Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why is this stupid topic on the first page? We have such serious problems in this country that this is just stupid for it to be drawing this kind of attention. Put your passions into a subject that impacts everyone and stop arguing about this senseless bullshit.
Because currently everything is a signed to Civil Marriages, which if course is completely different than Religious Marriage. Civil Marriage is a function of the secular government, Religious Marriage is a function of individual religious institutions.
>>>>
I advocate marriage for churches and religious institutions only.
So I guess I'm not clear.
Are you saying that religious marriages performed by religious institutions are the ones that the government would recognize?
>>>>
I advocate marriage for churches and religious institutions only.
So I guess I'm not clear.
Are you saying that religious marriages performed by religious institutions are the ones that the government would recognize?
>>>>
Marriage are spiritual and sacred, not some free for all thing, gays can have a civil union if it has all the legal and rights to property, going beyond that is not equal rights but trying to legitimatize homosexuality and put it on same status as heterosexuality when it is not, they are not the same.
Two men doing it up the butt is a hell of a lot different than a man and woman doing that. my point is that gays will never have it "equal" like heterosexuals, heterosexuals can procreate, gays cannot procreate with each other with samesex sex, is God now homophobic and unfair to gays? I never said heteros are innocent why use that strawman?
I advocate marriage for churches and religious institutions only.
So I guess I'm not clear.
Are you saying that religious marriages performed by religious institutions are the ones that the government would recognize?
>>>>
Marriage are spiritual and sacred, not some free for all thing, gays can have a civil union if it has all the legal and rights to property, going beyond that is not equal rights but trying to legitimatize homosexuality and put it on same status as heterosexuality when it is not, they are not the same.
I advocate marriage for churches and religious institutions only.
So I guess I'm not clear.
Are you saying that religious marriages performed by religious institutions are the ones that the government would recognize?
>>>>
Marriage are spiritual and sacred, not some free for all thing, gays can have a civil union if it has all the legal and rights to property, going beyond that is not equal rights but trying to legitimatize homosexuality and put it on same status as heterosexuality when it is not, they are not the same.
Your ass is showing.
As to your post to the other poster - the will of the many should never eradicate the rights of the few.
No one has a right to marry someone of the same sex.
No One has the "right" to marry. It is an "honor". Please list those "honorable" homosexuals (you know ones that do not deceive).
How is married hetero-women taking up the ass any different, Mr. Comic man. Or masturbation? Or contraceptives? If you want to get down to the nitty, any form of sex (tit fucking, oral sex, etc.) for nonprocreation reasons are a deviate perversion practiced by society. So get off your righteous horse about the majority of hetero-fuck-ups. They can't stand one another as it is, that is why there is so many dovorces and cheating among heterosexuals.
Two men doing it up the butt is a hell of a lot different than a man and woman doing that. my point is that gays will never have it "equal" like heterosexuals, heterosexuals can procreate, gays cannot procreate with each other with samesex sex, is God now homophobic and unfair to gays? I never said heteros are innocent why use that strawman?
You've thought about this a lot.
Incorrect.Let the civilian law have their laws is all I'm saying but let the spiritual things stay with the churches, if gays get the same rights under a civil union I see no reason to give gays marriage, its only legitimatizing their lifestyle, it isn't about rights.
You may advocate the sky be pink with green polka dots, but it wont happen. Just as states will forever be the administrators of marriage laws.I advocate marriage for churches and religious institutions only.
Marriage are spiritual and sacred, not some free for all thing, gays can have a civil union if it has all the legal and rights to property, going beyond that is not equal rights but trying to legitimatize homosexuality and put it on same status as heterosexuality when it is not, they are not the same.
Marriages are performed in religious institutions now for same-sex couples, should the government not recognize those "spiritual and sacred" marriages also?
I am a conservative and I have no problem with gay marriage. SHOCKER right.. Its their life and if they want to get married more power too them.
No one has a right to marry someone of the same sex.
No One has the "right" to marry. It is an "honor". Please list those "honorable" homosexuals (you know ones that do not deceive).
Being honorable isn't a requirement to get married. It's funny that you'd prefer to have homosexuals marry someone of the opposite sex, yet, you think they shouldn't be deceptive.
Christians whining about the values of others is completely hypocritical.
Furthermore, homosexuals don't want special rights. They want all men and all women to have the right, should they choose, to marry someone of the same gender.
Marriage isn't something that you just get to keep to yourself simply because "its been that way for thousands of years." Homosexuality has existed in nature for longer than that...and there are tons of civil rights violations that have gone on for hundreds of years.
There's a difference in cu's and marriages. Read it and weep here.
You conservatives want control of gays, but you cloak it under wanting control of a word "marriage". I know you wont...but at least consider...you can disagree with someone's views but not discriminate against them to get your point across.
Christians whining about the values of others is completely hypocritical.
Furthermore, homosexuals don't want special rights. They want all men and all women to have the right, should they choose, to marry someone of the same gender.
Marriage isn't something that you just get to keep to yourself simply because "its been that way for thousands of years." Homosexuality has existed in nature for longer than that...and there are tons of civil rights violations that have gone on for hundreds of years.
There's a difference in cu's and marriages. Read it and weep here.
You conservatives want control of gays, but you cloak it under wanting control of a word "marriage". I know you wont...but at least consider...you can disagree with someone's views but not discriminate against them to get your point across.
Yes, the homosexual extremists want "special rights". There is no way to tell who is homosexual and who is not without the person "stating" it (their word). So basically, we are being told "trust me" I am as I say. There is no proof, no way to know if this will be an honest person. Being that they are "homosexual" they are naturally deceptive (on what they really want in the beginning of a relationship, when dealing with society, is it convenient to "act straight" or is convenient to "act homosexual", etc). Why should people that want to believe they are "just" the same as the opposite sex be trusted with this bond that implies absolute trust?
Re-defining, is the first step in eliminating. Why do you want to see a cultural foundation (marriage) made weaker (and eventually eliminated)?
Christians whining about the values of others is completely hypocritical.
Furthermore, homosexuals don't want special rights. They want all men and all women to have the right, should they choose, to marry someone of the same gender.
Marriage isn't something that you just get to keep to yourself simply because "its been that way for thousands of years." Homosexuality has existed in nature for longer than that...and there are tons of civil rights violations that have gone on for hundreds of years.
There's a difference in cu's and marriages. Read it and weep here.
You conservatives want control of gays, but you cloak it under wanting control of a word "marriage". I know you wont...but at least consider...you can disagree with someone's views but not discriminate against them to get your point across.
Yes, the homosexual extremists want "special rights". There is no way to tell who is homosexual and who is not without the person "stating" it (their word). So basically, we are being told "trust me" I am as I say. There is no proof, no way to know if this will be an honest person. Being that they are "homosexual" they are naturally deceptive (on what they really want in the beginning of a relationship, when dealing with society, is it convenient to "act straight" or is convenient to "act homosexual", etc). Why should people that want to believe they are "just" the same as the opposite sex be trusted with this bond that implies absolute trust?
Re-defining, is the first step in eliminating. Why do you want to see a cultural foundation (marriage) made weaker (and eventually eliminated)?
So now you want people to prove they are homosexual before they can get married? You don't trust them to be married?
I'm sorry, your arguments are just getting too bizarre
Yes, the homosexual extremists want "special rights". There is no way to tell who is homosexual and who is not without the person "stating" it (their word). So basically, we are being told "trust me" I am as I say. There is no proof, no way to know if this will be an honest person. Being that they are "homosexual" they are naturally deceptive (on what they really want in the beginning of a relationship, when dealing with society, is it convenient to "act straight" or is convenient to "act homosexual", etc). Why should people that want to believe they are "just" the same as the opposite sex be trusted with this bond that implies absolute trust?
Re-defining, is the first step in eliminating. Why do you want to see a cultural foundation (marriage) made weaker (and eventually eliminated)?
So now you want people to prove they are homosexual before they can get married? You don't trust them to be married?
I'm sorry, your arguments are just getting too bizarre
Trying to understand:
two homosexuals that are married are the same as two heterosexuals
homosexuals do not have the same rights
changing marriage definition won't have any effect on society
homosexual marriage will not cost the taxpayer any more money
All of those are deceptions. You can repeat them all day long, but you can offer no proof. Just admit it: homosexual activists want "homosexual marriage" because they waaaaaant it. It has nothing to do with rationality, it is purely emotional (unlike "traditional marriage"). Our country is in a major crisis, and the homosexual activists want to push it over the edge, by make emotional demands, and costing the taxpayers money that could be spent other places more wisely.
Well, New York has done the right thing. Which brings to mind a question.
Can any person here who is "opposed to gay marriage" come forward and justify their position on the basis of anything other than intolerance and bigotry? Seriously.
Please don't start with "the Bible does not condone same sex marriage." Perhaps it doesn't. So WHAT? Let's say the Bible contained a passage which said: "Marriage is only between a man and a woman. If thou shalt marry one of the same sex as yourself, thou shalt burn in the fiery pits of HELL!" So what? Isn't invoking the Bible just another way of shoving religion down the throats of other people? Yup. In other words, intolerance and bigotry.
No, my friends - we all know what is really involved here, don't we? I am wondering if there is anyone here who has the stones to come right out and tell it like it is: "I am opposed to same sex marriage because I hate gays everything they stand for. No other reason."
Intolerance and bigotry. There really does not seem to be any other reason.
Well, New York has done the right thing. Which brings to mind a question.
Can any person here who is "opposed to gay marriage" come forward and justify their position on the basis of anything other than intolerance and bigotry? Seriously.
Please don't start with "the Bible does not condone same sex marriage." Perhaps it doesn't. So WHAT? Let's say the Bible contained a passage which said: "Marriage is only between a man and a woman. If thou shalt marry one of the same sex as yourself, thou shalt burn in the fiery pits of HELL!" So what? Isn't invoking the Bible just another way of shoving religion down the throats of other people? Yup. In other words, intolerance and bigotry.
No, my friends - we all know what is really involved here, don't we? I am wondering if there is anyone here who has the stones to come right out and tell it like it is: "I am opposed to same sex marriage because I hate gays everything they stand for. No other reason."
Intolerance and bigotry. There really does not seem to be any other reason.
There is a difference between being 'opposed to gay marriage' and being opposed to the government being in the business of marriage. The government has no business knowing who we love or who we trust to involve in our personal matters. Supporting gay marriage is only extending the unwarranted reach of the government. Get the government out of marriage you can marry anyone you like. I really don't give a shit.
