Gay Marriage

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, we have the HHS mandate which tries to force religious institutions to provide contraception coverage.

Now, marriage laws. And later, employment laws.

So, the federal government should force religious institutions to employ homosexuals. And, whatever benefits extend to spouses, must extend to the spouses of homosexuals.

Interesting.[/quote]

Do you guys really not employ them already?[/quote]

You beat me to it! Look at all the PEDOPHILES the Catholic Church employs and keeps on transferring around and covering up for. With a track record like that, you’d think they wouldn’t have any problem at all paying the health insurance for a few “normal” homosexuals. I mean surely a PEDOPHILE homosexual is worse than a “normal” homosexual… AMIRIGHT?

Or is the problem ACKNOWLEDGING that point PUBLICLY? Sounds a bit hypocritical, no?

[/quote]

Reminds me of the South Park where the Catholic priests think the problem isn’t them having sex with the boys, it’s the fact that the boys are telling on them. Classic episode :slight_smile:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, we have the HHS mandate which tries to force religious institutions to provide contraception coverage.

Now, marriage laws. And later, employment laws.

So, the federal government should force religious institutions to employ homosexuals. And, whatever benefits extend to spouses, must extend to the spouses of homosexuals.

Interesting.[/quote]

Do you guys really not employ them already?[/quote]

You beat me to it! Look at all the PEDOPHILES the Catholic Church employs and keeps on transferring around and covering up for. With a track record like that, you’d think they wouldn’t have any problem at all paying the health insurance for a few “normal” homosexuals. I mean surely a PEDOPHILE homosexual is worse than a “normal” homosexual… AMIRIGHT?

Or is the problem ACKNOWLEDGING that point PUBLICLY? Sounds a bit hypocritical, no?

[/quote]

Reminds me of the South Park where the Catholic priests think the problem isn’t them having sex with the boys, it’s the fact that the boys are telling on them. Classic episode :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Gotta luv South Park. Interesting that no one replied to that… Typical head in the sand bullshit.

I found this cartoon pretty funny.

[quote]Makavali wrote:[quote]angry chicken wrote:It all makes sense now: Gay marriage should be legalized on the SAME day as marijuana - it will make perfect biblical sense. Leviticus 20:13 “A man who lays with another man shall be stoned”. Our interpretation has been wrong for all these years! LOL[/quote]I, for one, giggled.[/quote]Alright I confess. I did too. =D

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, we have the HHS mandate which tries to force religious institutions to provide contraception coverage.

Now, marriage laws. And later, employment laws.

So, the federal government should force religious institutions to employ homosexuals. And, whatever benefits extend to spouses, must extend to the spouses of homosexuals.

Interesting.[/quote]

Do you guys really not employ them already?[/quote]

LOL

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I found this cartoon pretty funny.[/quote]

Hilarious! That was a good one.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
It all makes sense now: Gay marriage should be legalized on the SAME day as marijuana - it will make perfect biblical sense. Leviticus 20:13 “A man who lays with another man shall be stoned”. Our interpretation has been wrong for all these years! LOL[/quote]

WIN! That was good angry chicken.

Funny cartoon, but I really only know one flamboyant gay guy and about 8 that aren’t. Heck more than a couple are more manly than any hetero’s I’ve ever met. Still funny though :slight_smile:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Funny cartoon, but I really only know one flamboyant gay guy and about 8 that aren’t. Heck more than a couple are more manly than any hetero’s I’ve ever met. Still funny though :)[/quote]

I donno, I have met a lot of gay people in my life and I’d really cut it to 50/ 50. Of course that’s just personal experience.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Funny cartoon, but I really only know one flamboyant gay guy and about 8 that aren’t. Heck more than a couple are more manly than any hetero’s I’ve ever met. Still funny though :)[/quote]

I donno, I have met a lot of gay people in my life and I’d really cut it to 50/ 50. Of course that’s just personal experience.[/quote]

Definitely personal experience. When I met my girlfriends cousin for the first time he was with another guy at the time. He had tattoos of fire on his legs. We were at his cabin in the woods where he hunts and fishes. The other guy was even more redneck than he was. It was until AFTER we had hung out that I said something about them being cool guys and my fiance said yeah they have been together for like 3 years. She thought she had told me earlier he was gay or something and I either forgot or she did. I was shocked :slight_smile:

Gay Marriage is ultimately a Church/State issue. Since “traditional marriage” is a RELIGIOUS concept and denying homosexuals the right to marry when there are plenty of religions/churches/priests/preachers who are willing to marry them, this “ban” or failure to acknowledge this religious choice is in effect discriminating against homosexuals within a clearly defined civil right.

The solution is LESS GOVERNMENT, people! Leave marriage up the the CHURCH. If a particular church chooses to marry two men (or two women, or two transgenders), then it is THAT CHURCH’S BUSINESS! If you don’t like it, join a church that DOESN’T marry homosexuals. I know, novel concept, right? I mean, there are over 4,200 religions, churches, denominations, ect… in the world - MOST of them represented some how or some way in the United States. No one is forcing you or ANYONE else to attend a church or to believe/behave in a certain way dictated by their religion, are they? I mean the CONSTITUTION specifically PROHIBITS that, right? So why in the name of Jesus titty-fucking Christ, do fucking CHRISTIANS feel ENTITLED to “inflict” their religion and religious precepts on the ENTIRE POPULATION of the United States? Get OVER yourselves! There are literally BILLIONS of people on the planet who don’t agree with you.

Here’s the list of all the religions: http://www.adherents.com/

As far as all the legal bullshit goes, treat EVERY marriage as a civil union. It would have to be between TWO CONSENTING HUMANS who have reached the age of MAJORITY and have the LEGAL and MENTAL capacity to enter into a LEGAL CONTRACT. That should take care of all the talk of marrying doorknobs or dogs or children or poly amorous relationships.

As for the argument that by changing (some call destroying) the concept of “traditional marriage” we will be undermining the entire fabric of society which will ultimately result in a complete breakdown of the family unit, I call BULLSHIT. Religious people will ALWAYS get married. You guys make up a statistically significant portion of the population. Your precious institution is safe, don’t worry. There are also plenty of NON religious (not gay) folks who will still get married. Take my dear old mum, for instance. She recently married husband number FIVE! At the ripe old age of 65! She wont be making any more babies (thank GOD), nor will she be forming an “ideal family unit” or any of that other bullshit - she just happened to have a VAGINA and found another rich swinging dick who was stupid enough not to make her sign a pre-nup, but I digress…

There will ALWAYS be 3-4% of the population that is gay, bi or “other than straight”. The current laws are disenfranchising those citizens. Letting 3% of the population be true to themselves, their lives and their hearts isn’t going to undermine or threaten ANYTHING. It might piss a few religious wingnuts off, but in my book, that’s a good thing - those judgmental fucks need to lighten up and realize there are OTHER view points out there, and that while they are entitled to have THEIR worldview, others are entitled to have a completely different world view. Both are valid and protected under the Constitution.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

The solution is LESS GOVERNMENT,[/quote]

We’re not talking about doing away with state recognized marriage.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

The solution is LESS GOVERNMENT,[/quote]

We’re not talking about doing away with state recognized marriage.[/quote]

By “less government”, I mean “get the gubment OUT of my bedroom, OUT of my doctor’s office, OUT of my bank account, OUT of my pursuit of happiness”

Right now, 3% of the population is unable to enjoy the same freedoms, rights, entitlements, privileges and happiness that 97% of the population is enjoying/able to enjoy. And don’t come back with that bullshit of, “well SUUUUUURE they can - all they have to do is marry a WOOOOOOMAN”. I don’t know how people can make that argument with a straight face.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

The solution is LESS GOVERNMENT,[/quote]

We’re not talking about doing away with state recognized marriage.[/quote]

By “less government”, I mean “get the gubment OUT of my bedroom, OUT of my doctor’s office, OUT of my bank account, OUT of my pursuit of happiness”

Right now, 3% of the population is unable to enjoy the same freedoms, rights, entitlements, privileges and happiness that 97% of the population is enjoying/able to enjoy. And don’t come back with that bullshit of, “well SUUUUUURE they can - all they have to do is marry a WOOOOOOMAN”. I don’t know how people can make that argument with a straight face.
[/quote]

But state recognized gay marriage isn’t less government, period. So let’s not argue from that angle. State recognized marriage by definition involves state action, regardless. Therefore, small government minded folks would only support a form of marriage to be recognized that carries with it a critical and irreplaceable aspect, inherent to it.

State recognized gay marriage isn’t less government, but I bet government has much more pressing needs than dealing with gay marriage. Make it legal and go solve actual problems.

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Make it legal…[/quote]

No

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Make it legal…[/quote]

No[/quote]

SM,

Just because you are a small minded bigot doesn’t mean everyone should be

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Make it legal…[/quote]

No[/quote]

SM,

Just because you are a small minded bigot doesn’t mean everyone should be[/quote]

I’m not a bigot. No one here has given any rational reasons to redefine marriage and legalise gay ‘marriage.’ But plenty of people have given reasons not to do so. I say you’re bigoted for wanting to redefine traditional marriage.

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Make it legal…[/quote]

No[/quote]

SM,

Just because you are a small minded bigot doesn’t mean everyone should be[/quote]

We’ve agreed that the ‘bigot’ stuff doesn’t apply. Unless you propose that the state recognize every imaginative arrangement (regardless of number or romantic involvement) of consenting adults as marriage, if they choose to opt in.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Make it legal…[/quote]

No[/quote]

SM,

Just because you are a small minded bigot doesn’t mean everyone should be[/quote]

I’m not a bigot. No one here has given any rational reasons to redefine marriage and legalise gay ‘marriage.’ But plenty of people have given reasons not to do so. I say you’re bigoted for wanting to redefine traditional marriage.[/quote]

SM,

Nobody is asking to redefine marriage. They are just seeking equal protection under the law, if churches don’t want to perform the ceremonies that is fine, but marriage is essentially a state recognized contract so allowing same sex marriage isn’t changing its’ value.