Why? Should I be afraid that the gay parents are going to try and pull something on my son/daughter? Most homosexuals aren't trying to "recruit" people. Homosexuality isn't a cult or a religion. Sh!t, I'd be more worried about my child spending the night at some Mormon or Jehova's Witness house.
Why? Should I be afraid that the gay parents are going to try and pull something on my son/daughter? Most homosexuals aren't trying to "recruit" people. Homosexuality isn't a cult or a religion. Sh!t, I'd be more worried about my child spending the night at some Mormon or Jehova's Witness house.
Yes, and while we're at it, I think we've overstepped the bounds a little. "So many shows throw in the 'requisite' black guy now." We need to get back to times when black people were treated as second class citizens just as homosexuals are today. And as long as we're 'fixing' things, we may as well subjugate people of asian, jewish, irish, native american, etc. decent as well. WHITE SUPREMECY!@!
Ok, yes I've taken it to far. But again, just like those opposing inter-racial marriages, your ignorant viewpoint will dwindle with time.
Thank you for your opinion (eventhough I disagree with it, and can't wait until it's mostly gone from society),
Crypticburn
Yes, because we are still completely subject to nature. We haven't developed (crap, I assume you're a creationist as well?) well beyond the born-eat-procreate-die phase
Crypticburn
Again: sarcasm
This title is synonymus with "Equal rights for all Americans, for or against??"
They shouldn't be treated special, so let them have the same rights as everyone else.
They shouldn't be treated special, so let them have the same rights as everyone else.
But see, marriage was meant for a man and a woman IN the religious context. I do agree that gays/lesbians/others should have the right to dedicate themselves to each other somehow and get a tax deduction and all the benefits of hetero married folks. I just don't like the term to be twisted. But the US is changing anyhow... it was founded on Christianity forefathers and everything has been bent and twisted to separate every single little detail of religion and state. I'm not saying they should be absolutely together but some overlapping SURE. Thats what USA was founded on so why not? Why does the US currency say "In God We Trust", why must you swear on the Holy Bible in a court of law, and now then they removed the 10 commandments from that courthouse? stupid.
I just want it to remain a sacred union between a man and a woman as it was meant. Like I said, I don't want to deprive others, just of the name of their union that is all. What is wrong with that? This is not descrimination. There is tons of things like this in everyday life thats okay. There is the ACLU and "Give African Children College Money" groups nationwide and thats not descrimination towards whites. There are certain clubs (not nightclubs) where its a "mens club" and only men can join and that is accepted and understood by everyone. Why can't there be this one tiny name difference just to signify the meaning which the majority want to keep? There is so much bull going on today about what is politically correct. There is nothing wrong with what I propose. I'm sure there are an abundance of dedicated gay and lesbian couples who want to stay together forever and would make good parents (thats another topic) and yes thats GREAT I say. But why must the Christian-overtone marriage be trampled on?
Once again the rights of the minority outweight the needs of the majority. Sad state of affairs but hey thats 2004...
So denying the rights of a minority in the name of moral justification for the majority is how things should be?
So how do muslims get married? Jews? hmm guess they don't get married at all
So how do muslims get married? Jews? hmm guess they don't get married at all
Do you really think the Constitution should be altered over a matter of semantics?
Heterosexuals of all religions have already done a fine job of trampling on marriage. Why not let the gays have at it, too? Are you afraid it will decrease the divorce rate?
The NEEDS? What "NEED" does the majority satisfy if they manage to succeed in pulling off this shenanigan? At the end of the day, this is a right that can be granted to the minority without having ANY impact whatsoever on the majority. Your life and your marriage will be no different regardless of the outcome.
Homosexuality is a crime against nature. It's not what was intended. What's next? Pedafile rights? Draw the line. When anything goes, you get things like AIDS.
For, without a doubt.
The government has no say. They should have no say.
Marriage as a religious thing has no place in the government.
I have not heard one good reason to make it against the law. It's discrimination, plain and simple.
There is no good reason.
The government has no say. They should have no say.
Marriage as a religious thing has no place in the government.
I have not heard one good reason to make it against the law. It's discrimination, plain and simple.
There is no good reason.
I'm for it. Whatever tickles their pickle Like so many people saying, it doesn't affect me. Besides Bush's attempt to outlaw it is just a diversion. He wants people to focus on this instead of his war (which turned up nothing in the end)...
Like so many people saying, it doesn't affect me. Besides Bush's attempt to outlaw it is just a diversion. He wants people to focus on this instead of his war (which turned up nothing in the end)...
A crime against nature, huh? Ok.
So what exactly is that supposed to mean? Cutting down a tree is a crime against nature, but that certainly isn't universally against the law. Spewing pollutants is a crime against nature. Both of those things can be against the law, but aren't universally. It's looked at on a case by case basis. Does the positive outweigh the negative?
In the case of same sex marriage, there is no negative. It simply promotes equal rights. If two people of the same sex want to live with eachother, file taxes with eachother, and enjoy all the other social benefits that a "conventional" marriage brings, who is anybody to say they can't?
What's next? Pedophile rights?
What does homosexuality have to do with pedophilia? That's right, nothing.
The line is already drawn, my friend. Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality, and will always be against the law.
When anything goes, you get things like AIDS?
I wish I would've read this first, I probably wouldn't have even bothered to respond to your post.
simple solution, change all legal references from marriage to union for everyone, gay or straight...there is no mention of marriage in the consitiution to the best of my knowledge so ammeding it would be moot....just reclassify every straight couple that currently stands from married to "united" and refrain from ever using the term "marriage" again...not only do you get equal rights for everyone under the law, but now there is a clear distinction between church and state, no longer will a term with a duality be used.
Marriage by definition is a union between two people. Now, that being said, at the time that marriage was conceived or invented, the union between the same sex most likely would not have been thought of. In that sense marriage is commonly and through the ages known as the union between a man and a woman as husband and wife. If marriage is to become everything, then what is marriage? It becomes nothing because everything is like it (in a broad sense).
The meaning of marriage shouldn't be changed to suit the likes of unorthodox people. Why is the hope diamond what it is? Why is a chicken a chicken and not a duck? If society were now to readily accept the union of same sex couples into marriage, then what marriage has come to be since it was first conceived means less and less, if anything at all.
I think the whole situation has escalated to whre it is because gay couples were making a big statement about how they were not receiving the same rights as a heterosexual marriage did. If a couple doesn't fit the meaning of marriage, then why should they recieve those rights? Should an individual get presidential rights or top level securitly clearence even though that person isn't the president? It's just like illegal immigrants who wants the same rights as American citizens. Take for example the drivers license issue in California. If the illegals are going to take that much time to put up a fight for their drivers liscense, what prevents them for applying for citizenship and requesting legal status? If the illegals spend that much time studying for their drivers license test, why can't they do the same and apply for citizenship and request for legal status in the US? The aliens came to the states illegally in the first place, so why should the law change for them when they broke the law coming here? New laws are not excusable for the fact that laws were broken by the people who'd be benifitting from the new law.
The meaning of marriage shouldn't be changed to suit the likes of unorthodox people. Why is the hope diamond what it is? Why is a chicken a chicken and not a duck? If society were now to readily accept the union of same sex couples into marriage, then what marriage has come to be since it was first conceived means less and less, if anything at all.
I think the whole situation has escalated to whre it is because gay couples were making a big statement about how they were not receiving the same rights as a heterosexual marriage did. If a couple doesn't fit the meaning of marriage, then why should they recieve those rights? Should an individual get presidential rights or top level securitly clearence even though that person isn't the president? It's just like illegal immigrants who wants the same rights as American citizens. Take for example the drivers license issue in California. If the illegals are going to take that much time to put up a fight for their drivers liscense, what prevents them for applying for citizenship and requesting legal status? If the illegals spend that much time studying for their drivers license test, why can't they do the same and apply for citizenship and request for legal status in the US? The aliens came to the states illegally in the first place, so why should the law change for them when they broke the law coming here? New laws are not excusable for the fact that laws were broken by the people who'd be benifitting from the new law.
The difference is in your above examples they're private institutions and private interests. If you're a private company and dont' want to sell to gay people fine. It's wrong when the government tells a company they can't sell to a gay person. It's fine if people want to be against gay marriages and when a church does but when the government tramples people's rights in order to tell them what they can and cannot do it's wrong. I don't care that you believe marriage should between a man and a woman...that's fine. I'm against amending the constitution, something meant to uphold people's rights in order to remove someone's rights because some people feel gay marriage isn't "right".
When you start telling people they can't do it...that's what pisses me off. You're going to deny someone their rights because of some "christian ideal" of marriage you have. I'm not saying it should even be recognized, but it definitely should not be outlawed.
i don't really much give a sh1t about this thread, but Junior threatening to amend the constitution to PREVENT gays from marrying is a very very slippery slope and one that ANY reasonable individual will oppose with all their minds.
The basic problem is that the government took marriage as a religous idea and turned it into a government institution, complete with laws governing it.
While I sort-of feel for those that don't want marriage to be between a man and a man the fact is that since marriage is now a government issue and not a religous issue it is no longer optional to use the religous view to regulate it.
Religions of course have the option of making their own new hetero only marriage should they so desire thats their choice but religion no longer owns the term marriage the government long ago took it for their own.
I voted for btw, in case it wasn't obvious
While I sort-of feel for those that don't want marriage to be between a man and a man the fact is that since marriage is now a government issue and not a religous issue it is no longer optional to use the religous view to regulate it.
Religions of course have the option of making their own new hetero only marriage should they so desire thats their choice but religion no longer owns the term marriage the government long ago took it for their own.
I voted for btw, in case it wasn't obvious
1. That would be bad, but there are also men that are married to women who also do this and also men of sworn faith (priest)
2. Thats actually a good thing, humans are going to reproduce theirselves out of existance
3. Thats not how it works, I can drink from the Whites only waterfountain and Blacks can drink from theirs huh?
4. Marrage is a piece of paper after a ceremony, a tax break and a name change. If you want to make it a religious thing it's up to your God to decide their fate right? isn't that how the book of BS goes IIRC?
5. 2 Generations ago Christians were not in the "Dime a Dozon" on divorces
6. How old are you? have you lived long enough to see the effects of anything in life yet?
7. So who will riot? The gay man afraid to break a nail, or the ever so "humble" but often hypocritical Christian?
Last edited:
Marriage by your church is a religious context. In this case, this is a joining of two people in the eyes of the government.
Separate but equal!!!!@!@! Please refer to your history books, and hopefully realize this idea is insanely retarded.
I guess you've never actually read anything written by the fore fathers. Most were deists (believing in a supreme being, but something completely different than your god), to be specific, Thomas Jefferson was a deist, and the "creator" that he was refering to is not the christian god, but rather the deist god.
A push by a socialist, coupled with an application of the 50's mentality of "KILL THE GODLESS COMMIES"
I do not have to swear on the "Holy Bible", no one has to. It helps with your credibility though, since most people ignorantly believe that doing so will make you tell the truth....
The 10 commandments belong in your church, not a government building dedicated to justice for all, including those who do live by the 10 commandments.
Separate but equal is not discrimination? I guess learning from mistakes in the past is too much to ask of you
You can keep your sacred union with your significant other, but you also must realize that heterosexuals haven't really kept this "union" sacred. Most second marriages are for finacial reasons, many other marriages are about power, money, allegiances, or publicity. All of these marriages are recognized, what about homosexuals that actually love eachother, much more than people marrying for money/power/etc. These homosexuals would perserve the sancitity much better than so many heterosexuals. The institution of marriage as controlled by the state is about legal contracts and financial links. Anything beyond that is created by those in the marriage, be it hetero or homosexuals.
Private organizations ("mens clubs") are allowed to discriminate, as they are PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS. Thank you for pointing out something that doesn't help your cause. As for the ACLU, I have no idea what you're talking about. They are dedicated to defending the rights of the individual.
This is not political correctness. You're ignorant and do not understand history, nor the fact that this is a state supported institution, and discrimination can not be tolerated.
You're right! The rights of the minorities must be protected. Especially from ignorant beliefs held by the majority. Otherwise, so many "progressive" ideas would have been shot down by "the needs of the majority", whatever that means. A very very short list:
Slavery
Women Voting
Blacks Voting
School Integration
Shared facilities (ie, not separate)
These things were not popular with the majority, does that mean they should have been shot down?
Crypticburn
UnatcoAgent
Diamond Member
- Oct 25, 1999
- 5,462
- 1
- 0
Im 100% for it. Im disgusted an intelligent group like ATOT has so many against votes. Pure ignorance.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter