BF2S Forums Gay Marriage WTF ?

My religion allows same sex marrages.  I just wish it was legal so when I perform a cerimony it would count in the real world...

Milk.org wrote:

Hey i'm not gay but I got wasted and married my friend on holiday to Amsterdam.

Congrats!

Horseman 77 wrote:

Rosse_modest wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

Marriage seems to me like a Religious thing the government should not be involved in.
If thier Religion allows them to be married there's an end to it, let them get married.
The only objection I can see is possibilities for fraud on medical benefits coverage ETC.

Oh ya and like Abortion. Just don't make me pay for it.

The concept of commiting to another person for the rest of your life and lovingly caring for him/her seems religious to you?

Also, same sex marriage is allowed in Belgium.

The concept of commiting to another person for the rest of your life and lovingly caring for him/her seems religious to you?

No the concept of "Marriage  " seems Religious to me.... jeeeeez pay more attention

The problem is that "Marriage" does not only carry religious connotations.  It carries many legal connotations.  So basically, we are denying people legal rights because it would disagree with someone else's religious views.  That is not right.

Last edited by atlvolunteer (2005-12-09 07:38:20)

pfcilng wrote:

Milk.org wrote:

Hey i'm not gay but I got wasted and married my friend on holiday to Amsterdam.

Congrats!

LOL

I'd personally like to thank this thread, and specifically S4INT05...

I think "I know hella gay people" may be the best thing anyone ever said in one of these threads.

I don't know hella gay people, but I know a few who are hella gay..... lol.

I rule.... and if two dudes can marry, I want to marry both of my girlfriends (as soon as I get another one). Don't you fawkers impose your crap on me either, and tell me it's diferent. It's what makes me happy, and that's all that matters, right?

Wait, better yet, 4. I'll get a black girl, middle eastern girl, and a hispanic girl. I am dating an Asian right now, so I can have a United nations in my bedroom every night. How cool would that be???

Er....body wax?

Anyway...

Horseman wrote:

77kinda my point, plus more gay men means more babes 4 cool guys

Somehow, I think he's hinting that gays are not cool....

Tyferra wrote:

Dosn't effect me at all. I'm open minded, so let the dick-licking poo-pushers get married if they want to.

Did you know, "dick-licking poo pushers" is a insult to a gay?

Last edited by Aquastorm (2005-12-20 18:02:16)

YoBabysDaddy wrote:

I'm sorry but same sex marriage is going too far.It's like pissing on the foot of every regular married couple as well as marriage in general.It's a damn disgrace.

Just like how 50% of marriages end in divorce? See the thing is, this issue has absolutely nothing to do with heterosexual male-female marriages. This is about giving equal rights and options to those that are not like you, and these rights do not hurt you in anyway. Not letting some form of same-sex marriage, whether its called a civil union or whatever, is pissing on slavery, or women's rights, or any civil rights at all. Did you know marriage wasn't originally started about love, the history of marriage is quite horrid, dowries, and women having to do whatever the husband says. Times change, and so will people. Its a damn disgrace that people can't make the logical leap and come up with any defense because they feel its not right.

You know whats really a disgrace, people that believe in the death penalty but are against any abortion.

I'll just quote my previous post:

atlvolunteer wrote:

In some cases it is religious, but not all.  If you get married at the court house by the justice of the peace, that would not be considered religious.

EDIT:  Also, do you think only people who are religious get married?  What about atheists?  Since they don't believe in God, can they get married?

Last edited by atlvolunteer (2005-12-22 08:18:28)

[blaq] plague wrote:

FeloniousMonk wrote:

fikraag7 wrote:

Ever hear of separation of church and state?

Are you sure you have? Do you know what it means? Do you understand the origin? Do you realize that nowhere in the Constitution or the Declaration of Indepandance does that phrase appear? Do you know that it was referenced to mean that the church is protected from influence by the government? If you're going to spout off a phrase, at least use it in the right context.

You're right.  It's not in the constitution...it's in the first amendment to the constution.  And it states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...  In addition to referring to protecting the churches from government control, it also means the opposite: protecting the government from the influence of religion...Jefferson keyed the term as a clarification of the intentions of that clause in the first amendment.  So yes...he did use it in the right context.  He never said it was in the constitution, or in the declaration of indepedence.

The first amendment and all other amendments to the constitution are part of the constitution per article V of the constitution.

Jefferson's intentions of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" were to prevent the new government of America from becoming like the old government of England where there existed a state religion and no other religions were acknowledged as being legal. Refer to the Conventicle Act of 1665

The first amendment was written to protect peoples' religious freedoms from a government that wants to create a state religion. It was not intended to protect the people or the government from religion. There is no historical document by Jefferson that states it otherwise. Jefferson wrote his "seperation of church and state" letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut to assure them that the Congregationalists would not become the national religion nor would any other church and that the government would not dictate how people could belive in God.

No, I,m not a bible thumper, I'm a political science and history geek.

madark wrote:

first of all, marriage _is_ a religious joining between a man and a woman. Seeing as christianity does not condone homosexuality why should homosexuals get married? they can enter a "partnership" where they have the same rights as married people, but are not married.

"hey i know we`re a disgrace to science/religion and that people put up with us, and even let us have a partnership giving us the same rights as everyone else, but hey, let`s piss more on religion while we`re at it and totally ruin the whole concept of marriage."

I mean, WTF?!, i don`t see how people put up with this shit..

Sorry, you're wrong. Marriage is a concept that has been around for far longer than Christianity.

can somebody tell me why gay people would want to get married when they can get the same rights as married people without getting married? are there any gay people on this thread btw?

My problem in understanding this problem is:  Why do Homosexuals DEMAND the title of 'marriage'?  Why not demand a civil union clause that would be as binding as the title of marriage?  Is it that they are pushing acceptance on people who don't wish to accept it?  Is that not just as wrongful as white people labeling black people 'second-class citizens' as they were doing around 50 years ago?  What about different religions that are barely tolerated?  How about different political parties? 

It's really funny how that we live in a 'free' country, yet we have many different 'ideals' forced upon us.  Last time I read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, this country was formed to tolerate different people and beliefs.  But, these different people and beliefs are not an antithesis to nature....as what homosexuals practice.  Actually, polygamy is much easier to tolerate and accept, since it is just common nature for any animal to practice the art of reproduction. 

I, myself, have known a few homosexuals and befriended one of them.....and therefore, got 'their' side of the story.  Marriage has long been known as a religious union between a man and a woman for centuries....and should not be given to such a union.  Having a new position of 'union' in the law books that states the legal and financial union of two people would be far more acceptable to the major populace.  The problem for that to happen is both sides are too quick to be extremists in their own light.  Quick to bitch, slow to compromise.  Imagine that in today's society.  LOL

DON'T try to change an age-old definition to fit their sexual orientation.  But DO build a new legal and financial union that mirrors the all tenets of marriage.  DON'T shove it down the ordinary American's throat.  DO ask those that wish to listen for support.  DON'T expect everything handed to you.  DO expect to gain acceptance one person at a time.

Oh, and let me be the first to support more than one wife marriages! 

Last edited by Skeptical One (2005-12-22 22:01:53)