4 Reasons Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the USA!

Originally posted by FeceMan
Liberals talk about 'separation of church and state', but that's just a bullshit PC line. What they really believe is that Christianity is evil, and to allow it to influence politics would be their downfall--after all, how can the ones who are the essence of immorality utilize a religion that condemns so many of their beliefs as being immoral? "Christianity is hate speech", "Christian evangelicals hate gays", and "Gee, wouldn't it suck if abortion were illegal?" are the answers you'll get when you press the issue hard enough. It's a product of prejudice and intolerance that is allegedly based off of the desires of the Founders, when, in reality, it's a twisted misrepresentation of what they wanted. Funny, since the very stereotypical ideas espoused by these liberals are based off of nothing else by prejudice and intolerance. They're nothing more than hypocrite liberal PC-Nazis so obsessed with the alleged sins of conservatives that they can't see their own evil.

I wonder what Jesus Christ will say to them when they finally meet him?

Probably, "I know you not; depart from me."

And those liberal Christians. You know the ones--those who want to cross out sections of the Bible they don't like and pretend like there is no such thing as judgment or any other parts of the Bible that don't conform with their morally relatavistic ideals. They want to pretend like what's written in the Old Testament doesn't count, that it ought to be discarded so that we can focus on the ministries of Christ--because that's why Christ came, at least in their eyes: to declare that there are no wrong things in this world, that there will be no punishment for sin.

I wonder what Jesus Christ will say to them when they finally meet him?

Probably, "You have perverted My Word; you have made it into something false and unclean. Piss off."

why must i respond to a dead debate from so long ago? ok fine

only difference is im not judging people based on simply who they are, but rather scrutinising them for what they believe, which is that gay people are evil based simply on who they are...and how? how do they get around this? by making up the 'proven fact' that homosexuality is a choice and a disease...not implying that YOU believe it, or that its just a typical christian mindset, but you have to admit that such an attitude is far too rampant to label me as a strawman basher. after all, to disacknowledge this 'fact' would be to acknowledge that perhaps homosexuals may not have a choice in the matter, and thus it would not be a sin. so its a required ignorance in order to declare being gay a sin and evil

im sorry, but i feel that passing gods judgement on others based on a lie is....evil.....isnt it?

Only reason that it’s not is because of religion, if you look at the rights and reasons there is no reason that it shouldn’t be legalized.

i think those people who are denying gay marriage in this thread should take a second to think about what it would be like if you couldn't marry the love of your life due to some poorly conceived law. besides, straight-couple marriages aren't even all that perfect as it is, what makes you people think that gay marriages can be any worse? besides, allowing gay marriage would even out the population; we wouldn't have excess population, and the children that are products of the so-called "perfect" straight-marriages that end up being abandoned can be adopted by gay/lesbian couples.

what's so wrong with that?

Originally posted by Kayne Archeron
i think those people who are denying gay marriage in this thread should take a second to think about what it would be like if you couldn't marry the love of your life due to some poorly conceived law. besides, straight-couple marriages aren't even all that perfect as it is, what makes you people think that gay marriages can be any worse? besides, allowing gay marriage would even out the population; we wouldn't have excess population, and the children that are products of the so-called "perfect" straight-marriages that end up being abandoned can be adopted by gay/lesbian couples.

what's so wrong with that?

Like that would totally make them gay. jm

Seriously nothing, but adoption by gay parents is a very real problem in this world. In Holland where gay marriage is legal gay's have a far harder time adopting children because the country's were a lot of adoption baby's come from ussually don't like the idea of their children being raised by gays... Most of those country's would rather let those children rot then give them to gays...

Totally off topic I know, but I don't really care.

Didn't Feceman recently claim that Homosexuality isn't truly a sin, that it has been misconstued in the translations of the Old Testament ?

I think gay is a poorly contrived word, change the words let whoever marry.

Marriage is for suckers anyway😛

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Didn't Feceman recently claim that Homosexuality isn't truly a sin, that it has been misconstued in the translations of the Old Testament ?

he's quoting someone else, to prove something against me. however im sure he doesnt believe in what he quoted. he just likes to give enigmatic hit and run jabs, which is just fine by me since....well...i dont get it 😬

Holy balls-ass-hell-shit needler, does no one get that what I wrote to PVS was not actually serious but a reversal of what he said in order to prove to him a point? That it was supposed to sound like the rant of a political demagogue?

Cripes. Jesus Cripes.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Didn't Feceman recently claim that Homosexuality isn't truly a sin, that it has been misconstued in the translations of the Old Testament ?

Originally posted by Alliance
Many Christian groups support the bans. They have part of the blame. Many individual Christians see the bans for what they really are and reject them.

The Christian dogma is the problem here, not Christians.

Besides, since the US is 75% Christian anyway...If you say I hate America, you could say that was anti-christian.

So really, your desired interpretaion of my opinoins is far from the truth.

As far as the arguments for gay marriage go, the general Christian evangelical standpoint is that marriage has always been and should continue to be between one man and one woman. The Bible says homosexuality (allegedly) is wrong, and thus to allow it to infect the institution of marriage designed by Yahweh would be morally wrong. Furthermore, it is not discrimination but rather rational restriction of marriage rights.

However, these arguments end up being a pissing match between those for gay marriage and against gay marriage. Though the idea was not originally proposed by me, a much stronger argument is that homosexual marriage is not discrimination simply because homosexuals are not being denied rights that other Americans have.

I was mulling over this the other day. Let's pretend that people don't sit in the first two rows of seats on buses. They just don't do that, and so it has never been an issue in the past. Now, though, there is a small but vocal minority of handicapped people who want to sit in the first two rows of the buses because it's much easier for them. Not all the handicapped people are even in agreement on this issue, but they made so much noise about sitting in the first two rows that it became an issue.

Now, there are some people who quote from the Bus Driver's Handbook upon which bus driving was founding, say that it is wrong to allow anyone to sit in the first two rows of buses. Some of those quoting the book would probably advocate killing off the handicapped people. Others say that, although it might be wrong to sit in the first two rows, rehabilitation programs are available for the handicapped people and they should enroll to become fully functional citizens (although these programs have a very low success rate). Other people disagree, and there's eventually this great divide between the two.

Originally posted by FeceMan
As far as the arguments for gay marriage go, the general Christian evangelical standpoint is that marriage has always been and should continue to be between one man and one woman. The Bible says homosexuality (allegedly) is wrong, and thus to allow it to infect the institution of marriage designed by Yahweh would be morally wrong. Furthermore, it is not discrimination but rather rational restriction of marriage rights.

Yes...and since when in recent hsitory have evangelicals been representative of anyt sort of Mainstream thought? There are more sects to Christianity than the rabid evangelicals.

Marriage is defined by the STATE, not any god. God is not going to protect the rights of homosexuals, neither is the church. Neither of them factor into this argument, so drop the act now. Marriage is a legal contract provided by the state.

We'll get to your "rational" arguement.

Originally posted by FeceMan
However, these arguments end up being a pissing match between those for gay marriage and against gay marriage. Though the idea was not originally proposed by me, a much stronger argument is that homosexual marriage is not discrimination simply because homosexuals are not being denied rights that other Americans have.

Marriage is defined as a basic right by the US supreme court. Nowhere, prior to this whole debocale, was marriage defined as between an man and a woman. However, it is Federal and State policy NOT to discriminate, or to deny a specific group of people rights or privledges based on any superficial categorization. Homosexuals are denied the right to marry whom they choose and because of that, lose hundreds of other privledges and rights given to other couples.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I was mulling over this the other day.

So. What are you trying to do, convince me you have a rational opinon.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Let's pretend that people don't sit in the first two rows of seats on buses. They just don't do that, and so it has never been an issue in the past. Now, though, there is a small but vocal minority of handicapped people who want to sit in the first two rows of the buses because it's much easier for them. Not all the handicapped people are even in agreement on this issue, but they made so much noise about sitting in the first two rows that it became an issue.

First off, this is a crap analogy. If people weren't allowed to sit in the first two rows, why are seats there? Handicapped people can still sit in the back seat without changing anything about themselves. or doing something against their nature. I'm not even going to address the rest of the analogy, which is just you blowing hot air and not even addressing the point.

Basically, you're a bigot. Shame on me for thinking you had a rational opinon. You can't vocalize your argument legally, rationally, or even directly. Instead, you beat around the bush with poorly constructed non-representative analogies in order pursuede me that you have rationalisty on your side.

If you want a similar issue...look at what happend to anti-sodomy laws, or ESPECIALLY the inter-racial marriage laws. That would be an appropriate analogy.

Marriage allows two people to enter into a legal contract. This contract is a basic right under US law and all married couples are treated equally. Homosexuals are denied this right and the benefits that are packaged with marriage.

Now, if you wnat to construct a legal argument as to who homosexuals should be denied the right of marriage, I'll listen to your argument again.

Originally posted by Alliance
Words without meaning.

Marriage is defined as a basic right by the US supreme court. Nowhere, prior to this whole debocale, was marriage defined as between an man and a woman.

However, it is Federal and State policy NOT to discriminate, or to deny a specific group of people rights or privledges based on any superficial categorization. Homosexuals are denied the right to marry whom they choose and because of that, lose hundreds of other privledges and rights given to other couples.

So. What are you trying to do, convince me you have a rational opinon.

More meaningless words.

Are you really that much of a dullard, or is your revulsion and loathing for the beliefs and practices of Christian evangelicals so great that it clouds your mind and makes you incapable of understanding? But, I don't have to tell you this, do I?

Originally posted by FeceMan
I would suggest you look at the definition of marriage.

And yet that doesn't contradict anything I have said so far.

I should think that you ought to do so for me.

What I'm trying to decide is this:

Are you really that much of a dullard, or is your revulsion and loathing for the beliefs and practices of Christian evangelicals so great that it clouds your mind and makes you incapable of understanding? But, I don't have to tell you this, do I?

#1 Your're right in all of your positions on the opinions posted before.

#2 You don't oppose gay marriage.

#3 gay marriage doesn't effect anyone but gay people. So anything you have to say in opposition is only lip service.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Holy balls-ass-hell-shit needler, does no one get that what I wrote to PVS was not actually serious but a reversal of what he said in order to prove to him a point? That it was supposed to sound like the rant of a political demagogue?

so you actually went through the trouble of writing all that? couldnt you just say...oh i dont know...that is sounded....

Originally posted by FeceMan
like the rant of a political demagogue?

too much time on your hands

Originally posted by PVS
too much time on your hands

You have a lot of posts, you must be right.

-FO!!

This thread should be called 100 reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry.jm

Originally posted by Flame On!!
You have a lot of posts, you must be right.

-FO!!

yes, but i usually choose the shortest possible effective way to make my point, rather than taking the scenic route

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
This thread should be called 100 reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry.jm

100 reasons why you should have your computer taken away.

reason #1: 15 years old and refuses to learn how to spell "nothing" correctly. proof that the computer is not necessarily an educational tool in the wrong hands, as well as the shame of the NJ system of education.

Clever PMS but not clever enough or mature enough.jm 🙄 😆

Originally posted by Soleran
Marriage is for suckers anyway😛

😛

Yea, it is. 60% divorce rate says so.

Besides, you shouldn't have to spend thousands on a ceremony and rings to spend the rest of your life with someone.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
Yea, it is. 60% divorce rate says so.

Besides, you shouldn't have to spend thousands on a ceremony and rings to spend the rest of your life with someone.

You obviously don't get the importance of marriage.... It has no real purpose logically speaking but it can emotionally speaking mean a lot...

Originally posted by Fishy
You obviously don't get the importance of marriage.... It has no real purpose logically speaking but it can emotionally speaking mean a lot...

If it was so important, more than half of marriages wouldn't be breaking up.

If two people know that they were meant for each other, then a ceremony should be meaningless. They should profess their love in private as a promise between just them. If that isn't enough, then it isn't love.