfish to try to change and distort religion for personal reassurances. That's like a black man demanding membership in the KKK to improve his self-image. It's pointless and counter-productive.

5 percent of the country is atheist. about 40% of the people who believe in God support equal rights.

distoriting religion and changing it is how it became it was created in the first place.

[Admiral_N8]

You've been trying to argue that gay marriage should not be legalized throughout this entire thread, how can you even say that it's not your position?

I said I dont want gay marriage, I have never said we need some kind of federal amendmant telling the states what to do.

[Admiral_N8]

I'm against constitutional bans of gay marraige. I'm all for expanding civil union benefits. I even support the government categorizing marraiges as a form of civil unions. But the name of the thread is "Yes or No on Same Sex Marraiges" and marraige is not a purely secular concept.

Yep, thats what I think

[Calvin]

I said I dont want gay marriage, I have never said we need some kind of federal amendmant telling the states what to do.
The constitution as it's written doesn't have anything against gay marriage. For gay marriage to be legitimately ruled out by legislation, it would take an amendment, which is what conservatives are trying to make happen.

[Admiral_N8]

People all over the world are religious in general, doesn't mean our government should legislate according to it, we're not living in a theocracy.

But that doesnt mean the government shouldnt legislate on the countrys beliefes.....like gay marriage shouldnt be allowed...simply because you say they think that based on religion.

[Calvin]

But that doesnt mean the government shouldnt legislate on the countrys beliefes.....like gay marriage shouldnt be allowed...simply because you say they think that based on religion.
It's not about "beliefs", it's about the constitution and equal freedom that our country is based on.

[Admiral_N8]

The constitution as it's written doesn't have anything against gay marriage. For gay marriage to be legitimately ruled out by legislation, it would take an amendment, which is what conservatives are trying to make happen.

The conservatives arent trying to make that happen, at least not that manny, remember when Bush wanted to then everyone pretty much said "no"???

For gay marriage to be ruled out it doesnt take a federal ammendment.

[Admiral_N8]

It's not about "beliefs", it's about the constitution and equal freedom that our country is based on.

And the constitution is based on what people to believe is equal rights, and according to polls people dont think gays being denied marriage means unequal rights.

Thats how it is now...in the future? nobody knows.

[Calvin]

The conservatives arent trying to make that happen, at least not that manny, remember when Bush wanted to then everyone pretty much said "no"???

For gay marriage to be ruled out it doesnt take a federal ammendment.
That would stamp it out a lot more definitively. If it's stuck on various state laws, there could always be a federal ruling saying it's unconstitutional to outlaw gay marriage, which is really what needs to happen.

[C. Lee]

OK so we should just ignore the fact that all over the world and for thousands of years people have been married by priest and in churches?

Why do you think people get married in churches by priest???
Should all laws from thousands of years ago be followed today....or do they need to adapt with the changing times?

[Calvin]

And the constitution is based on what people to believe is equal rights, and according to polls people dont think gays being denied marriage means unequal rights.

Thats how it is now...in the future? nobody knows.
There was a time when the majority of citizens didn't think black people deserved equality, didn't make it right.

[blind_fury]

People all over the world are religious in general, doesn't mean our government should legislate according to it, we're not living in a theocracy.
We dont live in a theocracy but we don't live in a completely secular society either.

The government can't force churches to endorse gay marraige and if they allow gay marraige it will only be a matter of time until gays sue churches for refusing to marry them.

[Admiral_N8]

There was a time when the majority of citizens didn't think black people deserved equality, didn't make it right.

So? I knew you were going to say that. If people think its wrong, it will change, right now people dont.


There is not "right" answer.

[Calvin]

We dont live in a theocracy but we don't live in a completely secular society either.

The government can't force churches to endorse gay marraige and if they allow gay marraige it will only be a matter of time until gays sue churches for refusing to marry them.
Allowing gay marriage on a government level does NOT force churches to endorse gay marriage. That's a ridiculous statement.

[Calvin]

So? I knew you were going to say that. If people think its wrong, it will change, right now people dont.


There is not "right" answer.
There is a logical "right" based on the constitution.

[blind_fury]

5 percent of the country is atheist. about 40% of the people who believe in God support equal rights.

distoriting religion and changing it is how it became it was created in the first place.
So lets revise the bible to say whatever we feel like until it has no weight at all.

[Admiral_N8]

There is a logical "right" based on the constitution.

And in YOUR opinion equal rights means gay marriage, in others [like me] it doesnt.

Simple as that.

[Calvin]

And in YOUR opinion equal rights means gay marriage, in others [like me] it doesnt.

Simple as that.
How is it equal if heterosexuals can marry but homosexuals can't?

[Hollow Wood Director]

Should all laws from thousands of years ago be followed today....or do they need to adapt with the changing times?

or should the laws from a thousand years ago been more thorough and less exclusive to certain areas humanity?

[blind_fury]

Should all laws from thousands of years ago be followed today....or do they need to adapt with the changing times?
We should be extremely careful how we alter religious beliefs. You have to ask why we are doing it, for comfort or salvation?

[Addendum]

We dont live in a theocracy but we don't live in a completely secular society either.

The government can't force churches to endorse gay marraige and if they allow gay marraige it will only be a matter of time until gays sue churches for refusing to marry them.
Read the first amendment. As it pertains to religion, the first amendment has something called the "establishment clause" that forbids the creation of a state church.

The second part which pertains to religion is "the free exercise clause" which forbids the government from telling people what to believe.

The government cannot force churches to recognize gay marriages, however the government doesn't need a church's approval to conduct marriages.

[Admiral_N8]

How is it equal if heterosexuals can marry but homosexuals can't?

Because thats not what marriage is to people who think its not "unequal".

[Addendum]

Why is it so hard for some people to grasp that "If 2 people get married, and you're not one of the people getting married" it's not your business

[Admiral_N8]

Why is it so hard for some people to grasp that "If 2 people get married, and you're not one of the people getting married" it's not your business

It is our business if they try to change the law, since law is everyones business

[Addendum]

Other than that, it doesn't affect your marriage, if you are married.

[blind_fury]

How is it equal if heterosexuals can marry but homosexuals can't?
What if a church refuses to marry a gay couple and the government forces the church to comply? Does the government hurt or help society?

[The Decider]

Whats next? Is Farmer John going to start demanding the right to marry ol' Bessy?

[Admiral_N8]

Other than that, it doesn't affect your marriage, if you are married.

Unless you dont like gays also being married, that since they are getting married takes away from what you think marriage is or should be.

Then it matters.

[Addendum]

What if a church refuses to marry a gay couple and the government forces the church to comply? Does the government hurt or help society?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Your hypothetical question is invalid since it violates the free exercise clause, and is therefore unconstitutional.

The government CAN NOT tell churches what to believe, despite what "christian fiction" novels want you to think

[The Decider]

Unless you dont like gays also being married, that since they are getting married takes away from what you think marriage is or should be.

Then it matters.

Exactly! Their unnatural love for eachother hurts MY marriage! :mad:

[blind_fury]

Other than that, it doesn't affect your marriage, if you are married.
It lessens the spirtual legitmacy of your marraige making it easier to commit adultry or marry for reason other than love.

[Addendum]

Unless you dont like gays also being married, that since they are getting married takes away from what you think marriage is or should be.

Then it matters.

So you interject yourself in the actions of others if they do something you may not like.

You really are a nosy person. Enjoy the view of the world offered to you when you look out of your living room window, partially behind the curtains, with a pair of binoculars as you see what your neighbors are doing

[blind_fury]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Your hypothetical question is invalid since it violates the free exercise clause, and is therefore unconstitutional.

The government CAN NOT tell churches what to believe, despite what "christian fiction" novels want you to think
So I can have a segregated church that doesnt allow blacks?

[Addendum]

It lessens the spirtual legitmacy of your marraige making it easier to commit adultry or marry for reason other than love.
Having a marriage blessed by a church or deity is optional, not a requirement. Marriages can be conducted in the courthouse or city hall with no permission from a priest, minister, imam, rabbi, or witch doctor

[The Decider]

You really are a nosy person. Enjoy the view of the world offered to you when you look out of your living room window, partially behind the curtains, with a pair of binoculars as you see what your neighbors are doing

Why do they care? Unless they have something to hide...

[Admiral_N8]

So you interject yourself in the actions of others if they do something you may not like.

You really are a nosy person. Enjoy the view of the world offered to you when you look out of your living room window, partially behind the curtains, with a pair of binoculars as you see what your neighbors are doing


I am a "nosy" person because I dont want gay marriage???



:rolleyes:

[Addendum]

I am a "nosy" person because I dont want gay marriage???

:rolleyes:

I still don't understand how Billy and Chuck's marriage affects, cheapens or makes your marriage meaningless.

[blind_fury]

Having a marriage blessed by a church or deity is optional, not a requirement. Marriages can be conducted in the courthouse or city hall with no permission from a priest, minister, imam, rabbi, or witch doctor
That's not what I meant. Allowing gays to get married will change the way marraige is viewed by the public making it easier to commit adultry, marry for reasons other than love etc..

[The Decider]

I still don't understand how Billy and Chuck's marriage affects, cheapens or makes your marriage meaningless.

Because marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. It defiles the institution- what are we going to allow next? People marrying their dogs?

[Addendum]

That's not what I meant. Allowing gays to get married will change the way marraige is viewed by the public making it easier to commit adultry, marry for reasons other than love etc..
It's already easy to commit adultery and some people marry for reasons other than love, long before the entire same-sex marriage issue became a big deal

[Addendum]

Because marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. It defiles the institution- what are we going to allow next? People marrying their dogs?
The institution is already defiled. Las Vegas wedding chapels can attest to that.

Drive-thru wedding chapels

[The Decider]

The institution is already defiled. Las Vegas wedding chapels can attest to that.

Drive-thru wedding chapels

That is because of the liberals who run Vegas.

And divorce rates are high because of all of the feminazis.

[Addendum]

Divorces happened well before the feminist movement started.

[Admiral_N8]

I still don't understand how Billy and Chuck's marriage affects, cheapens or makes your marriage meaningless.

I still find it funny anyone who doesnt support gay marriage is "nosy"....very funny.

They dont like gays also being married, that since they are getting married takes away from what you think marriage is.



If people who you dont think should be married are married, then marriage can mean anything to anyone, then that takes away from what these people think marriage ought to be.

[The Decider]

Divorces happened well before the feminist movement started.

Thats a lie.

[Addendum]

It doesn't matter what you think though. Your thoughts don't make the law. Ultimately, it's up to the lawmakers. They take your views into consideration, but they are not legally held by it.

I don't care who marries who. Since I'm not in the wedding, it's not my damned business.

[Admiral_N8]

It doesn't matter what you think though. Your thoughts don't make the law. Ultimately, it's up to the lawmakers. They take your views into consideration, but they are not legally held by it.

I don't care who marries who. Since I'm not in the wedding, it's not my damned business.

Its not your business? It isnt I agree, unless they want to change the law.

Then its everyones business.

[ShadowBoxing]

I still find it funny anyone who doesnt support gay marriage is "nosy"....very funny.

They dont like gays also being married, that since they are getting married takes away from what you think marriage is.



If people who you dont think should be married are married, then marriage can mean anything to anyone, then that takes away from what these people think marriage ought to be.No it doesn't. If you define your life by how others live theirs, you are not very secure to begin with.

[Admiral_N8]

No it doesn't. If you define your life by how others live theirs, you are not very secure to begin with.

So?

[Addendum]

Thats a lie.
Divorces happened in Ancient Greece. At first rare in early Ancient Rome, divorce was eventually allowed. Until the 10th century, divorce was allowed in western society. Although divorce as we know it wasn't allowed, the church allowed “divorce a mensa et thoro" (divorce from bed-and-board). Although they lived seperately, the husband still supported the wife through payments "alimony".

Marriages were annulled only through the church. When marriage became to be viewed as a "civil contract" which was not exclusive to the church, the civil courts gradually exerted their right to grant divorce.

[Addendum]

Its not your business? It isnt I agree, unless they want to change the law.Then its everyones business.

Nope. Even if the law changes, it's still not my business who marries who. The only marriage that will be my business is one I am a part of. Since that will never happen, no marriage is my business.

[Admiral_N8]

Nope. Even if the law changes, it's still not my business who marries who. The only marriage that will be my business is one I am a part of. Since that will never happen, no marriage is my business.

I am talking about changing the law, THAT is everyones business.

[Addendum]

I'm not a lawmaker. So no, it's not my business if the law allows same-sex marriages

[ShadowBoxing]

So?Point is its not corrupting your marriage, you've done that through your own insecurities already, and therefore the point that it diminishes meaning for people is void.

Furthermore your marriage problems aren't grounds to restrict other's rights.

[Admiral_N8]

I'm not a lawmaker. So no, it's not my business if the law allows same-sex marriages

ITs not your business if they change the law? Thats silly.

Is it not your business if they change law back to not allow blacks to vote?

Changing the law is everyones business....saying it doesnt matter and its not your business is just....ignorant.

[rigel7soldiers]

ITs not your business if they change the law? Thats silly.

Is it not your business if they change law back to not allow blacks to vote?

Changing the law is everyones business....saying it doesnt matter and its not your business is just....ignorant.

Okay, that's rediculous, comparing the two. At this point, you've run out of argument. I think same sex marriages should be allowed, because I don't see any harm in it. Honestly, how does it affect you?

[Addendum]

I don't see a reason why I should care

[Admiral_N8]

Point is its not corrupting your marriage, you've done that through your own insecurities already, and therefore the point that it dimishes meaning for people is void.

Furthermore your marriage problems aren't grounds to restrict other's rights.

Having marriage be anything anyone wants, letting people marry their family, same sex, more then one person diminishes what marriage is to people.

Simple.

[Addendum]

Since I'm not getting married, why the **** should I care?!

[ShadowBoxing]

ITs not your business if they change the law? Thats silly.

Is it not your business if they change law back to not allow blacks to vote?

Changing the law is everyones business....saying it doesnt matter and its not your business is just....ignorant.Actually citizens have no place in making laws. They have place in rasing issues, not making the laws off them. The black voting and integration was done entirely by the federal government through the department of congress, in fact the laws forced people to do things they did not want to do...which was put up with integrated schools and a african american population in their communities.

[Admiral_N8]

Okay, that's rediculous, comparing the two. At this point, you've run out of argument. I think same sex marriages should be allowed, because I don't see any harm in it. Honestly, how does it affect you?

its "rediculous" to say that since something doesnt affect me I shouldnt have an opinion, as weve said in this thread. [ie Starving kids in Africa, Terrorists in Israel..doesnt affect me but I still have an opinion]

Plus, I play on getting married, and if anyone can marry whoever they want or however many then it makes marriage a lot less meaningful.

[Admiral_N8]

Actually citizens have no place in making laws. They have place in rasing issues, not making the laws off them. The black voting and integration was done entirely by the federal government through the department of congress, in fact the laws forced people to do things they did not want to do...which was put up with integrated schools and a african american population in their communities.

What? The people dont have any say in what laws should be passed?

That may be the most ridiculous thing I've seen on this thread. This is America, we have EXACTLY the opposite of what you say. American citizens have every place and right to decide what laws are made.

[rigel7soldiers]

its "rediculous" to say that since something doesnt affect me I shouldnt have an opinion, as weve said in this thread. [ie Starving kids in Africa, Terrorists in Israel..doesnt affect me but I still have an opinion]

Plus, I play on getting married, and if anyone can marry whoever they want or however many then it makes marriage a lot less meaningful.

Okay, you got me. I'm an impulsive typist who doesn't proofread posts. Sorry for offending you by misspelling a word. God.

I don't know. I have an opinion, but I think the only people who should care about same-sex marriage's legality are people who want to marry people of the same sex. I guess I'm abstaining, then.

[ShadowBoxing]

Having marriage be anything anyone wants, letting people marry their family, same sex, more then one person diminishes what marriage is to people.

Simple.No not at all. Their are health and child issues (involving inbreeding) that surround in family marriages. You say that marriage is diminished because you don't allow two people who love eachother, and are consenting adults, to marry. However in fact the opposite is true. Something is only diminished when its not alloud or restricted from a certain group. In fact thats the definitiong of diminish. Its not your place to define something for other people. For one you don't make laws, nor do you seem to understand who does. Furthermore, you're views are based on your perceptions and your alone, not a gay persons.

[ShadowBoxing]

What? The people dont have any say in what laws should be passed?

That may be the most ridiculous thing I've seen on this thread. This is America, we have EXACTLY the opposite of what you say. American citizens have every place and right to decide what laws are made.Okay this is America, in fact I study American GOVERNMENT....citizens have no say unless said law is purposed as an initiative.

[Addendum]

Actually, the 535 members of the U.S. Congress make the laws. The citizens just vote for the representatives and the senators. The regular citizens don't vote on the laws those senators and representatives pass.

There was no election where the citizens voted for or against the Patriot Act, NAFTA, the Brady Bill, the Alien and Sedition Act, Prohibition, or the repeal of Prohibition

[ShadowBoxing]

Actually, the 535 members of the U.S. Congress make the laws. The citizens just vote for the representatives and the senators. They don't vote on the laws those senators and representatives pass.Thank you...I defy anyone to name a law a citizen body created. Laws are made by either Congress, Think Tanks or purposed by an executive or bearuacracy...not people

[Addendum]

Exactly. All the citizen does is vote for the representatives and senators. The opinions, concerns, support and opposition is taken into consideration by the elected officials. However, they are not beholden to it. The elected officials still have something called "their mind" and do not need approval from the public to use it.

[ShadowBoxing]

Exactly. All the citizen does is vote for the representatives and senators. The opinions, concerns, support and opposition is taken into consideration by the elected officials. However, they are not beholden to it. The elected officials still have something called "their mind" and do not need approval from the public to use it.Right, as I Admiral mentioned, "African American voter rights" was certainly not an example of something the people wanted at all....To tell you the truth no good politicians are sheep to the people. The best ones who pass the most policy like LBJ, Bill Clinton, Lincoln, FDR, very rarely if at all embody what the general public wants or thinks.

[Admiral_N8]

Okay, you got me. I'm an impulsive typist who doesn't proofread posts. Sorry for offending you by misspelling a word. God.

I don't know. I have an opinion, but I think the only people who should care about same-sex marriage's legality are people who want to marry people of the same sex. I guess I'm abstaining, then.

Wow looks like i hit a nerve, calm down man.

Why should only gay people "care" about same sex marriage? Why not everyone who gets married too?


The argument that "why do you care" or "you shouldnt care" about gays changing the law was silly to start with and still makes no sense.

Youre asking us why we should care about our law and what marriage is...

:rolleyes:

[ShadowBoxing]

Wow looks like i hit a nerve, calm down man.

Why should only gay people "care" about same sex marriage? Why not everyone who gets married too?


The argument that "why do you care" or "you shouldnt care" about gays changing the law was silly to start with and still makes no sense.

Youre asking us why we should care about our law and what marriage is...

:rolleyes:Right but you're understanding of law is faulty. Law is not created for you, its created for the greater good. Defining marriage by your perspective only rewards you. Delegations aren't suppose to do that. They have gay's rights to consider as well, not just your frivoless problems with others.

[Admiral_N8]

No not at all. Their are health and child issues (involving inbreeding) that surround in family marriages. You say that marriage is diminished because you don't allow two people who love eachother, and are consenting adults, to marry. However in fact the opposite is true. Something is only diminished when its not alloud or restricted from a certain group. In fact thats the definitiong of diminish. Its not your place to define something for other people. For one you don't make laws, nor do you seem to understand who does. Furthermore, you're views are based on your perceptions and your alone, not a gay persons.

Its not my placefor me to define something for other people? Its also not the gays place to define marriage to me....or do they get to define things but not me???

So I cant have an opinion about gay marriage if I am not gay? Thats absurd, do I also not get an opinion on black people voting sicne I am not black?? :rolleyes:

And as for family marriages, health reasons arent present at all if its two brothers...so can they marry too?

[ShadowBoxing]

Its not my placefor me to define something for other people? Its also not the gays place to define marriage to me....or do they get to define things but not me???

So I cant have an opinion about gay marriage if I am not gay? Thats absurd, do I also not get an opinion on black people voting sicne I am not black?? :rolleyes:

And as for family marriages, health reasons arent present at all if its two brothers...so can they marry too?For the last time your acting as if someone your "opinion" makes the laws...wake up, it doesn't

[Admiral_N8]

Exactly. All the citizen does is vote for the representatives and senators. The opinions, concerns, support and opposition is taken into consideration by the elected officials. However, they are not beholden to it. The elected officials still have something called "their mind" and do not need approval from the public to use it.

So we shouldnt "care" still?

Americans shouldnt opine on laws since we dont write them?? Thats....interesting.

[Admiral_N8]

For the last time your acting as if someone your "opinion" makes the laws...wake up, it doesn't

I am acting as if my opinion should matter, but YOU guys are saying I have no right to "care" or shouldnt "care" since I am not gay....and that is just beyond ridiculous.

[ShadowBoxing]

So we shouldnt "care" still?

Americans shouldnt opine on laws since we dont write them?? Thats....interesting.You can have an opinion...but once policies are passed its a rarity that they are ever repealled.

[ShadowBoxing]

I am acting as if my opinion should matter, but YOU guys are saying I have no right to "care" or shouldnt "care" since I am not gay....and that is just beyond ridiculous.You can care about it until you die...your caring has no influence on lawmaking whatsoever. Public good, or at least the good of one constituents (which is where tyranny of the majority is such a problem) is what an elected official bases laws off of.

[Admiral_N8]

Right but you're understanding of law is faulty. Law is not created for you, its created for the greater good. Defining marriage by your perspective only rewards you. Delegations aren't suppose to do that. They have gay's rights to consider as well, not just your frivoless problems with others.

My understanding of law is faulty?

You guys are pretending that someone like me shouldnt "care" about a law being changed. Law is created for the greater good, and that does not mean gay marriage to most people or lawmakers right now.

Simple.

[Admiral_N8]

You can care about it until you die...your caring has no influence on lawmaking whatsoever. Public good, or at least the good of one constituents (which is where tyranny of the majority is such a problem) is what an elected official bases laws off of.



Well at least you say I can care, most people are like "why should i care if it directly affects me" which is of course silly, since most things we talk about around the country/globe dont directly affect us.

[ShadowBoxing]

My understanding of law is faulty?

You guys are pretending that someone like me shouldnt "care" about a law being changed. Law is created for the greater good, and that does not mean gay marriage to most people or lawmakers right now.

Simple.Actually according to this poll no...and furthermore if you understood policy at all (which you don't) the question right now is not whether its right or wrong its whether its a state matter or a federal matter.

[Admiral_N8]

You can have an opinion...but once policies are passed its a rarity that they are ever repealled.

And thats what my opinion, and that of others, is for. To elect representatives that represent our opinions, and to show public opinion is against or for certain policies.


People saying I shouldnt care or am not qualified since I am not gay are just being ridiculous.

[ShadowBoxing]

And thats what my opinion, and that of others, is for. To elect representatives that represent our opinions, and to show public opinion is against or for certain policies.


People saying I shouldnt care or am not qualified since I am not gay are just being ridiculous.Actually you're not qualified because its obvious the only thought you've put into this is "I don't like it"

[Admiral_N8]

Actually according to this poll no...and furthermore if you understood policy at all (which you don't) the question right now is not whether its right or wrong its whether its a state matter or a federal matter.

This poll? And you think that means more then REAL scientific polls showing the opposite :rolleyes:

And nice high and mighty post there, saying you understand policy and I dont. :up:

[ShadowBoxing]

This poll? And you think that means more then REAL scientific polls showing the opposite :rolleyes:

And nice high and mighty post there, saying you understand policy and I dont. :up:Well you don't...because you say the argument is whether it affects people or it doesn't...and thats not the argument at all. Laws won't be based off the argument, not.in.the.slightest.

[Admiral_N8]

Actually you're not qualified because its obvious the only thought you've put into this is "I don't like it"

:rolleyes:

I have stated a lot more than that in the thread.

Stop acting all high and mighty.

If you read what Ive said I said I am all for gay marriage as long as everyone else can change marriage to fit what they want as well.

[Admiral_N8]

Well you don't...because you say the argument is whether it affects people or it doesn't...and thats not the argument at all. Laws won't be based off the argument, not.in.the.slightest.

Thats the argument weve been talking about for a while...read the last several pages maybe?

Maybe you should read the post before acting all arrogant and saying you know what we are talking about???

I dont know why people feel the need to say "oh you dont know what your talking about" in things like this....

[Spider-Bite]

:rolleyes:

I have stated a lot more than that in the thread.

Stop acting all high and mighty.

If you read what Ive said I said I am all for gay marriage as long as everyone else can change marriage to fit what they want as well.

that makes no sense. it really doesn't. so your saying that if you get to vote on a law you wouldn't vote in favor of gay marriage unless right then and there on that same exact day that same exact law will allow you to marry a football?

I'm all for consenting adults marriage. NO mattr what or who they are as long as they are consenting adults. but I wouldn't deny a certain group rights simple because some other group is being denied rights. that's like saying two wrongs make a right.

[Spider-Bite]

Well you don't...because you say the argument is whether it affects people or it doesn't...and thats not the argument at all. Laws won't be based off the argument, not.in.the.slightest.

I want to point out you are doing a very well job here in the debate. I'm not just saying that because you agree with me either, because most people here do agree with us. I'm just saying you are doing pretty good! :up:

[Spider-Bite]

No not at all. Their are health and child issues (involving inbreeding) that surround in family marriages. You say that marriage is diminished because you don't allow two people who love eachother, and are consenting adults, to marry. However in fact the opposite is true. Something is only diminished when its not alloud or restricted from a certain group. In fact thats the definitiong of diminish. Its not your place to define something for other people. For one you don't make laws, nor do you seem to understand who does. Furthermore, you're views are based on your perceptions and your alone, not a gay persons.

actually it was determined a while ago that unless the partner is a sibling or a parent there is no risk at all. Any other family member is safe. and yes marrying relatives should be legal. Cultures, lifestyles, and traditions vary from one person to the next and America should be the land of the free, where the lifestyle of the majority is not forced on the minority.

[Admiral_N8]

that makes no sense. it really doesn't. so your saying that if you get to vote on a law you wouldn't vote in favor of gay marriage unless right then and there on that same exact day that same exact law will allow you to marry a football?

I'm all for consenting adults marriage. NO mattr what or who they are as long as they are consenting adults. but I wouldn't deny a certain group rights simple because some other group is being denied rights. that's like saying two wrongs make a right.

Ummm the first paragraph... I would only vote YES if the law made it so anyone could marry anyone. No restrictions on number or who it was.

[Admiral_N8]

I want to point out you are doing a very well job here in the debate. I'm not just saying that because you agree with me either, because most people here do agree with us. I'm just saying you are doing pretty good! :up:

Yes I'm sure him agreeing with you has NOTHING to do with it :rolleyes:

You think acting high and mighty, saying he knows things but you dont, is "doing a good job"?? Also, hes saying things that dont make ANY sense if you read the last several pages.

Again, I'm sure him being on the same side as you has nothing to do with it at all

...

[Admiral_N8]

actually it was determined a while ago that unless the partner is a sibling or a parent there is no risk at all. Any other family member is safe. and yes marrying relatives should be legal. Cultures, lifestyles, and traditions vary from one person to the next and America should be the land of the free, where the lifestyle of the majority is not forced on the minority.

I agree, either we let people marry WHOEVER they want, or we shouldnt change it. If gays marry we have no right to tell people they cant marry their family members, or more than 1 person.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Having marriage be anything anyone wants, letting people marry their family, same sex, more then one person diminishes what marriage is to people.

Simple.Well, I guess we should do away with divorce as an option, because last I heard, when you get married, you promise to stay together for better or for worse "TILL DEATH DO US PART". So every couple that gets a divorce has diminished the meaning of the marital vows for everyone else.
:rolleyes:

The sanctity of the marriage is between the two people that are getting married. Just because some guy cheats on his wife, or some woman lies and only marries an old man for his money hoping he'll die soon, it doesn't diminish the meaning between my wife and I in any way. There's no way it could.

If you love your wife and are committed to her for life, how in the name of holy f*** could Rosie O'Donnel and her lover have ANY effect on it? It makes zero sense.

If my woman and I are in love, and we decide to get married, the gov't. allowing a spider to marry a rock would have N.O. bearing on the union between my wife and I in ANY way.

[Admiral_N8]

Well, I guess we should do away with divorce as an option, because last I heard, when you get married, you promise to stay together for better or for worse "TILL DEATH DO US PART". So every couple that gets a divorce has diminished the meaning of the marital vows for everyone else.
:rolleyes:

The sanctity of the marriage is between the two people that are getting married. Just because some guy cheats on his wife, or some woman lies and only marries an old man for his money hoping he'll die soon, it doesn't diminish the meaning between my wife and I in any way. There's no way it could.

If you love your wife and are committed to her for life, how in the name of holy f*** could Rosie O'Donnel and her lover have ANY effect on it? It makes zero sense.

If my woman and I are in love, and we decide to get married, the gov't. allowing a spider to marry a rock would have N.O. bearing on the union between my wife and I in ANY way.

Well I am glad you dont care about anyone elses marriage, thats good for you. MANY people however think that once marriage becomes anything and can just be whatever anybody wants then it loses what marriage has been for their entire life...shakes the foundation of marriage itself, changing the definition and meaning of marriage.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Then what about Brittany Spears and all of these idiots that can legally go to Las Vegas, get drunk, get married and then get a divorce a week later?
They are making marriage "anything they want". But you have no problem with allowing them to, because they're not gay. Logically, that means that your'e problem is not really with "definitions of words", but is actually with homosexuality.


Two of my friends were talking about getting married just to get benefits ( since the institution means nothing to them ).

It's in.san.i.ty. that THEY could legally do that, but the old lesbian couple at my work who've been living together for 20 years and are soul mates can't.
Plain stupid.

[Admiral_N8]

Then what about Brittany Spears and all of these idiots that can legally go to Las Vegas, get drunk, get married and then get a divorce a week later?

What about them?

[Wilhelm-Scream]

read the whole post. :confused:

[Wilhelm-Scream]

MANY people however think that once marriage becomes anything and can just be whatever anybody wants then it loses what marriage has been for their entire life...shakes the foundation of marriage itself

There are people that get married as a joke, and women who don't mean a single word of their vows and are just doing it because the guy is rich, and people that are gay and only get married so people won't be suspicious, or to please their family.

Those people are "making marriage whatever they want it to be" which you said is grounds to disallow it. But since these pairs consist of one person with a penis and one with a vagina, you think it should be allowed. Makes no sense.

[Childlike Wild]

MANY people however think that once marriage becomes anything and can just be whatever anybody wants then it loses what marriage has been for their entire life...shakes the foundation of marriage itself, changing the definition and meaning of marriage.
Letting gay couples get married hardly constitutes letting marriage be "anything" people want it to be. If the vows don't change, and the contract doesn't change, then hey, people who are already married haven't been affected.

Marriage is a legal contract which both binds people and provides them with certain rights. Any deeper meaning than that is up to the individual couple. If gay couples want to bind themselves (in theory) for life and receive the same rights that straight couples can get, then more power to them. Gay is yay.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Letting gay couples get married hardly constitutes letting marriage be "anything" people want it to be. If the vows don't change, and the contract doesn't change, then hey, people who are already married haven't been affected.

He seems to think that if two women are allowed to file joint taxes and to visit eachother in the hospital he'll stop loving his wife as much and will become less devoted and committed to her.
Re-Tarded.

[Childlike Wild]

Maybe he's worried that his wife will suddenly realize it's cool to be gay? It's the lack of marriage that's been holding the masses back from the world of gay.

[blind_fury]

There are people that get married as a joke, and women who don't mean a single word of their vows and are just doing it because the guy is rich, and people that are gay and only get married so people won't be suspicious, or to please their family.

Those people are "making marriage whatever they want it to be" which you said is grounds to disallow it. But since these pairs consist of one person with a penis and one with a vagina, you think it should be allowed. Makes no sense.
Those that are dishonest about their vows are disrespecting God and religious beliefs. You want to encourage further disrespect by doing whatever we want with sacred beliefs and traditions all for the sake of gays who selfishly want their lifestyle endorsed by every segment of society, especially the church.

[Childlike Wild]

Marriage isn't innately religious, and it's definitely not innately Christian.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Those that are dishonest about their vows are disrespecting God and religious beliefs. You want to encourage further disrespect by doing whatever we want with sacred beliefs and traditions all for the sake of gays who selfishly want their lifestyle endorsed by every segment of society, especially the church.
son, I'll try to explain it as simply as possible.

ATHEISTS AND SATANISTS GET MARRIED EVERY SINGLE DAY.
Marriage is not dependant on belief in the sacred. I don't know where you got this idea.
Some go to a church and have a minister preside in the name of God.
Some go to the courthouse, some go to Las Vegas' Chapel of Elvis.

And when you get married is it because you selfishly want your lifestyle endorsed?

ridiculous.


You aren't concerned with the institution, you just hate gay people.
Otherwise you'd be working to keep athiests from getting married.

[Admiral_N8]

Those people are "making marriage whatever they want it to be" which you said is grounds to disallow it. But since these pairs consist of one person with a penis and one with a vagina, you think it should be allowed. Makes no sense.

So your argument is that since things are already making marriage worse off, might as well just say screw it and let marriage get even worse than it is??? That makes no sense.

[Admiral_N8]

He seems to think that if two women are allowed to file joint taxes and to visit eachother in the hospital he'll stop loving his wife as much and will become less devoted and committed to her.
Re-Tarded.

If you read my posts in this thread before mocking you would realize how silly that post of yours was. I have always been, and said, I am for civil unions with the same benefits as married couples.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Letting people who are in love get married doesn't "make marriage worse", it can only make it stronger.

Also, I only brought that up to prove that your argument is flawed.

[blind_fury]

Well, I guess we should do away with divorce as an option, because last I heard, when you get married, you promise to stay together for better or for worse "TILL DEATH DO US PART". So every couple that gets a divorce has diminished the meaning of the marital vows for everyone else.
:rolleyes:
Divorce does diminish the meaning of marraige but it's better than forcing a couple to stay together who no longer love one another. Gay marraige adds no value to marriage. It's only purpose would be to justify homosexuality for gays who want every segment of society to endorse their lifestyle.

[Admiral_N8]

You aren't concerned with the institution, you just hate gay people.


Wow, that was mature and intelligent :rolleyes:

Yes Wil, if someone doesnt want gay marriage they must "just hate gay people"

How..........foolish

[Admiral_N8]

Letting people who are in love get married doesn't "make marriage worse", it can only make it stronger.

Also, I only brought that up to prove that your argument is flawed.

Your brought up that marriage isnt doing well, so we should not care anymore and let it slip further away from what marriage has been for most of mans life? Thats what you brought up to "prove my argument is flawed"?


Well, coming from a person who says that anyone who doesnt want gay marriage "just hates gay people" doesnt surprise me.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

If you read my posts in this thread before mocking you would realize how silly that post of yours was. I have always been, and said, I am for civil unions with the same benefits as married couples.If you read MY posts, you'd know that Civil Unions aren't enough:


if you'd really like to educate yourself about all of the priveleges that married couples enjoy and people in a civil union can NOT enjoy
Here You Go (http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm)
It isn't about religion.
Taxes:
Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

Benefits:
The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?
No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.

1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.

2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.

3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Well, coming from a person who says that anyone who doesnt want gay marriage "just hates gay people" doesnt surprise me.Dude, do you even have a passing familiarity with the concept of logic?

I never once in my entire life said that.
It was my opinion and assessment of BLIND_FURY based on his dishonesty with himself and his fallacious argument.

think before you type.

[Admiral_N8]

If you read MY posts, you'd know that Civil Unions aren't enough:


Wow, you have to be the best selective read I have ever seen. Congratz Wil!!

Notice my post, about 4 of my posts ago, where I said " I have always been, and said, I am for civil unions with the same benefits as married couples."


so, if you read MY posts, you'd realize how silly your posts are getting.
Funny though. :up:

[Wilhelm-Scream]

*ahem*
The, uh...reason they want to be allowed to get married is that CIVIL UNIONS DON'T GIVE THE SAME BENEFITS AS MARRIAGE.

God!:rolleyes:

[Admiral_N8]

Dude, do you even have a passing familiarity with the concept of logic?

I never once in my entire life said that.
It was my opinion and assessment of BLIND_FURY based on his dishonesty with himself and his fallacious argument.

think before you type.

So you think that he just doesnt want gay marriage because he "just hates gay people"?

Wow, great logic.

Very mature and intelligent. Coming from such a selective reader too, choosing to not read my posts then making fun of my posts, when what I said in that post made you look like a fool.

I said "I am for civil unions with the same benefits as married couples." then you go on to say civil unions arent enough...completely overlooking how I said WITH THE SAME benefits as married couples


REad first, then post....plz, its getting boring.

[Admiral_N8]

*ahem*
The, uh...reason they want to be allowed to get married is that CIVIL UNIONS DON'T GIVE THE SAME BENEFITS AS MARRIAGE.

God!:rolleyes:

Yes Thank You Capt. Obvious. Notice how I said I want civil unions with the "same benefits as married couples" as they are in some parts of America today....or are you still trying to overlook things you dont like??

No need to curse, just calm down and act mature. Looks like we hit a nerve on you.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Your brought up that marriage isnt doing well, so we should not care anymore and let it slip further away from what marriage has been for most of mans life? Thats what you brought up to "prove my argument is flawed"?EXACTLY.
Because I asked you why gays can't get married.

YOU said that it's because...if people can make marriage mean anything they want it to, then it lessens the value of existing, traditional marriages.

But you need a better reason to bar gays from marriage, because STRAIGHT PEOPLE are "making marriage mean whatever they want it to" every single day, BUT THEY'RE STILL ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED. So logically, "making it mean whatever" can not be the REASON to disallow it, because no one's disallowing marriage between STRAIGHT PEOPLE that change it's meaning. They are free to do whatever they want just because they aren't gay.

Think it through. I know it'll be hard, but try.

[Admiral_N8]

EXACTLY.

Because I asked you why gays can't get married.



YOU said that it's because...if people can make marriage mean anything they want it to, then it lessens the value of existing, traditional marriages.



But you need a better reason to bar gays from marriage, because STRAIGHT PEOPLE are "making marriage mean whatever they want it to" every single day, BUT THEY'RE STILL ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED. So logically, "making it mean whatever" can not be the REASON to disallow it, because no one's disallowing marriage between STRAIGHT PEOPLE.



Think it through. I know it'll be hard, but try.

"Think it through. I know it'll be hard, but try" :rolleyes: mature as always

So still, your logic is this: since marriage is already bad, lets just let it get worse?


And I'm off to bed, go ahead and pick and choose what you want to read and say someone doesnt want gay marriage because they "just hate gay people".

I'll laugh at it tomorrow.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Hahahaha, now YOU want to change the meaning of "civil unions". LOL, that's rich.

and btw, Blind_Fury said that it's selfish of gay people to want to get married. That's insane.
They want to get married for the same reason ANYone wants to.
They're H.U.M.A.N. B.E.I.N.G.S.

[Admiral_N8]

Hahahaha, now YOU want to change the meaning of "civil unions". LOL, that's rich.

No, not the meaning, just change benefits. Not that hard to understand, weve been changing marriage benefits ever since America was founded so its not a big deal........although that idea seems to beyond your grasp apparently. Anyways night, I'll try to remember to read this thread 2morrow.:up:

[Wilhelm-Scream]

So still, your logic is this: since marriage is already bad, lets just let it get worse? It's not "letting it get worse". It's letting people live their lives happily together and enjoy equal rights.

Why do you want to keep people from enjoying the benefits you're free to enjoy? That's evil.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

No, not the meaning, just change benefits. Not that hard to understand, weve been changing marriage benefits ever since America was founded so its not a big deal........although that idea seems to beyond your grasp apparently. Anyways night, I'll try to remember to read this thread 2morrow.:up:Good night. That was fun. :)

[blind_fury]

son, I'll try to explain it as simply as possible.

ATHEISTS AND SATANISTS GET MARRIED EVERY SINGLE DAY.
Marriage is not dependant on belief in the sacred. I don't know where you got this idea.
Some go to a church and have a minister preside in the name of God.
Some go to the courthouse, some go to Las Vegas' Chapel of Elvis.

And when you get married is it because you selfishly want your lifestyle endorsed?

ridiculous.


You aren't concerned with the institution, you just hate gay people.
Otherwise you'd be working to keep athiests from getting married.

You're not asking to allow a purely secular approach to marriage you're asking to to redefine what a marraige is to all people.

A drive thru chapel with a minister dressed up as Elvis is tolerated because it is a playful approach to marriage. Yes you can get married in a cracker factory or while sky diving. Who cares? But if you want to marry ten women at the same time your not changing what a wedding is meant to be, your changing what a marraige is supposed to be. The same goes for same sex marraige.

[blind_fury]

*ahem*
The, uh...reason they want to be allowed to get married is that CIVIL UNIONS DON'T GIVE THE SAME BENEFITS AS MARRIAGE.

God!:rolleyes:
Then why dont they protest for expanded civil union benefits, why do they want holy matrimony??? :confused:

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Are you aware that some people believe in God, are concerned with spirituality, are deeply religious, go to church and :eek: aren't Christians....and are gay

Yep, it's true. Some people have beliefs that are different than yours

[blind_fury]

Hahahaha, now YOU want to change the meaning of "civil unions". LOL, that's rich.

and btw, Blind_Fury said that it's selfish of gay people to want to get married. That's insane.
They want to get married for the same reason ANYone wants to.
They're H.U.M.A.N. B.E.I.N.G.S.
There selfish because there willing to change and distort what marraige is just so they can gain status. There not doing it for love, their doing it for a better public image.

If I love someone I don't need to get married to prove I love them. Unless I have an agenda.

[blind_fury]

Are you aware that some people believe in God, are concerned with spirituality, are deeply religious, go to church and :eek: aren't Christians....and are gay

Yep, it's true. Some people have beliefs that are different than yours
A gay person who is religious should have an appreciation of traditional values and not expect every road in life to lead to self-assurance and validation.

[captain_jimbo]

Wow, I'm getting out of here!

By the way, I think gay marriages should be allowed.

[LEX]

Of course, it should be allowed. If it makes them happy, so be it. They're no different from the rest of us here.

[Emrys]

A gay person who is religious should have an appreciation of traditional values and not expect every road in life to lead to self-assurance and validation.

Just because something is "traditional" doesn't mean it's moral or a good idea!

[Emrys]

Those that are dishonest about their vows are disrespecting God and religious beliefs. You want to encourage further disrespect by doing whatever we want with sacred beliefs and traditions all for the sake of gays who selfishly want their lifestyle endorsed by every segment of society, especially the church.

Let me ask one question, why should someone who does not believe in god show respect to him or religious believes?

[Emrys]

Because I guess I am a caring human being. I care about the people starving in AFrica, people dying because of terrorism, people not being able to afford food.....ALL even though they dont directly affect me in any way.


Why wouldnt I?

Ah I see, so you don't care about the emotional and psychological well being of gays and want to deny them what little happyness this live offers?

[Emrys]

Marriage is intended to be the highest ideal of human companionship. Of course not all couples live up to that ideal but that doesn't change the fact that marraige is meant to be a sacred union blessed by God.

So what you're saying is that Homosexuals are unable to purely love like a Heterosexual?

[Spider-Bite]

I agree, either we let people marry WHOEVER they want, or we shouldnt change it. If gays marry we have no right to tell people they cant marry their family members, or more than 1 person.

yeah but your saying that society has to dramatically cahnge over night or the should never change at all. change is gradual. just like inter racial marriage. one thing at a time.

[Calvin]

There selfish because there willing to change and distort what marraige is just so they can gain status. There not doing it for love, their doing it for a better public image.

If I love someone I don't need to get married to prove I love them. Unless I have an agenda.
What the hell? Then straight people shouldn't marry either. If they don't need marriage to show their love, then let's just scrap marriage altogether.

[Calvin]

So what you're saying is that Homosexuals are unable to purely love like a Heterosexual?
Man, that pure 50% divorce rate is probably way too tough for homosexuals to achieve.

[Mr Sparkle]

Well, I guess we should do away with divorce as an option, because last I heard, when you get married, you promise to stay together for better or for worse "TILL DEATH DO US PART". So every couple that gets a divorce has diminished the meaning of the marital vows for everyone else.
:rolleyes:



actually, it's stricter than that, it's a promise TO GOD (when it's a religious thing, as Blind_fury seems to only regard marriage), but......


I frankly fail to see how some dude getting married to another dude is going to "diminish the significance" of my own marriage.
you know what does that though?
divorce.
i don't see many people trying to get a constitutional ban on that though.

Divorce does diminish the meaning of marraige but it's better than forcing a couple to stay together who no longer love one another. Gay marraige adds no value to marriage. It's only purpose would be to justify homosexuality for gays who want every segment of society to endorse their lifestyle.


LOL, so breaking vows does not diminish the meaning of marriage.
but a couple making those vows adds no value to it? gee, you better think about that one for a sec.
second, you seem to have a real problem with gay people, I don't think this about the 'value of marriage" you seem to have a real issue, since you don't find marriage a way to "justify" heterosexuality, or "endorse" the heterosexual lifestyle. that's odd.
I have seen everyone here sidestep the issue of divorce. face it head on!
if you're all about the sanctity of marriage BAN DIVORCE! then if a gay couple can get married that'll force them to be together forever! and so will all other couples! that'll show them gays what for!

[Calvin]

They try to dance around semantics, but what it really comes down to is that they don't like homosexuals and they don't want them to be treated fairly. It's the new racism.