|
|
Post by Lord Ragnarok on Jul 8, 2010 21:39:10 GMT -5
Whoa, there are a lot of gay ads on WFigs all of a sudden.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe/Smurf on Jul 8, 2010 21:43:09 GMT -5
Good... I will never understand why someone (for religious reasons or whatever) would feel the need to prevent someone else from behind able to marry the person they love, particularly when it doesn't affect them on a personal level at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by King Shocker the Monumentous on Jul 8, 2010 22:30:16 GMT -5
...so now it's up to the states. Yippee. Between this and immigration reform, we're going to have another Civil War on our hands before long.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 15, 2024 18:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2010 22:53:18 GMT -5
Good for them.
|
|
Captain d00m - Mr. 3000
Main Eventer
Bringing death and destruction since 2005!
Joined on: Dec 2, 2005 20:52:43 GMT -5
Posts: 3,376
|
Post by Captain d00m - Mr. 3000 on Jul 8, 2010 23:02:00 GMT -5
I dont want to start a huge fight by stating my views on it, so ill say congrats to the gays/homosexuals/term that is not offensive.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 8, 2010 23:04:09 GMT -5
...so now it's up to the states. Yippee. Between this and immigration reform, we're going to have another Civil War on our hands before long. But hopefully this means now gay couples can be recognized by the federal government. I'd think federal law would supersede state law, so if the federal government allows same-sex marriages, the states shouldn't have the right to ban it. |
|
|
|
Post by captain master talbot on Jul 8, 2010 23:36:32 GMT -5
I never understood why other straight couples felt that two gays getting married lessened their (man/woman) marriage.
If two people truly love each other, then why deny them the right to legally be together in wedlock?
|
|
B.D. & El G.
Main Eventer
RIP SNS 2/15/82 - 4/11/11
Joined on: Jan 2, 2008 17:52:29 GMT -5
Posts: 4,113
|
Post by B.D. & El G. on Jul 8, 2010 23:59:13 GMT -5
I was just having a conversation with my aunt and mother about this the other day. I feel that even though I will never feel sexual attracted to another man I have no objections whatsoever to what anyone else does sexually.
It is just so confusing to me how someone can be so against another person because of what the first person was taught. That is the part I just can not wrap my head around. That was my mother and aunt's beliefs- that homosexuals are committing a sin against god. What I believe is that its not you, you should just leave that person alone. If its a family member or close friend or something like that, then you should talk about the situation, but if not just let it be.
If they are attracted sexually to someone of the same sex, is not allowing them to get married going to stop them?
Sorry if that seemed a bit jumbled, I have a hard time organizing my thoughts sometimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by King Silva on Jul 9, 2010 2:10:55 GMT -5
I am glad because it is about time marriage became equal. Of course this doesn't fix many problems but it is a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
Post by AdamBomb on Jul 9, 2010 4:23:25 GMT -5
Well this is certainly the gayest news I've read all day.
...get it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 9, 2010 4:34:26 GMT -5
...so now it's up to the states. Yippee. Between this and immigration reform, we're going to have another Civil War on our hands before long. But hopefully this means now gay couples can be recognized by the federal government. I'd think federal law would supersede state law, so if the federal government allows same-sex marriages, the states shouldn't have the right to ban it. I don't think that's how it'd work... Certainly they would have to acknowledge and give rights to same-sex couples, but that doesn't mean that they would have to allow the actual marriage to happen in their state. I think it'd be similar to things like the fireworks laws, where it's legal on a federal level, but illegal on (some) state levels. State law supersedes federal law. I think states should have the right to say, "We're not going to allow this to happen in our state, but we'll give you the same rights as other couples; as long as you actually get married outside of our state" despite my thinking that the very concept of acting out like this against gays is completely bigoted and ultimately a pathetic attempt at proving one's dominance over others. On a side note, I think the concept of "marriage" having anything to do with government is completely preposterous. Marriage is supposed to be a religious thing, which is supposed to be separate from the state anyway. In my opinion, EVERYONE should be able to be legally considered "married" in the government's eyes, but churches should have their own say on what is or isn't acceptable in the case of their religion. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Jul 9, 2010 14:26:46 GMT -5
Sheesh, get with the times USA.
|
|
|
|
Post by BulletV1 on Jul 9, 2010 15:56:13 GMT -5
But hopefully this means now gay couples can be recognized by the federal government. I'd think federal law would supersede state law, so if the federal government allows same-sex marriages, the states shouldn't have the right to ban it. I don't think that's how it'd work... Certainly they would have to acknowledge and give rights to same-sex couples, but that doesn't mean that they would have to allow the actual marriage to happen in their state. I think it'd be similar to things like the fireworks laws, where it's legal on a federal level, but illegal on (some) state levels. State law supersedes federal law. I think states should have the right to say, "We're not going to allow this to happen in our state, but we'll give you the same rights as other couples; as long as you actually get married outside of our state" despite my thinking that the very concept of acting out like this against gays is completely bigoted and ultimately a pathetic attempt at proving one's dominance over others. On a side note, I think the concept of "marriage" having anything to do with government is completely preposterous. Marriage is supposed to be a religious thing, which is supposed to be separate from the state anyway. In my opinion, EVERYONE should be able to be legally considered "married" in the government's eyes, but churches should have their own say on what is or isn't acceptable in the case of their religion. The whole government governing marriage is mostly to decide how property will be divide up and custodial issues of children if there is a divorce. Also it grants spousal privilege in court. |
|
bencw
Main Eventer
30 refs. aka ecworiginal.
Joined on: Dec 22, 2008 8:04:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,273
|
Post by bencw on Jul 9, 2010 16:07:53 GMT -5
A step in the right direction! USA still seems oddly behind the though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 9, 2010 16:22:49 GMT -5
The whole government governing marriage is mostly to decide how property will be divide up and custodial issues of children if there is a divorce. Also it grants spousal privilege in court. It shouldn't be called "Marriage" then. Let's call it "Spousal Union" or something. Leave it at that. They would have every one of the same rights as a straight couple would. |
|
|
|
Post by King Bálor (CM)™ on Jul 9, 2010 16:29:48 GMT -5
The whole government governing marriage is mostly to decide how property will be divide up and custodial issues of children if there is a divorce. Also it grants spousal privilege in court. It shouldn't be called "Marriage" then. Let's call it "Spousal Union" or something. Leave it at that. They would have every one of the same rights as a straight couple would. Exactly. Marriage for me, is defined as a union between man and woman. Not man and man or woman and woman. I have ZERO issue and 100% support, gays and lesbians to have the same legal rights as married couples. BUT.....its not marriage. Its a civil union or life promise or whatever. Marriage isnt just restrictive to just heterosexuals. Its also restricts by age and defines who you can marry. For instance, you as a man, cannot marry your sister, nor should you be allowed to marry another man. |
|
|
|
Post by RSCTom on Jul 9, 2010 16:38:33 GMT -5
In my opinion, EVERYONE should be able to be legally considered "married" in the government's eyes, but churches should have their own say on what is or isn't acceptable in the case of their religion. It's always going to be hilarious to me that this problem can be solved in a sentence as simple as this |
|
*Ricky Spanish*
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 16, 2008 23:44:21 GMT -5
Posts: 4,093
|
Post by *Ricky Spanish* on Jul 9, 2010 17:19:46 GMT -5
The whole government governing marriage is mostly to decide how property will be divide up and custodial issues of children if there is a divorce. Also it grants spousal privilege in court. It shouldn't be called "Marriage" then. Let's call it "Spousal Union" or something. Leave it at that. They would have every one of the same rights as a straight couple would. I agree 100% I for one could care less if the gays get their rights Im not for taking them away.I am just not for the term married to be used for them so give them rights but not the term married |
|
|
|
Post by roflstomp on Jul 9, 2010 17:46:27 GMT -5
And you're entitled to that. Is this some sort of prank or did you two completely forget how WF works?  Pretty sure they forgot how WF works... |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 9, 2010 19:02:53 GMT -5
It shouldn't be called "Marriage" then. Let's call it "Spousal Union" or something. Leave it at that. They would have every one of the same rights as a straight couple would. I agree 100% I for one could care less if the gays get their rights Im not for taking them away.I am just not for the term married to be used for them so give them rights but not the term married The Supreme Court has ruled that Separate but Equal is not constitutional. So gays would have the right to marriage and it would have to be called marriage. I agree with Kliquid, marriage should not be recognized by the government. If a religious group wants to marry a man and a man, let them. If they don't want to, then they don't have to. There are churches out there that would happily marry two men. |
|
