|
Post by ebilbryan™ on Aug 13, 2010 7:24:24 GMT -5
To hell with all "marriage." But if it has to be one way or another, I say give them their marriage. This. I'm all for the Gene Simmons route myself, stay with the one you love without the 'marriage' label.
|
|
|
Post by ebilbryan™ on Aug 13, 2010 7:28:13 GMT -5
The entire world has gone to pot, this just proves it. Another step in the wrong direction. How is it a step in the wrong direction? Who is it hurting? Same-sex marriage is not going to harm anyone, it's just going to give those couples the same benefits as any other married couple, which they deserve.
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on Aug 13, 2010 9:11:00 GMT -5
To hell with all "marriage." But if it has to be one way or another, I say give them their marriage. This. I'm all for the Gene Simmons route myself, stay with the one you love without the 'marriage' label. Yeah, and just screw everyone who still considers marriage to be a sacred part of their religion. Yeah Forget about them.
|
|
|
Post by ebilbryan™ on Aug 13, 2010 9:17:59 GMT -5
This. I'm all for the Gene Simmons route myself, stay with the one you love without the 'marriage' label. Yeah, and just screw everyone who still considers marriage to be a sacred part of their religion. Yeah Forget about them. Not everyone is religious, brahski. Marriage is not just a religious practice anymore. When people get married, they get shared benefits, which gay couples deserve as well, but do not receive.
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on Aug 13, 2010 9:21:49 GMT -5
Yeah, and just screw everyone who still considers marriage to be a sacred part of their religion. Yeah Forget about them. Not everyone is religious, brahski. Marriage is not just a religious practice anymore. When people get married, they get shared benefits, which gay couples deserve as well, but do not receive. Not according to the feds it isn't. It's still an institute of God as far as Christianity is concerned. What I'm saying is that this shouldn't even be a lawful issue.
|
|
|
Post by Angel Beast on Aug 13, 2010 10:18:13 GMT -5
The entire world has gone to pot, this just proves it. Another step in the wrong direction. No. It's a step in the right direction you're just too ignorant to see that.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Aug 13, 2010 12:18:04 GMT -5
This. I'm all for the Gene Simmons route myself, stay with the one you love without the 'marriage' label. Yeah, and just screw everyone who still considers marriage to be a sacred part of their religion. Yeah Forget about them. It should be part of their religion. This is the key part, in fact. I'm all for people having their marriages within their religion. But that's it. There needs to be separation of church and state. As such, marriage is a religious thing and should not be recognized by the state. I came up with the term "Spousal Union" to describe how I think couples should be recognized by the state. A "spousal union" would be a legally binding contract between two consenting adults. Upon the creation of this law, any pre-existing "marriages" would be grandfathered into the law and would now be recognized as "spousal unions" by the state. Meanwhile, any new "marriages" would not be recognized by the state. Marriages would be separate, religious-only term, as it should be. If a couple wants to be recognized by the state, they will need to sign a spousal union. If they want to be "married," then they need to find a church that will marry them. In this way, there is separation of church and state. Churches can still say, "We don't want gay people getting married," but gay couples will still have the EXACT SAME rights as any other couple has in the eyes of the state. If they want to be "married" as well, then they, like any other couple, will need to find a church that will marry them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 3:24:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2010 12:22:20 GMT -5
The entire world has gone to pot, this just proves it. Another step in the wrong direction. No. It's a step in the right direction you're just too ignorant to see that. How is he ignorant for having an opinion?
|
|
|
Post by ebilbryan™ on Aug 13, 2010 12:59:08 GMT -5
Not everyone is religious, brahski. Marriage is not just a religious practice anymore. When people get married, they get shared benefits, which gay couples deserve as well, but do not receive. Not according to the feds it isn't. It's still an institute of God as far as Christianity is concerned. What I'm saying is that this shouldn't even be a lawful issue. The key word there is Christianity. Marriage has evolved from a religious practice into a "spousal union" as put by Kliquid. As I said before, marriage as a whole is not limited to the religious community.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Aug 13, 2010 15:52:22 GMT -5
They randomly poll people all around America. In 1968 a Gallup poll found that only 20% of people approved of inter-racial marriage. 73% disapproved. Yet the Supreme Court still legalized inter-racial marriages. Im just saying dont expect to wake up next week and be allowed to get married in Wisconsin (think that's where you're from) just because a poll taken God knows where by the Liberal News Network says that more people say Yay then nay. CNN is not liberal.
|
|
|
Post by TheNinthCloud on Aug 13, 2010 16:01:21 GMT -5
Well, Gay should be married if they want, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Deep Figure Value on Aug 13, 2010 16:36:29 GMT -5
Is gay marriage an issue so much as it is a semantics argument? And if it is, then I take issue with that semantics argument. Prior to 6/28/08, I had to go wait in line at city hall, with my then fiancee, and apply for a marriage license. However, no mention of God was made during our wedding. It was not held in a religious locale, and the officiant was simply a justice of the peace. If some schmuck is so dead set on denying homosexuals the right to marry, and is going to use this semantics bullsh*t to try and grandfather my marriage into anything but that, then he's going to have one hell of an uphill battle.
I've got the signed marriage license. Come and get it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 3:24:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2010 16:47:41 GMT -5
The entire world has gone to pot, this just proves it. Another step in the wrong direction. How is this bad? Do gays affect you?
|
|
|
Post by TheNinthCloud on Aug 13, 2010 16:47:40 GMT -5
Can someone tell me why Christians are against Gay Marriage?
|
|
|
Post by spam on Aug 13, 2010 18:52:49 GMT -5
Marriage, a religious union, was quickly recognized by the US government. ALL sorts of forms and such ask if you are married. It was then that gay couples should have been allowed to marry all this time. IMO. If it was only recognized by churches, they'd get to choose. Now they don't because they are so recognized by the government. Be careful what you ask for.
|
|
|
Post by 3Lephant (Naptown Icon) on Aug 13, 2010 21:41:32 GMT -5
I was raised to believe its wrong, I still believe its wrong, and I'm not going to change my opinion because other people are starting to accept it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 3:24:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2010 3:20:37 GMT -5
Glenn Beck has said that same-sex marriage is not a threat to America. I think I'm gonna have a heart attack. Beck has said before that he used to be more of a social liberal. I think he's mainly fiscally conservative; when it comes to social issues, I've always taken him as a libertarian who believes it should be up to individual states to make decision. I dunno for sure, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always taken his words as being more fiscal in tone.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Aug 14, 2010 3:21:38 GMT -5
Glenn Beck has said that same-sex marriage is not a threat to America. I think I'm gonna have a heart attack. Beck has said before that he used to be more of a social liberal. I think he's mainly fiscally conservative; when it comes to social issues, I've always taken him as a libertarian who believes it should be up to individual states to make decision. I dunno for sure, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always taken his words as being more fiscal in tone. I've usually taken his words to be the ramblings of a crazy man.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 3:24:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2010 3:25:57 GMT -5
Should be state issue. If one state wants to legalize it that's fine, if another doesn't want to, don't force it on them. At the same time, if one state does want to legalize it, let them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 3:24:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2010 3:26:42 GMT -5
Beck has said before that he used to be more of a social liberal. I think he's mainly fiscally conservative; when it comes to social issues, I've always taken him as a libertarian who believes it should be up to individual states to make decision. I dunno for sure, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always taken his words as being more fiscal in tone. I've usually taken his words to be the ramblings of a crazy man. Eh, you gotta spit out what you don't like and listen to what's there. Just because someone's anti-Obama doesn't mean he's homophobic or a theocrat. I know lots of gays and atheists who are conservative/libertarian.
|
|