I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.
If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?
Because I believe that I have a Heavenly Father and Mother. That principle has extended to Earth through his children in which we are allowed to get married to continue that eternal progression. That union is a sacred eternal principle that is paramount to the happiness of God's children. As such, the institution of marriage should be defended on this Earth.
That's why it needs to be called something different. It may seem trivial to you, but its not to me.
I believe you're full of shit.
Let's agree to disagree and keep our personal beliefs out of the legal decisions of others. In this case, the gay and lesbian community, bisexuals, the pillow biters, ass pirates, dykes, queermos, lipstick lezzies, and/or f4gg0rtZ.
You can believe what you want. I'm being perfectly open, honest, and fairly level-headed throughout this whole thread. There's no reason to think I'm lying or trying to decieve you.
Fair enough. Agreeing to disagree is where most debates between people already polarized usually end up. The good thing, though, was the discussion. Glad I could find a place where people generally don't reduce themselves down to shouting match over a heated topic.
I do find the current definition of marriage to be religiously sacred to me.
Do you honestly think that it is okay to push your personal religious beliefs on other people through legislation?
I dunno. Seems to explain our policy concerning Israel.
Right.
Because Jews secretly control everything.
You know we send aid to Palestine as well, right? Not nearly as much, but we also don't have mutually beneficial intelligence and defense deals worked out with them either.
And yet the influence of the Jewish Lobby is undeniable. Which is acting on a religious issue that just so happens to have geo-political significance.
I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.
If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?
Because I believe that I have a Heavenly Father and Mother. That principle has extended to Earth through his children in which we are allowed to get married to continue that eternal progression. That union is a sacred eternal principle that is paramount to the happiness of God's children. As such, the institution of marriage should be defended on this Earth.
That's why it needs to be called something different. It may seem trivial to you, but its not to me.
And I believe gay people can be in love with each other and should be able to become family, in a church that accepts them, if they so desire. I don't think it's particularly sacred, but I believe it makes society a better place to live in for all concerned.
That's why the institution of marriage should be open to anyone who wants in.
Now explain to me why your beliefs should be written into law (constitutionally or otherwise) and mine shouldn't.
Your beliefs require me to behave differently, and prevent some people from freely exercising their religious beliefs, while my argument requires that you, um, continue to exercise your religious beliefs as you see fit.
If you read my above posts again you'll note that if this is your argument, you have to do it through Constitutional Amendments. It would be patently unconstitutional and against the guiding principles of our Republic to make an argument for legislation based on that logic.
I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.
If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?
Because I believe that I have a Heavenly Father and Mother. That principle has extended to Earth through his children in which we are allowed to get married to continue that eternal progression. That union is a sacred eternal principle that is paramount to the happiness of God's children. As such, the institution of marriage should be defended on this Earth.
That's why it needs to be called something different. It may seem trivial to you, but its not to me.
You realize you're not the only religion around, right? Other religions have marriages too? Which is no different than gays getting married?
In short, you're incredibly stupid.
Well, then what merit does the government have in getting anybody married? Why should it be regulated by the government?
I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.
If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?
Because I believe that I have a Heavenly Father and Mother. That principle has extended to Earth through his children in which we are allowed to get married to continue that eternal progression. That union is a sacred eternal principle that is paramount to the happiness of God's children. As such, the institution of marriage should be defended on this Earth.
That's why it needs to be called something different. It may seem trivial to you, but its not to me.
I believe you're full of shit.
Let's agree to disagree and keep our personal beliefs out of the legal decisions of others. In this case, the gay and lesbian community, bisexuals, the pillow biters, ass pirates, dykes, queermos, lipstick lezzies, and/or f4gg0rtZ.
You can believe what you want. I'm being perfectly open, honest, and fairly level-headed throughout this whole thread. There's no reason to think I'm lying or trying to decieve you.
Fair enough. Agreeing to disagree is where most debates between people already polarized usually end up. The good thing, though, was the discussion. Glad I could find a place where people generally don't reduce themselves down to shouting match over a heated topic.
we usually just talk about cocks and dicks, Debate and Discourse does this sort of thing, but more tidily and with more pretension
Belruel on
0
Options
Clint EastwoodMy baby's in there someplaceShe crawled right inRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
oh great, Jigrah has arrived to pinch a huge smelly loaf right in the middle of the thread.
I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.
If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?
Because I believe that I have a Heavenly Father and Mother. That principle has extended to Earth through his children in which we are allowed to get married to continue that eternal progression. That union is a sacred eternal principle that is paramount to the happiness of God's children. As such, the institution of marriage should be defended on this Earth.
That's why it needs to be called something different. It may seem trivial to you, but its not to me.
You realize you're not the only religion around, right? Other religions have marriages too? Which is no different than gays getting married?
In short, you're incredibly stupid.
Well, then what merit does the government have in getting anybody married? Why should it be regulated by the government?
Because tax laws need to address a union, as well as property laws, next of kin, inheritance, and many other legal decisions. It's just the nature of the beast.
I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.
If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?
Because I believe that I have a Heavenly Father and Mother. That principle has extended to Earth through his children in which we are allowed to get married to continue that eternal progression. That union is a sacred eternal principle that is paramount to the happiness of God's children. As such, the institution of marriage should be defended on this Earth.
That's why it needs to be called something different. It may seem trivial to you, but its not to me.
You realize you're not the only religion around, right? Other religions have marriages too? Which is no different than gays getting married?
In short, you're incredibly stupid.
Well, then what merit does the government have in getting anybody married? Why should it be regulated by the government?
Because straight white men might start getting AIDS and thus ruining the whole plan
Well, then what merit does the government have in getting anybody married? Why should it be regulated by the government?
Taxes.
Evander on
0
Options
Clint EastwoodMy baby's in there someplaceShe crawled right inRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
I get checks from the government, and I spend it on beer!
Mexican beer! That's the cheapest of all beers.
Clint Eastwood on
0
Options
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
Heterosexual men are so afraid of getting fucked in the ass by a gay, they need to legally remind everybody that the gays are yucky.
Seriously, it's the intellectual position of a 5 year old. I'm going to say that Billy has cooties so that he can't share medical insurance and property rights with Steve.
I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.
If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?
Because I believe that I have a Heavenly Father and Mother. That principle has extended to Earth through his children in which we are allowed to get married to continue that eternal progression. That union is a sacred eternal principle that is paramount to the happiness of God's children. As such, the institution of marriage should be defended on this Earth.
That's why it needs to be called something different. It may seem trivial to you, but its not to me.
You realize you're not the only religion around, right? Other religions have marriages too? Which is no different than gays getting married?
In short, you're incredibly stupid.
Well, then what merit does the government have in getting anybody married? Why should it be regulated by the government?
I did this several pages ago, but...
Marriage to the government is a secular institution, the same way it was thousands of years ago. We allow people to get married in a religious setting because that is their prerogative, as guaranteed by the Free Exercise clause.
Marriage is good for society: it simplifies inheritance, it allows people to become as family, it helps rear children.
The confusion starts when people start clamoring for their religious interpretations of the institution to be the only ones recognized by the government, attempting to turn it into a religious institution, which, if successful, would render it unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause.
Heterosexual men are so afraid of getting fucked in the ass by a gay, they need to legally remind everybody that the gays are yucky.
Seriously, it's the intellectual position of a 5 year old. I'm going to say that Billy has cooties so that he can't share medical insurance and property rights with Steve.
any religion is free to set up its own parameters to marriage, but why should one religion's guidelines apply to others? what about a religion where marriage may only be carried out between members of the religion? should they be allowed to ban non-members from marriage?
Because I could sure use a nice job and lots of money and power, but so far having a circumsized dick hasn't magically done it for me yet.
If you're running for Presidential office and you want to carry florida you better run up that Pro-Israel flag otherwise boyo you are fucked.
It's just like the Cuban vote in South Florida.
Explain to me how George W. Bush defeated Al Gore in Florida in 2000, when Gore's running mate was the very Jewariffic Joe Lieberman? You are stretching more than Evander reaching for a dollar bill.
I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.
If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?
Because I believe that I have a Heavenly Father and Mother. That principle has extended to Earth through his children in which we are allowed to get married to continue that eternal progression. That union is a sacred eternal principle that is paramount to the happiness of God's children. As such, the institution of marriage should be defended on this Earth.
That's why it needs to be called something different. It may seem trivial to you, but its not to me.
You realize you're not the only religion around, right? Other religions have marriages too? Which is no different than gays getting married?
In short, you're incredibly stupid.
Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.
Because I could sure use a nice job and lots of money and power, but so far having a circumsized dick hasn't magically done it for me yet.
well I mean, there's AIPAC, but IIRC you think they're all a bunch of dicknoses.
I'm not denying that Jewish Lobbies exist. Of course they do. So do all kinds of other lobbies.
The ideas that A) "Jews are all one unified force pushing for a unified goal" or "Jews have some kind of power over the government itself" are what I am pointing out as idiocy.
Posts
ALL THE KIDS THAT LOOK UP TO ME CAN SUCK MY DICK!
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Actually Zeppo was the fourth Marx brother.
Queermo would be the sixth (I think)
We love you Natalie
I WANNA FUCK YOU TOO!
You can believe what you want. I'm being perfectly open, honest, and fairly level-headed throughout this whole thread. There's no reason to think I'm lying or trying to decieve you.
Fair enough. Agreeing to disagree is where most debates between people already polarized usually end up. The good thing, though, was the discussion. Glad I could find a place where people generally don't reduce themselves down to shouting match over a heated topic.
Meh. Natalie Portman is old news.
Now Scarlett Johansson, there is one hot Jewess!
And yet the influence of the Jewish Lobby is undeniable. Which is acting on a religious issue that just so happens to have geo-political significance.
ALL THE JEWS, I'M TALKING TO YOU
we love you natalie!
I WANNA FUCK YOU TOO!
And I believe gay people can be in love with each other and should be able to become family, in a church that accepts them, if they so desire. I don't think it's particularly sacred, but I believe it makes society a better place to live in for all concerned.
That's why the institution of marriage should be open to anyone who wants in.
Now explain to me why your beliefs should be written into law (constitutionally or otherwise) and mine shouldn't.
Your beliefs require me to behave differently, and prevent some people from freely exercising their religious beliefs, while my argument requires that you, um, continue to exercise your religious beliefs as you see fit.
If you read my above posts again you'll note that if this is your argument, you have to do it through Constitutional Amendments. It would be patently unconstitutional and against the guiding principles of our Republic to make an argument for legislation based on that logic.
Well, then what merit does the government have in getting anybody married? Why should it be regulated by the government?
we usually just talk about cocks and dicks, Debate and Discourse does this sort of thing, but more tidily and with more pretension
Because one is opt-in, and the other applies to every single resident of said state.
Show me some actual proof of this influence.
Because I could sure use a nice job and lots of money and power, but so far having a circumsized dick hasn't magically done it for me yet.
Because tax laws need to address a union, as well as property laws, next of kin, inheritance, and many other legal decisions. It's just the nature of the beast.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Because straight white men might start getting AIDS and thus ruining the whole plan
Taxes.
Mexican beer! That's the cheapest of all beers.
Seriously, it's the intellectual position of a 5 year old. I'm going to say that Billy has cooties so that he can't share medical insurance and property rights with Steve.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
oh wait you said beer
I did this several pages ago, but...
Marriage to the government is a secular institution, the same way it was thousands of years ago. We allow people to get married in a religious setting because that is their prerogative, as guaranteed by the Free Exercise clause.
Marriage is good for society: it simplifies inheritance, it allows people to become as family, it helps rear children.
The confusion starts when people start clamoring for their religious interpretations of the institution to be the only ones recognized by the government, attempting to turn it into a religious institution, which, if successful, would render it unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause.
If you're running for Presidential office and you want to carry florida you better run up that Pro-Israel flag otherwise boyo you are fucked.
It's just like the Cuban vote in South Florida.
GONNA SIT RIGHT THERE ON YO FACE
AND TAKE A SHIT
So, you've just gone from "Jews control the world" to "Politicians sometimes have to pander to voting blocks"
There are a lot of Old Jews in Florida. That does not constitute a conspiracy.
Explain to me how George W. Bush defeated Al Gore in Florida in 2000, when Gore's running mate was the very Jewariffic Joe Lieberman? You are stretching more than Evander reaching for a dollar bill.
OH SNAP!
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Those Steves were asking for it, what with their tight jeans and muscley arms....
Mmmmmm, Steve.
well I mean, there's AIPAC, but IIRC you think they're all a bunch of dicknoses.
Obviously Old Jews move to Florida to turn it into a new Israel.
Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.
I'm not denying that Jewish Lobbies exist. Of course they do. So do all kinds of other lobbies.
The ideas that A) "Jews are all one unified force pushing for a unified goal" or