or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Bush Back Gay Marriage Amendment
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bush Back Gay Marriage Amendment - Page 4  

post #121 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
No. The state would not deny the "Gay-positive" church from calling the couple "married." The state would disallow that designation to be in the official legal record of the state.

Your church may designate you as a chicken, but the state sure as hell isn't going to call you a chicken. That's not an impingement of rights.

I just thought of something: If the state allows gay marriage, and then a minister denies that couple the right to be married in his/her church (because it is against that church's beliefs), is that minister breaking the law? What are the legal implications of this?

I think everyone should step back and examine the long term effects of this whole thing, if that is possible in this "me first" country.

The "alternative lifestyle" crowd is asking society to uproot millennium of tried and tested tradition to appease them, a small segment of society. It would seem to me far more noble to fight for the greater good of society. I suppose that is too much to ask these days.
post #122 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
The problem here, I think, is that the Gay community and it's supporters, cannot accept societal limits on behavior and acceptability of behavior.

Excuse me? You want to say that to my face, you bigoted jerk?

Quote:
Society, (the majority of the people in this country) does not support or accept homosexual behavior.

So? This country has always been a bigotted backwater of people whose ancestors weren't worthy of living in Europe in the 1600s. You name a cause, America's been on the wrong side of it, from day one, from gay rights to racial relations. This is a country whose main legacy is hatred and bigotry.

Quote:
Homosexuals tend to gather where they are accepted (much like everyone else) and, I think, cannot understand why the whole country does not feel the way they do.

Bullshit. We're everywhere, from the streets of beautiful New York, to God-forsaken sewer towns like Dallas, TX. Always have been, always will be.

Quote:
I have been to key west many times, and saying that it is like nowhere else I have been, is an understatement. I don't think that I would be wrong to say that such behavior is outside the realm of accepted behavior in the real world.

Key West? That's your representative sample? Get out more, dingbat. Dallas has the second highest concentration of gays anywhere in America.

Quote:
What I will say is that the gay community is pushing harder and harder for the rest of the world to not only accept but embrace their ever increasing flamboyance and demands. [/B]

What the **** is flamboyant about wanting to legally and spiritually commit one's life to another human being?

What can possibly be bad about LOVE you backwards, hateful git?

GOD I HATE THIS WORTHLESS, BACKWARDS COUNTRY!

Kirk
post #123 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
Ironically, I had just in recent weeks been able to move beyond flying into a seething rage at the Christian religion, to the point that I was attending services at a gay-friendly church again.

It's a struggle not to let the bigoted filth poison the entire concept of God, the way they cling to their idolatrous obsession with the words of the Bible. Like Bush's conservatism, there is no compassion in these peoples' Christianity.

Let them bar the way to Jesus. God will throw them in a special Hell.

Kirk

Well. The term "bigoted filth" you point to, I assume, is the standards that many hold to, based on the bible's own teachings. According to the bible, God made those rules about sin and atonement. It clearly does not support homosexuality which it calls a sin. If I read it correctly there is plenty of opportunity for atonement for sins. How is that not compassionate?

If you base your beliefs on the bible, you surely believe that no man can block one from being a believer. It is about faith, not what a church or particular priest opinionates about.
post #124 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I didn't imply that they did not want to get married. I said I am not sure why they want to? You see the difference? These posts are about words. Read them, please.

The bible encourages people to pursue happiness. It also remind people that they will be accountable for their action when whatever judgment day you believe in comes. So it is up to each person to make the right choices based on what they see right and wrong. From a biblical standpoint this is very basic.

So where does the bible say same sex married people are wrong? You say it's from a biblical standpoint so where is it stated? And please a clear reference. Not a stretch of an interpretation like what JW's use for their reason to not have blood transfusions. This is the second time I've asked this question here and I'm begining to think people just believe this " Just because ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #125 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well, I recognize this argument from my teenage days:

Come on dad, why can't I go to the party? You just want to oppress me! You hate me! Why can't I go? All my friends are going?

Oh, so now gays are whiny children? Screw you.

Quote:
I am not really sure why gays want to marry?

Why is it so inconceivable that we want to marry for the same reason you people do?

Quote:
Isn't this the age of "just living togethers is good enough" and "It's just a piece of paper"? Haven't liberals been mocking the whole marriage thing... like forever?

Not really and no. Not all gays are liberals, either.

Quote:
Why now is it so important to be married?

For the same reasons that its important to straight couples, perhaps?

Quote:
They can't really be religious, at least no religion that follows the bible as a guide.

Bigotry, bigotry, bigotry. There are tens upon tens of thousands of gay Christians in this country. The Episcopal Church I attend is probably 75% gay (and the clergy is 100% gay).

Quote:
Does it mean that they just want the monetary benefits (yeah right) of marriage? Seems very superficial.

So what if some do? A lot of straights marry for that very reason, why is it any less of a valid reason for gays?

Quote:
Anyway, why is the whole country paying any attention to this tiny minority?

I dunno, perhaps because we're a group of oppressed human beings seeking the sweet air of freedom?

Quote:
I don't think anyone would care what they do, but they just keep making such a big deal about everything.

Ahh, the fun game of "Blame the Victim." Don't forget to play at home, kiddies!

Quote:
It seems that this small minority will not be happy until they can freely and openly demonstrate the mating habits of the gay man. What ever happened to just living a quiet and happy life?

First of all, screw you for that libelous first comment.

Second, what ever happened to equality and freedom? How can I be happy knowing that any life I start with my partner can fall apart tomorrow because we can't have access to the basic protections that you take for granted? How can I be happy knowing that if my partner falls ill, his family can bar me from his hospital room? That if he dies, I will likely lose my home? That if he is crippled, my social security and benefits won't help cover him?

Why do you deserve all those protections, and more, but I don't?

Quote:
I don't hate anyone, I do however condemn homosexual behavior.

I don't hate you. I just condemn your breathing behavior.

Quote:
I, as many feel it is a sin. Just like infidelity, stealing, lying, fornication and so on.

How is my being gay like any of what you just listed? All of those sins harm other people. My homosexuality does not. My relationship does not. My love does not.

And now faith, hope and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love. .... well, I guess, unless you're a fag.

Kirk
post #126 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
On the other hand, I have heard many gays talk about how their relationship doesn't feel complete without the term "marriage" attached to it. They're not doing it for the legal/financial responsibilities and rights that come along with it, but to just "be married." Often, they want it to be a religious ritual. In this case, I would certainly think that the couple realizes that (at least in Christianity) the Bible speaks against homosexuality. How can this union be considered unsinful in the eyes of God?

So because your hate cult church thinks my being gay is a sin, my church is not allowed to think differently and celebrate my love as being just as valid as yours?

Quote:
In both answers, my responses are based on what I feel I'm called to believe as a Christian. PLEASE don't immediately jump out and condemn me and hate me for believing this way.

You condemn me, you hate me. You work against my equality and for my belittlement and the castigation of my love.

If there is a God, your hateful, turn-them-away-at-the-door Christianity will be judged as the Eternal Sin, and you will burn. Burn baby burn, fundie inferno.

Kirk
post #127 of 162
Thread resumed

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #128 of 162
Our culture is fighting over interpretation. Google the Scripture cite below and you'll get no less than 16,300 results.


Romans 1:26-27
[26] Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. [27] In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.


We're at the intersection of sex, religion, and politics. Three things you never discuss at dinner. Lotsa passion floating around here... and I am with Fellowship Church (the mod)- we all need to cool down a little. Time for Christian Zealots and Gay Zealots to take a moment for some reconciling...

Kirk- I don't think anyone here hates you- in the Christian hatred wrath-of-G-d sense. Your nemesis thinks he is being true to HIS religion. Right or wrong. In life, there are people who are wrong and listened to... and those who were right and ignored. An eye for an eye leaves us all blind. If you are comfortable with your spiritual path... that is your free will. I doubt a lot of minds are going to be changed either way, based on the tone around the entire AO forum.

IMHO, the part of this that is problematic is the way in which it was done. When I get to be mayor, I can only imagine the orders I can give to license whatever I want. (assault weapons, crack, polygamy, monster trucks on city streets- imagine the possibilities!) This should have been done in a legislature or ballot box. Not by order by a mayor or judge. If gay marriage or manditory clown suits for all WASP males passes the legislature and constitutional muster, fine. Republican Democracy at work.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #129 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well. The term "bigoted filth" you point to, I assume, is the standards that many hold to, based on the bible's own teachings. According to the bible, God made those rules about sin and atonement. It clearly does not support homosexuality which it calls a sin. If I read it correctly there is plenty of opportunity for atonement for sins. How is that not compassionate?

If you base your beliefs on the bible, you surely believe that no man can block one from being a believer. It is about faith, not what a church or particular priest opinionates about.

Just for the sake of argument...you do realize there's other religions in this country don't you? Where does it say that our laws are based on the bible?You are a perfect example of what's wrong with organized religions. Why don't you go cry about the 50% divorce rate of the country or something. Surely you bible thumpers must be worried about that?
post #130 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
bible thumpers...

Name calling hurts.

"We must be the change we want to see in the world" - Ghandi
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #131 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum
Kirk- I don't think anyone here hates you



Anyone who opposes my equality under the law and my right to marry the man I love hates me, regardless of how they couch their bigoted arguments.

Quote:
Your nemesis thinks he is being true to HIS religion.

A filth religion that has no place in a civilized country. A Christian Taliban religion.

Kirk
post #132 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum
Name calling hurts.

"We must be the change we want to see in the world" - Ghandi

I meant it as a compliment.
post #133 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland

Anyone who opposes my equality under the law and my right to marry the man I love hates me, regardless of how they couch their bigoted arguments.

A filth religion that has no place in a civilized country. A Christian Taliban religion.

Kirk [/B]

You are entitled to your opinion, and to love who you want. Just please realize that you are possibly offending people (Christians) like me who might be your ally. Rather off-putting having my belief called a "filth religion."

We must be careful to not become what we are fighting.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #134 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
I meant it as a compliment.

You know, I just got a private message, and it seems some people buy 19lb bibles for that purpose, and they take pride in the label.

I've always thought it was a slur.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
post #135 of 162
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
Yes, it does. You hate me and everyone like me through your bigotted actions of deeming your relationship with some woman more valuable than my relationship with a man. But its all love. It's all equal. It's all valuable, and it should all be legally recognized in the same (or as close to the same) manner possible.

I am just as valuable as you. My relationship is just as valuable as that between any two heterosexuals. And anyone who argues otherwise is a filthy, bigoted monster, and I hope they die slowly and painfully.

Live and let live, until you **** with me and mine.

Kirk

Don't you fvcking sit there and tell me who I hate and who I don't. This is not about your value as a person. I've known many gay people, and the last thing in the world I am is a biggot. I oppose marriage for gays because I believe that particular bond is supposed to be between a man and a woman.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #136 of 162
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
SDW:

And finally, whether you think gays should be able to marry or not, what's with all the name calling? I oppose gay marriage, but that doesn't make me a "gay hater". It's just that I feel we need certain social standards, and this is one of them. Gays should be able (and ARE able) to live their lives and be together...they just can't be married. Comparing this to things like Jim Crow is patently absurd"


Social standards? I thought people who live together for long periods of time and perhaps start families are SUPPOSED to get married... in the strictly "socially responsible" way...

What makes gays socailly substandard and unfit for marriage?
They can't make the exact same commitment as straight people?
What social standard are you maintaining by keeping them from marrying?


Marriage between men and women is a foundation of our society. You can argue all you want about whether being gay is a choice or not, but there IS a debate about it. Not everyone agrees that all gays are "born" that way, and until they do, you won't see society as a whole make accomodations and changes they way it did with minorities throughout the last century. One does not choose ot be black. One MIGHT choose to be gay. That's the difference.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #137 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I did. Thanks.

Is BR[ussell] the resident authority on everything?

Well if you absolutely have to pretend that he's lying, click through to his source and save us your BS.

Hey, I'm glad you can go to a Hooters and talk with a gay guy. Congratulations, you deserve a medal and a cookie. What does that have to do with you wanting or not wanting to limit that man's freedoms?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #138 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well. The term "bigoted filth" you point to, I assume, is the standards that many hold to, based on the bible's own teachings. According to the bible, God made those rules about sin and atonement. It clearly does not support homosexuality which it calls a sin. If I read it correctly there is plenty of opportunity for atonement for sins. How is that not compassionate?

If you base your beliefs on the bible, you surely believe that no man can block one from being a believer. It is about faith, not what a church or particular priest opinionates about.

Separation of church and state. Anyone against that is a bigger problem than Iraq.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #139 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by Jubelum
Your nemesis thinks he is being true to HIS religion. Right or wrong.

Why on earth is this OK to inject into society and law? HIS religion is just that, nothing more. Any attempt to push that legally unto others is certainly anti-American of the highest order.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #140 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
...my right to marry the man I love hates me...

Wait...you love a man? You mean, you're gay? Nevermind everyone! Run to the hills! Run to the hills!
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #141 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Marriage between men and women is a foundation of our society.

That's utter trash. The Constitution is the foundation of our society. Lump it or leave it.


Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
You can argue all you want about whether being gay is a choice or not, but there IS a debate about it. Not everyone agrees that all gays are "born" that way, and until they do, you won't see society as a whole make accomodations and changes they way it did with minorities throughout the last century. One does not choose ot be black. One MIGHT choose to be gay. That's the difference.

Homosexuality exist naturally all over the world, across many species of animals, just as heterosexuality does. While some 'straights' may choose a gay lifestyle, some gays choose a straight lifestyle too. The bottom line is some if not most, but most likely not all, can't make a choice. They're as gay as Jessie Owens was black, and as not heterosexual as Jesus wasn't white.

You can't change that with an amendment.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #142 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Don't you fvcking sit there and tell me who I hate and who I don't. This is not about your value as a person.

But this IS about his value as a person. If his person was of equal value to you, you would fight for equal rights and equal freedoms. There's time to change your position on this one SDW, and I suggest you try.

Equality in law is far more important than marriage, civil unions, you, me or anyone. Our society is founded on a document that strives to bring equality to all human beings regardless of anything else.

As a member of this society that should be your primary social concern. Your religion can still be your primary private concern, but an amendment to the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with your religion. Keep those issues separate and I think you'll more easily see the difference between right and wrong on this issue.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #143 of 162
Christians have done much more damage to the family and to social morals with their acceptance of "any reason" divorce even though Jesus is very specific about the proper rules for divorce.

But queers, oh no! OH NO! They will tear apart society! The very fabric of American existence is held together by the subjugation of homsoexuals!

We have two things here:
1 - Marriage is a fundamental right. (Read: Loving v. Virginia)
2 - Americans are to be equally protected under the law. (Read: 14th Amendment)

Just let it go, moral nannies, let it go
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #144 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Marriage between men and women is a foundation of our society. You can argue all you want about whether being gay is a choice or not, but there IS a debate about it. Not everyone agrees that all gays are "born" that way, and until they do, you won't see society as a whole make accomodations and changes they way it did with minorities throughout the last century. One does not choose ot be black. One MIGHT choose to be gay. That's the difference.

Because society JUMPED to accommodate african-americans. Hundreds of years of slavery, a major secession from the union followed by a bloody civil war, jim crow laws, 50 years of "separate but equal" followed by 7 consecutive Supreme Court affirmations of that principle, Governors being forcefully removed by the Guard to allow for desegregation, and at least 30 years of reluctance to fund the structural changes needed to redress the aftermath of all that.

post #145 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Don't you fvcking sit there and tell me who I hate and who I don't. This is not about your value as a person. I've known many gay people, and the last thing in the world I am is a biggot. I oppose marriage for gays because I believe that particular bond is supposed to be between a man and a woman.

Ayye buhleive in states ruh-ights!
post #146 of 162
Quote:
One MIGHT choose to be gay. That's the difference.

What law do you get this idea from?

I have noticed a lot of the anti's using this, and I can never get any kind of legal backing for it. Is the anti movement just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks?

"It's a choice... uh... the family ... ancient definitions ... traditions...uhh... disease.... economic disaster.... uhhh... Jesus said... uhh"
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #147 of 162
Quote:
"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.

The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring -- honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith."


George Bush, revealing he knows **** all about the history of marriage, American jurisprudence or the history of human experience.


Quote:
"Slaves were prohibited from legal marriage, but most did enter into formal unions solemnized either in church weddings before black or white preachers or through simple ceremonies such as jumping over a broomstick.

For people of European origin in colonial America, marriage was an act of practicality. Although a respectful love was supposed to develop in the course of the union, neither sexual attraction nor romantic love was the basis for wedlock. Marriage, as in England, was a form of alliance between families, stemming from considerations of property, religion, and complementary abilities"

Source.

Quote:
"Until the ninth century marriages were not church involved. Up until the twelfth century there were blessings and prayers during the ceremony and the couple would offer their own prayers. Then priests asked that an agreement be made in their presence. Then religion was added to the ceremony.

In 1563 the Council of Trent required that Catholic marriages be celebrated at a Catholic church by a priest and before two witnesses. By the eighteenth century the wedding was a religious event in all countries of Europe."

Source.
meh
meh
post #148 of 162
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland


Anyone who opposes my equality under the law and my right to marry the man I love hates me, regardless of how they couch their bigoted arguments.



A filth religion that has no place in a civilized country. A Christian Taliban religion.

Kirk [/B]


OK, now you're pissing me off. Telling someone he hates you because he DISAGREES with your position is TOTAL BULLSHIT. I don't support gay marriage and I never will. Period. I also don't deny your right to "be gay" or live the "gay lifestyle". How you live your life is up to you...but don't expect me to agree and support the benefits of marriage for you.

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/a...9395985EE7E825

As BRussell posted, those are many of the benefits. So I, as a taxpayer, am supposed to support your gay lifestyle (which is not a majority or mainstream behavior, no matter where you stand) by including your "spouse" in social security, tax benefits, estate planning and the like? And I'm supposed to do this for someone that lives in way that goes against my religous and moral belief? I don't think so.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #149 of 162
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
That's utter trash. The Constitution is the foundation of our society. Lump it or leave it.




Homosexuality exist naturally all over the world, across many species of animals, just as heterosexuality does. While some 'straights' may choose a gay lifestyle, some gays choose a straight lifestyle too. The bottom line is some if not most, but most likely not all, can't make a choice. They're as gay as Jessie Owens was black, and as not heterosexual as Jesus wasn't white.

You can't change that with an amendment.

There are many things that are woven into the fabric of our society that are not part of the Constitution. Marriage happens to be one of them.

You can't support your statement on "most cannot choose". It can be debated, but not supported (by anyone at this time). I agree "some" cannot choose....but it's not ALL. The position that being gay is as unchangeable as race is absurd. It's debatable...and therein lies the problem with giving gays all of the rights and privleges straights have.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #150 of 162
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
What law do you get this idea from?

I have noticed a lot of the anti's using this, and I can never get any kind of legal backing for it. Is the anti movement just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks?

"It's a choice... uh... the family ... ancient definitions ... traditions...uhh... disease.... economic disaster.... uhhh... Jesus said... uhh"

goverat, what I'm saying is that "some" people CAN choose to be gay or not gay. You can't possibly disagree with that. Not all, but some. And that's the key distinction between this issue and the race issue.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #151 of 162
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Ayye buhleive in states ruh-ights!

fvck you shawn. Here we go again: Anyone who disagrees with your radical extreme, minority position is labeled a bigot or a moron or worse.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #152 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
fvck you shawn. Here we go again: Anyone who disagrees with your radical extreme, minority position is labeled a bigot or a moron or worse.

I didn't say that. But now I will:

You're a bigot, a moron, or worse.
post #153 of 162
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
But this IS about his value as a person. If his person was of equal value to you, you would fight for equal rights and equal freedoms. There's time to change your position on this one SDW, and I suggest you try.

Equality in law is far more important than marriage, civil unions, you, me or anyone. Our society is founded on a document that strives to bring equality to all human beings regardless of anything else.

As a member of this society that should be your primary social concern. Your religion can still be your primary private concern, but an amendment to the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with your religion. Keep those issues separate and I think you'll more easily see the difference between right and wrong on this issue.

Then where, bunge, is the line drawn for what society accepts? Can anyone do anything at anytime and avoid all negative consequences or inconveniences? Is that what you're saying? I'm not comparing being gay to the following act, but hear me out: Can I decide that I want to be a bigamist and have the state recognize me too? I mean after ALL, God made me that way! And, if you disagree...then you must hate me! You hateful hater! What other groups should we recognize? Surely, there are lots of folks that believe they were "made" a certain way. Hell, some child molesters think they don't have a choice either (and no, I'm not comparing the two). Should we let them marry too?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #154 of 162
Where do we draw the line?

On the Maryland and Pennsylvania border.
post #155 of 162
SDW, you're a bigot. Kirkland is pissing you off is he? Oh you poor ikkw man. What makes those ni**ers / queers so uppity, eh?

Why can't he see that all you're trying to do is limit his rights? I mean, what could possibly be wrong with that?

Once more:

There are no millenia of religious involvement in marriage.

The US jurisprudence Bush is proud of included denying black people's right to marry (but a civil union was OK).

Gay marriage does NOTHING to the institution of marriage.

You do hate Kirkland; you're denying him equal rights with straight people. And Bush's statement (with which you share logic) is at difference with history.
meh
meh
post #156 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
How you live your life is up to you...but don't expect me to agree and support the benefits of marriage for you.

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/a...9395985EE7E825

Did you even read your own link? Why wouldn't you want to support these?
Quote:
Medical Benefits

* Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
* Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

* Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
* Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

* Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
* Applying for joint foster care rights.
* Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
* Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

* Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
* Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
post #157 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Hell, some child molesters think they don't have a choice either (and no, I'm not comparing the two). Should we let them marry too?

Last time I checked child molesters *are* allowed to get married. Kind of takes away from the sanctity of the thing doesn't it? (And do you want your tax money supporting them?)

Oh wait, you mean gays getting married is like allowing sexual predators of minors to marry their underage victims against their will. Great point.
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
post #158 of 162
No one has answered my question:

What legal implications are there if a church that opposes homosexuality refuses to marry two gays in a jurisdiction where gay marriage is legally allowed?

If the church is punished by the state, isn't that a violation of the Constitution?

If it's allowed, isn't that church breaking the law?

It seems to be a Catch-22. Any attorneys here who'd be willing to give some legal insight?
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
post #159 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Just for the sake of argument...you do realize there's other religions in this country don't you? Where does it say that our laws are based on the bible?You are a perfect example of what's wrong with organized religions. Why don't you go cry about the 50% divorce rate of the country or something. Surely you bible thumpers must be worried about that?

Why do you guys call names and try to marginalize those you don't agree with? It is so obvious it is silly.

Anyway... I am not promoting any particular religion. Christianity is what I am familiar with, so that is what my comments are based on. Christianity is based on the Bible as a guide and the example of Jesus. Believing wether homosexuality is a wrong or not is a religious issue for most people. One cannot be discussed without the other. That is why I bring it up.

If you believe in a God, then you have to believe that their is punishment to going against his rules and that in fact he makes the rules, not some church or individual or government. I said if you believe in a God. If not then that is a different issue.

As far as the divorce rate, it is disgraceful and I also think divorce is wrong, but that is off the topic at hand. Right?

I like the bible thumper comment. Good try.
post #160 of 162
Naples, let's put it another way.

Let's say Terry belongs to a branch of the Christian church that has a different interpretation of the bible, or is a Buddhist, or doesn't belive in any God.

Should he be denied marriage because your or Bush's religion, which he has nothing to do with, say so?

Why?
meh
meh
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Bush Back Gay Marriage Amendment