What exactly is the argument against Gay Marriage?

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Your problem is you believe too much of what your told. My Grandmother was a Catholic, but she fell in love and married my Grandfather who was a Protestant. She was kicked out of the Catholic church and shunned by her friends and family. Do I trust organized religion?? HELL NO!!

If you don't trust the Catholic religion, don't associate with them. It's a free country. Create an Aethist religion, or whatever you want to call it, and associate with them. Do you honestly trust the government?

You need a better answer then that, sorry.

No, actually my answer is just fine. Or do we need to change the way divorces are handled also?

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Tab

Why should I trust something that's a social construct? Let alone, how do I know which religion to trust?

That's something you have to figure out for yourself. Even those of us who are religious have to answer that question for ourselves.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Tab

Why should I trust something that's a social construct? Let alone, how do I know which religion to trust?

That's something you have to figure out for yourself. Even those of us who are religious have to answer that question for ourselves.

HAHA! You admit religion is nothing but a fake? A social construct? HAHA!

By the way, athiesm isn't a religion, it's the lack of one.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Your problem is you believe too much of what your told. My Grandmother was a Catholic, but she fell in love and married my Grandfather who was a Protestant. She was kicked out of the Catholic church and shunned by her friends and family. Do I trust organized religion?? HELL NO!!

If you don't trust the Catholic religion, don't associate with them. It's a free country. Create an Aethist religion, or whatever you want to call it, and associate with them. Do you honestly trust the government?

You need a better answer then that, sorry.

No, actually my answer is just fine. Or do we need to change the way divorces are handled also?

I don't trust any organized religion and I really, really don't trust very religious people. Sorry, but that's what I've learned to be the most prudent course.

As far as divorce goes, what happens if the particular church in question decides not to let the people divorce?? It would be up to them to allow it under your scenario.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

So then when people want to get a divorcee, the church decides if they can...or how to split the property, etc. No thanks. Perhaps you are blinded by your beliefs?

Just as no one would be deprived the opportunity to get married, no one could be prevented from ending such a "union." End of story.

Even today, whether married through a church or government official, divorce settlement are always handled by the courts. Settlements happen after the marriage no longer exist. Therfore, no problem. End of story.

Blinded by my beliefs, possible, but the same is true for you.

Gay people should be able to join in a legal, binding, civil union, just like you, me, or anybody else.

And this would allow such an opportunity. The fact that you have trouble trusting religion with anything in your life is your problem. This solution would offer that ability to everyone.

[/quote]
Why should we change the nature of our government because you are a bigot. We keep marriage and government recognition of it and we allow gays to marry like the Constitution will likely provide and in a century or so everybody will be happy because the bigots will all be dead. The people don't need to bend over backwards because some see things from a bigoted perspective and it hurts their feelings to be told to step aside. It would be like allowing some places to keep slaves cause they think it is right and the government should butt out. The Constitution grants rights that are God given so people can have them, not so they not exercise them because others will get upset. Nobody is going to make churches marry anybody. Why should some say, Gay marriage isn't marriage.

 

[Tab]

Anyone think this thread will ever end?

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Tab

Why should I trust something that's a social construct? Let alone, how do I know which religion to trust?

That's something you have to figure out for yourself. Even those of us who are religious have to answer that question for ourselves.

HAHA! You admit religion is nothing but a fake? A social construct? HAHA!

By the way, athiesm isn't a religion, it's the lack of one.

Aethist don't believe in God. Religion doesn't necessarily have to believe in God, but simply share similar beliefs, values, or practices. Whether said religion believes in God is up to them. You can believe in UFO's if you want to, it up to your religion.

Actually, my answer was in reference to your last question, which is why I said "answer to that question," not "answers to those questions." I would have thought you'd figure that out, but I guess not.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

I don't trust any organized religion and I really, really don't trust very religious people. Sorry, but that's what I've learned to be the most prudent course.

As far as divorce goes, what happens if the particular church in question decides not to let the people divorce?? It would be up to them to allow it under your scenario.

Ok, did you actually read my post? This is a portion of it that answers that question.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Just as no one would be deprived the opportunity to get married, no one could be prevented from ending such a "union." End of story.

No need to be sorry. Everyone course through life brings them to different conclusions.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Why should we change the nature of our government because you are a bigot.

Why should I care that you think I'm a bigot? I know I'm not, so that's all that matters.

We keep marriage and government recognition of it and we allow gays to marry like the Constitution will likely provide and in a century or so everybody will be happy because the bigots will all be dead.

That's quite optomistic. You really think that people will just stop having different opinions just because gay marriage is sustained? No, there will still be people like you and people like me 1,000 years from now. Though you're right about one thing, it'll be 100 years before this is settled, if it's ever settled at all.

The people don't need to bend over backwards because some see things from a bigoted perspective and it hurts their feelings to be told to step aside. It would be like allowing some places to keep slaves cause they think it is right and the government should butt out. The Constitution grants rights that are God given so people can have them, not so they not exercise them because others will get upset. Nobody is going to make churches marry anybody. Why should some say, Gay marriage isn't marriage.

Freedom is in the constitution. Marriage is not. Your argument doesn't work. And as far as people bending over backwards, this way would be about as easy as possible. Pass a law allowing homosexual marriage right now and you'll see protest like you can't imagine. Right or wrong, they'll be there.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Tab
So what if the majority of gays don't care! Thats completely irrevalent

Also, I don't think it's true that the majority of gays don't care. I think the opposite is true, I think the majority of gays do care about the issue.

 

[1EZduzit]

I see problems with letting the church deciide if a divorce is to be granted or not. Absolute power corrupts and you can't get any more absolute then someone who claims he knows what God wants.....and you don't.

It's a mute point because I think gays should be able to form a civil union. I think it is just a matter of time until it happens and I personally don't have a problem with it.

 

[The Scientist]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: The Scientist

Equality, non-discriminatory based on gender, sexual orientation, religion or race, what is so hard to get?

What you have is a dislike towards certain people that makes you want them to be discriminated against, as you are in the majority you feel it is OK to terrorize the minority, this is NOT what the US founding fathers intended and you are a disgrace to your nation.

A happy meduim, what does that mean? Either you are for equality and justice or you are not, it's not like there is a middle road in this.

No middle ground? Sure there is. If we took marriage out of government control, gave it to religion, and granted gay couples all benefits which were previously allowed only for married couples, what's left to be unconstitutional? Whether I'm in a majority or minority is irrelevant. Not every church in America is going to go with the majority.

You are so blinded by your hatred of everyone else that you can't see the writing on the wall. If you do this, there is nothing left that is unconstitutional. Hence, middle ground.

That made absolutely no sense at all to me.

Who do i hate? I think you need to tell me who you think i hate before we can continue this discussion.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Tab
Anyone think this thread will ever end?

Sounds great.

 

[The Scientist]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Tab
Anyone think this thread will ever end?

Sounds great.

Oh, i'm sure it does now, answer the post above and perheaps i'll let it rest too.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Tab

Why should I trust something that's a social construct? Let alone, how do I know which religion to trust?

That's something you have to figure out for yourself. Even those of us who are religious have to answer that question for ourselves.

HAHA! You admit religion is nothing but a fake? A social construct? HAHA!

By the way, athiesm isn't a religion, it's the lack of one.

Aethist don't believe in God. Religion doesn't necessarily have to believe in God, but simply share similar beliefs, values, or practices. Whether said religion believes in God is up to them. You can believe in UFO's if you want to, it up to your religion.

Actually, my answer was in reference to your last question, which is why I said "answer to that question," not "answers to those questions." I would have thought you'd figure that out, but I guess not.

Atheism isn't a religion.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Why should we change the nature of our government because you are a bigot.

Why should I care that you think I'm a bigot? I know I'm not, so that's all that matters.

You haven't defined "bigot", "Discrimination" or "Intolarance" in your own words.

Please do so, bigot.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

So then when people want to get a divorcee, the church decides if they can...or how to split the property, etc. No thanks. Perhaps you are blinded by your beliefs?

YES, because those people that are married by that religion are the ones that are a part of that religion. Then again, nothing would force them to obey the rules of their religion; it would not have the power of law. They would accept its ruling because they believe in it, or they wouldn?t.
You and your spouse would be able to be married by your church, my spouse and I would be able to be married by my church (or lack thereof), and neither of us would have to conform to the rules of the other. Isn't that what the dream of freedom of religion is all about?

Gay people should be able to join in a legal, binding, civil union, just like you, me, or anybody else.

Civil union is not needed at all. The Government needs to get its nose out of my bedroom, and my religion. I am quite capable of handling those affairs with out Big Brother to tell me how to do it.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: The Scientist
The bigots are happy as they get their way, the majority rules by terrorizing the minority and the idiots have the balls to claim that that is what the founding fathers intended.

As society evolves, so do most people, however, there are still some idiots left in the dark ages.

I'd pity them if they'd deserve it, they don't.

Sounds like hate to me. Calling people idiots just because YOU think they bigots. So there's your answer. Let it rest.

 

[Moonbeam]

ee: Why should I care that you think I'm a bigot? I know I'm not, so that's all that matters.

M: You should want to know the truth and if your objection to gay marriage is based on a religious objection to homosexual sex then you have to be a bigot since that is the definition. You are a bigot in denial.

ee: That's quite optomistic. You really think that people will just stop having different opinions just because gay marriage is sustained? No, there will still be people like you and people like me 1,000 years from now. Though you're right about one thing, it'll be 100 years before this is settled, if it's ever settled at all.

M: Your numbers will fade away just as racism is in the south.
churches marry anybody. Why should some say, Gay marriage isn't marriage.

ee: Freedom is in the constitution. Marriage is not. Your argument doesn't work. And as far as people bending over backwards, this way would be about as easy as possible. Pass a law allowing homosexual marriage right now and you'll see protest like you can't imagine. Right or wrong, they'll be there.

M: The rights that demand non gender discrimination are in the Constitution just as the rights that ended separate but equal. This will not create anything like the stir the ending of slavery did, and we ended that injustice at the cost of a massive amount of blood. Please don't try to scare me.

Truth will out for every new child is filled with love. Nothing can maintain the fanaticism of truth and nothing will seek the light like love.

 

[The Scientist]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: The Scientist
The bigots are happy as they get their way, the majority rules by terrorizing the minority and the idiots have the balls to claim that that is what the founding fathers intended.

As society evolves, so do most people, however, there are still some idiots left in the dark ages.

I'd pity them if they'd deserve it, they don't.

Sounds like hate to me. Calling people idiots just because YOU think they bigots. So there's your answer. Let it rest.

So i hate you because you think it is hateful to disagree with your hateful agenda, that makes no sense, non what so ever.

To be honest, yes, i hate you and those like you, the hateful people who think they can get their way by terrorizing others, i hate you all.

Because you are no different from me, in other cases, but in this case, you stand on your own hatred and preach AGAINST love.

Jesus will put you in the right place, you are going to hell.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: assemblage
Gay marriage is another step at normalizing deviant behavior and the promotion of moral relativism.

News Flash, morality is relative/subjective.

Major Devolpment, morality is absolute.

There will NEVER be a case in which murder, lying, cheating, thievery, aldultery, etc... are morally justifiable.

HA! Soliders murder people everyday, is that not justifiable? What about women who kill there abusive husbands? Shouldn't they have gone to the police?

Just because you've got a morality that is subjective, doesn't mean humans will ever justify murder.

In war, it's not considered murder. If you're of the spiritual type and believe the Bible, God sanctions killing in times of war.
Yes, women who kill their husbands SHOULD have gone to the police, but their actions have consequenses.

My morals aren't subjective. My sense of morality is something I take very seriously, I am constantly weighing my actions against my moral judgement.

 

[Moonbeam]

You cannot fight hate with hate. Didn't you see Star Wars?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You cannot fight hate with hate. Didn't you see Star Wars?

"Only Sith deal with absolutes" - Obi Wan

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: assemblage
Gay marriage is another step at normalizing deviant behavior and the promotion of moral relativism.

News Flash, morality is relative/subjective.

Major Devolpment, morality is absolute.

There will NEVER be a case in which murder, lying, cheating, thievery, aldultery, etc... are morally justifiable.

HA! Soliders murder people everyday, is that not justifiable? What about women who kill there abusive husbands? Shouldn't they have gone to the police?

Just because you've got a morality that is subjective, doesn't mean humans will ever justify murder.

In war, it's not considered murder. If you're of the spiritual type and believe the Bible, God sanctions killing in times of war.
Yes, women who kill their husbands SHOULD have gone to the police, but their actions have consequenses.

My morals aren't subjective. My sense of morality is something I take very seriously, I am constantly weighing my actions against my moral judgement.

Thank you for tellling me the truth.

 

[The Scientist]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You cannot fight hate with hate. Didn't you see Star Wars?

Hate is only an emotion, it is weaker than love, are you suggesting it cannot be conquered, i beg to differ.

Oh, and Satan loves you too.