That is, why does the state not tell 1-2-3-4 (or whatever) people, that whatever arrangements and concerns, in whatever kind of sexual/non sexual relationship, is up to those private individuals to figure and sort out? I ask you guys to define a state recognized marriage which doesn’t discriminate against anyone or their lifestyle.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I might be one of the minority Christians that would actually like to give Homosexuals marriage rights. They have everything equal to Hetrosexuals right now, except marriage. My idea of Homosexuals getting legally married forces them to go through the legal channels to get a divorce which protects the rights of partners.
Also it will get rid of the idea of paying for Health Benefits for room mates. It would force this country to pay for legally binded individuals only and not people shacking up with each other, this is including heterosexuals. You want to get Health Care Costs down this is how you do it.
The Bible is clear that Homosexuality is a sin, and it looks like we all agree with this. The question is how should Homosexuals be treated in society? Everyone should be treated equally. [/quote]
No, you’re not alone. I’ve always believed that marriage rights should be decided by the individuals in question.
Again, I have no place to say something like homosexuals are destroying the sanctity of marriage being a person that has been divorced myself. I’m definitely not anti-homosexual. I just call homosexuality for what it is, a sin. Homosexuals have committed no more greivous sin than I have.
If you disagree with the practice of homosexuality, you should have the right to do so without being called a “homophobe.” What exactly am I afraid of? Turning gay? Hardly. Nobody “turns gay.” If I disagree with adultery am I an “adulterphobe?”
[/quote]
lol. The adulterphobe is pretty good.
Doesn’t Canada already allow Homosexual marriages or unions?[/quote]
Hell I don’t know. As I may have mentioned before, I’m actually from Texas. I just play up my family’s ancestory. I know here in Texas we don’t allow anything that doesn’t own a gun and vote Republican. I may be an Albert Pujolsphobe. It terrifies me everytime he faces the Cubs.
[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I might be one of the minority Christians that would actually like to give Homosexuals marriage rights. They have everything equal to Hetrosexuals right now, except marriage. My idea of Homosexuals getting legally married forces them to go through the legal channels to get a divorce which protects the rights of partners.
Also it will get rid of the idea of paying for Health Benefits for room mates. It would force this country to pay for legally binded individuals only and not people shacking up with each other, this is including heterosexuals. You want to get Health Care Costs down this is how you do it.
The Bible is clear that Homosexuality is a sin, and it looks like we all agree with this. The question is how should Homosexuals be treated in society? Everyone should be treated equally. [/quote]
No, you’re not alone. I’ve always believed that marriage rights should be decided by the individuals in question.
Again, I have no place to say something like homosexuals are destroying the sanctity of marriage being a person that has been divorced myself. I’m definitely not anti-homosexual. I just call homosexuality for what it is, a sin. Homosexuals have committed no more greivous sin than I have.
If you disagree with the practice of homosexuality, you should have the right to do so without being called a “homophobe.” What exactly am I afraid of? Turning gay? Hardly. Nobody “turns gay.” If I disagree with adultery am I an “adulterphobe?”
[/quote]
I agree with this. Do I have a hard time agreeing with homosexuality? Yes I can at times. But as an American and Christian, I do think they have the right to marriage bc it would be discriminating if they didnt(which neither my country or religon stand for). I know homosexuals who are great Christians. My Uncle for example. I love him like a brother and I can be around him and others wihtout feeling like Im going to kill someone or myself. Am I a homophobe or bigot? No. And btw, “white” dominance is hardly the case in some places. Im from south Texas which is probably 80% mexican. I was the only white boy in my grade. I was sent to the hospital by a group of mexicans and nothing was done about it. Do I hate them even though I was discriminated everyday? Not at all. Why? Because THEY ARENT ALL THE SAME!! Yall like to put christians or whites in one single group which all have the exact same beliefs and standards. Now that is discrimination. Most of all, if you stand against bigotry, then dont be a hypocrite. You can have these conversations with respect. Dont you agree?[/quote]
Definitely agree. I grew up in the southeastern U.S. (a.k.a. the Bible Belt) so pretty much everyone was white, Christian, and conservative. Back home, people consider me to be somewhat liberal. I don’t consider myself the least bit liberal, but comparatively speaking I guess I’m Vladimir Lenin. But sure, there are plenty of people that are into Christianity Lite just like there are those who want to start a new Crusade.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]MangoMan305 wrote:
Why do people constantly argue over these things? Why do you personally care if someone is gay? Let them live their gay lives and be happy, they are not harming ANYONE. Let people live THEIR lives the way they want it. Everyone gets ONE LIFE so let them decide how they want to spend their only 100 years on Earth. Stop trying to persecute people over trivial things.
As for what is right and wrong. ITS SIMPLE, WHATEVER IS COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SOCIETY IS “WRONG” Everything else is subjective and depends on your culture.
I don’t need an imaginary person in the sky telling me how to live my life. I also do not understand how people can believe in something that has never been proven before in history.
As what cappedandplanit was saying about the sexual difference, he is right. It clearly states the HUSBAND is THE HEAD as Jesus is head of the church. What the fuck else does this possibly mean other than woman being beneath men. (If his quotes are correct)
[/quote]
WHATEVER IS COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SOCIETY IS “WRONG”
This has never been proven and there is absolutely no evidence to support it. You’re an idiot by your own admittance.
And did you read the rest of the stuff about the head of the family? Do you realize christ let himself be tortured and killed to save the church. Do you realize that his entire life was in service of the church? If anything that sounds like he was beneath the church.
Let go with another analogy since no one will read or has an argument against all the other posts I’ve made on the subject. What is more important or valuable to you as a person, your head, or your heart? Does your head really make all your decisions?[/quote]
As a child your father will give his life to save yours. Does that mean you are over him? No, you must still do everything he commands.
“This has never been proven and there is absolutely no evidence to support it. You’re an idiot by your own admittance.”
Neither has God.
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]MangoMan305 wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
Being homosexual is not a sin. Practicing homosexuality is. I don’t believe it’s neccessarily either a choice or naturally ocurring. I believe certain people have desires for the same sex. That can’t be taught. Nobody had to teach me or millions of other horny boys to like girls. Meanwhile, we don’t all act on our carnal desires. If we did, you would have a lot more pedophiles in the world. The thing that I don’t understand is how a society that can slam a priest for being a pedophile can think it’s perfectly OK for two men to have sex. Both are wrong because they are both perversions.[/quote]
You sir, are a tard.[/quote]
Wow, what a well thought out argument.[/quote]
Wheres my argument?
I just don’t like you
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]MangoMan305 wrote:
Let go with another analogy since no one will read or has an argument against all the other posts I’ve made on the subject. What is more important or valuable to you as a person, your head, or your heart? Does your head really make all your decisions?[/quote]
I assume you are not literally speaking of the actual heart.
Both as they are the same thing… my mind.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Is three some punishment if gays are declared husband/husband by Joe the gay bartender? What am I missing? I mean, I seen gays introduce the other as “my husband.” They didn’t even look worried that a police raid would soon show, or something.[/quote]
It’s those pesky federal things like hospital visitation and child custody that all come packaged up all tidy like.
But you already knew that.[/quote]
This.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Is three some punishment if gays are declared husband/husband by Joe the gay bartender? What am I missing? I mean, I seen gays introduce the other as “my husband.” They didn’t even look worried that a police raid would soon show, or something.[/quote]
It’s those pesky federal things like hospital visitation and child custody that all come packaged up all tidy like.
But you already knew that.[/quote]
This.[/quote]
Check out my followups. It basically leads to a challenge to everyone on this thread. If state-recognized marriage can’t discriminate against consenting adults and their lifestyles, please provide a definition of non-discriminatory state recognized marriage. Here’s why noone will attempt to do it…State-recognized marriage recognizes a private human arrangment to the exclusion of others! So in your new non-discriminatory state-recognized marriage, you can’t use parameters such as number of partners, gender of parnters, sexual orientation, prefered living arangements, or even consider if the relationship is of a sexual nature (that’s their business). Heck, you’d have to support 20 single-mothers forming a marriage arrangement over the internet! If you don’t you’re just as much of a bigot as me. If you do, well, then it brings out into the open what’s really going on here.
For now, I’ll await the new discrimination free state-recognized ‘marriage.’ Please, anyone, feel free to take a shot. In fact, I’d say that this is where the debate should start.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Is three some punishment if gays are declared husband/husband by Joe the gay bartender? What am I missing? I mean, I seen gays introduce the other as “my husband.” They didn’t even look worried that a police raid would soon show, or something.[/quote]
It’s those pesky federal things like hospital visitation and child custody that all come packaged up all tidy like.
But you already knew that.[/quote]
This.[/quote]
Check out my followups. It basically leads to a challenge to everyone on this thread. If state-recognized marriage can’t discriminate against consenting adults and their lifestyles, please provide a definition of non-discriminatory state recognized marriage. Here’s why noone will attempt to do it…State-recognized marriage recognizes a private human arrangment to the exclusion of others! So in your new non-discriminatory state-recognized marriage, you can’t use parameters such as number of partners, gender of parnters, sexual orientation, prefered living arangements, or even consider if the relationship is of a sexual nature (that’s their business). Heck, you’d have to support 20 single-mothers forming a marriage arrangement over the internet! If you don’t you’re just as much of a bigot as me. If you do, well, then it brings out into the open what’s really going on here.
For now, I’ll await the new discrimination free state-recognized ‘marriage.’ Please, anyone, feel free to take a shot. In fact, I’d say that this is where the debate should start.[/quote]
What is the purpose of marriage as a legal institution?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Is three some punishment if gays are declared husband/husband by Joe the gay bartender? What am I missing? I mean, I seen gays introduce the other as “my husband.” They didn’t even look worried that a police raid would soon show, or something.[/quote]
It’s those pesky federal things like hospital visitation and child custody that all come packaged up all tidy like.
But you already knew that.[/quote]
This.[/quote]
Check out my followups. It basically leads to a challenge to everyone on this thread. If state-recognized marriage can’t discriminate against consenting adults and their lifestyles, please provide a definition of non-discriminatory state recognized marriage. Here’s why noone will attempt to do it…State-recognized marriage recognizes a private human arrangment to the exclusion of others! So in your new non-discriminatory state-recognized marriage, you can’t use parameters such as number of partners, gender of parnters, sexual orientation, prefered living arangements, or even consider if the relationship is of a sexual nature (that’s their business). Heck, you’d have to support 20 single-mothers forming a marriage arrangement over the internet! If you don’t you’re just as much of a bigot as me. If you do, well, then it brings out into the open what’s really going on here.
For now, I’ll await the new discrimination free state-recognized ‘marriage.’ Please, anyone, feel free to take a shot. In fact, I’d say that this is where the debate should start.[/quote]
There are many places around the world that have allowed gay marriage and avoided these problems.
[quote]MangoMan305 wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
[quote]MangoMan305 wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
Being homosexual is not a sin. Practicing homosexuality is. I don’t believe it’s neccessarily either a choice or naturally ocurring. I believe certain people have desires for the same sex. That can’t be taught. Nobody had to teach me or millions of other horny boys to like girls. Meanwhile, we don’t all act on our carnal desires. If we did, you would have a lot more pedophiles in the world. The thing that I don’t understand is how a society that can slam a priest for being a pedophile can think it’s perfectly OK for two men to have sex. Both are wrong because they are both perversions.[/quote]
You sir, are a tard.[/quote]
Wow, what a well thought out argument.[/quote]
Wheres my argument?
I just don’t like you
[/quote]
Oh, well that’s easy enough to deal with.
[quote]MangoMan305 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]MangoMan305 wrote:
Why do people constantly argue over these things? Why do you personally care if someone is gay? Let them live their gay lives and be happy, they are not harming ANYONE. Let people live THEIR lives the way they want it. Everyone gets ONE LIFE so let them decide how they want to spend their only 100 years on Earth. Stop trying to persecute people over trivial things.
As for what is right and wrong. ITS SIMPLE, WHATEVER IS COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SOCIETY IS “WRONG” Everything else is subjective and depends on your culture.
I don’t need an imaginary person in the sky telling me how to live my life. I also do not understand how people can believe in something that has never been proven before in history.
As what cappedandplanit was saying about the sexual difference, he is right. It clearly states the HUSBAND is THE HEAD as Jesus is head of the church. What the fuck else does this possibly mean other than woman being beneath men. (If his quotes are correct)
[/quote]
WHATEVER IS COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SOCIETY IS “WRONG”
This has never been proven and there is absolutely no evidence to support it. You’re an idiot by your own admittance.
And did you read the rest of the stuff about the head of the family? Do you realize christ let himself be tortured and killed to save the church. Do you realize that his entire life was in service of the church? If anything that sounds like he was beneath the church.
Let go with another analogy since no one will read or has an argument against all the other posts I’ve made on the subject. What is more important or valuable to you as a person, your head, or your heart? Does your head really make all your decisions?[/quote]
As a child your father will give his life to save yours. Does that mean you are over him? No, you must still do everything he commands.
[/quote]
The bible commands neither a child to obey everything his father says nor a wife to obey everything his husband says.
So you admit your structure of beliefs and religion are on the same footing?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Is three some punishment if gays are declared husband/husband by Joe the gay bartender? What am I missing? I mean, I seen gays introduce the other as “my husband.” They didn’t even look worried that a police raid would soon show, or something.[/quote]
It’s those pesky federal things like hospital visitation and child custody that all come packaged up all tidy like.
But you already knew that.[/quote]
This.[/quote]
Check out my followups. It basically leads to a challenge to everyone on this thread. If state-recognized marriage can’t discriminate against consenting adults and their lifestyles, please provide a definition of non-discriminatory state recognized marriage. Here’s why noone will attempt to do it…State-recognized marriage recognizes a private human arrangment to the exclusion of others! So in your new non-discriminatory state-recognized marriage, you can’t use parameters such as number of partners, gender of parnters, sexual orientation, prefered living arangements, or even consider if the relationship is of a sexual nature (that’s their business). Heck, you’d have to support 20 single-mothers forming a marriage arrangement over the internet! If you don’t you’re just as much of a bigot as me. If you do, well, then it brings out into the open what’s really going on here.
For now, I’ll await the new discrimination free state-recognized ‘marriage.’ Please, anyone, feel free to take a shot. In fact, I’d say that this is where the debate should start.[/quote]
What is the purpose of marriage as a legal institution?
[/quote]
This. I actually agree.
My personal belief is that gays should not be allowed to legally marry. BUT I also don’t think the state should be legally marrying anyone.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What is the purpose of marriage as a legal institution?
[/quote]
This. I actually agree.
My personal belief is that gays should not be allowed to legally marry. BUT I also don’t think the state should be legally marrying anyone.[/quote]
Good discussion (well, for the most part). I’m pretty sure I know where you are coming from but correct me if I’m wrong.
You feel it should be handled completely as religious/church matter, yes? I would agree as far as the sanctity and meaning of the union is concerned. Unfortunately, I thing state recognition of marriage goes beyond receiving state and federal “benefits”. You also have to consider that now rights to your (and your spouse’s) property and wealth play a big part in divorce, which really wasn’t a consideration 1000 years ago.
Without state recognized marriage, how much legal action would someone have? FTR, I’m not advocating the state recognition for these reasons, just trying to give a reason for the purpose of state recognition.
Anybody know when marriage became a legal institution?
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What is the purpose of marriage as a legal institution?
[/quote]
This. I actually agree.
My personal belief is that gays should not be allowed to legally marry. BUT I also don’t think the state should be legally marrying anyone.[/quote]
Good discussion (well, for the most part). I’m pretty sure I know where you are coming from but correct me if I’m wrong.
You feel it should be handled completely as religious/church matter, yes? I would agree as far as the sanctity and meaning of the union is concerned. Unfortunately, I thing state recognition of marriage goes beyond receiving state and federal “benefits”. You also have to consider that now rights to your (and your spouse’s) property and wealth play a big part in divorce, which really wasn’t a consideration 1000 years ago.
Without state recognized marriage, how much legal action would someone have? FTR, I’m not advocating the state recognition for these reasons, just trying to give a reason for the purpose of state recognition.
Anybody know when marriage became a legal institution?
[/quote]
I’m not entirely against some sort of union for whomever wants it. BUt I think almost everything you mentioned can be handled with a regular contract.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What is the purpose of marriage as a legal institution?
[/quote]
This. I actually agree.
My personal belief is that gays should not be allowed to legally marry. BUT I also don’t think the state should be legally marrying anyone.[/quote]
Good discussion (well, for the most part). I’m pretty sure I know where you are coming from but correct me if I’m wrong.
You feel it should be handled completely as religious/church matter, yes? I would agree as far as the sanctity and meaning of the union is concerned. Unfortunately, I thing state recognition of marriage goes beyond receiving state and federal “benefits”. You also have to consider that now rights to your (and your spouse’s) property and wealth play a big part in divorce, which really wasn’t a consideration 1000 years ago.
Without state recognized marriage, how much legal action would someone have? FTR, I’m not advocating the state recognition for these reasons, just trying to give a reason for the purpose of state recognition.
Anybody know when marriage became a legal institution?
[/quote]
I’m not entirely against some sort of union for whomever wants it. BUt I think almost everything you mentioned can be handled with a regular contract.[/quote]
Would you say that you are against any type of state or federal “benefits” across the board for these unions? Obviously we would get away from the perceived discrimination if there were not any. At that point, two people could agree to any type of arrangement they want. If two people want to live in the same dwelling and pool resources, that’s their choice.
In the case of a male/female arrangement, you have potential child well-being and custody issues that may arise if the arrangement goes south. This is another reason why the state may feel a need to be involved in a union (at least between a man and a woman).
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What is the purpose of marriage as a legal institution?
[/quote]
To incetivize the ordering of the smallest unit capable of producing and raising it’s ownspring. Or, are you asking “why should we have any state recognized marriage?”
Still waiting on the definition of the new non-discriminatory state recognized marriage.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What is the purpose of marriage as a legal institution?
[/quote]
To incetivize the ordering of the smallest unit capable of producing and raising it’s ownspring. Or, are you asking “why should we have any state recognized marriage?”
Still waiting on the definition of the new non-discriminatory state recognized marriage.[/quote]
…the state shall not discriminate against people who seek a state recognized marriage IF that state recognized marriage is wanted by a [arbitrary] percentage of the population…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What is the purpose of marriage as a legal institution?
[/quote]
To incetivize the ordering of the smallest unit capable of producing and raising it’s ownspring. Or, are you asking “why should we have any state recognized marriage?”
Still waiting on the definition of the new non-discriminatory state recognized marriage.[/quote]
…the state shall not discriminate against people who seek a state recognized marriage IF that state recognized marriage is wanted by a [arbitrary] percentage of the population…
[/quote]
Have no idea what that means. Are you suggesting discrimation is defined solely by a democratic vote?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
What is the purpose of marriage as a legal institution?
[/quote]
To incetivize the ordering of the smallest unit capable of producing and raising it’s ownspring. Or, are you asking “why should we have any state recognized marriage?”
Still waiting on the definition of the new non-discriminatory state recognized marriage.[/quote]
…the state shall not discriminate against people who seek a state recognized marriage IF that state recognized marriage is wanted by a [arbitrary] percentage of the population…
[/quote]
Have no idea what that means. Are you suggesting discrimation is defined solely by a democratic vote?[/quote]
…it could be what non-discriminatory state recognized marriages are concerned…