|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 9, 2010 19:05:56 GMT -5
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. Again, then let's not call it "marriage" at a government level. Let's call it something different so that gay people can still have the exact same rights and be looked at equally (not separately) from the government... But "marriage" can still be in the eye of the specific religion/church. That way, the religious traditionalists can still say "We don't like you queers. We don't mind our priests molesting children, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna' let two loving men (or women) be looked at as equal to myself and my wife in the eyes of god!" but gay people can say, "That's okay, you bigoted retards, we just want to be treated equally from a legal standpoint." |
|
Drummerboy
Main Eventer
Lumber Liquidators PBA Tour.
Joined on: Sept 8, 2003 8:38:22 GMT -5
Posts: 4,405
|
Post by Drummerboy on Jul 9, 2010 19:28:11 GMT -5
Well everyone says its against the bible and everything and yes im a christian but i dont think theres anything wrong with it, If 2 guys want to be together who is to judge them?.
Considering they're not really hurting those who believe different i say let them do as they please, I Wont parade up and down the streets of my town shouting "Gay Power!" because im straight and i like women but i do think people should have a choice as to how they live their lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 9, 2010 19:30:25 GMT -5
Well everyone says its against the bible and everything and yes im a christian but i dont think theres anything wrong with it, If 2 guys want to be together who is to judge them?. Considering they're not really hurting those who believe different i say let them do as they please, I Wont parade up and down the streets of my town shouting "Gay Power!" because im straight and i like women but i do think people should have a choice as to how they live their lives. People should have a choice on how to live their lives. And this wouldn't be an issue if religion would stay the  out of government, and vice versa. But here we are. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 9, 2010 20:11:05 GMT -5
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. Again, then let's not call it "marriage" at a government level. Let's call it something different so that gay people can still have the exact same rights and be looked at equally (not separately) from the government... But "marriage" can still be in the eye of the specific religion/church. That way, the religious traditionalists can still say "We don't like you queers. We don't mind our priests molesting children, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna' let two loving men (or women) be looked at as equal to myself and my wife in the eyes of god!" but gay people can say, "That's okay, you bigoted retards, we just want to be treated equally from a legal standpoint." We would have to call it marriage, because otherwise it's not equal. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 15, 2024 18:41:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2010 22:35:11 GMT -5
Good news. I just don't understand the reason to ban gay marriage. It doesn't effect anything, and it's their right as humans to marry whoever they want. The only people who really care about gay marriage are Jesus freaks and homo-phobes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mole on Jul 9, 2010 22:38:39 GMT -5
Again, then let's not call it "marriage" at a government level. Let's call it something different so that gay people can still have the exact same rights and be looked at equally (not separately) from the government... But "marriage" can still be in the eye of the specific religion/church. That way, the religious traditionalists can still say "We don't like you queers. We don't mind our priests molesting children, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna' let two loving men (or women) be looked at as equal to myself and my wife in the eyes of god!" but gay people can say, "That's okay, you bigoted retards, we just want to be treated equally from a legal standpoint." We would have to call it marriage, because otherwise it's not equal. His point is that it should stop being called marriage in all legal aspects. Let the religions call it marriage, but if you don't get married at a church (or other religious setting) then it gets called something else that marriages get classified under. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 9, 2010 22:41:48 GMT -5
We would have to call it marriage, because otherwise it's not equal. His point is that it should stop being called marriage in all legal aspects. Let the religions call it marriage, but if you don't get married at a church (or other religious setting) then it gets called something else that marriages get classified under. But there will be churches that marry gay people, so those would be marriages. |
|
|
|
Post by Mole on Jul 9, 2010 22:45:17 GMT -5
His point is that it should stop being called marriage in all legal aspects. Let the religions call it marriage, but if you don't get married at a church (or other religious setting) then it gets called something else that marriages get classified under. But there will be churches that marry gay people, so those would be marriages. Yes, but they would legally be considered whatever the new term would be. I don't understand the issue here. If you really want to be married and get the term, then you would have to seek out the churches that would marry gay people. |
|
|
|
Post by 3Lephant (Naptown Icon) on Jul 9, 2010 23:47:48 GMT -5
Thats gay
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 10, 2010 0:55:00 GMT -5
We would have to call it marriage, because otherwise it's not equal. ... How is it not equal? No one else's "marriage" would be recognized by the state, either. Any previous marriages would be grandfathered into the new law, stating that they qualify as "spousal union," but any future events would be registered into the state directly as "spousal unions," making no mention of "marriage" whatsoever. If a couple wants to have a "marriage" in the eyes of their church, that's fine, but they will still need to register the proper paperwork to be registered as in a "spousal union" in the eyes of the state. Not separate. Equal. Everybody wins. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 10, 2010 14:15:52 GMT -5
But there will be churches that marry gay people, so those would be marriages. Yes, but they would legally be considered whatever the new term would be. I don't understand the issue here. If you really want to be married and get the term, then you would have to seek out the churches that would marry gay people. I get what you and Kliquid are saying, I'm just saying that if marriages occur then gay people must be able to get involved in them, because there are churches that would marry gay people. Legally the term would be something else and as long as that term goes for everybody, that's fine. But I also want to make sure marriage in a church is open to everybody, straight and gay. |
|
|
|
Post by BoJack Hogan on Jul 10, 2010 15:15:00 GMT -5
This is excellent news. I have quite a few gay friends, they deserve to marry just as we all do. To those who are against this, I am willing to agree to disagree.
|
|
35F20
Main Eventer
Theirs was not to reason why....
Joined on: May 8, 2002 22:12:35 GMT -5
Posts: 1,155
|
Post by 35F20 on Jul 10, 2010 16:00:03 GMT -5
The term "Marriage" is kind of like the term "Band-Aid". Band-Aid is the brand name for adhesive bandages made by Johnson and Johnson. Every other company calls them "Adhesive Bandages" it's just that the Band-Aid brand is so popular that it is the accepted terminology, similar to all powder-based sugar drinks being called "Kool-Aid" and soda in the south being called "Coke". Personally my wife and I were married in a court house w/o anything religious in the ceremony, so I fail to see how anything that can be defined as "Anti-Christian" weakens the meaning of my "Religion-Free" marriage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 11, 2010 2:09:44 GMT -5
But I also want to make sure marriage in a church is open to everybody, straight and gay. Marriage in a church should have nothing to do with government. Period. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 11, 2010 2:32:23 GMT -5
But I also want to make sure marriage in a church is open to everybody, straight and gay. Marriage in a church should have nothing to do with government. Period. I know that and I agree with that. I'm just saying if you are going to allow some unions to be called marriages then that should apply to all people, straight and gay. That they should be allowed to use the term married if they want to. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 15, 2024 18:41:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2010 2:35:14 GMT -5
If leftists are so "open-minded" shouldn't they be open to the idea that science will one day prove that it is indeed a choice?
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 11, 2010 2:39:20 GMT -5
If leftists are so "open-minded" shouldn't they be open to the idea that science will one day prove that it is indeed a choice? Um no, because it's not a choice. I didn't get to choose. I'm betting you didn't either. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 15, 2024 18:41:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2010 2:41:03 GMT -5
If leftists are so "open-minded" shouldn't they be open to the idea that science will one day prove that it is indeed a choice? Um no, because it's not a choice. I didn't get to choose. I'm betting you didn't either. Yeah, but I'm not saying it is or isn't. Technically if you're open minded, you should be open to either possibility. Science journals are constantly changing, and theories are always modified. Read a science textbook from the early 1900s, it'll say completely different things from one from 2010. I'm not taking a stand either way here, I'm playing devil's advocate saying if you're technically "open-minded," you could be open to the idea of it going either way. But yeah, I tend to hold to the idea of leaving it up to the states. The less federalism, the better. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 11, 2010 2:56:57 GMT -5
Marriage in a church should have nothing to do with government. Period. I know that and I agree with that. I'm just saying if you are going to allow some unions to be called marriages then that should apply to all people, straight and gay. That they should be allowed to use the term married if they want to. Assuming that this new law would be implemented where the government would recognize only "spousal unions," pre-existing marriages would be grandfathered in. That's only logical. However, future church "marriages" would be irrelevant in the eyes of the state and would require the paperwork to be filed in order for the couple to be a "spousal union." You can call your union whatever YOU want to -- spousal union, marriage, f*ck-buddies -- but the federal government shouldn't be recognizing "marriage." There needs to be a separate term used for government. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 11, 2010 3:02:25 GMT -5
Um no, because it's not a choice. I didn't get to choose. I'm betting you didn't either. Yeah, but I'm not saying it is or isn't. Technically if you're open minded, you should be open to either possibility. Science journals are constantly changing, and theories are always modified. Read a science textbook from the early 1900s, it'll say completely different things from one from 2010. I'm not taking a stand either way here, I'm playing devil's advocate saying if you're technically "open-minded," you could be open to the idea of it going either way. But yeah, I tend to hold to the idea of leaving it up to the states. The less federalism, the better. I can't be open minded to it, because I know it's not true. I know I didn't choose this life. Why would anyone choose to be something that would make others hate them, despise them, make them an outcast, be harassed and given death threats? I didn't choose to be this way. |
|
