Gay Marriage legal in Connecticut

[brandonb]

30 years ago, it was normal that homosexuality was considered a mental disease. Wow, how things have changed, if you think homosexuality is a mental disease today, you're the one with a mental disease and should be locked up.

*I personally don't really care, I just think its odd how everybody is so pro gay these days*

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I love how the Moral Interventionists claim that Marriage is a Religious institution as their argument against allowing gays to marry. FYI, there are Christians Sects that allow for Gays to marry so that shoots down their argument big time.

But they'll claim something like "those Christan sects are a bunch of heretics that have twisted religion" to justify their continued bigotry.

 

[brandonb]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I love how the Moral Interventionists claim that Marriage is a Religious institution as their argument against allowing gays to marry. FYI, there are Christians Sects that allow for Gays to marry so that shoots down their argument big time.

But they'll claim something like "those Christan sects are a bunch of heretics that have twisted religion" to justify their continued bigotry.

Continued bigotry? Dictated by a God? It's hard to reverse the words of a supreme being. In fact, those who support gays may defile the ground they walk on. (As it says in the bible). Don't count on anything changing.

 

[StageLeft]

And if that there colored one gets in office, we'll see more of this, the disintegration of this here once great republic, yessir! I tells ya, them socialists gonna be the end of us. Ar!!

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: brandonb

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I love how the Moral Interventionists claim that Marriage is a Religious institution as their argument against allowing gays to marry. FYI, there are Christians Sects that allow for Gays to marry so that shoots down their argument big time.

But they'll claim something like "those Christan sects are a bunch of heretics that have twisted religion" to justify their continued bigotry.

Continued bigotry? Dictated by a God? It's hard to reverse the words of a supreme being. In fact, those who support gays may defile the ground they walk on. (As it says in the bible). Don't count on anything changing.

Slavery is in the Bible, but I don't see anyone still trying to practice or justify that today (except that Indian couple from my home town that got convicted on Federal charges a year or to ago).

Edit:
Just because it is in the Bible doesn't mean it was dictated by God. In fact, I wouldn't say any of the Bible is the word of God, except for the Gospels, which were inspired by the Holy Spirit. And I don't remember the Gospels preaching hate against homosexuals - I do remember the whole peace, love, and he who is without sin cast the first stone bits though.

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: aphex
Excellent News!

Yes it is - because to have a set of judges overturn peoples will again so close to election will be a good incentive.

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Yes, but let's not lose sight of the fact of however imperfectly - a wartime maneuver here (the Emancipation Proclamation), an accident their (equal rights languate applying to gays as the authors never intended), over long periods of time we are growing a society that was enormously bigoted and disciminatory at its founding into one with far more equality.

Equating men who like buggering each other with slavery is insult to black people and that's why they oppose homosexual marriage the most as a group.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: techs
It's a Republican nightmare!
Gay marriage has not destroyed the "family" and in fact not really changed thing except for those gay people who want to get married.
It's turned out to be much ado about nothing. Just another Republican boogeyman.

Techs I'm a republican and for this move and against prop 8 here in California. Don't confuse me with those that hijacked my party

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: Craig234

Yes, but let's not lose sight of the fact of however imperfectly - a wartime maneuver here (the Emancipation Proclamation), an accident their (equal rights languate applying to gays as the authors never intended), over long periods of time we are growing a society that was enormously bigoted and disciminatory at its founding into one with far more equality.

Equating men who like buggering each other with slavery is insult to black people and that's why they oppose homosexual marriage the most as a group.

You get this info on the down low Buggerbean?

 

[Butterbean]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: Craig234

Yes, but let's not lose sight of the fact of however imperfectly - a wartime maneuver here (the Emancipation Proclamation), an accident their (equal rights languate applying to gays as the authors never intended), over long periods of time we are growing a society that was enormously bigoted and disciminatory at its founding into one with far more equality.

Equating men who like buggering each other with slavery is insult to black people and that's why they oppose homosexual marriage the most as a group.

You get this info on the down low Buggerbean?

Don't get excited big fella

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: shira
In 20 years, stories like this won't be news. What will be news will be stories of the toothless, backwoods bigots who continue to oppose two people who happen to be of the same sex but who just want to love each other with the same, full protections of the law provided to opposite-sex couples. By then, almost all of the rest of us will look in wonderment at people who continue to be so unenlightened.

Even now, I find it amazing that anyone with half a brain can't project into the future and see clearly that this is coming. And seeing that, how they can continue to obstruct what is so obviously the extension of basic rights and protections to everyone.

Don't get too excited. Thirty years ago the conventional wisdom by far was that pot would be legalized by 2000 at the absolute latest. If anything, we are further away today from lifting that silly prohibition.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: brandonb
30 years ago, it was normal that homosexuality was considered a mental disease. Wow, how things have changed, if you think homosexuality is a mental disease today, you're the one with a mental disease and should be locked up.

*I personally don't really care, I just think its odd how everybody is so pro gay these days*

Your first line is good and nice to see from someone on the right. Your second line, you don't care about others' civil rights?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: Craig234

Yes, but let's not lose sight of the fact of however imperfectly - a wartime maneuver here (the Emancipation Proclamation), an accident their (equal rights languate applying to gays as the authors never intended), over long periods of time we are growing a society that was enormously bigoted and disciminatory at its founding into one with far more equality.

Equating men who like buggering each other with slavery is insult to black people and that's why they oppose homosexual marriage the most as a group.

Arguing with you is like asking motor oil to become nutritious. Poison is poison. You picked an appropriate toxic warning icon.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: techs
It's a Republican nightmare!
Gay marriage has not destroyed the "family" and in fact not really changed thing except for those gay people who want to get married.
It's turned out to be much ado about nothing. Just another Republican boogeyman.

And THAT is why gay marriage will become more and more accepted as time goes by. Now that the floodgates have been opened and some gay couples can get married, people will start to see that it doesn't destroy society or traditional family values, and folks like Butterbean will sound more and more like the bigots they are. Boogeymen work best when the people you're trying to scare have no information about the "threat" beyond what you tell them. As people start to see for themselves that the threat isn't what the Butterbeans of the world told them it would be, the less likely they are to go along with the irrational fear. Of course there will still be some holdouts, but they will be the extreme minority.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
State legislatures. If gay marriage were to be endorsed, I wouldn't have it any other way.

Just like slavery used to be!

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Equating men who like buggering each other with slavery is insult to black people and that's why they oppose homosexual marriage the most as a group.

Right after closeted white gays in denial who post on the internet.

 

[Vic]

Why was govt ever in the business of telling people who they can and cannot marry in the first place?

 

[LGT]

i agree people should do what they want but...really, i dont understand how anyone could consider marrying a MAN??? Theres a surprising number of "gay" men around though... I dont personally believe in real homosexuality though...Or if it is real it is muchr rarer than the number of "gays" that there are... 90% gays? Laziness/Trendiness/Scare of Girl

JMHO.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Butterbean

Originally posted by: aphex
Excellent News!

Yes it is - because to have a set of judges overturn peoples will again so close to election will be a good incentive.

You realize that this is one of the primary functions that Supreme Courts serve in our country, as willed by the Founding Fathers, right? The peoples' will should not usurp the rule of law.

 

[KIRBYEE]

.

 

[KIRBYEE]

.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: LGT
i agree people should do what they want but...really, i dont understand how anyone could consider marrying a MAN??? Theres a surprising number of "gay" men around though...

Welcome to our planet. It's nice to meet you. I look forward to you discovering more new things about our world, like varying colors of people's skin.

I dont personally believe in real homosexuality though...Or if it is real it is muchr rarer than the number of "gays" that there are... 90% gays? Laziness/Trendiness/Scare of Girl

JMHO.

Not 'H' enough.

Do you not believe in Tourette's syndrom if you haven't met people with it? Your acute observation as to conclude the millions of gays are 'faking it' for all the glamous and prestige it brings is remarkable. Where would be without you to expose such massive fraud against our nation?

The ignorance you have, going on an internet board and posting your opinion that gays are faking it because they're lazy, 'trendy', or scared of girls, is boggling.

Why don't you consider silence on your ignorance until you talk to some gay people?

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: LGT
i agree people should do what they want but...really, i dont understand how anyone could consider marrying a MAN???

Many agree with you...especially Lesbians!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: LGT
i agree people should do what they want but...really, i dont understand how anyone could consider marrying a MAN??? Theres a surprising number of "gay" men around though... I dont personally believe in real homosexuality though...Or if it is real it is muchr rarer than the number of "gays" that there are... 90% gays? Laziness/Trendiness/Scare of Girl

JMHO.

I always found this logic a little suspect. It implies that the person calling homosexuality a "choice" could himself choose to date and sleep with men instead of women. Now as a straight guy who is very much only interested in women, I can't really see making that choice myself. And given the homophobia displayed by most people who call it a choice, I doubt folks like LGT are going to step up to start batting for the other team any time soon. Which raises the question of just who these guys are out there who are attracted to women, but "decide" they'd rather date men...and women who do the same thing.

But what mostly strikes me about opinions like that is that it is, despite the "JMHO" tag, an incredibly arrogant thing to say. I strongly feel that I didn't choose my sexual preference for women, and I imagine you feel the same way...so who are you to tell gay folks that they're not "real" gay people, they're just faking it because it's trendy?

 

[Eeezee]

Every time this argument rears its ugly head, I like to remind everyone of one simple thing.

If your church is really against gay marriage, it doesn't have to perform those ceremonies.

No, really, your church can marry whoever it wants.

The reason it's important to permit gay marriage is because this will give equal rights to gay couples. Countless laws are already in place that specify 'marriage' regarding couples' rights, not civil unions. If you want to give civil unions the same rights as marriages, that is going to require a shit ton of unnecessary work across the country, rewriting these laws and getting them passed. Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Allowing gays to get married is no different than giving them civil unions + the extra rights that all couples deserve.

With that in mind, anyone who seriously does not support gay marriage is either grossly misinformed or a bigot. Denying a group the same rights because you find that group icky is bigotry, pure and simple. Churches don't have to perform marriage ceremonies, but the government should recognize marriages between gay couples.

Allowing 'civil unions' is no different than the 'separate but equal' phrase used so often after the civil war. The problem is that the facilities are separate, but they're not equal. Worse yet, there's no reason for the separation between civil unions and marriage. It's completely unnecessary. Allow gays to be married, let's be done with it already.

This is why we have courts, to prevent the tyranny of the majority. This is how black segregation was struck down in most of the south, and this is how gay marriage will become a national norm as well. Denying two men the right to marry is no different than denying two blacks the right to marry (they can have a civil union - sorry, no). You're denying someone a set of rights based on arbitrary reasons.