Results 31 to 40 of 193
-
11-04-2009, 08:12 PM #31
i agree completely with duwal...if marriage is such a religious thing, then why can i get married without going to church?
and if it is strictly a religious concept, then why is the state involved in any way whatsoever? there used to be laws that were passed by voters that outlawed marriage between whites & blacks (and every other non-white for that matter)...but those were discriminatory laws, so why is marriage between a gay couple any different?
i seriously have yet to wrap my head around the concept of why non-gays give a "pooh" about what gays do....do they feel that their marriage is less credible if gays can marry?
-
-
11-04-2009, 10:13 PM #32
Equal rights are a minority view... I can buy that.
-
11-04-2009, 10:18 PM #33
Fact of the matter is, people 50 years from now will be looking back at how intolerant the people of today were.
-
-
11-04-2009, 10:21 PM #34
Didn't that Jesse guy say something about mass-beheadings of Christians around that time? : )
-
11-04-2009, 10:50 PM #35
so democracy is great as long as the majority agrees with you? that's a great attitude.
there are plenty of laws that I disagree with. doesn't mean I would prefer a dictator.
-
-
11-04-2009, 10:53 PM #36
What people? Straight homophobic people. What is wrong with passing this bill even if people dont want it. How will it affect these people that voted no.
When given the choice 30 out of 30 states voted against gay marriage. Never has a state voted for gay marriage. So, it is safe to say that the majority is against gay marriage in America.
Why would people vote no? What about the gay people that do want this bill? What are the consequences and emotions involved in each scenario. I do not advocate being gay but I support their right as anyone else. I think it has more to do with religion and homophobia than it is about the people.
You can ask these questions for almost every bill. Just because it doesn't directly effect you doesn't mean you don't have a right in the decision process. People vote for taxing the rich all the time. It doesn't effect the non-rich that are for raising taxes on the rich. People who pay higher taxes are not in favor of it, but must pay the tax because the majority vote for it. We do a lot of things in society based on the popular vote regardless if you like it or not. Gay marriage is no different than thousands of other laws that are voted on and in many cases are voted on by people not effected by the outcome.
i agree completely with duwal...if marriage is such a religious thing, then why can i get married without going to church?
There are generally two phases of marriage. The actually state license and the wedding in a church. My point is that marriage was developed through religion. Forcing a preacher to marry two men when he doesn't want to should be his right.
and if it is strictly a religious concept, then why is the state involved in any way whatsoever? there used to be laws that were passed by voters that outlawed marriage between whites & blacks (and every other non-white for that matter)...but those were discriminatory laws, so why is marriage between a gay couple any different?
That is my point! Give gays equal rights under state and federal law. But if a church doesn't want to recognize it they should be forced to. I'm all for equal rights as far as the legal aspect of it.
i seriously have yet to wrap my head around the concept of why non-gays give a "pooh" about what gays do....do they feel that their marriage is less credible if gays can marry?
Well it comes done to religion. If you believe it is against your religious beliefs then you are against it. Why do Muslims not eat pork? Religion. Why are some people against gay marriage? Religion. As an atheist I'm not against civil unions and equal rights under the law. I'm against a government forcing a religion to accept something they don't believe it. It is the equivalent to forcing a Muslim to eat pork because the government says it is good for them.
-
11-04-2009, 11:46 PM #37
Under the law we voted on yesterday, a preacher would have EVERY right to not do that ceremony in Maine. Specifically, It explicitly ensures that no one "empowered to perform marriages will be required to marry any couple, including same sex couples, contrary to their conscience or their religious beliefs." So that point is null.
Totally different situations. If a Muslim doesn't want to eat pork that doesn't affect non-muslims. If a Catholic (that's who shot down the gay marriage bill here) stops gay people from getting married it DOES affect other people.
As I laid out before, that's not the issue here. Everyone gets that there will NEVER be gay marriages in a catholic church. Nobody would ever think that they can or should impose any rules like that on a religion. As far as "equal rights under the law" civil unions fall just short of that. Specifically, there are legal issues involving death benefits and custody issues that can only be adressed by full blown marriage.
I find it laughable when straight people talk about the "sancitity" of marriage when we have drive-thru chapels and our lovely 50% divorce rate....and yet we deny other people the same rights we stupidly take on (sometimes without leaving the car!) and turn our backs on at a 50/50 clip.
I also agree with the poster who said that 50 years from now we'll look back and wonder why people where so intolerant. actually I think it'll be more like 20 years...
Mainers dropped the ball yesterday. I'm usually quite the cheerleader for my little state but tonight I'm pretty ashamed to admit that I live here. I hope we make it right soon.Please feel free to message me here about my electronic bay & COMC listings
Find me at maccards44
I can cut you Deals
Primarily Selling Right Now
I will trade for Tom Brady (Anything, base is fine)
& Some - Red Sox, Patriots & Celtics refractors/xfractor/prizms, etc.
I generally don't want base & low-end inserts please.
-
-
11-04-2009, 11:59 PM #38There are generally two phases of marriage. The actually state license and the wedding in a church. My point is that marriage was developed through religion. Forcing a preacher to marry two men when he doesn't want to should be his right.
cool...then strip his churchs non-profit tax exempt status and he can do whatever he wishes...but if they are going to benefit from federal exemptions, then they should not be able to discriminate based on race, sexual orientation, etc...
Well it comes done to religion. If you believe it is against your religious beliefs then you are against it. Why do Muslims not eat pork? Religion. Why are some people against gay marriage? Religion. As an atheist I'm not against civil unions and equal rights under the law. I'm against a government forcing a religion to accept something they don't believe it. It is the equivalent to forcing a Muslim to eat pork because the government says it is good for them.
no, it's the equivolent of the government issuing pork licenses and tax breaks to muslims who dont eat pork, but forcing gays to eat pork because muslims dont want gays to not eat pork....i mean, everybody knows that gays love to eat pork
-
11-05-2009, 12:04 AM #39
Excuse me, don't you worship a dictator? And don't you stridently insist that everybody else worship your personal dictator?
-
11-05-2009, 12:12 AM #40BANNED
Show me in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, Bill of Rights and all those other great documents this country was founded that say "except for gays" Really people what does that make all those documents if they are denied the right to the same things as everyone else, might as well burn them all or turn em into toilet paper as thats as useful as they will ever be...... Its all so hypacritial its disgusting this is even an issue in America
-
Originally Posted by Rockman 
