Do you think gays should be allowed to marry?

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I don't think that I have the ability to tell someone not to do something when it isn't hurting anything or anyone...Sure it is a disgusting thought but jeeze let em get married and live in peace...as an insentive for all of you against =no more gay parade (hopefully)!!! I'm sure that the gays would trade marrige for the immediate end of that dam parade and I think that it is a fair deal...

So you're saying they should surrender their First Amendment protections on speech to gain their Fourteenth Amendment protections of equality under the law.

Nice.

I've learned one thing watching TV. If I don't watch Pat Robertson, O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity, I won't see images of that parade. You could try that if you don't like the parades.

 

[Busta]

Dude, before you speak so highly of this jesus fellow, first prove he existed. Jesus was the final sacrifice for sin- And? There were probably well over 10,000 people crucified during Christ's lifetime. I would be willing to place a wager, that there were a couple people that were innocent.Jesus died in the homosexauls place, the adulterers place, that childs place, etc, etc- once again, you say Jesus died for them, I can make claims also, I could say Ranger Rick died for them. I can't, and you can't prove he didn't. I guess all of our fallen soliders in all wars deserve our worship, since they died for our freedom?

If you study scripture, it's origins, the original manuscripts, independent cross referencing texts from other cultures, the archeology.....all of the answers you seek will be found.

But if historical fact is not good enough for you, then just sit back and watch the show. Everything is happening as God said it would. Everything will work out in the end.

 

[Busta]

So basically, Busta, Jesus is everyone's bitch?

Even yours, if you let Him into your life.

 

[jallman]

So you're saying they should surrender their First Amendment protections on speech to gain their Fourteenth Amendment protections of equality under the law.

Nice.

I've learned one thing watching TV. If I don't watch Pat Robertson, O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity, I won't see images of that parade. You could try that if you don't like the parades.

That is one of the most profoundly truthful observations made in this thread so far. Opinion journalists like the ones you listed above would like to portray the homosexual community as freakshow activists waving flags at a parade when nothing could be further from the truth. If you read any gay publications like the Advocate, there has been a remarkable trend in the gay culture showing a distancing from the parades in favor of a more community minded outreach. The parades were at one time a good thing but in recent years they have become more and more about shock and open attack on the community rather than an inclusive celebration. The vulgarity of these parades brings journalists like O Reilly and Hannity salivating for a boost in ratings when they get their 20 minutes of shockfest footage. Robertson would want you to believe that all homosexuals behave this way and it just rakes in the donations when he can inflame the anger people feel, not when confronted with homosexuality, but when shown images of decadence and vulgarity not fit for anything except the cheap ratings hikes these sensationalists get from the display.

As you pointed out Scarecrow, if you dont want to see the shocking images that are cherry picked from the worst of the worst, dont watch these reporters. If you really want to know what homosexuals are really like, go visit PFLAG or ASPYN or the Imperial Court fund raisers if your town has one. That way, you get to see the truth and not just what is going to bring ratings.

 

[ptsdkid]

You seem to be taking this issue away from marriage of gays to their dispicable activities.
Liberals have supported every one of these anomaly freak show groups from the animal rights whackos to the save the spotted owl fear mongers.
Look, marriage is for a woman and a man. Where would you draw the line as far as having a variety of married couples getting the benefits from our government? Would it be alright for a man to marry a pink-eyed sheep? If yes, should we taxpayers be comfortable in accepting the fact that our taxes are spent in supplying a multitude of bennies to a married half human half animal couple? Would the offspring from the sheep be qualified for welfare payments because they're too lazy to find a job, even if there isn't a huge demand for sheepherders?

 

[jallman]

You seem to be taking this issue away from marriage of gays to their dispicable activities.
Liberals have supported every one of these anomaly freak show groups from the animal rights whackos to the save the spotted owl fear mongers.
Look, marriage is for a woman and a man. Where would you draw the line as far as having a variety of married couples getting the benefits from our government? Would it be alright for a man to marry a pink-eyed sheep? If yes, should we taxpayers be comfortable in accepting the fact that our taxes are spent in supplying a multitude of bennies to a married half human half animal couple? Would the offspring from the sheep be qualified for welfare payments because they're too lazy to find a job, even if there isn't a huge demand for sheepherders?

YAWN Though I am sure that glittering argument seemed awfully profound to you, let me point out two very basic principles that debunk the entire premise. First, concerning your generous assertions about the despicability of homosexuals' private practices, its none of your concern. Personal choice is a guarded by the Constitution and there is no room for the government to make legislation based on moral disapproval of a group when that group is forcing no harm upon society.

And now onto your imaginative hypotheticals involving bestial matrimony. While these daydreams may be entertaining for you, an overwhelming majority of Americans believe the whole idea is sickening. And though the idea may be possible in your own reveries, marriage laws strictly forbid such a union based on the "sheep's" inability to enter into a contract by giving consent. Its the same reason children cannot marry...no legal ability to offer consent, no marriage.

Now, would you care to try again from a more logical and informed angle...or would you rather dwell on barnyard weddings? :rofl

 

[Thorgasm]

YAWN Though I am sure that glittering argument seemed awfully profound to you, let me point out two very basic principles that debunk the entire premise. First, concerning your generous assertions about the despicability of homosexuals' private practices, its none of your concern. Personal choice is a guarded by the Constitution and there is no room for the government to make legislation based on moral disapproval of a group when that group is forcing no harm upon society.

And now onto your imaginative hypotheticals involving bestial matrimony. While these daydreams may be entertaining for you, an overwhelming majority of Americans believe the whole idea is sickening. And though the idea may be possible in your own reveries, marriage laws strictly forbid such a union based on the "sheep's" inability to enter into a contract by giving consent. Its the same reason children cannot marry...no legal ability to offer consent, no marriage.

Now, would you care to try again from a more logical and informed angle...or would you rather dwell on barnyard weddings? :rofl

Baaaa once if you do, Baaaa twice if you don't. :rofl
I will admit that Bill O'Reilly is a very smart man. That is why I know he is devisive in his attack on this issue. I don't think that he really falls for this beastial marriage fallacy. He knows that his sheeplike audience will. Yes, pun intended!

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

That is one of the most profoundly truthful observations made in this thread so far.

I'll make a confession here. Until quite recently my wife ran owned a bakery specializing in wedding cakes, and occasionally we'd get the occasional same-sex couple planning on having a "wedding". Lesbians were much more common than gay men, by about 3 to 1. Amazingly, they all looked just like people. Who'd have figured on that?

Except the gay males had better taste in cake decoration, there was no noticeable difference in the food, in the kinds of reception halls, and in their devotion to one another. In fact, having seen enough brides and grooms :roll: , they were probably better than average in the devotion category.

I've worked next to gays on the submarine, and in civillian settings. Not one has ever hit on me.

I grew up with as many prejudices as the next guy, maybe more, but if I can outgrow them, so can everyone else.

It's not my concern if someone wants to get married. It's not my concern if they want to get married and call it "getting married". On all this thread no one has yet identified a solid reason why two people of the same sex cannot get married. All the objections I've seen are issues that aren't immediately relevant to "A" marrying "A".

Tells all lot about the poster's ability to overcome their personal biases, or lack thereof.

 

[ptsdkid]

YAWN Though I am sure that glittering argument seemed awfully profound to you, let me point out two very basic principles that debunk the entire premise. First, concerning your generous assertions about the despicability of homosexuals' private practices, its none of your concern. Personal choice is a guarded by the Constitution and there is no room for the government to make legislation based on moral disapproval of a group when that group is forcing no harm upon society.

And now onto your imaginative hypotheticals involving bestial matrimony. While these daydreams may be entertaining for you, an overwhelming majority of Americans believe the whole idea is sickening. And though the idea may be possible in your own reveries, marriage laws strictly forbid such a union based on the "sheep's" inability to enter into a contract by giving consent. Its the same reason children cannot marry...no legal ability to offer consent, no marriage.

Now, would you care to try again from a more logical and informed angle...or would you rather dwell on barnyard weddings? :rofl

I'll dwell on barnyard weddings since you had obviously missed the comparison between them and gays.
The bible and our constitution cleary says that a marriage is to be performed between a man and a woman. With gays openly challenging the laws of the land--we now get to see the disintegration of our morals and of our society as a whole.
What these freak show groups do on their own in their privacy is their business--but once you start legislating marriage to two people of the same sex--then they must in turn be given the same benefits that a normal sanctioned male/female married couple gets, and this just isn't going to cut it with the ever growing evangelical majority of our nation. Remember the red states and the over 90% of red-colored counties nationwide?
Again, where do you draw the line to this absurdity? Would you consider giving a hermaphrodite couple the same privileges? Would you also consider a half man half sheep individual together with a man as a probabe candidate for the marriage certificate?
I wouldn't be so quick to downplay the intelligence of sheep. I once saw a sheep sign an X on his marriage certificate.

 

[shuamort]

The bible and our constitution cleary says that a marriage is to be performed between a man and a woman.

The bible does not say that marriage is only to be performed between a man and a woman.

The constitution of the US does not say that marriage is only to be performed between a man and a woman.

Try again.

 

[jallman]

I'll dwell on barnyard weddings since you had obviously missed the comparison between them and gays.
The bible and our constitution cleary says that a marriage is to be performed between a man and a woman. With gays openly challenging the laws of the land--we now get to see the disintegration of our morals and of our society as a whole.
What these freak show groups do on their own in their privacy is their business--but once you start legislating marriage to two people of the same sex--then they must in turn be given the same benefits that a normal sanctioned male/female married couple gets, and this just isn't going to cut it with the ever growing evangelical majority of our nation. Remember the red states and the over 90% of red-colored counties nationwide?
Again, where do you draw the line to this absurdity? Would you consider giving a hermaphrodite couple the same privileges? Would you also consider a half man half sheep individual together with a man as a probabe candidate for the marriage certificate?
I wouldn't be so quick to downplay the intelligence of sheep. I once saw a sheep sign an X on his marriage certificate.

Forgive my slow response as I had to take a couple minutes to wipe up the coffee I spit out when I read this post. Thanks for the laugh today.

Your amusement factor does not save you from having bullshit called again. I am afraid you are mistaken concerning both the Bible and the Constitution. Furthermore, let me remind you of the wall of separation and how it blocks the Bible from being a basis for legislation. And the question begs to be asked...are your morals so baseless and weak that what another couple does to mark their commitment affects you? Not sure if you are married or have a girlfriend...but try this on if you do...go home tonight and sit her down and tell her: "Honey, I think about what gays do so much that if they start getting married, its going to affect our relationship and home life." I am sure she will be oh so proud of you then.

And you sure do keep focusing on this sheep thing...you wouldnt happen to be scottish would you? No, I jest, but you are creating the absurd hypotheticals here, not me. Half man, half sheep...(thats where the coffee flew out). Where did you come up with that? As for hermaphrodites...why would they not be allowed to marry...its not their fault they were born with dual sex. Or is your problem just with people who show a marked difference from what you consider the norm? On that count, Jesus must be so proud of you too...

 

[Thorgasm]

I wouldn't be so quick to downplay the intelligence of sheep. I once saw a sheep sign an X on his marriage certificate.

If you are against sheep and human weddings, why would you be the witness to the signing? If I throw a stick, will you go away?

 

[jallman]

If you are against sheep and human weddings, why would you be the witness to the signing? If I throw a stick, will you go away?

No need for all that now...we have seen this type before...make a post, make a more offensive post, get smacked down for being illogical, then he'll make a totally out of bounds rant that will get him banned. You up for making a friendly wager on how long it will take? :2razz:

 

[Busta]

No need for all that now...we have seen this type before...make a post, make a more offensive post, get smacked down for being illogical, then he'll make a totally out of bounds rant that will get him banned. You up for making a friendly wager on how long it will take? :2razz:

3 posts, $1.
A gentleman's wager.

 

[jallman]

3 posts, $1.
A gentleman's wager.

Is that three posts including the two he has already made...or more posts from here? I wager 5 more...lets give the poor chap the benefit of the doubt.

 

[MrFungus420]

I'll dwell on barnyard weddings since you had obviously missed the comparison between them and gays.

No, he had the comparison perfectly stated. There is none. It is the difference between two consenting adults entering into a contract, and a specious statement involving an animal.

The bible and our constitution cleary says that a marriage is to be performed between a man and a woman.

Before you reference the Constitution, you may want to actually read it. Nowhere is marriage mentioned in the Constitution.

As for the Bible, it has nothing to do with it. The Bible is not the basis for our legal system.

With gays openly challenging the laws of the land--we now get to see the disintegration of our morals and of our society as a whole.

I can make an even more valid case that the supposed decline of morality in the country is a direct result of given women equal rights. Ever since they got the right to vote, and were then allowed to enter the workforce instead of staying at home where they belong, the country has gone rapidly downhill.

What these freak show groups do on their own in their privacy is their business--but once you start legislating marriage to two people of the same sex--then they must in turn be given the same benefits that a normal sanctioned male/female married couple gets, and this just isn't going to cut it with the ever growing evangelical majority of our nation.

So, now you're advocating mob-rule instead of respecting peoples' rights.

Remember the red states and the over 90% of red-colored counties nationwide?

Which contained about 50% of the population. Again, having nothing to do with rights.

Again, where do you draw the line to this absurdity? Would you consider giving a hermaphrodite couple the same privileges?

As consenting adults entering a contract, no problem.

Besides, even if you are of the misguided opinion that homosexuality is a choice, what does that have to do with an hermaphrodite, someone born with both sets of genitalia?

Would you also consider a half man half sheep individual together with a man as a probabe candidate for the marriage certificate?

And, now we delve even further into the absurd. Even if you argument can't remain logical, could you at least keep the total absurdities out of it.

I wouldn't be so quick to downplay the intelligence of sheep. I once saw a sheep sign an X on his marriage certificate.

Was it yours?

 

[Navy Pride]

The bible does not say that marriage is only to be performed between a man and a woman.

The constitution of the US does not say that marriage is only to be performed between a man and a woman.

Try again.

Its federal law that marriage is between a man and a woman and the Congress has reinforced that with the Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage as between one man and one woman......

Now you try again......

 

[DeeJayH]

As a pragmatist what I think we should do is to allow the word "marriage" to be a purely religious term. Something done at your place of worship. That would take away the problem that many Christians have with gay-marriage.

The legally binding document would not be called a marriage certificate - but something else, whether it's civil union. Then we could give gay people ALL of the rights afforded to other couple.

ugh..........i am sure this will be as distasteful for you, as it is for me :doh :3oops:
but here we go
i agree with him
I am all for Homos getting full rights and benefits under the law, but they just need to use any other word to categorize their relationship
I never chose to be straight
so I can not beleive some one chooses to be gay
so they should not be denied the rights granted to others
and while most, if not all, benefits can be legally conveyed to gay couples through various legal documents, i think giving them some sort of 'civil union' or whatever is the right thing to do

 

[jallman]

Its federal law that marriage is between a man and a woman and the Congress has reinforced that with the Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage as between one man and one woman......

Now you try again......

Oh Chief...we're having one of those days are we? Read again...the Constitution, which is what was being spoken of, makes no reference to marriage. Now you try again. :2wave:

 

[jallman]

ugh..........i am sure this will be as distasteful for you, as it is for me :doh :3oops:
but here we go
i agree with him
I am all for Homos getting full rights and benefits under the law, but they just need to use any other word to categorize their relationship
I never chose to be straight
so I can not beleive some one chooses to be gay
so they should not be denied the rights granted to others
and while most, if not all, benefits can be legally conveyed to gay couples through various legal documents, i think giving them some sort of 'civil union' or whatever is the right thing to do

Dude, you rock. That is exactly how I feel and how I think most of the moderate conservatives feel. If we could just get the militants on the homo side to let go of this crusade on marriage and the nimrods on the far right side to let go of this need to be in everyone's moral business then we could get somewhere with this.

 

[Stace]

Dude, you rock. That is exactly how I feel and how I think most of the moderate conservatives feel. If we could just get the militants on the homo side to let go of this crusade on marriage and the nimrods on the far right side to let go of this need to be in everyone's moral business then we could get somewhere with this.

I don't see why the conservatives have such a problem with the use of the word "marriage".

IT'S A WORD.

How is it hurting you by expanding the definition of it?

It's not, is it? It's not going to alter YOUR life in any way whatsoever. So, what's the problem?

 

[Navy Pride]

Oh Chief...we're having one of those days are we? Read again...the Constitution, which is what was being spoken of, makes no reference to marriage. Now you try again. :2wave:

jallman, I checked my post and I did not mention the constitution....I mentioned federal law and the DOMA.....

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Dude, you rock. That is exactly how I feel and how I think most of the moderate conservatives feel. If we could just get the militants on the homo side to let go of this crusade on marriage and the nimrods on the far right side to let go of this need to be in everyone's moral business then we could get somewhere with this.

The correct path on this is the following:

People wishing to be "married" may do so in a church willing to perform the ceremony.

People wishing a "civil union" m-m, m-f, f-f, will do so by filing papers duly witnessed etc at the local courthouse/city hall/whatever.

"Married" people wishing their "marriage" to have legal status must also register a "civil union" with the proper secular authorities.

Voila. Marriage problem fixed.

The "problem" being that today the secular authorities use the archaic term "married" and it's causing severe emotional distress on dictionaryphiles everywhere. Time for all those "married" people to realize that the state shouldn't make distinctions between couples.

 

[jallman]

jallman, I checked my post and I did not mention the constitution....I mentioned federal law and the DOMA.....

Yeah...but what kind of day would it be around here if I didnt razz you a bit. :2wave:

 

[Navy Pride]

Yeah...but what kind of day would it be around here if I didnt razz you a bit. :2wave:

As Hanibal Lector once said Okey Dokey...:lol: