NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, no, maybe so?

I am hopefull that we will do the right thing and aprove it

I am hopefull that we will do the right thing and aprove it

I heartily endorse this product/service.

I am hopeful that we will do the right thing and ban it permanently.

Germany (where I was born and grew up) - within 2 years, I guess
Ireland - waaaaaay to go, but gay groups have incredible acceptance at least in Dublin. I liked the reaction of some older folks to the Christoffer Street Day's parade, very supportive.

Edit: On second thought... maybe the EU will have some positive influence on Ireland there and they will have gay marriage soon as well. I would love that ,even though I wouldn't want to marry. Neither boy nor girl.

how will banning it permanently be the right thing?

i pray for the day that i can have my marriage recognized by the state so we can have the protections we need

The law already gives them most of the rights of married straight couples. Could do better though. The right to adopt children seems to be the obstacle. One can only hope in the future they are given the full rights.

I voted yes, and I live in the United States. It was EXTREMELY hard for me to decide if I would choose "maybe" or "yes".

I pray that my nation does not become the new Sodom.

I voted yes, and I live in the United States. It was EXTREMELY hard for me to decide if I would choose "maybe" or "yes".

i voted maybe... i think it really depends on who replaces our supreme court justices and who our next president is...

but currently i think we're headed away from it :(

I voted yes, and I live in the United States. It was EXTREMELY hard for me to decide if I would choose "maybe" or "yes".
Same … I am hopeful for a yes but realize it may take longer then that for people to open their eyes to equality

Yes, probably within a year. I believe there's something similar to civil unions here already.

Same … I am hopeful for a yes but realize it may take longer then that for people to open their eyes to equality


What is wrong with civil unions that would have the same rights as married couples?

Yes, I think it is in december (UK).

Yes (Against)

It's the end of the world. I know it.

What is wrong with civil unions that would have the same rights as married couples?
It's the principle of the matter. If you say, "gays can't get married, but they can have civil unions", you're basically saying, "gays should always be considered second class citizens".

What is wrong with civil unions that would have the same rights as married couples?
About the same thing as seperate but equal schools and bathrooms

You have seperate refferences and laws for them there is ALWAYS the potential for abuse

Marrage is not and never has been a purly christian concept ... they dont own the word and they dont own the meaning

What is wrong with civil unions that would have the same rights as married couples?

Ummm... Ever heard of seperate but equal? And (hopefully) you learned just how well that turned out... :rolleyes:


You people never learn....

Oh, and I voted Maybe (for). It probably will here in the US, but it'll take a few years...

EDIT: Ok, looks like a few people beat me to it... oh well... ;)

Yes (Against)

It's the end of the world. I know it.
If treating people fairly is the end of your world you may want to re-evaluate your priorities

In Denmark it's sort-of completely legal in almost every way...

Or closer to the truth: It's a work in progress, but there's no doubt it'll end up with equal rights in all respects :)

You people never learn....



Who exactly are "You people"?

any minute now. It's just a question of rubber-stamping the law.

Who exactly are "You people"?

*sigh*

Do I have to spell everything out for you?

Who exactly are "You people"?
Well, if I were the flame-y type, I'd say something like, "homophobic biggoted Jesus freaks, of course!" But I'm not. :p

*sigh*

Do I have to spell everything out for you?


Yes you do. You said it, so back it up.

Yes you do. You said it, so back it up.

Well, just to stay on the non-flame side of things, I'll go with fundies, but you did know that already, right?


... right? *shifty eyes*

Well, if I were the flame-y type, I'd say something like, "homophobic biggoted Jesus freaks, of course!" But I'm not. :p


Well I'm a "Jesus Freak" (proud of that btw), but I am not "homophobic", nor am I a bigot. I love all of my fellow brothers equally. Be them Black, Latino, European, Native American, Asian, etc. I love gays with all of my heart too, but I just don't like their sin. I do agree that they should have the same rights of all of us sinners, but I do not think the actual term should be marriage.

Well, just to stay on the non-flame side of things, I'll go with fundies, but you did know that already, right?


... right? *shifty eyes*


"Fundies"? What are fundies?

"Fundies"? What are fundies?
Fundamentalists.

I pray that my nation does not become the new Sodom.

Me too. Inhospitable rapists would be a big problem.

I'd like to see it be legal, but within 10 years? I'm not nearly that optimistic. Maybe in the next 25 years.

I do agree that they should have the same rights of all of us sinners, but I do not think the actual term should be marriage. So you would be hunky-dory with it, if it was called "gay arriage"? Odd that. You just recent the word?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundie


Fine, it was a bit assholeish of me, but it's pretty much true, right?

Here's the real thing if you want...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalists#Other_beliefs

I do agree that they should have the same rights of all of us sinners, but I do not think the actual term should be marriage.

That's fine, so long as the "actual term" is the same for everyone. Thus, the government would stop giving marriages altogether and only grant civil unions.

Well I'm a "Jesus Freak" (proud of that btw), but I am not "homophobic", nor am I a bigot. I love all of my fellow brothers equally. Be them Black, Latino, European, Native American, Asian, etc. I love gays with all of my heart too, but I just don't like their sin. I do agree that they should have the same rights of all of us sinners, but I do not think the actual term should be marriage.
Like I said christianity has never and will never own or have exclusive controll over that therm. Marrige predates christianity itself

they have as much right to be called married as hetros do

Here in Russia - no. In 50 years, maybe...

That's fine, so long as the "actual term" is the same for everyone. Thus, the government would stop giving marriages altogether and only grant civil unions.
That would at least be equitable at least even though I dont think christianity has a right to the name

So you would be hunky-dory with it, if it was called "gay arriage"? Odd that. You just recent the word?

Exactly. Call it Happy-Happy Ceremony if you want.

That's fine, so long as the "actual term" is the same for everyone. Thus, the government would stop giving marriages altogether and only grant civil unions.


It has been between a man and woman for many years, regardless of if it's Christian or not. Do you think Muslims would support this? What about Jews?

Like I said christianity has never and will never own or have exclusive controll over that therm. Marrige predates christianity itself

they have as much right to be called married as hetros do

Marriage has been hetero for many, many years. I think that gives them control of that word.

It has been between a man and woman for many years, regardless of if it's Christian or not. Do you think Muslims would support this? What about Jews?

Some Muslims would, some Jews would, some Christians do.

In some traditions, it was and is not limited to between a man and a woman.

However, it doesn't really matter what any religion says, whether it be mine, yours, majority, minority, or brand-new. The government doesn't answer to a religion. It answers to the Constitution. And the Constitution mandates equal protection.

Marriage has been hetero for many, many years. I think that gives them control of that word.
Nope … sorry
In fact I can name a few places it is not hetro right now as we speek ...

Marriage has been hetero for many, many years. I think that gives them control of that word.

That's like saying if I park my car on a vacant lot for thirty years, then someone builds a house there, that I still have the right to park my car on their front yard.

Just would like to point out ... and correct me if I'm wrong ... but Canada just made gay marriage legal across the board and it didn't sink into a flaming pit of pitch and brimstone, nor did balls of fire rain down from the sky upon it.

Funny, that.

Oh ... and, again, correct me if I'm wrong ... there wasn't a sudden destruction of heterosexual marriages in Canada.

Even funnier, that.

I'm also quite sure ... though I could be wrong ... that there isn't suddenly a giant lobby in Canada to be able to marry your cat or your house.

Hilarious!

Now, with all those fears proven false and laid to rest, will the U.S. *please* do that which is right and finally give homosexuals human status?

Marriage has been hetero for many, many years. I think that gives them control of that word.
Polygamous marriage has been around as long as hetero marriage. Nobody owns the term.

What is wrong with civil unions that would have the same rights as married couples?


All marriages in the United States are civil unions. All of them. The State, not the Church, determines whether or not you're married and whether or not you get the benefits and protections of it. The State, not the Church, issues a marriage license.

The U.S. took God out of marriage in the mid-1770s. Deal with it.

Heeey! We can start posting background on the origins of marriages again, or popular dictionary definitions on marriage!! Fun, no!?

Face it, marriage, in most western countries, isn't really a church thing. The people who're wed in churches just get that impression during the ritual. Likewise, there's no historical basis for claiming marriage is related to any religion.
Finally, even current day dictionaries list Same-sex marriages as one of the possible meanings of the word.

This whole church thing is way out of proportion. Noone's asking prejudiced churches to perform any marriage ceremonies they don't want to. It's about legal rights, nothing more and nothing less.
Being a biggot & being misinformed to boot, is perfectly legal. Just don't expect people to respect you ;)

Well, it's legal in Massachusetts, so technically it is already legal here. But it won't be legal countrywide within the next ten years, unless the Supreme Court hears the case.

I believe its going to be legal in the UK soon, I think Elton John wants to have the first same - sex marriage

I believe its going to be legal in the UK soon, I think Elton John wants to have the first same - sex marriage
But would he be able to decide which husband to bring?

Already is :D

I'd love to see it happen, but I'm not that hopeful. There are way too many bigots here.

What is wrong with civil unions that would have the same rights as married couples?


When you crave an apple an orange just wont do...when you want marriage, a civil union just wont cut it.

Well, if I were the flame-y type, I'd say something like, "homophobic biggoted Jesus freaks, of course!" But I'm not. :p

ahhh, yes, the H word.... thrown at people who simply disagree with the lifestyle, whether or not they're actually afraid of homesexual people..

So if you disagree with something, does it mean you're afraid of it? Because "phobia" means "fear"

I do not care what people do on their own time (obviously so long as they're not bothering others).

But I am a Christian, and God did define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

When you crave an apple an orange just wont do...when you want marriage, a civil union just wont cut it.

If you're a man and you want to get married, there's a simple solution:

find a woman, fall in love with her, and marry her.

hehe

The states of Massachusetts and I believe California have legalized it here in the States. It may well be legalized in several others as well.

Not a possibility in my home state of Michigan, though, due to the definition of marriage in our constitution.

ahhh, yes, the H word.... thrown at people who simply disagree with the lifestyle,
And what lifestyle would this be?

Yes and I couldn't care less

ahhh, yes, the H word.... thrown at people who simply disagree with the lifestyle, whether or not they're actually afraid of homesexual people..

So if you disagree with something, does it mean you're afraid of it? Because "phobia" means "fear"

I do not care what people do on their own time (obviously so long as they're not bothering others).

But I am a Christian, and God did define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Though most of them fear what the lifestyle brings … weather that fear is valid or not is still up in the air
But they are afraid

What are the legal differences (in terms of benefits and privleges) between marriages and civil unions?

But I am a Christian, and God did define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Actually, that is your interpretation of how God defined marriage, but that is neither here nor there. If you believe that gay marriage is a sin against God, don't marry another person of the same sex.

Why must your government reflect your religious views? The government isn't forcing you to marry another person of your sex, just allowing someone else to do so. The government isn't forcing your church to marry two men or two women, they're just allowing two men or two women to marry somewhere.

You can still be a Christian even if the laws of the land you live in aren't exactly the same as the laws of your faith. You just choose to follow the laws of your faith.

This is what bothers me most about the religious argument against gay marriage. Our nation was founded on the principle that the state should not control the church and the church should not control the state. So, let's do as our Constitution mandates and keep them separate!

What are the legal differences (in terms of benefits and privleges) between marriages and civil unions?
Depends where you live.

In the US, a civil union does not grant power of attorney, right to make medical decisions, tax-benefits that marriage grants (like no taxes on your capital gain when your significant other dies) and these are only thre major ones. There are over 50 differences.

Now, in Germany, there's not much difference...

But would he be able to decide which husband to bring?

I dunno I'm not up on the celebrity world

Actually, that is your interpretation of how God defined marriage, but that is neither here nor there. If you believe that gay marriage is a sin against God, don't marry another person of the same sex.

Why must your government reflect your religious views? The government isn't forcing you to marry another person of your sex, just allowing someone else to do so. The government isn't forcing your church to marry two men or two women, they're just allowing two men or two women to marry somewhere.

You can still be a Christian even if the laws of the land you live in aren't exactly the same as the laws of your faith. You just choose to follow the laws of your faith.

This is what bothers me most about the religious argument against gay marriage. Our nation was founded on the principle that the state should not control the church and the church should not control the state. So, let's do as our Constitution mandates and keep them separate!

Excellent reply.

It goes back a long way... we adopted this definition of marriage (presumably) from English Common Law, which got it from Scripture.

Depends where you live.

In the US, a civil union does not grant power of attorney, right to make medical decisions, tax-benefits that marriage grants (like no taxes on your capital gain when your significant other dies) and these are only thre major ones. There are over 50 differences.

Now, in Germany, there's not much difference...
Um...so what does a civil union do for people living in the United States?

Excellent reply.

It goes back a long way... we adopted this definition of marriage (presumably) from English Common Law, which got it from Scripture.

And your point is?

Um...so what does a civil union do for people living in the United States?
Joint tax declaration, IIRC. Like a marriage, both member of a civil-union have to sign to sell the house, these kinds of stuff.

Um...so what does a civil union do for people living in the United States?

Not much.

About the same thing as seperate but equal schools and bathrooms

You have seperate refferences and laws for them there is ALWAYS the potential for abuse

Marrage is not and never has been a purly christian concept ... they dont own the word and they dont own the meaning

You don't know what you're talking about. From a biblical perspective, God invented marrage and defined it to be between a man and a woman.

Give the gays (or homosexuals, whatever they want to be called) their tax break, but don't call it marrage.

Ireland - waaaaaay to go, but gay groups have incredible acceptance at least in Dublin. I liked the reaction of some older folks to the Christoffer Street Day's parade, very supportive.
I think most people would support it, except for the very conservative Catholics. But they are very old now.

Do you know of the two Irishwomem going through the courts at the moment? They were married in Canada but are trying to get their marriage recognised here. I am a member of the Green Party and we support it.

When was the Parade? I missed it...

I do not care what people do on their own time (obviously so long as they're not bothering others).

Apparently you do because two gay people getting married is done on their own time and bothers nobody.

You don't know what you're talking about. From a biblical perspective, God invented marrage and defined it to be between a man and a woman.

Give the gays (or homosexuals, whatever they want to be called) their tax break, but don't call it marrage.
You don't know what you're talking about. From an atheist perspective, marriage preceeded christianity and changed it's definition from one place to another.

Give the gays (or homosexuals, whatever they want to be called) their use of the english language and call it what it is: a marriage.

Actually, that is your interpretation of how God defined marriage, but that is neither here nor there. If you believe that gay marriage is a sin against God, don't marry another person of the same sex.

Why must your government reflect your religious views? The government isn't forcing you to marry another person of your sex, just allowing someone else to do so. The government isn't forcing your church to marry two men or two women, they're just allowing two men or two women to marry somewhere.

You can still be a Christian even if the laws of the land you live in aren't exactly the same as the laws of your faith. You just choose to follow the laws of your faith.

This is what bothers me most about the religious argument against gay marriage. Our nation was founded on the principle that the state should not control the church and the church should not control the state. So, let's do as our Constitution mandates and keep them separate!

Laws against murder, stealing, cheating, and misc other things are also out of the bible, should we disband those?

The church isn't controlling the state, it's the people controlling the state, and the people say no gay marrage.

There is also the principle of declining morals. If we allow gay marrage, what is the difference between that and polygamy? If 4 people claim to love eachother and want to get married should the state allow that and call it marrage?

I pray that my nation does not become the new Sodom.
Don't worry. If it does there is always Saudi Arabia or Iran!

What is wrong with civil unions that would have the same rights as married couples?
"Seperate but equal" never actually ends up being equal.

I think most people would support it, except for the very conservative Catholics. But they are very old now.

Do you know of the two Irishwomem going through the courts at the moment? They were married in Canada but are trying to get their marriage recognised here. I am a member of the Green Party and we support it.

When was the Parade? I missed it...

Last Sunday. I only noticed it because there were some pretty colourful people in Parnell Square and then watched the parade on O'Connell Street.
I didn't really know that the issue was already in court... I hope they decide the right thing. It would be something Ireland can be proud of.

Laws against murder, stealing, cheating, and misc other things are also out of the bible, should we disband those?

The church isn't controlling the state, it's the people controlling the state, and the people say no gay marrage.

There is also the principle of declining morals. If we allow gay marrage, what is the difference between that and polygamy? If 4 people claim to love eachother and want to get married should the state allow that and call it marrage?

And wrong again, laws against murder, theft and adultery where around ages before the bible. The earliest written account of a legal system is Summeran, I think, predating the bible a few thousand years, and these laws already existed. God didn't invent them.

How do you know what the people want?

And what would be wrong with polygamy?

You don't know what you're talking about. From a biblical perspective, God invented marrage and defined it to be between a man and a woman.

Give the gays (or homosexuals, whatever they want to be called) their tax break, but don't call it marrage.

I don't want to call it marrage, no one does. People want a marriage.

But on to the point.

Yes, from a biblical perspective, God did invent marriage, but not everyone looks at things from a biblical perspective; because-newsflash here-

Not everyone believes the Bible.

We Christians should be allowed to force the biblical perspective on people. I don't want to, why do you?

Last Sunday. I only noticed it because there were some pretty colourful people in Parnell Square and then watched the parade on O'Connell Street.
I didn't really know that the issue was already in court... I hope they decide the right thing. It would be something Ireland can be proud of.
Goddam it. WHy did I not hear about this? They've got publicise this shit more.

And wrong again, laws against murder, theft and adultery where around ages before the bible. The earliest written account of a legal system is Summeran, I think, predating the bible a few thousand years, and these laws already existed. God didn't invent them.

As well as the fact murder and theft harm people; they deprive others of rights. Others who did not directly choose to involve themselves. Gay marriage can't harm anyone, other than possibly the two consenting adults who marry. (I contend that it doesn't harm them either, but I suppose one could try to argue that it did.)

You don't know what you're talking about. From a biblical perspective, God invented marrage and defined it to be between a man and a woman.

Give the gays (or homosexuals, whatever they want to be called) their tax break, but don't call it marrage.

I don't often post here, but as a Christian who supports gay rights, and a Canadian who has just seen gay marriage passed, I have the priviledge of having seen both sides of the argument.

The passages of the bible on homosexuality are very ambiguous. We already know that the bible talks primarily to men. It says "thou shalt not lie with a man as thou wouldst with a woman" in Levticus 11:10. This passage is clearly talking to men instead of women. What a lot of people forget is that it's also not talking not gays for the same reason it's not talking to women; they were not a dominant force in society. The only thing God has ever condemned is straight men performing homosexual acts. A gay man wouldn't lay with a woman that way anyway, so he's in the clear, and this is repeated throughout the bible, like in Paul's letters. God's directions should be simple from these passages: be true to your own nature. The example He gives is of a straight man acting straight, but it could just as easily be applied to a gay man being gay, a straight woman being straight and a lesbian woman being lesbian. In fact, we already apply this to straight women even though the bible doesn't specifically mention them until Paul's letters.

The section on Soddom and Gommorah are also often taken wrong. The point of the story was the disrespect the townsfolk showed to strangers, something that was considered very wrong in biblical times. One of Jesus' main messages was to take in the stranger, not to rape him. The fact that they were men raping male angels is not the important part of the story. The section with Lot offering his virgin daughter is not meant to show that the men in the city are gay, but rather that they are determined to cause affront to the strangers who have arrived. After all, if they were gay God wouldn't need to rain down fire and brimstone: he'd just have to wait a generation. This is why the term soddomy is miscoined. The story of Soddom and Gomorrah was never meant to condemn homosexuality, but rather to condemn the mistreatment of the stranger or traveller, just as Jesus spoke of the values of taking in the stranger in the Gospels.

Of course, if you guys aren't religious then all of this explanation will be wasted, but a lot of Christians assume their religion says they are against gay marriage and therefore they must be against it to be a good Christian. This is simply untrue. If you want to be opposed to gay marriage because you just don't like gay people, I can tell you that you're the exact same as the people who didn't want to abolish slavery because they didn't like black people, but I can't actually change your mind. Do not, however, half-quote the bible to reinforce your own prejudices. Those passages condemning homosexuality only do so because you already want them to.

Of course it will be legal.
I live in a modern world, not the dark ages.

--
Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

I don't often post here, but as a Christian who supports gay rights, and a Canadian who has just seen gay marriage passed, I have the priviledge of having seen both sides of the argument.

The passages of the bible on homosexuality are very ambiguous. We already know that the bible talks primarily to men. It says "thou shalt not lie with a man as thou wouldst with a woman" in Levticus 11:10. This passage is clearly talking to men instead of women. What a lot of people forget is that it's also not talking not gays for the same reason it's not talking to women; they were not a dominant force in society. The only thing God has ever condemned is straight men performing homosexual acts. A gay man wouldn't lay with a woman that way anyway, so he's in the clear, and this is repeated throughout the bible, like in Paul's letters. God's directions should be simple from these passages: be true to your own nature. The example He gives is of a straight man acting straight, but it could just as easily be applied to a gay man being gay, a straight woman being straight and a lesbian woman being lesbian. In fact, we already apply this to straight women even though the bible doesn't specifically mention them until Paul's letters.

The section on Soddom and Gommorah are also often taken wrong. The point of the story was the disrespect the townsfolk showed to strangers, something that was considered very wrong in biblical times. One of Jesus' main messages was to take in the stranger, not to rape him. The fact that they were men raping male angels is not the important part of the story. The section with Lot offering his virgin daughter is not meant to show that the men in the city are gay, but rather that they are determined to cause affront to the strangers who have arrived. After all, if they were gay God wouldn't need to rain down fire and brimstone: he'd just have to wait a generation. This is why the term soddomy is miscoined. The story of Soddom and Gomorrah was never meant to condemn homosexuality, but rather to condemn the mistreatment of the stranger or traveller, just as Jesus spoke of the values of taking in the stranger in the Gospels.

Of course, if you guys aren't religious then all of this explanation will be wasted, but a lot of Christians assume their religion says they are against gay marriage and therefore they must be against it to be a good Christian. This is simply untrue. If you want to be opposed to gay marriage because you just don't like gay people, I can tell you that you're the exact same as the people who didn't want to abolish slavery because they didn't like black people, but I can't actually change your mind. Do not, however, half-quote the bible to reinforce your own prejudices. Those passages condemning homosexuality only do so because you already want them to.

Wow. THAT is one good explanation, I never heard that one before. Thank you.

I don't often post here, but as a Christian who supports gay rights, and a Canadian who has just seen gay marriage passed, I have the priviledge of having seen both sides of the argument.

*snip*

I'm a Christian and I approve of this message.

=)

I don't often post here, but as a Christian who supports gay rights, and a Canadian who has just seen gay marriage passed, I have the priviledge of having seen both sides of the argument.

*snip*



Amen!

(As a leftist Christian, I've often wanted to make a similar argument, but I'm not quite brave enough. I was afraid of the barrage of the fundamentalists. I've encountered it way too often off-line, where it's at least done when the conversation is done. NS conversations are NEVER done.)

I don't often post here, but as a Christian who supports gay rights, and a Canadian who has just seen gay marriage passed, I have the priviledge of having seen both sides of the argument.

The passages of the bible on homosexuality are very ambiguous. We already know that the bible talks primarily to men. It says "thou shalt not lie with a man as thou wouldst with a woman" in Levticus 11:10. This passage is clearly talking to men instead of women. What a lot of people forget is that it's also not talking not gays for the same reason it's not talking to women; they were not a dominant force in society. The only thing God has ever condemned is straight men performing homosexual acts. A gay man wouldn't lay with a woman that way anyway, so he's in the clear, and this is repeated throughout the bible, like in Paul's letters. God's directions should be simple from these passages: be true to your own nature. The example He gives is of a straight man acting straight, but it could just as easily be applied to a gay man being gay, a straight woman being straight and a lesbian woman being lesbian. In fact, we already apply this to straight women even though the bible doesn't specifically mention them until Paul's letters.

The section on Soddom and Gommorah are also often taken wrong. The point of the story was the disrespect the townsfolk showed to strangers, something that was considered very wrong in biblical times. One of Jesus' main messages was to take in the stranger, not to rape him. The fact that they were men raping male angels is not the important part of the story. The section with Lot offering his virgin daughter is not meant to show that the men in the city are gay, but rather that they are determined to cause affront to the strangers who have arrived. After all, if they were gay God wouldn't need to rain down fire and brimstone: he'd just have to wait a generation. This is why the term soddomy is miscoined. The story of Soddom and Gomorrah was never meant to condemn homosexuality, but rather to condemn the mistreatment of the stranger or traveller, just as Jesus spoke of the values of taking in the stranger in the Gospels.

Of course, if you guys aren't religious then all of this explanation will be wasted, but a lot of Christians assume their religion says they are against gay marriage and therefore they must be against it to be a good Christian. This is simply untrue. If you want to be opposed to gay marriage because you just don't like gay people, I can tell you that you're the exact same as the people who didn't want to abolish slavery because they didn't like black people, but I can't actually change your mind. Do not, however, half-quote the bible to reinforce your own prejudices. Those passages condemning homosexuality only do so because you already want them to.

*cheers and applauds wildly*

And wrong again, laws against murder, theft and adultery where around ages before the bible. The earliest written account of a legal system is Summeran, I think, predating the bible a few thousand years, and these laws already existed. God didn't invent them.

How do you know what the people want?

And what would be wrong with polygamy?
Exactly. I like the idea of polygamy. I want to be able marry as many men and women as I want. I believe that if love exists in a romantic sense, one person can love many other people at once.

personally i think the entire idea of marriage is old as dirt. something that has survived its usefullness (like many other things) but other than that people should be able to do what they want. after all its their own lives they screw up not mine.

What is wrong with civil unions that would have the same rights as married couples?
Ever heard of Brown v Board of Education?

You don't know what you're talking about. From an atheist perspective, marriage preceeded christianity and changed it's definition from one place to another.

Give the gays (or homosexuals, whatever they want to be called) their use of the english language and call it what it is: a marriage.

From an atheist perspective I suppose we were a pile of goo that turned into a fish that turned into a monkey...

So I guess you piles of goo need not concern yourselves with issues of morality.

I'm done here, this is about as ballanced as a CNN or BBC news report. You lot are convinced you are right (when in reality you are so far left that you couldn't possibly be right :p) and will not allow thoughts otherwise.

Enjoy your pro-gay parade.

I am hopeful that we will do the right thing and ban it permanently.

Seconded.

I'm confident that Britain will do the right thing. I'm already impressed with such legislature as the gender recognition act, despite the irony it has.

*we have the "progressive" decision to allow someone to be identified by their chosen gender irrespective of genital surgery, but that includes who they marry. ie a person who uses the gender recognition act to be legally considered female may have a male body, but would not be allowed to marry a woman.*

This amuses me. Hopefully Britain will legalise gay marriage soon enough.

I pray that my nation does not become the new Sodom.


Fuck you too! :upyours:

Fuck you too! :upyours:
Maybe that's why the mods keep banning you. :p

From an atheist perspective I suppose we were a pile of goo that turned into a fish that turned into a monkey...

Oh looky. A Hovindite.

Fuck you too! :upyours:
Hehe, maybe he's afraid you will? :p

Oh looky. A Hovindite.
a whatnow?

a whatnow?
Someone who listens to a creationist named Kent Hovind. The quote he gave is a bastardation of one of Hovind's more infamous quotes.

Maybe that's why the mods keep banning you. :p
lol, you beat me to it!

I highly doubt it because we already have same-sex civil unions. They bought it in as an alternitive, straight couples can get a civil union if they like.

Didn't stop chuches especially the rather scary destiny church from protesting (in tight black jeans and tshirts, no less).

From an atheist perspective I suppose we were a pile of goo that turned into a fish that turned into a monkey...
Someone else already explained why this is just a moronic statement.

So I guess you piles of goo need not concern yourselves with issues of morality.
How is it that if a person does not believe in your religion they dont look at the moral side of issues. I mean plenty of people look at the moral side of the arguement. It doesnt hurt anyone and not giving them equal rights is wrong. The only reason you seem to be presenting that it is wrong because god said so. Problem is that not everyone believes in your concept of god. And as I have said before in other threads morality is not only the property of religions. There are plenty of moral atheists and agnostics.

I'm done here, this is about as ballanced as a CNN or BBC news report. You lot are convinced you are right (when in reality you are so far left that you couldn't possibly be right :p) and will not allow thoughts otherwise.
Yea because you arent ever wrong. People here are not saying you have to recognize anything. People here arent saying you have to think a certain way. People here are saying the United States government has to give everyone equal protection under the law and as such must afford gay couples the same rights as marriage. I also like Lewis Blacks segment on the "Tough Shit Law" To paraphrase it in America we have something called the Seperation of Church and State or as I like to call it the Tough Shit Law. You want to legislate your religious beliefs well tough shit.

Enjoy your pro-gay parade.

We will :p

I highly doubt it because we already have same-sex civil unions. They bought it in as an alternitive, straight couples can get a civil union if they like. <snip>



That was going through my mind as well. I think they will eventually be able to get the same marriage license as the straight couples. Churches will make their own decisions.

From an atheist perspective I suppose we were a pile of goo that turned into a fish that turned into a monkey...

My dear Spork, that has nothing at all to do with atheism.

Try again.