Thread: Gay Marriage...

What a hypocrite, and who am I anyway to oppose gay marriage. I cannot believe I have argued otherwise with my own sig staring me in the eye the whole time.

Those who oppose gay marriages know that we'll all have to answer for the things we have done and allowed to be done. The consequences will be more severe than you can ever imagine.

Originally Posted by TurnBackTheClock

Those who oppose gay marriages know that we'll all have to answer for the things we have done and allowed to be done. The consequences will be more severe than you can ever imagine.

yeah, I bet the skies will rain fire and lightning, the waters shall boil and the earth shall crack asunder. Hopefully you're sarcastic. The real consequences that are more severe than most of us can ever imagine is letting this bullshit discrimination usually based on bronze-age myths continue.

Gay marriage is an issue for religions....the only issues that the gvt should worry about is protections for gays from hate crimes, the extension of all rights and bennies that married/civil unionized hetero couples gain. This issue is not about forcing your church to have gay weddings that choice lies with the congregation NOT the gvt.....


IN short "gay marriage" is a lot a like "partial birth abortion" in that it is merely a politicized term that is used to scare the sheeple, hicks, and rubes rather then being based on reality.

Gay people should be able to get married if their church allows them to and the gvt should make sure that they get the same rights no matter what type of union they are joined in....in point of fact it's really the only moral thing to do.

Originally Posted by liberalman

Gay marriage is an issue for religions....the only issues that the gvt should worry about is protections for gays from hate crimes, the extension of all rights and bennies that married/civil unionized hetero couples gain. This issue is not about forcing your church to have gay weddings that choice lies with the congregation NOT the gvt.....

Sure it should as holding out gays on the basis that their gay is a hate-crime or at least active discrimination of a service to someone based on a somthing they can't control, its a violation of religious freedom.

Gay people should be able to get married if their church allows them to and the gvt should make sure that they get the same rights no matter what type of union they are joined in....in point of fact it's really the only moral thing to do.

violation of religious freedom, discrimination of a minority, all of things which religions shouldn't be allowed to actively engage in but do anyway.

Actually no its not as religious freedom does not extend to state control of the religion or its tenants...you advocating the feds tell the churches who they can and cannot allow into their services which goes entirely against the seperations of church and state....


Religion is again not a government entity and should not be down that road lies tyranny. Sure it would be great if all religions decided that they would support marriage but one can hardly require that they do so especially if said religion does not recieve federal funds. THerein lies the problem with public funding of faith based initiatives it inserts the gvt into religion and allows them to mandate spiritual belief. THat is only one step from state sponsored religion which has historically been a killer for groups that find themselves at odds with the gvt. For example, Quakers could be held singled out for perescution becuase they do not support the administration use of war. WIccans could be burned at the stake because a fundementalist president decides that they are witches and HIS intpretation of the bible states they need to die.


Religious freedom is only a possibility IF the state stays out of it......what your advocating is not religious freedom but rather the same temporal use of reliiogn that led to the inquisition.

The colony of South Carolina passed a "Sunday Law" which required everyone to attend church each Sunday and to refrain from both skilled labor and traveling by horse or wagon beyond what was absolutely necessary. Violators received a fine and/or a two hours in the village stocks.
History of American Religion: Timeline 1600 - 2004

This is the type of nonsense that happens when temporal/gvt powers are used to decide how religion is used.....of course in my mind organized religion is simply a temporal exercise anyway used to control the masses rather then to save their "souls"....those that buy into it tend to be more concerned with appearances then real spiritual enlightment IMO.

Ah, liberalman defending the outcasts in hopes of equalizing them. The whole idea of 'Gay marriage' is absurd and insulting IMO. Gay marriage is not an institution but a perversion of the institution of marriage. Marriage has nothing to do with gays because gays are by their own nature or choice of lifestyle ineligible of being married. Marriage is the sexual and lifetime partnership of a man and a woman. This is not like the Homos are mad because a law declares they are unable to be served at restaurants or are barred from Sunday School picnics. This is a defined institution that does not define itself as the sexual and lifetime partnership of two of the same sex. For that is totally different and not what marriage is or how it was established. Homosexuals desire the certificate of marriage for two reasons in my view. The first is because they want to be recognized as equal even though their principles are not because they detest being recognized as undesired inferior outcasts. They want the certificate to make them feel socially equal with mainstream society. The second reason is if they can get the state to recognize homosexuality as a legitimate institution, they no longer have to feel in their mind that their choice of lifestyle is immoral and disturbing. I believe that homosexuals, even though they are homosexuals still acknowledge that their sexual relationships are unorthodox and biologically incorrect and nonsensical. So my second reason is they want to be married to prove to themselves there is nothing wrong with them and their choice of lifestyle. As long as the state does not recognize homosexual relations as normal and completely acceptable, they will feel that their actions are wrong and against the ways of conventional society. I don't buy for an instant this claim that they want to get married because they love eachother. For that is misleading. Love does not essentially dictate marriage and homosexuality certainly doesn't. True, Marriage comes with some benefits but this is never their argument. It insults me because of their having no regard. They don't care it's a heterosexual institution and giving them marriage licenses changes it even though it is not their institution to claim they can be married. Thankfully this country is representative and the heterosexuals for the most part are not willing to hand over the definition of marriage when it did not concearn them in the first place.

Gay marriage!

All for it. I'm not going to marry a man, so it has no effect on me or my life.

Originally Posted by Justinian

....

What made you select becoming a heterosexual? Did you, when you were a kid, one day sit down and say "Hmmm.. I think I will be a heterosexual"