|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,992 Likes: 364
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,992 Likes: 364 |
You can call a boat a "car" ....... but that doesn't mean that you can drive it on the street.
You can call a jalapeño a sweet roll, but I don't know too many people who would knock the door down to grab one for dessert.
Words have meaning. A new legal arrangement of 2 gay people that approximates marriage is a legal issue that should be supported ...... but that does not make it marriage. It is a new thing entirely.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 Likes: 11
Hall of Famer
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 Likes: 11 |
You understand this would create a separate but equal situation, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,159 Likes: 134
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,159 Likes: 134 |
Quote:
Put me in the "I don't care" category.
I'm not pro gay marriage, I'm not anti gay marriage.
I don't understand why people have such strong opinions on things that don't affect them at all.
Allowed or not, it doesn't affect my life at all.
for once, we agree 
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
You understand this would create a separate but equal situation, right?
Is it really "separate"? What is separate about it? Can gay couples no longer live in certain neighborhoods? Eat in certain restaurants? Have health insurance? Attend the same schools?
Let me put it this way, if I have a man and a woman and I call them "married"... and I have a man and a man and I call them "civil union".. yet they have all the same rights then is it really separate but equal?
Compared to... if I have a white man and woman and I call them white... and I have a black man and woman and I call them black... yet they have all of the same rights.. is that separate but equal? ... or is it just nomenclature?
I think you have taken a term with a very derogatory historical meaning and you are attempting to apply it where it doesn't fit to make something seem worse than it is...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,992 Likes: 364
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,992 Likes: 364 |
Quote:
You understand this would create a separate but equal situation, right?
No, actually it would not.
It would create a new word for a new institution.
The 2 institutions would have equal legal standing. However, instead of assigning new meaning to the word marriage, we would have a new word for a completely new legal institution.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
I think we see eye to eye on this issue.
Nothing against gay people wanting to spend their lives together and fix other issues like survivorship laws and other right married people are afforded by law.
Just don't call it marriage.
The only reason gay people want to call it marriage is because they want to force society to find moral equivalency for their union.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Why is it acceptable to pick and choose from a holy text like The Bible, Torah, Qur'an?
One thing I find quite ironic --
Jesus never said one single word about homosexuality. Not one. The New Testament doesn't even talk about it directly - there's three or four passages that vaguely reference it, and even then it's among categories of other sins.
The Bible talks about the sin of shaving more than it does the sin of homosexuality ... and I don't see many clamoring for constitutional amendments about beard length.
The religious cherrypick their holy text arbitrarily, which makes it hard to really take their case seriously, and in that regard, their opinions should be dismissed when it comes to laws and governing.
And without the religious component, this isn't even a debate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
I could not care less if two people of the same gender want to get married. It's none of my buisness as long as both of them are consenting adults. I am also a Republican but that is mainly because I am conservative on fiscal issues. I'm more moderate on social issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
The only reason gay people want to call it marriage is because they want to force society to find moral equivalency for their union.
That's exactly it. I hate all these stupid comparisons to civil rights issues and legitimate descrimination that occurred in the 60's . That's not occuring here. What "rights" are they not getting exactly? Nobody is kicking in the doors of a gay wedding ceremony and hauling off the participants to jail. Nobody is forcing gays to eat in the "gays only" section of a restaurant or go to the "gays only" colleges. Nobody is banning them from employment from having a homosexual partner (and if they do, it's ALREADY considered descrimination). If needed, anybody can list pretty much anybody as their domestic partner in pretty much any legal documentation they want to.
It really boils down to what Hel is saying ... they want to force their moral definition of marriage onto the rest of society. And the biggest argument we hear in favor of gay marriage is that society can't force their moral beliefs on others.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 295
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 295 |
Quote:
Quote:
You understand this would create a separate but equal situation, right?
No, actually it would not.
It would create a new word for a new institution.
The 2 institutions would have equal legal standing. However, instead of assigning new meaning to the word marriage, we would have a new word for a completely new legal institution.
You realize you basically quoted the textbook definition of separate but equal, which the Supreme Court says is a no-no?
Check out this new word for a school that is just for blacks: Center for the Education of African Americans. Regular school is just for whites.
Or how about this one: different brigades for different races, religions, and sexual orientations. They all get to serve the military and die for us, we just keep em separate so the parades look nicer.
Here an oldy but goody: We'll use the term "house" for where most of us get to live. We'll call it "camp" for the Japanese.
Seriously, give me one good non religious reason why your civil unions should just be called marraige. They're the same in every respect, as you said. In order for a law to be passed discriminating against someone based on sex, the high court says you've got to have a reason. What's your reason?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 295
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 295 |
Quote:
Quote:
The only reason gay people want to call it marriage is because they want to force society to find moral equivalency for their union.
That's exactly it. I hate all these stupid comparisons to civil rights issues and legitimate descrimination that occurred in the 60's . That's not occuring here. What "rights" are they not getting exactly? Nobody is kicking in the doors of a gay wedding ceremony and hauling off the participants to jail. Nobody is forcing gays to eat in the "gays only" section of a restaurant or go to the "gays only" colleges. Nobody is banning them from employment from having a homosexual partner (and if they do, it's ALREADY considered descrimination). If needed, anybody can list pretty much anybody as their domestic partner in pretty much any legal documentation they want to.
It really boils down to what Hel is saying ... they want to force their moral definition of marriage onto the rest of society. And the biggest argument we hear in favor of gay marriage is that society can't force their moral beliefs on others.
We can and we do force moral beliefs on others. we have fierce moral beliefs in the constitution that we force on everyone. One of them is equal protection under the law. It's about not being able to give a legal benefit on just some people. Everyone gets treated the same under the law. Marraige is not doing that.
Now, the argument you're referring to is that the law cant' force Religious beliefs on people. And that is true. That's one of the morals ingrained in the constitution. So if this definition of marraige is based on equality, the constitution says force it down everyone's throat. If its based on religion, sorry, you lose.
And gays have and do face "legitimate" discrimination every day. Please stop lying to yourself. Even your conscience thinks it's silly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,159 Likes: 134
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,159 Likes: 134 |
Quote:
The only reason gay people want to call it marriage is because they want to force society to find moral equivalency for their union.
that may be one reason. They certainly want acceptence or tolerance at the least.. But there are real family type issues.. Medical health plans.. one partner has a plan, the other doesn't. in a typical marriage, the one with insurance can get the spouse covered.. That's not a moral issue, that's a real world issue.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 Likes: 55
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 Likes: 55 |
I think it's fairly simplistic to state that the only reason gay people want to have the equal rights of marriage is just to force their beliefs on others. That certainly isn't true for all. As you state Daman, it is for many of the issues you list. For the people who have stated or believe that gay people don't face discrimination, that's also rather silly, but that is another topic. As for Obama, I think his new stance on the issue hurts him. There is quite a bit of animosity in the country toward gay people. A lot of people want gays to shut up and go away. I think a lot of the religious black community will be angry over it, I've already heard a number of people in the hospital I am working at state they will not be voting at all in the election because of this and they were big supporters of him in the last election. That is a group of people he completely carried in the last election. While I agree with him on this one issue, I won't be voting for him because he's still a crappy president. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
Quote:
Quote:
The only reason gay people want to call it marriage is because they want to force society to find moral equivalency for their union.
that may be one reason. They certainly want acceptence or tolerance at the least.. But there are real family type issues.. Medical health plans.. one partner has a plan, the other doesn't. in a typical marriage, the one with insurance can get the spouse covered.. That's not a moral issue, that's a real world issue.
And I stated as such in my post.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,159 Likes: 134
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,159 Likes: 134 |
Quote:
I think it's fairly simplistic to state that the only reason gay people want to have the equal rights of marriage is just to force their beliefs on others. That certainly isn't true for all. As you state Daman, it is for many of the issues you list.
For the people who have stated or believe that gay people don't face discrimination, that's also rather silly, but that is another topic.
As for Obama, I think his new stance on the issue hurts him. There is quite a bit of animosity in the country toward gay people. A lot of people want gays to shut up and go away. I think a lot of the religious black community will be angry over it, I've already heard a number of people in the hospital I am working at state they will not be voting at all in the election because of this and they were big supporters of him in the last election. That is a group of people he completely carried in the last election. While I agree with him on this one issue, I won't be voting for him because he's still a crappy president.
I refuse to get into a political conversation with you 
Having said that,, the one reason that same sex couples want the right to get married never seems to be openly discussed.. not sure why.. but, it's Love.
They love each other.. some tell them that it's wrong... I don't understand the obsession some people/groups have with trying to tell others who they can and can't love.
I don't think it's my place to tell anyone who to love.. I honestly don't think it's my business... none.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,992 Likes: 364
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,992 Likes: 364 |
And being a married couple or a joined or united couple makes no difference as far as love goes.
If we allow the exact same benefits and responsibilities, then there is no difference ..... except for the name.
For some reason it seems like gay people think that somehow there will be more acceptance if they can call themselves married. I do not think that will be the case.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
And being a married couple or a joined or united couple makes no difference as far as love goes.
It obviously makes a difference to you.
Quote:
If we allow the exact same benefits and responsibilities, then there is no difference ..... except for the name.
Which makes your stance sound even more ridiculous.
Quote:
For some reason it seems like gay people think that somehow there will be more acceptance if they can call themselves married. I do not think that will be the case.
Or they just want to get married. Because that's what they want. Not everyone has arterial motives...
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,992 Likes: 364
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 49,992 Likes: 364 |
Quote:
It obviously makes a difference to you.
Yes, it does make a difference, as I favor maintaining the traditional meaning of the word "marriage", instead of changing it to a completely different definition that would change or eliminate the traditional and religious meanings.
Quote:
Which makes your stance sound even more ridiculous.
Maybe to you ...... however to people who believe that marriage should be a sanctified institution, in accord with their religious beliefs, gay "marriage" is ridiculous. It goes against the teachings of the church. and completely changes the meaning of what marriage is.
Quote:
Or they just want to get married. Because that's what they want. Not everyone has arterial motives...
And in many cases they can be united in a civil, secular union that approximates marriage.
As far as "arterial" motives ..... is that a matter of the heart .... or in a completely different vein ......? 
I have no problem whatsoever in allowing gay people to unite in a civil, secular union that approximates and mirrors the rights and responsibilities of marriage .... but the bottom line is that by changing the definition of marriage to become a secular union in which gay couples can unite is an affront to those to whom marriage is a sacred union.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 45
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 45 |
Easy solution.
In order to receive benefits for one's spouse and for tax purposes, the government no longer will issue a marriage license.
Everyone now applies for a civil union certificate, straight or gay.
The government recognizes this document the same way it did a marriage license, and all current marriage licenses will be re-issued as civil union certificates.
All marriages will still be conducted by the church, but newly married couples will receive no classically marriage based benefits from the government, state or employer without the civil union certificate.
It takes the issue of gay marriage off the table, everybody wins.
The church can feel free to discriminate as it pleases and it no longer imposes and impossible barrier to same sex couples.
Problem solved.
Why can't it be that easy?
Besides, gay couples deserve to be just as miserable together as straight couples.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
Why can't it be that easy?
Because some people of certain beliefs believe they are better than other people.
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,857 Likes: 955
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,857 Likes: 955 |
I'm now all in for gay marriage....because "Gay Divorce Court" would be one seriously funny TV show. 
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Maybe to you ...... however to people who believe that marriage should be a sanctified institution, in accord with their religious beliefs, gay "marriage" is ridiculous. It goes against the teachings of the church. and completely changes the meaning of what marriage is.
There are more references in the Bible to shaving being a sin than homosexuality.
Do you think shaving should be legislated according to the teachings of the church? Are you for a constitutional amendment banning shaving?
What about adultery? According to the Bible, adultery should be punished by death, and once again, this is mentioned far more than homosexuality. Are you in favor of pushing for the teachings of the Bible in this case? Should we look to make adultery a capital punishment?
What about the sanctity of the Sabbath? I mean, that's one of the big ones, the top ten. Should we make laws banning working on Sundays?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Should we make laws banning working on Sundays?
it's called the NFL and it's working out just fine to get a majority of people to not work on Sundays 
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,952 Likes: 30
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,952 Likes: 30 |
Quote:
I refuse to get into a political conversation with you
Isn't this entire topic political??
Quote:
Having said that,, the one reason that same sex couples want the right to get married never seems to be openly discussed.. not sure why.. but, it's Love.
Believe it or not, I'll bet people are all pretty much the same and want to get married for many different reasons.
Quote:
I don't think it's my place to tell anyone who to love.. I honestly don't think it's my business... none.
Right. I find it hysterical that our governments want to legislate love. THIS is right, THIS is wrong, blah blah blah. Just because a "majority" votes on a personal freedom doesn't make it okay (and this works BOTH ways, imo).
Smoking.
Casinos.
Helmet laws.
Eminent domain.
Gay equality.
Etc.
How 'bout people stay out of each others private lives? I think there should be a law against it.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,159 Likes: 134
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,159 Likes: 134 |
Quote:
I refuse to get into a political conversation with you
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't this entire topic political??
Jules brought up something about Obama and I just wasn't gonna go there...LOL
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having said that,, the one reason that same sex couples want the right to get married never seems to be openly discussed.. not sure why.. but, it's Love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe it or not, I'll bet people are all pretty much the same and want to get married for many different reasons.
Absolutly, but the thing I hear so little about is love..
Quote:
I don't think it's my place to tell anyone who to love.. I honestly don't think it's my business... none.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right. I find it hysterical that our governments want to legislate love. THIS is right, THIS is wrong, blah blah blah. Just because a "majority" votes on a personal freedom doesn't make it okay (and this works BOTH ways, imo).
well, actually we do have a majority rules kinda thing going on in this country.. Kinda been that way for oh,, I dunno,, long time now!
But we are talking about something that I don't think should fall into the majority rules realm..
If what a gay/lesbian couple want to do had an effect on my life, then I'd say, wait,, let me look at this.. and I'd be right to do so., If it's going to have an impact on my life, I think I have a right to at least have some say in the matter.
But what those particular couple do doesn't effect me and therefore, I don't see why majority rules should even apply.
Now,, you brought up smoking. I was a smoker for years. Stopped in 2006.. 4 pack a day smoker,, let me tell you, I was seriously hooked.
It has been proven over and over again that second hand smoke harms other people. so I see the outrage against smokers by non smokers. I get that. (didn't always, but now I do, odd how that happens)
But gay/lesbian marrage (by whatever name you place on it) doesn't harm anyone as far as I can see. I mean,, if you get to close to a gay guy,, you don't go gay.. if a lesbian touches you, it doesn't make you wanna wear pink!
Please allow for a little stupid humor there to get the point across. hope I don't offend..
Point is,,, I don't believe I have the right to tell anyone who to love/marry or whatever with.. UNLESS it has some direct effect on my life..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
j/c It's quite obvious that gay people will be allowed to marry in my lifetime (I'm 22). I can tell you from personal experience that the people who are opposed to gay marriage are mostly older people and that once my generation is in their 40s, gay marriage will be legal. I'm 100% for gay marriage. My life and my relationship with my girlfriend (future wife) is not affected even a little bit by 2 other consenting adults getting married - no matter their sexual orientation. I don't understand people who oppose gay marriage at all. The whole "marriage has always meant one thing" is a myth. The origin of marriage comes from trading women for farm animals and land. So all the parents out there, make sure you get a good deal for your daughter when a suitor comes calling.  Gay marriage is the next natural step in evolution of marriage and all those who oppose it are clearly on the wrong side of history because it will pass and the only reason people oppose it is because of their own religious views and bigotry - two things which have no place in a society based on the separation of church and state.
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
That's all very nice, and even could make some sense. As long as you, and everyone else, leaves out the primary purpose of marriage, and the main reason it exists.
All the rights, obligations, etc., and particularly any benefits which various societies allow for married couples, are all geared around the children mutually produced by the two people. Gay couples are NOT CAPABLE of mutually producing children.
You are correct in that "marriage" predates any religion by quite a wide margin. Various religions simply added rituals and other meanings to the practice.
Gay worker wants to have a dependent? There is no requirement for the spouse to stay home and tend to their children.
There are also no mutually produced children to hold the union together. Historically, this has made married couples with children a better credit risk. Adopted children do not have the same effect.
Civil union, I don't care. Don't much care about so-called "gay marriage", either, it's just the complete and total stupidity of the concept. I might as well argue that 5" 10" be called "tall", so that I can be "tall".
I still won't be very good at basketball.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
Check out this new word for a school that is just for blacks: Center for the Education of African Americans. Regular school is just for whites.
Actually thats not even close.. in your instance the black kids and white kids are forced to go to different schools and have presumably unequal access to the same quality of education.. in the civil union, they are both going to the same school, but when they sign up for school, they either check the box on the entrance form that says they are a white kid or check the box that says they are a black kid... Everybody has the same opportunity...
Quote:
Or how about this one: different brigades for different races, religions, and sexual orientations. They all get to serve the military and die for us, we just keep em separate so the parades look nicer.
Wrong again.. in this instance you are providing physical separation and probably unequal distribution of responsibilities and opportunities... show me where a civil union does either of those things.
Quote:
Here an oldy but goody: We'll use the term "house" for where most of us get to live. We'll call it "camp" for the Japanese.
3rd strike, go have a seat on the bench. You are talking about a group of people being held against their will based on national origin... and giving them unequal rights to live, work and play where and how they want to...
You are yet to give a single example of HOW this fits in the same "separate but equal" classifications of the past... none of your examples pass because you are talking about forced physical separation, which this doesn't do... or you are talking about opportunities which are totally unequal, which this also doesn't do...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
All the rights, obligations, etc., and particularly any benefits which various societies allow for married couples, are all geared around the children mutually produced by the two people. Gay couples are NOT CAPABLE of mutually producing children.
Neither are all straight couples. Should straight, infertile couples (or those who simply do not want children) be prohibited from marrying since they are incapable of "mutually producing children"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,159 Likes: 134
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,159 Likes: 134 |
Quote:
That's all very nice, and even could make some sense. As long as you, and everyone else, leaves out the primary purpose of marriage, and the main reason it exists.
My wife and I have been married for 26 years next week. We don't have kids,, didn't want them. we didn't get married to have kids.. thought wasn't even in the realm of possibility because neither of us wanted kids... one of the reasons we were so compatible.
Quote:
There are also no mutually produced children to hold the union together.
Wow,, if you need kids to hold the marriage together, you are married to the wrong person.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Gay marriage is the next natural step in evolution of marriage and all those who oppose it are clearly on the wrong side of history because it will pass and the only reason people oppose it is because of their own religious views and bigotry - two things which have no place in a society based on the separation of church and state.
You can pretty much close the thread here.
Like it or not, in 20 years, the folks who are against gay marriage today will be looked at as archaic and ignorant.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe to you ...... however to people who believe that marriage should be a sanctified institution, in accord with their religious beliefs, gay "marriage" is ridiculous. It goes against the teachings of the church. and completely changes the meaning of what marriage is.
There are more references in the Bible to shaving being a sin than homosexuality.
Do you think shaving should be legislated according to the teachings of the church? Are you for a constitutional amendment banning shaving?
What about adultery? According to the Bible, adultery should be punished by death, and once again, this is mentioned far more than homosexuality. Are you in favor of pushing for the teachings of the Bible in this case? Should we look to make adultery a capital punishment?
What about the sanctity of the Sabbath? I mean, that's one of the big ones, the top ten. Should we make laws banning working on Sundays?
It's also a sin to eat pork
Leviticus 11:8, which is discussing pigs, reads "You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you."
Also no divorcing. You can't do it. Because when you marry someone, according to Mark 10:8, you "are no longer two, but one flesh." And, Mark 10:9 reads, "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
Women can't wear gold Timothy 2:9 "Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments."
I can't stand the hypocrisy on this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
why does a religious view mean everything has to be a literal interpretation of the Bible with no chance to change? it does not. just as a government adjusts it's laws over time, so does a religious entity.
there are many religions that still view eating pork as a sin. my son's best friend is Muslim and we make sure we have no pork products on the menu when he stays for dinner (out of respect).
also, plenty of people consider divorce to not be an option.
it just happens that the issue being discussed has been deemed a sin and that has not changed. one day it might, but it hasn't so far. there are plenty of things that are hypocritical in religion, but this is not one of them. they have adopted a stance and are holding to it. whether the stance is considered right or wrong is up for you to decide for yourself.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Quote:
why does a religious view mean everything has to be a literal interpretation of the Bible with no chance to change? it does not. just as a government adjusts it's laws over time, so does a religious entity.
I believe most things in the bible were written the way they were because of the time period which it was written. I mean shoot, the bible does not mention a single thing about pedophilia.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Quote:
why does a religious view mean everything has to be a literal interpretation of the Bible with no chance to change? it does not. just as a government adjusts it's laws over time, so does a religious entity.
I believe most things in the bible were written the way they were because of the time period which it was written. I mean shoot, the bible does not mention a single thing about pedophilia.
I agree. That is why it needs to be looked at from time to time. VaticanII was a pretty in depth look into things and in the late 60s, which is pretty recent from a religious timeline perspective (you don't want religious views just constantly changing with the wind either).
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 295
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 295 |
Quote:
Quote:
Gay marriage is the next natural step in evolution of marriage and all those who oppose it are clearly on the wrong side of history because it will pass and the only reason people oppose it is because of their own religious views and bigotry - two things which have no place in a society based on the separation of church and state.
You can pretty much close the thread here.
Like it or not, in 20 years, the folks who are against gay marriage today will be looked at as archaic and ignorant.
I hope it doesn't take 20 years for us to get there. Many of us already look at them as archaic and ignorant.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
Quote:
Gay marriage is the next natural step in evolution of marriage and all those who oppose it are clearly on the wrong side of history because it will pass and the only reason people oppose it is because of their own religious views and bigotry - two things which have no place in a society based on the separation of church and state.
You can pretty much close the thread here.
Like it or not, in 20 years, the folks who are against gay marriage today will be looked at as archaic and ignorant.
I tend to agree with you.. and it kind of makes you wonder what the fight will be 20 years from now doesn't it? Because you know that when this becomes accepted, and it will, there will be another fight, another new "norm" that will be pushed... wonder what it will be. Perhaps marrying your toaster.
I'm not adamently opposed to gay marriage but as far as being a person who is looked back on as being archaic and ignorant.. in a lot of instances, I'll be ok with that.
Parents who had the audacity to actually discipline their kids 40 years ago are now looked back on as archaic and ignorant by a lot of society... People who thought it wasn't the governments responsibility to provide jobs, homes, food, clothing to its citizens are now looked back on as archaic and ignorant...
Not all change is good change.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
Perhaps marrying your toaster.
I've seen a picture of your toaster, it's hot!
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps marrying your toaster.
I've seen a picture of your toaster, it's hot!
you might want to fix those fringed wires then
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,952 Likes: 30
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,952 Likes: 30 |
You guys should know better than to talk about toasters on a gay thread. 
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk K-9 Consensus Marriage Equality
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
