|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
11-12-2010, 06:40 PM | #531 (permalink) | |
Groupie
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Fountain Valley
Posts: 29
|
First off, I'm not knocking anyone's personal preference, or life choices.
I just voiced my opinion, which is coming from someone that pretty much isn't biased. And obviously, the majority feels the same. And for the record, I'm not a "church person either." I don't want to knock them, but it seems kind of odd they can say "god loves everyone," and then turn around and say "god hates ***s." The only one trolling is the person saying it's trolling, and then saying "why would a straight man marry another man." If you can't grasp the concept of it being an example, than you probably aren't really going to understand the basic debate. Once again, slowly. A straight man can't choose to marry a man either, so it really isn't discrimination. I love my dog, but should I be able to marry it? Sure, you can't marry a dog, but why? It is between a man & a woman. If they make it ok for a man to marry a man, then what's stopping it from being that a man can marry two women. Or a goat, & so on. If you really look at the whole history of it, it looks like a personal feud between gays & the church. It's not discriminatory against anyone, for the reason I said. It is just the basic rule of "marriage." People are just against using the term "marriage," most people seem to be fine with some sort of civil union. And I also pointed out a way to have a permanent, legal family bond, that has been going on for decades. The law that is discriminatory is the one barring them from military service. Besides being stupid to turn away someone willing to risking their life to serve the country, it also bars them from benefits, the G.I. bill, and much more. And as far as this Quote:
__________________
http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=9655483 |
|
11-12-2010, 06:55 PM | #532 (permalink) |
Ba and Be.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: This Is England
Posts: 17,331
|
History of what? Marriage?
It has become that because of religion and a desire for one set of persons to say how another set of persons should live. Again-Marriage is older than the bible and just because religion now says that you can do this or cannot do that doesn't mean it's right. BTW if a man wants to marry his goat he wouldn't because he would not gain anything materialistic from that union which is what marriage was in the first place. He could shag it, if that's his desire but he probably wouldn't marry it. In fact I am unsure as to your goal regarding this topic. You say you are not a 'church' person but then admit to saying that Marriage is between a man and a woman which is definitely a religious view regardless of your own beliefs.
__________________
“A cynic by experience, a romantic by inclination and now a hero by necessity.”
|
11-12-2010, 07:32 PM | #533 (permalink) |
Groupie
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Fountain Valley
Posts: 29
|
People leave money to their dogs, why not a goat?
And while you are right, technically, it has usually been about money. The other thing is perpetuation of the species. And two males can't reproduce. The goat on the other hand.. Another reason it doesn't pass is because fortunately, voting is private, so you can tell people one thing, and vote something else. And some of the gay people with money are probably voting "no," because then they will have to come up with another excuse. Do you really think the Catholics will ever give into it, or the mormons, or any of the other majors? The Jews might, but then it makes no sense about their other stuff. My wife is jewish, and they wouldn't do it. It doesn't take a "church person" to figure out the church isn't going to have it.
__________________
http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=9655483 |
11-12-2010, 07:45 PM | #534 (permalink) |
Ba and Be.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: This Is England
Posts: 17,331
|
I truly do not not know what the fuck you are talking about half the time and I don't think you do either.
'Some of the gay people'? What is meant by this? U mean that religious authorities won't give in to same sex unions? Your posts are rambling beyond belief and I don't know what subject you are talking about from one minute to the next. It is almost certainly obvious from your posts that you are homophobic and if you are not then you are sailing perilously close to the winds regarding this subject.
__________________
“A cynic by experience, a romantic by inclination and now a hero by necessity.”
|
11-12-2010, 08:58 PM | #535 (permalink) | |
Killed Laura Palmer
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ashland, KY
Posts: 1,679
|
Quote:
Also, do you know how difficult it is for a gay couple to adopt in my region? I know of one gay couple who were successful, and at least a dozen more who are bringing in 6 figure incomes, nice houses, nice neighborhoods, solid jobs, clean criminal background, etc. etc., and they're having immense difficulty being able to adopt. I know straight couples who are lower middle class who have had much less trouble. |
|
11-12-2010, 11:12 PM | #536 (permalink) |
killedmyraindog
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 11,172
|
Actually, executive order under the current administration dictates state law must be respected. I would think being a Californian, you'd know that. I'm guessing because you voted McCain - you don't.
__________________
I've moved to a new address Last edited by TheBig3; 11-12-2010 at 11:23 PM. |
11-12-2010, 11:23 PM | #538 (permalink) |
killedmyraindog
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 11,172
|
__________________
I've moved to a new address |
11-12-2010, 11:26 PM | #539 (permalink) |
Account Disabled
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,538
|
|
11-13-2010, 07:35 AM | #540 (permalink) | |||
Slavic gay sauce
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 7,993
|
Quote:
Also, marriage is a social and legal contract, regulated by the state because it, not the church, believes it has certain benefits, such as promoting stable relationships. As a contract, it can only be entered into by consenting adults, which excludes dogs, goats and other entities not able to give their consent. As far as gay marriage leading to polygamy, the main difference at this point is practicality. Marriage can easily be expanded to include the reality of a lot of gay people's lives without significantly changing the basic framework of marriage. Polygamous marriages would create a whole slew of legal complications, such as inheritance, property division, custody of children etc. Not to mention that most polygamous relationships stem from backward social/religious groups. Theoretically, it's not too far fetched to conceive of such relationships which would be based on mutual love and understanding, in practice, it's probably an exception from the rule which is why it isn't likely such relationships will be condoned by western countries any time soon. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
“Think of what a paradise this world would be if men were kind and wise.” - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle. Last.fm |
|||
|