| Gay Marriage Debate and defend your political beliefs as to whether or not marriage should be only defined as a union between a man and a woman. |
05-10-2008, 05:39 PM
|
#101 (permalink)
| | Block Captain
Country: Join Date: May 2008 Location: South
Gender:
Posts: 346
Thanks: 249
Thanked 261 Times in 154 Posts
Level up: 35%, 59 Points needed | | Quote:
Originally Posted by garysher You are so right, these homosexual activists are so fixed in their ways it's pathetic. | Yes, these heterosexual activists are so fixed in their ways, it's pathetic.
__________________ "I did not choose to be gay, I was chosen".... It's not that I think stupidity should be punishable by death. I just think we should take the warning labels off of everything and let the problem take care of itself. "A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount of "up to and including my life" "I am not here to answer your questions." -fx |
| | | The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Cubbie For This Useful Post: | |
05-11-2008, 01:31 AM
|
#102 (permalink)
| | Citizen
Country: Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Level up: 7%, 14 Points needed | | Which came first - marriage or the governmental recognition of marriages? From my understanding, God instituted marriage as a union between a man and a woman long before God instituted governments upon the earth. It just doesn't seem right to me that governments should recognize something as a "marriage" that is not what God instituted as a marriage. I wouldn't say this is discriminitory any more than I would say it was discriminitory to refuse to hire a man to be an egg donor. A man simply wouldn't fit the definition of an egg donor, so the charge of discrimination wouldn't apply. |
| |
05-11-2008, 03:28 AM
|
#103 (permalink)
| | Block Captain
Country: Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Australia
Gender:
Posts: 295
Thanks: 186
Thanked 214 Times in 114 Posts
Level up: 31%, 41 Points needed | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm Which came first - marriage or the governmental recognition of marriages? From my understanding, God instituted marriage as a union between a man and a woman long before God instituted governments upon the earth. It just doesn't seem right to me that governments should recognize something as a "marriage" that is not what God instituted as a marriage. I wouldn't say this is discriminitory any more than I would say it was discriminitory to refuse to hire a man to be an egg donor. A man simply wouldn't fit the definition of an egg donor, so the charge of discrimination wouldn't apply. | Not everyone believes in God, and we sure as Hell don't have to conform to His rules. There is a separation of church and state for a reason - the country is not run by the church. If God has such a problem with redifining marriage, he can get his arse down here and bitch about it to our faces. |
| | | The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Sharon den Adel For This Useful Post: | |
05-11-2008, 07:52 AM
|
#104 (permalink)
| | Partisan
Country: Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: New Haven, CT
Gender:
Posts: 6,568
Thanks: 378
Thanked 1,245 Times in 630 Posts
Points: 32,270, Level: 100 | Level up: 2%, 0 Points needed | | There have been MANY "redefinitions" of marriage over the times. It started out as a contract between two men exchanging goods for goods (goats for a woman) - and a man could have as many of these marriage contracts as he could afford.
Over the years, it has been redefined by who may/may not enter into such contracts, which have been limited to people of different race, religion, ethnicity, etc.
It has only been in the past fifty years in the U.S. that people of different races were legally allowed to marry. There are still some religions that will not endorse a marriage of mixed faith couples and will refuse to perform such ceremonies.
The laws defining who is legally permitted to enter a marriage contract has evolved as mankind gains knowledge, wisdom, experience and compassion.
That which does not evolve will stagnate and rot.
__________________ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* 
"know this is EXACTLY why people think you shouldnt have equal rights" 2/11/08 Grace |
| | | The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to tristanrobin For This Useful Post: | |
05-11-2008, 02:10 PM
|
#105 (permalink)
| | Citizen
Country: Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Level up: 7%, 14 Points needed | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharon den Adel Not everyone believes in God, and we sure as Hell don't have to conform to His rules. There is a separation of church and state for a reason - the country is not run by the church. If God has such a problem with redifining marriage, he can get his arse down here and bitch about it to our faces. | Everyone doesn't have to believe in God for God to exist. I agree that this country is not run by the church, but this country has decided to recognize an institution that has inherently religious connotations to it. When the government tries to remove those religious connotations, while at the same time calling the union "marriage," then it is the government that is trying to trample religion. Remember. there is a separation of church and state for a rerason.
Your juvenile language reminds me of why I never joined this forum when I was first invited several years ago. I guess the forum hasn't changed much, even though you personally weren't here at that time.  |
| | | The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bookworm For This Useful Post: | |
05-11-2008, 09:24 PM
|
#106 (permalink)
| | Partisan
Country: Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: New Haven, CT
Gender:
Posts: 6,568
Thanks: 378
Thanked 1,245 Times in 630 Posts
Points: 32,270, Level: 100 | Level up: 2%, 0 Points needed | | oh, that's just absurd.
If everything bookworm just wrote were TRUE, it would be ATHEISTS barred from marrying, not gays.
__________________ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* 
"know this is EXACTLY why people think you shouldnt have equal rights" 2/11/08 Grace |
| | | The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to tristanrobin For This Useful Post: | |
05-12-2008, 12:34 AM
|
#107 (permalink)
| | Partisan
Country: Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Los Angeles
Gender:
Posts: 8,371
Thanks: 101
Thanked 184 Times in 158 Posts
Points: 25,062, Level: 95 | Level up: 96%, 288 Points needed | | Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin
That which does not evolve will stagnate and rot. | Not necessarily.
You just made that up.
__________________ |
| |
05-12-2008, 08:54 AM
|
#108 (permalink)
| | Not God
Country: Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 138
Thanked 810 Times in 455 Posts
Level up: 66%, 42 Points needed | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm Which came first - marriage or the governmental recognition of marriages? From my understanding, God instituted marriage as a union between a man and a woman long before God instituted governments upon the earth. It just doesn't seem right to me that governments should recognize something as a "marriage" that is not what God instituted as a marriage. I wouldn't say this is discriminitory any more than I would say it was discriminitory to refuse to hire a man to be an egg donor. A man simply wouldn't fit the definition of an egg donor, so the charge of discrimination wouldn't apply. | You said it yourself, from YOUR understanding, God instituted marriage. First of all, I'd like to see even in the Bible where it mentions that. Second, YOUR understanding comes from YOUR religious views. Not everyone shares the same views as you, and yours are not automatically right just because you believe they are.
From MY understanding, while nature and creation may be the result of the union of male and female, there is plenty of room for people on this planet who love each other but do not procreate. Sure, you could argue that if everyone "went gay", then life would cease to exist. But that will never happen, as there will always be plenty of us "breeders" around. |
| | | The Following User Says Thank You to Tigerwiccan For This Useful Post: | |
05-12-2008, 10:18 AM
|
#109 (permalink)
| | Senator
Country: Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Pensacola, FL
Gender:
Posts: 4,402
Thanks: 5
Thanked 238 Times in 146 Posts
Points: 13,151, Level: 74 | Level up: 75%, 99 Points needed | | Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin There have been MANY "redefinitions" of marriage over the times. It started out as a contract between two men exchanging goods for goods (goats for a woman). | Shit Tristan, I thought only FX was the one that always brings up zoophilia? |
| | | The Following User Says Thank You to pensacola_niceman For This Useful Post: | |
05-12-2008, 10:50 AM
|
#110 (permalink)
| | Partisan
Country: Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: New Haven, CT
Gender:
Posts: 6,568
Thanks: 378
Thanked 1,245 Times in 630 Posts
Points: 32,270, Level: 100 | Level up: 2%, 0 Points needed | | that's TRADING a goat for a woman, not a woman having sex WITH the goat
__________________ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* 
"know this is EXACTLY why people think you shouldnt have equal rights" 2/11/08 Grace |
| | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode | |