Gay Marriage page 110

3421 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
BSG is the only one I know one here who is actually on welfare for disability.

I am highly amused when my financial status is public knowledge on the forums ^_^ Maybe I over share eh?

I’m curious if JHCO had anything to say about needing to pay for my problems, granted that isn’t what this thread is about.

 
Flag Post

Just had to share…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Just had to share…

So I’m guesssing this is Texasseessippias?

But seriously, what do they think the gay couple did (other than be gay), rob a meth lab in someone’s pants?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:

But seriously, what do they think the gay couple did (other than be gay), rob a meth lab in someone’s pants?

I dunno. Maybe it was an HOA. I hear they can get really bad about getting in each other’s business.

 
Flag Post
But seriously, what do they think the gay couple did (other than be gay), rob a meth lab in someone’s pants?

They hate Jesus, obviously.

 
Flag Post

I’m against gay marriage in the sense that I don’t believe any institution (regardless of how fucking retarded it is) should be forced to marry gays if it chooses not to. What I am against is the state not allowing gays to get married.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Uberfuchs:

I’m against gay marriage in the sense that I don’t believe any institution (regardless of how fucking retarded it is) should be forced to marry gays if it chooses not to. What I am against is the state not allowing gays to get married.

So basically, no institution should be forced to marry gays except for the state?

lolwut

 
Flag Post

ahhhh christians are so blind and stuborn if you have such a problem with it let your god handle it in this heaven you belive in also all animal species practice homosexuality but only one practices homophobia…. humans

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by HappyAlCROWholic:
Originally posted by Uberfuchs:

I’m against gay marriage in the sense that I don’t believe any institution (regardless of how fucking retarded it is) should be forced to marry gays if it chooses not to. What I am against is the state not allowing gays to get married.

So basically, no institution should be forced to marry gays except for the state?

lolwut

Nah, ya got his drift.
Unfortunately, far too many asshats aren’t able to do so.
They actually “think” that if Gay “marriage” is legalized, churches//“religion” WILL HAVE TO perform the ceremony. We even have a few of said “thinkers” right here on this very forum. At least, this concept has been presented….several times. I’ve lost count of how many and by whom….mostly cuz I give a shit and two really stinky farts about what they think. This is because their astute “logic” will very soon be shown//proven to be as idiotic as it is soooooo “yesterday”.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by HappyAlCROWholic:
Originally posted by Uberfuchs:

I’m against gay marriage in the sense that I don’t believe any institution (regardless of how fucking retarded it is) should be forced to marry gays if it chooses not to. What I am against is the state not allowing gays to get married.

So basically, no institution should be forced to marry gays except for the state?

lolwut

wat

EDIT: Nevermind, I misread. I’ve not slept in about six days. Yes, you are correct, although I never said anything about the state, because talking about it would derail the living fuck out of the thread.

 
Flag Post

Gay marriage should be illegal. Homosexuality is NOT natural in humans. maybe in other species but not humans. Marriage is a very sacred thing between a MAN and a WOMEN. Gay marriage should be illegal and pro-gay literature should be illegal.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thebeast43:

Gay marriage should be illegal. Homosexuality is NOT natural in humans. maybe in other species but not humans. Marriage is a very sacred thing between a MAN and a WOMEN. Gay marriage should be illegal and pro-gay literature should be illegal.

Oh my god.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by rwbstripes:
Originally posted by thebeast43:

Gay marriage should be illegal. Homosexuality is NOT natural in humans. maybe in other species but not humans. Marriage is a very sacred thing between a MAN and a WOMEN. Gay marriage should be illegal and pro-gay literature should be illegal.

Oh my god.

I know, it’s just so great, someone has taken the time to give almost all of the most bullshit anti-gay arguments there are.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thebeast43:

Gay marriage should be illegal. Homosexuality is NOT natural in humans. maybe in other species but not humans. Marriage is a very sacred thing between a MAN and a WOMEN. Gay marriage should be illegal and pro-gay literature should be illegal.

How can it be natural in other species but not in humans?

Also I heard that the Pope said something similar, that homosexuals deny their ‘nature’…what I find funny about that is that the Pope himself is going against ‘nature’ himself by being a virgin.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thebeast43:

Gay marriage should be illegal. Homosexuality is NOT natural in humans. maybe in other species but not humans. Marriage is a very sacred thing between a MAN and a WOMEN. Gay marriage should be illegal and pro-gay literature should be illegal.

Wow. We’re back to this?
The term natural is descriptive. Whether something is natural or not does not say anything about whether or not it is desirable, correct, caused by aliens, the result of chronic masturbation to images of Josef Ratzinger or mentioned in the Mayan calendar.
The term natural applies to anything that can be observed in nature. Homosexuality is natural in humans and in many other species.

Is it really that difficult to understand this?

So, if you think that it should be illegal, give a reason.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by thebeast43:

Gay marriage should be illegal. Homosexuality is NOT natural in humans. maybe in other species but not humans. Marriage is a very sacred thing between a MAN and a WOMEN. Gay marriage should be illegal and pro-gay literature should be illegal.

Wow. We’re back to this?
The term natural is descriptive. Whether something is natural or not does not say anything about whether or not it is desirable, correct, caused by aliens, the result of chronic masturbation to images of Josef Ratzinger or mentioned in the Mayan calendar.
The term natural applies to anything that can be observed in nature. Homosexuality is natural in humans and in many other species.

Is it really that difficult to understand this?

So, if you think that it should be illegal, give a reason.

I’d like to know why you even acknowledge posts such as the one you quoted.

 
Flag Post

Because those points have been brought up in the past multiple times, by people who are not trolls.

 
Flag Post

I agree with EPR. Because, basically, all homophobes use those arguments or variants thereof. You think thebeast43 is a troll? Other non-trolls who frequently post in this forum agree wholeheartedly with him/her—likely him. All anti-same-sex marriage arguments are similar to those, and they truly believe they are sustainable as well as rational, which is somewhat saddening.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thebeast43:

Gay marriage should be illegal. Homosexuality is NOT natural in humans. maybe in other species but not humans. Marriage is a very sacred thing between a MAN and a WOMEN. Gay marriage should be illegal and pro-gay literature should be illegal.

Actually, I quite like this. Its been up there what, five hours so far, and the original person hasn’t yet noticed that they are describing marrage as a very sacred polygamy.

Did nobody else catch the bit about it being between one MAN and multiple WOMEN?

The poor man. He’s screwed. I give it six months before he develops a thrombus in the phrenic arteries trying to cope.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Uberfuchs:
Originally posted by HappyAlCROWholic:
Originally posted by Uberfuchs:

I’m against gay marriage in the sense that I don’t believe any institution (regardless of how fucking retarded it is) should be forced to marry gays if it chooses not to. What I am against is the state not allowing gays to get married.

So basically, no institution should be forced to marry gays except for the state?

lolwut

wat

EDIT: Nevermind, I misread. I’ve not slept in about six days. Yes, you are correct, although I never said anything about the state, because talking about it would derail the living fuck out of the thread.

That’s very well stated. 0¿~

It’s EL WRONGO….
but well stated.
Of course, this is all dependant upon the state of mind ya’re in.
OR, maybe that’s supposed to be the state your mind is in.
Mine is in Kansas.
Even though my head is up mah ass mos da time.
Howzzbout yours?

 
Flag Post

I wouldn’t necessarily assert that Uberfuchs’ statement is incorrect or “el wrongo”. What Uberfuchs is saying is that the only institution that should be allowed to perform same-sex marriage is the state. He’s saying that churches should not be forced to perform same-sex marriage if it does not wish to do so.

I agree with his statement, as I believe in the separation of church and state. The state should not force the Church to perform anything, as they are different entities. Of course, I believe the same viceversa.

 
Flag Post

I’m in two minds about whether the state can or can’t make churches marry gay couples.
I believe that discrimination should not be tolerated, no matter what the institution. Companies are not allowed to discriminate based on gender, yet Churches are allowed to.

Would JaumeBG and Uberfuch also agree that if a church disaproved of interracial marriages that they should be allowed to discriminate based on their religious beliefs?
And if there really is a separation of church and state, why can’t mormons have mulitple wives?

For me it is a tough question about the churches ‘right’. I don’t particuarly like overly authoritarian states imposing on freedom, but when freedom is being imposed on by an institution, does the state have the right to step in?

 
Flag Post

The state can’t make a church marry any couples. My parents were married in 1944, and were refused a church wedding on the grounds that my mother hadn’t lived in the parish long enough. The company she worked for had moved out of London, and she went with them. My father got 24 hours leave to get married, and was shipped out of the country soon afterwards. Considering it could have been the last time they saw each other, it must have taken a heart of stone for that vicar to turn them down.

Gay marriage legislation is going through Parliament at the moment, and no religion or individual church, synagogue etc. will be forced to perform the ceremony. The Church of England, the established Church, will be banned from marrying gays for constitutional reasons, although I’m still not entirely sure why an outright ban was necessary. Predictably some muslim leaders have been demanding a similar outright ban for Islam, despite them having the same protections as every other religious group.

We had legislation passed 5 years ago which forced adoption agencies to consider gay couples as prospective foster parents. Some Roman Catholic agencies complied, while others refused and had to close down. That meant that the children on their books lost their chance of finding a home. Forcing an organisation to do something which it finds morally repugnant can have repercussions. So on balance I’m inclined to give them a bit of leeway; legislation can always be changed at a later date.

I knew there would be opposition to this, but was surprised at the extent of it. There is a substantial and very noisy minority which is dead set against this. Perhaps we Brits aren’t quite as grown up as I thought.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

I wouldn’t necessarily assert that Uberfuchs’ statement is incorrect or “el wrongo”.

Hmmmmm…upon being called to task on how I presented myself in responding to the post, I see that I could have done a much better job.

See what I put in bold.

Originally posted by Uberfuchs:

wat


EDIT: Nevermind, I misread. I’ve not slept in about six days. Yes, you are correct, although I never said anything about the state, because talking about it would derail the living fuck out of the thread.


My “EL WRONGO” referred to the fact that he did say something about the state when he said: " What I am against is the state not allowing gays to get married." The “well stated” referred to how much I deeply agree w/ his statement there.

This is demonstrated by my support of Uberfuchs’ initial statement, that was followed by HappyALCOROWholic’s when I said:

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by HappyAlCROWholic:
Originally posted by Uberfuchs:

I’m against gay marriage in the sense that I don’t believe any institution (regardless of how fucking retarded it is) should be forced to marry gays if it chooses not to. What I am against is the state not allowing gays to get married.


So basically, no institution should be forced to marry gays except for the state?


lolwut

Nah, ya got his drift.
Unfortunately, far too many asshats aren’t able to do so.
They actually “think” that if Gay “marriage” is legalized, churches//“religion” WILL HAVE TO perform the ceremony. We even have a few of said “thinkers” right here on this very forum. At least, this concept has been presented….several times. I’ve lost count of how many and by whom….mostly cuz I give a shit and two really stinky farts about what they think. This is because their astute “logic” will very soon be shown//proven to be as idiotic as it is soooooo “yesterday”.

Juame, my “EL WRONGO” reply to the quotes of Uberfuchs & HappyALCROWholic is likely misinterrpreted because Uber omited my response (see above quotes) to Happy.

If ya are able to follow this mess-0-explanation I’ve made, ya’ll see that I am in total agreement with:
What Uberfuchs is saying is that the only institution that should be allowed to perform same-sex marriage is the state. He’s saying that churches should not be forced to perform same-sex marriage if it does not wish to do so.

Ergo, I completely agree with:

I agree with his statement, as I believe in the separation of church and state. The state should not force the Church to perform anything, as they are different entities. Of course, I believe the same viceversa.

because this is an important factor of greatly stressing that ol’ Wall-0-Separation.
.
.

NOW, to present what could very well be seen as a somewhat contradiction to my above statement (maybe even boardering on “hypocrisy”? due to the "duality of two minds.):

Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

I’m in two minds about whether the state can or can’t make churches marry gay couples.

Yeah, Flabby…I know what ya mean.
BUT, the issue that (for me) mostly negates this kind of concern is also twofold. 1) That wall of separation…even when it comes to civil rights. Civil rights are legal. Church sanctions really aren’t necessarily in-of-themselves “legal”…more like “moral”. 2) When ya say “religion”, we must keep in mind that “religion” is made up of a whooooole lot of different entities w/in it. Therefore, it really isn’t that hard for ppl to find a chruch that will perform a “spiritual union”. Keep in mind that chruches retain the “right” to refuse to marry same-sex couples….even if they are members of said church. Please understand that not all churches ascribe to this right.

I believe that discrimination should not be tolerated, no matter what the institution. Companies are not allowed to discriminate based on gender, yet Churches are allowed to.

I hope I addressed this above. Would JaumeBG and Uberfuch also agree that if a church disaproved of interracial marriages that they should be allowed to discriminate based on their religious beliefs?

I’m not at all sure on this one. Likely what I said in points 1 & 2 still apply. Now, when that justice of the peace refused to marry a mixed-race couple …he was in the wrong because he is a CIVIL servant.

And if there really is a separation of church and state, why can’t mormons have mulitple wives?

Ya got me there. That’s a good question. It really does show a very big hole in that “separation” thing. If I have time, I’m gonna research it. Damn YOU for piquing my interest in it…LOL

Okay, I found a “link”: that gives thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_polygamy: “In 1862, the United States Congress passed the Morrill Act, which prohibited plural marriage in the territories (including Utah) and dis-incorporated the church.2 In spite of the law, Mormons continued to practice polygamy, believing that it was protected by the First Amendment. In 1879, in Reynolds v. United States,5 the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Morrill Act, stating: “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices.” "

Some interesting pro&con

AND, since this thread is about Gay marriage, this link brings up exactly what ya’re getting at, Flabby.
“John Witte Jr., however, thinks it isn’t so funny. A scholar of religion and law at Emory University in Atlanta, Witte is working on a lengthy history of polygamy due out next year. He believes that polygamy is the next frontier in marriage and family law. If states are able to dismantle traditional or conventional views of marriage by allowing two men or two women to wed, then why should they not go further and sanction, or at least decriminalize, marriages between one man and several women?”

For me it is a tough question about the churches ‘right’. I don’t particuarly like overly authoritarian states imposing on freedom, but when freedom is being imposed on by an institution, does the state have the right to step in?

Well, for ME, the “toughness of the question” is greatly weakened when ya’re talking about the kinds of “institutions” there. If ya want the state to step into the institution of “religion”, it is gonna have to do it my disreguarding that separation wall. That’s some damn tricky stuff to do and likely could well be a “slippery slope” ride that I don’t even want to contemplate on what the price of the ticket is.
 
Flag Post

I strongly support Gay and Lesbian marriage being that I am pansexual myself. (Meaning that I am blind to a person’s gender and who their identity is, who they look like on the outside, and I go for what I see on the inside of people and who they are.) I do not see marriage as a religious ceremony, in fact, anything but.

I don’t believe relationships and love should be dictated by a person’s religious beliefs, but instead on what they believe inside. This is part of the reason people have such a hard time accepting things, they force themselves to believe what their religion believes, completely shutting their mind off to what they believe and who they are. They don’t understand that though you may belong to one faith, that you don’t have to agree with all the practices and beliefs of that faith, but instead be true to yourself, no matter your religion.

If it is as you say, that homosexuality is “unnatural”, then tell me, is heterosexuality natural? You’re going to answer yes to it. It’s not about the title homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, but it’s about love. Something that most would say is in your nature and one of the most powerful things on Earth. I am arguing on the behalf of all people who believe as I do, and say that it’s not about the titles, it’s about who they love. If you were to have a girlfriend or boyfriend, and somebody were to attack you because of your romantic interest, you wouldn’t pay any mind to it because you love your significant other. The human race is of NO risk of dying out, and won’t be for millions of years.

Polygamy is different in every way possible, being that they are openly cheating on the one they supposedly “love.” I can guarantee you a polygamist will not view it as such a bad thing, but they do not truly love their husband or wife if they choose they don’t want to spend their life with them and them only.

You cannot point to a book written by a group of men saying: “This is God.”. That is generalization in it’s own and to classify god as one thing is blasphemy by your own rules.

My point being is this: No matter what somebody does it’s always going to be wrong in the eyes of another. Where DO we draw the line? Sure, if what you say is true, BILLIONS of people will be offended, but it’s not their decision to make, nor is it the churches. Gay marriage is not going to hurt anybody, in fact, the ONLY thing that will happen if gays do get married is that they’re openly showing their love and respect for eachother. There’s not going to be a world war, there’s not going to be a natural catastrophe nor is the human race going to go extinct.

They will be proud of who they are.