• New York senate rejects same-sex marriage bill
    550 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Trotsky;18729108]Because the LGBT community TOTALLY hasn't been protesting this for years, amirite? [editline]04:54PM[/editline] You know who else used to say that? people against interracial marriage.[/QUOTE] Well it seems they haven't protested enough.
who cares about marriage anyway. you stupid traditionalist yanks and your loyalty through a bond created by the church that you vow to crush with athiesm
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;18729100]Yes, I am a xenophobic bastard when it comes to homosexuality, but MARRYING gays just isn't right. They want to live together? Ok, no problem. However, Marriage was always set to be an bond between Man and Woman and everything other isn't right.[/QUOTE] What's so wrong about it? I really would like to hear your thoughts on what makes gay marriage so horrendous, besides the fact that a religious book condemns it. What logical reasoning is there for it being wrong? It hurts no one, and makes the two people involved happy.
[QUOTE=Trotsky;18729108] You know who else used to say that? people against interracial marriage.[/QUOTE] And why the hell should I care? Maybe Hitler used to say "I like muffins", and saying the same thing doesn't make me Hitler. I say the rule is Man and Woman. Only way to apply this rule against interracial marriage is by degrading one of the races under status of being human, but when this is true you have other problems than marriages.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;18729100]Yes, I am a xenophobic bastard when it comes to homosexuality, but MARRYING gays just isn't right. They want to live together? Ok, no problem. However, Marriage was always set to be an bond between Man and Woman and everything other isn't right.[/QUOTE] Except when Marriage brings certain state provided benefits. If Christians want their own version of marriage, here ever after.. blah fucking blah. That's their business. However Marriage at the moment allows for real world tax benefits, property rights, rights of the living partner after death etc. It seems people can't have these benefits if the Christians decide they don't like it? So much for secular society.
[QUOTE=booster;18729128]Well it seems they haven't protested enough.[/QUOTE] No, you're just a tool. They have [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;18729120]"...and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme mothafuckin' law of the mothafuckin' land;" Note: this is what the Constitution actually says.[/QUOTE] "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - Bush [editline]04:57PM[/editline] I'm right more then you
[QUOTE=Trotsky;18729148]"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - Bush [editline]04:57PM[/editline] I'm right more then you[/QUOTE] GHWB said that? Jeez, maybe I should reexamine my position.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;18729145]And why the hell should I care? Maybe Hitler used to say "I like muffins", and saying the same thing doesn't make me Hitler. I say the rule is Man and Woman. Only way to apply this rule against interracial marriage is by degrading one of the races under status of being human, but when this is true you have other problems than marriages.[/QUOTE] That's a shitty comparison. No it hasn't. It wasn't about gender, it was about primogeniture.
[QUOTE=Trotsky;18729148]No, you're just a tool. They have "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - Bush [editline]04:57PM[/editline] I'm right more then you[/QUOTE] The 'Under God' bit was added in 1954. The man responsible was a Chaplain. Another yay for secular society!
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;18729166]GHWB said that? Jeez, maybe I should reexamine my position.[/QUOTE] Yes, he was a a true american
[QUOTE=Orsenfelt;18729147]Except when Marriage brings certain state provided benefits. If Christians want their own version of marriage, here ever after.. blah fucking blah. That's their business. However Marriage at the moment allows for real world tax benefits, property rights, rights of the living partner after death etc. It seems people can't have these benefits if the Christians decide they don't like it? So much for secular society.[/QUOTE] Well, I don't know about USA, but we solved this with "Registered Partnership", which brings all those benefits while being totally separate from marriage. I, for one, am fully for this and have no problem with it.
bitch face
[QUOTE=Itachi_Crow;18729141]What's so wrong about it? I really would like to hear your thoughts on what makes gay marriage so horrendous, besides the fact that a religious book condemns it. What logical reasoning is there for it being wrong? It hurts no one, and makes the two people involved happy.[/QUOTE] Still have yet to answer my question awesomecaek
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;18729177]Well, I don't know about USA, but we solved this with "Registered Partnership", which brings all those benefits while being totally separate from marriage. I, for one, am fully for this and have no problem with it.[/QUOTE] Where do you live, Iran? [editline]05:01PM[/editline] I'[m sure you would love it?
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;18729177]Well, I don't know about USA, but we solved this with "Registered Partnership", which brings all those benefits while being totally separate from marriage. I, for one, am fully for this and have no problem with it.[/QUOTE] Registered Partnership is what this was all about. Right now, in some US states, Homosexuals are DENIED the right for lawful partnership. Call it Marriage, Civil Union, Registered Partnership.. whatever. Not allowed. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States[/url]
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;18729177]Well, I don't know about USA, but we solved this with "Registered Partnership", which brings all those benefits while being totally separate from marriage. I, for one, am fully for this and have no problem with it.[/QUOTE] This is a good idea, however if we do it, we should remove the legal status from marriage, so you can have separate religious and legal marriages.
[QUOTE=Trotsky;18728997]In America? NO, America is a christian nation George Washington was a Christian.[/QUOTE] my "treaty of tripoli" button is getting worn out. e: or are you fakeposting
[QUOTE=Itachi_Crow;18729187]Still have yet to answer my question awesomecaek[/QUOTE] It just breaks the definition of marriage. It's like you wanted to add basketball baskets to football. Nobody has anything against them, but for fucks sake, you can make your own sport to use them.
[QUOTE=Athena;18729207]My "Treaty of Tripoli" button is getting worn out.[/QUOTE] He's being facetious anyway.
Then if they can't be "married" but still have a partnership, we'd have to go with JohnnyMo's earlier suggestion.
[QUOTE=Itachi_Crow;18729221]Then if they can't be "married" but still have a partnership, give them the same legal rights and benefits as a married couple.[/QUOTE] I already stated that I have never had anything against this. It just shouldn't be classified as marriage anymore.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;18729208]It just breaks the definition of marriage. It's like you wanted to add basketball baskets to football. Nobody has anything against them, but for fucks sake, you can make your own sport to use them.[/QUOTE] It's only the religious connotations of the word [I]Marriage[/I] that mean man & woman. The word Marriage isn't a religious word, it's just been associated with religion the most throughout history because up until recently there has been very, very few non-religious people in the world. Openly, atleast.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;18729208]It just breaks the definition of marriage. It's like you wanted to add basketball baskets to football. Nobody has anything against them, but for fucks sake, you can make your own sport to use them.[/QUOTE] I wasn't aware human rights could be compared to basketballs. [editline]05:07PM[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;18729220]He's being facetious anyway.[/QUOTE] dumbstupidface jerk JERK [editline]05:08PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Awesomecaek;18729233]I already stated that I have never had anything against this. It just shouldn't be classified as marriage anymore.[/QUOTE] Why not? It's not a religious term
Uuh, I wish someone would just give them all the tax benefits etc that they're so desperate for if it will shut everyone up
I'm glad about this. It is democracy.
[QUOTE=Trotsky;18729254] Why not? It's not a religious term[/QUOTE] I am pretty sure that the term was stated with the Man & Woman way even while not religious. And not only religious people are against gay marriage you know.
[QUOTE=Pepin;18729330]I'm glad about this. It is democracy.[/QUOTE] Actually it's called a tyranny of the majority but you were close.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;18729339]I am pretty sure that the term was stated with the Man & Woman way even while not religious. And not only religious people are against gay marriage you know.[/QUOTE] No, it was stated for primogeniture you tool. It had NOTHING to do with gender roles. what part of this do you not understand? [editline]05:19PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Pepin;18729330]I'm glad about this. It is democracy.[/QUOTE] Good thing America is a republic. [editline]05:20PM[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;18729300]Uuh, I wish someone would just give them all the tax benefits etc that they're so desperate for if it will shut everyone up[/QUOTE] Yes, because separate but equal worked in the 60's, right? and how dare they speak out against discrimination. Gay people are traitors to America and Jehova. I am with you, facepunch poster carcarcargo.
[QUOTE=Trotsky;18729373] Yes, because separate but equal worked in the 60's, right? and how dare they speak out against discrimination. Gay people are traitors to America and Jehova. I am with you, facepunch poster carcarcargo.[/QUOTE] Well done, you completely missed my point AND failed to insult me. And if you're going to insult my religion, at least spell Jehovah right.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;18729463]Well done, you completely missed my point AND failed to insult me.[/QUOTE] I may have missed the point but I didn't fail to insult. [editline]05:29PM[/editline] tell me, what was the point
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.