|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Nov 28th, 2006 11:34 PM | |||
| RectalWart | Bob! You old SOB! How they hanging? Still eating Viagra like M&Ms?? | ||
| Nov 28th, 2006 11:30 PM | |||
| BobDole | I'm a Christian, and I really have no problem with allowing homosexual marriage. It's not exactly another person's place to say whether or not someone can be married, no? | ||
| Nov 28th, 2006 09:16 PM | |||
| Chojin | So it's not just a clever name. | ||
| Nov 28th, 2006 08:10 PM | |||
| RebeccaOTool |
Leviticus 20:13 Deuteronomy 23:17 Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9 Romans 1:26-27 1 Timothy 1:9-10 eh? Gonna dust of my Bible for this one. |
||
| Nov 13th, 2006 09:20 PM | |||
| Courage the Cowardly Dog | god damn it the same thing happened last time I agreed with Bush. | ||
| Nov 13th, 2006 09:18 PM | |||
| Preechr | Well, if you're gonna agree with me, then I'm changing what I believe: From now on, I believe the government should have the right to force people to get married. No more of this picking for yourself! People can't help how they are born or what they do to their bodies, and unattractive people deserve a chance to get it on with hotties. Marriage Lottery! | ||
| Nov 13th, 2006 07:39 PM | |||
| Courage the Cowardly Dog |
Re: Gay rights amendment Quote:
Oh and for once I agree with Preechr. You live your reliion, i'll live mine and the government stays out of my love life. Good post. |
||
| Nov 13th, 2006 05:13 PM | |||
| Yggdrasill | I hate how people in this state think marriage is a 'sacred institution' and refer to strait couples with children as REAL families. | ||
| Nov 13th, 2006 03:39 AM | |||
| Preechr |
Every single legal "right" afforded automatically to straight couples upon marriage can be gained by any two (or more, actually) people through legal means. If any of you know any gay couples that are holding their breath for their state government to pass some sort of gay marriage amendment, you should tell them to go ahead and see a lawyer and protect themselves sooner rather than waiting on the politicians to do it for them. They can write up wills to ensure their estates transfer... which they should already have. They can sign papers that allow each other to make decisions in each other's stead given some sort of injury or illness. In fact, the only thing a gay couple can't legally do (so far) is legally challenge somebody else's right to not accept that they are "married," just like any other couple. Personally, I don't accpet that the government has any right to be in the marriage business altogether. I would be happy if the whole issue were "privatized." Marriage is a contract that can be entered into and dissolved at will. While government may have in interest in propagation, it's a pretty big leap to micro-managing intimacy. If two (3, 4... ? ) consenting adults wish to enter into one of these sort of contracts, they should be free to hunt down an organization willing to sponsor their union, with whatever ceremony and whatnot with which that organization prefers to mark such occasions. A legal contract should be signed, along with whatever other documents are required to guarantee the rights afforded to current legally married people. It should probably be handled as a bond issue, where the organization retains an interest in the union something in the order of a guarantor. If the contract is broken or if the couple decides to dissolve or change it, they go back to the place they got it and end it or amend it according to the provisions of the original contract. The only time the government has to be involved is in the decision as to what makes one of these organizations acceptably legal and what happens when a contract is broken and no remedy is available within the civil structure of the contractual arrangement provided throught the organization... or maybe when a marriage contract outlives the organization that guaranteed it originally. Simple. Of course, I also think ALL civil matters should be handled this way... I'm not a big fan of being told how to live at the threat of a gun, in case you forgot. |
||
| Nov 13th, 2006 02:57 AM | |||
| Sethomas | "Civil unions" depends from state to state. That's the point of a national amendment to the Constitution. | ||
| Nov 13th, 2006 02:49 AM | |||
| kahljorn |
"I have met many people who firmly believe that legalizing same sex marriage will somehow make it illegal for churches to refuse to marry homosexuals. You seem like one of those people." I have no idea how you came to that conclusion when what I said was that I didn't want it to be illegalized because there are some churches that don't care if you're gay and that would clearly be endorsing one system of belief over another. The fact that I was sticking out for the only situation in which there is an outright refusal makes me wonder how you came to that conclusion at all. Sethomas, I don't see why gays need to get married anyway, i thought there were civil unions or something. Do those new same-sex marriage bans also fordbid civil unions? I was wondering about that because of the wording they use. they say something like, "GAYS SHALLNOT BE MARRIED ORJOINED UNDER ANY EQUIVALENT INSTITUTIION". |
||
| Nov 13th, 2006 02:20 AM | |||
| Sethomas |
I posted this in Protoclown's blog a few days ago: I fail to see why marriage should be a legally-defined institution at all. If people want some system to recognize a formal status of couple-ness for tax-breaks, insurance benefits, things like hospital visitation rights, then sure--there should be no argument as to homosexuals' rights to take part in that. As it stands, legal recognition of marriage is intrusion of the state into religion, and it's mutually destructive both from the religious perspective and the political. It's not like putting the stamp of "marriage" on a relationship means jack shit to people now anyways, so people should stop pretending like it means anything from the political realm. So, yeah. I'm one of those "civil unions for everyone" assholes. And it's a non-issue as to whether or not people feel like it's not "real" if it isn't called marriage. It's not like they couldn't find some religious institution that would recognize a marriage between homosexual individuals, but to suggest that all religions are expected to compromise their theologiae corpi to make everyone happy is no better an intrusion on Church and State than making this a theocracy. ------------------------------------- Quick, someone flaunt historical ignorance and say "Christianity didn't invent marriage, the Romans already had it!" |
||
| Nov 13th, 2006 12:35 AM | |||
| derrida |
Quote:
|
||
| Nov 12th, 2006 09:53 PM | |||
| Dr. Boogie | I think the point Courage was trying to make with this thread was that Middle American Christians are the most gullible people. | ||
| Nov 12th, 2006 09:42 PM | |||
| kahljorn |
i think the marital institutions themselves should decide who to marry. Why would you want to be part of a church that doesn't want you anyway. It's stupid. Find a church that allows gay people, otherwise don't try to get "Married". Making laws about who can get married how means the Government endorses a certain religion above all other religions and belief systems. America is so far gone from being a Christian society not wanting gays to get married is kind of hypocritical. |
||
| Nov 12th, 2006 09:37 PM | |||
| zeldasbiggestfan | People at school (I always make refrences to the fucking place I know!) have started up a gay straight aliance club. Its for straights and gays and theyre trying to get IL to realize that high schoolers want the amendment passed. Not that our voice makes a huge difference but hey at least were saying what we think is right. Im for gay marriage. But also our government is full of shit. They say its a free country and that we can practice any religion we want right? But if its against the christian religion to marry the same sex so we ban gay marriage because of that then that is a lie. If we can practice any religion we want people should be able to marry who they fucking want! If Im wrong please for the love of Christ tell me why. | ||
| Nov 12th, 2006 09:06 PM | |||
| Emu |
Re: Gay rights amendment Quote:
"It's their freedom to do so" is the kind of bullshit people spout who typically believe that South Park is the end-all-be-all of morality. |
||
| Nov 12th, 2006 09:02 PM | |||
| El Blanco | No, there is no need for a Constitutional Ammendment. In fact, you could argue its already there. | ||
| Nov 12th, 2006 08:54 PM | |||
| Chojin | So naturally, your church will also not marry people who mix eggs and steak, right? | ||
| Nov 12th, 2006 08:19 PM | |||
| Courage the Cowardly Dog |
Quote:
Leviticus 20:13 Deuteronomy 23:17 Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9 Romans 1:26-27 1 Timothy 1:9-10 oh and I think there's a few more that point out it's a no no. |
||
| Nov 12th, 2006 08:11 PM | |||
| Chojin | where did god say he hates gays again? | ||
| Nov 12th, 2006 07:11 PM | |||
| Courage the Cowardly Dog |
Gay rights amendment Now that we have enough democrats to pass it (and the big asshat one from my state, Claire Mckaskil D-MO, note I call her asshat for unrelated reasons) I was wondering what you think. Do we really need to amend our constitution to avoid persecution of them as a group? I'm all for the equality of races (although i hardly consider preference a race it's more of a desire) but if such an amendment does pass I'd like to see it have stipulations so it doesn't get out of hand. For instance I myself am opposed to affirmative action, if you aren't judging someone on their actions but are giving them special treatment that's not equality. I hope that the colleges won't have to meet a "gay quota" just that they can't discriminate, it should be based on academics. Just like jobs should be based on skill and potential, not how much you know about Celine Dion. The exception i absolutely must make is private organizations like churches I for instance belong to a church which views teh ghey butseks as shall we say, not kosher, and we are in the midst of changing our church constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman so we would not be forced to perform marriages that violate our morals, or allow what we consider an unBiblical couple to join. Which is exactly how we'd treat swingers, fornicators, or any other sin. We are not hate mongers, we love the sinner but hate their sin and it's not like anyone ever complained the Jews are being exclusionist by not allowing people who enjoy pork right or Muslims deny people who use Alcohol, have we not the right to deny people who engage in butt-piracy? Anyway that's my view and I try to be as tolerant of others as possible without violating my own personal morals and what my church believes is a statute set by God. We would fear punishment by our Deity for violating it or allowing it where we have the authority. Questions? Comments? Flames? Conspracey thoeries? |
||
