This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="pianist"]Lots of things can damage your health - including 'normal' sex, too.MrGeezer
I once saw an article about a man who went to a strip club. And then one of the strippers rubbed her breasts in his face, and she actually suffocated him to death.
It's true, even strip clubs can kill you.
musta been some massive breast
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="pianist"]Lots of things can damage your health - including 'normal' sex, too.blazinpuertoroc
I once saw an article about a man who went to a strip club. And then one of the strippers rubbed her breasts in his face, and she actually suffocated him to death.
It's true, even strip clubs can kill you.
musta been some massive breast Even speaking as a gay guy, that sounds like an awesome way to go[QUOTE="blazinpuertoroc"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="pianist"]Lots of things can damage your health - including 'normal' sex, too.xaos
I once saw an article about a man who went to a strip club. And then one of the strippers rubbed her breasts in his face, and she actually suffocated him to death.
It's true, even strip clubs can kill you.
musta been some massive breast Even speaking as a gay guy, that sounds like an awesome way to goThere are always man tats! Hubba Hubba.
[QUOTE="blazinpuertoroc"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="pianist"]Lots of things can damage your health - including 'normal' sex, too.xaos
I once saw an article about a man who went to a strip club. And then one of the strippers rubbed her breasts in his face, and she actually suffocated him to death.
It's true, even strip clubs can kill you.
musta been some massive breast Even speaking as a gay guy, that sounds like an awesome way to goLol win
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="johnnyv2003"][QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="wslacker2"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="wslacker2"]Here is my take: If you want to have a relationship with someone as the same sex? No problem. If you want me to vote into law a statute that allows you to get married to this partner, and giving you the right to raise children with your same sex partner? I do have a problem. xaos
Why do you have a problem with that?
Read the Bible for an answer to that question. As to the previous post accusing me of being anti-freedom, not any more than you may be. Look at your views on many things. You may be "anti-freedom" as well.
i believe all gay people want are equal rights and i see nothing wrong with that.
yes, this is one issue that makes me almost ashamed to be called christian....Yes, it is stated in the bible that homosexuality is a sin, but so is lying, so is murdering, so is having sex before marriage...but it doesn't say that people that are homosexual should be de-humanized and not given the same rights under the government as someone else.
If anything to say that homosexuals shouldn't be given the same rights as anyone else is a sin as well. I believe that the golden rule is "Love thy neighbor as thyself", and do unto to others as you would have them do unto you....I'm pretty sure that I wan't rights like everyone else, so I wan't the same for homosexuals as well.
Gay couples are given all the same rights through civil unions. They're screaming for the word marriage. Marriage comes from the church. The church says a union between a man and woman.
No, the church does not define modern marriage; otherwise, marriages would not be licensed by the government and could not be performed in any secular venue, which they can...The basic principals of marriage have not changed at all over the years. Even if there is a very high divorce rate. There have been benefits with insurance and joint-accounts which gay couples have the rights to in a civil union. For many many years, the word marriage pertained to a union between a man and a woman in the church and it hasn't changed. IMO, if there isn't a marriage by the church, then I wouldn't consider it a marriage, but rather a union. I assume that is what you mean by "modern marriage."
[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="johnnyv2003"][QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="wslacker2"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="wslacker2"]Here is my take: If you want to have a relationship with someone as the same sex? No problem. If you want me to vote into law a statute that allows you to get married to this partner, and giving you the right to raise children with your same sex partner? I do have a problem. LikeHaterade
Why do you have a problem with that?
Read the Bible for an answer to that question. As to the previous post accusing me of being anti-freedom, not any more than you may be. Look at your views on many things. You may be "anti-freedom" as well.
i believe all gay people want are equal rights and i see nothing wrong with that.
yes, this is one issue that makes me almost ashamed to be called christian....Yes, it is stated in the bible that homosexuality is a sin, but so is lying, so is murdering, so is having sex before marriage...but it doesn't say that people that are homosexual should be de-humanized and not given the same rights under the government as someone else.
If anything to say that homosexuals shouldn't be given the same rights as anyone else is a sin as well. I believe that the golden rule is "Love thy neighbor as thyself", and do unto to others as you would have them do unto you....I'm pretty sure that I wan't rights like everyone else, so I wan't the same for homosexuals as well.
Gay couples are given all the same rights through civil unions. They're screaming for the word marriage. Marriage comes from the church. The church says a union between a man and woman.
No, the church does not define modern marriage; otherwise, marriages would not be licensed by the government and could not be performed in any secular venue, which they can...The basic principals of marriage have not changed at all over the years. Even if there is a very high divorce rate. There have been benefits with insurance and joint-accounts which gay couples have the rights to in a civil union. For many many years, the word marriage pertained to a union between a man and a woman in the church and it hasn't changed. IMO, if there isn't a marriage by the church, then I wouldn't consider it a marriage, but rather a union. I assume that is what you mean by "modern marriage."
How about we define legal marriage as marriage that can be defined by law :)[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="johnnyv2003"][QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="wslacker2"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="wslacker2"]Here is my take: If you want to have a relationship with someone as the same sex? No problem. If you want me to vote into law a statute that allows you to get married to this partner, and giving you the right to raise children with your same sex partner? I do have a problem. xaos
Why do you have a problem with that?
Read the Bible for an answer to that question. As to the previous post accusing me of being anti-freedom, not any more than you may be. Look at your views on many things. You may be "anti-freedom" as well.
i believe all gay people want are equal rights and i see nothing wrong with that.
yes, this is one issue that makes me almost ashamed to be called christian....Yes, it is stated in the bible that homosexuality is a sin, but so is lying, so is murdering, so is having sex before marriage...but it doesn't say that people that are homosexual should be de-humanized and not given the same rights under the government as someone else.
If anything to say that homosexuals shouldn't be given the same rights as anyone else is a sin as well. I believe that the golden rule is "Love thy neighbor as thyself", and do unto to others as you would have them do unto you....I'm pretty sure that I wan't rights like everyone else, so I wan't the same for homosexuals as well.
Gay couples are given all the same rights through civil unions. They're screaming for the word marriage. Marriage comes from the church. The church says a union between a man and woman.
No, the church does not define modern marriage; otherwise, marriages would not be licensed by the government and could not be performed in any secular venue, which they can...The basic principals of marriage have not changed at all over the years. Even if there is a very high divorce rate. There have been benefits with insurance and joint-accounts which gay couples have the rights to in a civil union. For many many years, the word marriage pertained to a union between a man and a woman in the church and it hasn't changed. IMO, if there isn't a marriage by the church, then I wouldn't consider it a marriage, but rather a union. I assume that is what you mean by "modern marriage."
How about we define legal marriage as marriage that can be defined by law :)I am 110% for people's rights, no matter your age, race, sexuality, etc....I'm MR. Civil Liberty:). But whenever someone tells me that gays have the right to marriage, I assume they're telling me they have the right to get married by the church. Was I always incorrect to assume this?
[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="johnnyv2003"][QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="wslacker2"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="wslacker2"]Here is my take: If you want to have a relationship with someone as the same sex? No problem. If you want me to vote into law a statute that allows you to get married to this partner, and giving you the right to raise children with your same sex partner? I do have a problem. LikeHaterade
Why do you have a problem with that?
Read the Bible for an answer to that question. As to the previous post accusing me of being anti-freedom, not any more than you may be. Look at your views on many things. You may be "anti-freedom" as well.
i believe all gay people want are equal rights and i see nothing wrong with that.
yes, this is one issue that makes me almost ashamed to be called christian....Yes, it is stated in the bible that homosexuality is a sin, but so is lying, so is murdering, so is having sex before marriage...but it doesn't say that people that are homosexual should be de-humanized and not given the same rights under the government as someone else.
If anything to say that homosexuals shouldn't be given the same rights as anyone else is a sin as well. I believe that the golden rule is "Love thy neighbor as thyself", and do unto to others as you would have them do unto you....I'm pretty sure that I wan't rights like everyone else, so I wan't the same for homosexuals as well.
Gay couples are given all the same rights through civil unions. They're screaming for the word marriage. Marriage comes from the church. The church says a union between a man and woman.
No, the church does not define modern marriage; otherwise, marriages would not be licensed by the government and could not be performed in any secular venue, which they can...The basic principals of marriage have not changed at all over the years. Even if there is a very high divorce rate. There have been benefits with insurance and joint-accounts which gay couples have the rights to in a civil union. For many many years, the word marriage pertained to a union between a man and a woman in the church and it hasn't changed. IMO, if there isn't a marriage by the church, then I wouldn't consider it a marriage, but rather a union. I assume that is what you mean by "modern marriage."
How about we define legal marriage as marriage that can be defined by law :)I am 110% for people's rights, no matter your age, race, sexuality, etc....I'm MR. Civil Liberty:). But whenever someone tells me that gays have the right to marriage, I assume they're telling me they have the right to get married by the church. Was I always incorrect to assume this?
I don't see how churches could be forced to do this, aside from if they offer marriage as a public accommodation (in which case civil rights laws would apply). All legislation regarding gay marriage I am familiar with has been regarding civil marriages, though. For instance, most of the ceremonies here in SF happen at private venues or at City Hall.Time to cut the quote trees, guys. :P
Just a clarification on my earlier posts; I wasn't in any way condoning the priest's actions, I just think people were exaggerating a bit.
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="johnnyv2003"][QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="wslacker2"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="wslacker2"]Here is my take: If you want to have a relationship with someone as the same sex? No problem. If you want me to vote into law a statute that allows you to get married to this partner, and giving you the right to raise children with your same sex partner? I do have a problem. xaos
Why do you have a problem with that?
Read the Bible for an answer to that question. As to the previous post accusing me of being anti-freedom, not any more than you may be. Look at your views on many things. You may be "anti-freedom" as well.
i believe all gay people want are equal rights and i see nothing wrong with that.
yes, this is one issue that makes me almost ashamed to be called christian....Yes, it is stated in the bible that homosexuality is a sin, but so is lying, so is murdering, so is having sex before marriage...but it doesn't say that people that are homosexual should be de-humanized and not given the same rights under the government as someone else.
If anything to say that homosexuals shouldn't be given the same rights as anyone else is a sin as well. I believe that the golden rule is "Love thy neighbor as thyself", and do unto to others as you would have them do unto you....I'm pretty sure that I wan't rights like everyone else, so I wan't the same for homosexuals as well.
Gay couples are given all the same rights through civil unions. They're screaming for the word marriage. Marriage comes from the church. The church says a union between a man and woman.
No, the church does not define modern marriage; otherwise, marriages would not be licensed by the government and could not be performed in any secular venue, which they can...The basic principals of marriage have not changed at all over the years. Even if there is a very high divorce rate. There have been benefits with insurance and joint-accounts which gay couples have the rights to in a civil union. For many many years, the word marriage pertained to a union between a man and a woman in the church and it hasn't changed. IMO, if there isn't a marriage by the church, then I wouldn't consider it a marriage, but rather a union. I assume that is what you mean by "modern marriage."
How about we define legal marriage as marriage that can be defined by law :)I am 110% for people's rights, no matter your age, race, sexuality, etc....I'm MR. Civil Liberty:). But whenever someone tells me that gays have the right to marriage, I assume they're telling me they have the right to get married by the church. Was I always incorrect to assume this?
I don't see how churches could be forced to do this, aside from if they offer marriage as a public accommodation (in which case civil rights laws would apply). All legislation regarding gay marriage I am familiar with has been regarding civil marriages, though. For instance, most of the ceremonies here in SF happen at private venues or at City Hall.Well I don't see anything wrong with that. Now I just wonder if I've been arguing semantics in every gay marriage debate I've gotten into.:?I would bring up the Bible in debates, and I was never told civil marriages. So really, it's gay marriage activists that are attempting to change the word "marriage" then?
I wouldn't say gay marriage activists are trying to change the meaning of marriage, they are just approaching it from the civil, secular perspective. It's only from a religious perspective that marriage has non-civil significance, and that isn't all that legislatible, at least not by US or state governments.Well I don't see anything wrong with that. Now I just wonder if I've been arguing semantics in every gay marriage debate I've gotten into.:?I would bring up the Bible in debates, and I was never told civil marriages. So really, it's gay marriage activists that are attempting to change the word "marriage" then?
LikeHaterade
[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]I wouldn't say gay marriage activists are trying to change the meaning of marriage, they are just approaching it from the civil, secular perspective. It's only from a religious perspective that marriage has non-civil significance, and that isn't all that legislatible, at least not by US or state governments.Well I don't see anything wrong with that. Now I just wonder if I've been arguing semantics in every gay marriage debate I've gotten into.:?I would bring up the Bible in debates, and I was never told civil marriages. So really, it's gay marriage activists that are attempting to change the word "marriage" then?
xaos
Well the word marriage has been around since the 14th century with the same meaning.:? It sounds like the only right they don't have is to call it marriage and that's what they're arguing against.....That just seems ridiculous in my opinion.
[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]I wouldn't say gay marriage activists are trying to change the meaning of marriage, they are just approaching it from the civil, secular perspective. It's only from a religious perspective that marriage has non-civil significance, and that isn't all that legislatible, at least not by US or state governments.Well I don't see anything wrong with that. Now I just wonder if I've been arguing semantics in every gay marriage debate I've gotten into.:?I would bring up the Bible in debates, and I was never told civil marriages. So really, it's gay marriage activists that are attempting to change the word "marriage" then?
LikeHaterade
Well the word marriage has been around since the 14th century with the same meaning.:? It sounds like the only right they don't have is to call it marriage and that's what they're arguing against.....That just seems ridiculous in my opinion.
Umm, I can call my partnership marriage if I want to and no one can reasonably stop me. I do not, however, get tax status or the various legal benefits (hospital visitation, extension of work benefits to spouse, etc) automatically offered to legally married couples, however. That is the core of the argument.[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]I wouldn't say gay marriage activists are trying to change the meaning of marriage, they are just approaching it from the civil, secular perspective. It's only from a religious perspective that marriage has non-civil significance, and that isn't all that legislatible, at least not by US or state governments.Well I don't see anything wrong with that. Now I just wonder if I've been arguing semantics in every gay marriage debate I've gotten into.:?I would bring up the Bible in debates, and I was never told civil marriages. So really, it's gay marriage activists that are attempting to change the word "marriage" then?
xaos
Well the word marriage has been around since the 14th century with the same meaning.:? It sounds like the only right they don't have is to call it marriage and that's what they're arguing against.....That just seems ridiculous in my opinion.
Umm, I can call my partnership marriage if I want to and no one can reasonably stop me. I do not, however, get tax status or the various legal benefits (hospital visitation, extension of work benefits to spouse, etc) automatically offered to legally married couples, however. That is the core of the argument.Of coarse no one could stop you. You may believe in whatever you want to believe. I would believe that your partnership is not a marriage. And I disagree those gay couples are left out on those benifits. They can be given those without the "marriage" title.
[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]I wouldn't say gay marriage activists are trying to change the meaning of marriage, they are just approaching it from the civil, secular perspective. It's only from a religious perspective that marriage has non-civil significance, and that isn't all that legislatible, at least not by US or state governments.Well I don't see anything wrong with that. Now I just wonder if I've been arguing semantics in every gay marriage debate I've gotten into.:?I would bring up the Bible in debates, and I was never told civil marriages. So really, it's gay marriage activists that are attempting to change the word "marriage" then?
LikeHaterade
Well the word marriage has been around since the 14th century with the same meaning.:? It sounds like the only right they don't have is to call it marriage and that's what they're arguing against.....That just seems ridiculous in my opinion.
Umm, I can call my partnership marriage if I want to and no one can reasonably stop me. I do not, however, get tax status or the various legal benefits (hospital visitation, extension of work benefits to spouse, etc) automatically offered to legally married couples, however. That is the core of the argument.Of coarse no one could stop you. You may believe in whatever you want to believe. I would believe that your partnership is not a marriage. And I disagree those gay couples are left out on those benifits. They can be given those without the "marriage" title.
They are automatic for heterosexual marriages; I have to leap through numerous hoops to get the same benefits in most of the USA and companies are free to deny benefits to my partner that they are required to give to heterosexual married partners. If you consider that just, we should just stop talking now, because we have radically different ideas of what is acceptable.[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]I wouldn't say gay marriage activists are trying to change the meaning of marriage, they are just approaching it from the civil, secular perspective. It's only from a religious perspective that marriage has non-civil significance, and that isn't all that legislatible, at least not by US or state governments.Well I don't see anything wrong with that. Now I just wonder if I've been arguing semantics in every gay marriage debate I've gotten into.:?I would bring up the Bible in debates, and I was never told civil marriages. So really, it's gay marriage activists that are attempting to change the word "marriage" then?
xaos
Well the word marriage has been around since the 14th century with the same meaning.:? It sounds like the only right they don't have is to call it marriage and that's what they're arguing against.....That just seems ridiculous in my opinion.
Umm, I can call my partnership marriage if I want to and no one can reasonably stop me. I do not, however, get tax status or the various legal benefits (hospital visitation, extension of work benefits to spouse, etc) automatically offered to legally married couples, however. That is the core of the argument.Of coarse no one could stop you. You may believe in whatever you want to believe. I would believe that your partnership is not a marriage. And I disagree those gay couples are left out on those benifits. They can be given those without the "marriage" title.
They are automatic for heterosexual marriages; I have to leap through numerous hoops to get the same benefits in most of the USA and companies are free to deny benefits to my partner that they are required to give to heterosexual married partners. If you consider that just, we should just stop talking now, because we have radically different ideas of what is acceptable.Like I said before, I disagree that you and other gay couples are left out on these benefits. It should be automatic for a gay couple in a civil union and the government should take care of this immediately. I believe that gay activists would get their message across better if they fought for those rights, in place of gay marriage if indeed that is the core of their arguments.
EDIT: Of coarse what I mean is their main message should be something showing gay couples' inability of the legal benifits that come with marriage. Their gay marriage" argument hides their intentions on gaining their deserved rights and stirs up a lot of backlash.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment