- 795
- 396
- Joined
- May 15, 2001
Supreme Court Strikes Down DOMA Vol: IN B4 NINJAHOOD
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by Comparison Ford,
- Start date
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
I'm still baffled at the concept of a "license" on a voluntary economic contract between two people. The government is the most discriminatory body in all of this, and we are suppose to jump for joy when they correct decades of discrimination?
3
39478
Guest
I wonder if there are going to be people who start expecting churches to marry gay couples against the belief/will of the church, which would be a huge, huge problem.
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
They won't do that. People don't care about the "religious institutions" because being married by a religious institutions do not grant marriage licenses, the municipalities do. The actual concept of "marriage" wasnt the issue because religious institutions will do it, the problem was the piece of paper issued by the State saying "Ok these people are granted tax incentives".
- 15,853
- 3,476
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
Not every person who is against marriage does it for religious reasons. I assume there are atheists who are against gay marriage.
- 12,133
- 33,763
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2012
True, but that's the exception rather than the rule. I just asked for a legitimate reason, which no one has been able to give so far.
- 8,923
- 4,742
- Joined
- May 11, 2010
john the jet
Banned
- 240
- 63
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2013
dead on
heatpinoyboy
Supporter
- 3,484
- 807
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2008
Happy to hear, and also that prop 8 was struck down earlier in Cali! 
- 2,478
- 1,022
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
As much as I hate that cliche', MY MAN!
I have a gay cousin, I dont care that she rather have cunningulus from a woman and bypass fellatio in her life.
- 12,133
- 33,763
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2012
Exactly. My good friend for the past 20 years came out last year. If you're gonna cut someone out of your life or love them less because of their sexual orientation you really have to ask yourself how much you actually cared about them and their happiness to begin with.
- 5,712
- 1,019
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
Bottom line isn't it? So now they get Federal benefits? Like filing a joint Fed tax return, Social Security benefits will roll over to the spouse if one dies, and can transfer assets without paying a gift tax? Wow!
- 207
- 43
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2004
Thankfully, we don't live in a theocracy or in the '50s. Marriage is an emotional, and social union of two individuals (polygamy would ultimately count as well if not for the countless federal and state laws and regulations associated with marriage as being between two individuals that complicate its lawful existence). There are millions of Americans who do not associate with religion and do not view marriage as a religious practice or ceremony. Because marriage has federal and state benefits associated with it, it is also a function of government and must be within the scope of the government. Simple as that.
Your religious definition of marriage doesn't hold much water in a nation that separates church and state, and has so intertwined marriage with federal benefits that the two cannot (barring any major change of the structure of our laws and society) be divorced
p)
- 8,923
- 4,742
- Joined
- May 11, 2010
Thankfully, we don't live in a theocracy or in the '50s. Marriage is an emotional, and social union of two individuals (polygamy would ultimately count as well if not for the countless federal and state laws and regulations associated with marriage as being between two individuals that complicate its lawful existence). There are millions of Americans who do not associate with religion and do not view marriage as a religious practice or ceremony. Because marriage has federal and state benefits associated with it, it is also a function of government and must be within the scope of the government. Simple as that.
Your religious definition of marriage doesn't hold much water in a nation that separates church and state, and has so intertwined marriage with federal benefits that the two cannot (barring any major change of the structure of our laws and society) be divorced
Marriage is an institution thats been around for thousands of years, so I dont know why you mentioned the 50's. Marriage is a union of two individuals of the opposite sex. It always has been since the begining of time.
- 8,894
- 1,395
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2010
- 13,033
- 7,205
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2007
I just know SF is going to pop off this weekend since it is Pride week.
- 10,799
- 3,525
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
Thankfully, we don't live in a theocracy or in the '50s. Marriage is an emotional, and social union of two individuals (polygamy would ultimately count as well if not for the countless federal and state laws and regulations associated with marriage as being between two individuals that complicate its lawful existence). There are millions of Americans who do not associate with religion and do not view marriage as a religious practice or ceremony. Because marriage has federal and state benefits associated with it, it is also a function of government and must be within the scope of the government. Simple as that.
Your religious definition of marriage doesn't hold much water in a nation that separates church and state, and has so intertwined marriage with federal benefits that the two cannot (barring any major change of the structure of our laws and society) be divorced
Marriage is an institution thats been around for thousands of years, so I dont know why you mentioned the 50's. Marriage is a union of two individuals of the opposite sex. It always has been since the begining of time.
View media item 469591
Thousands of years? The beginning of time? Are you one of those people who thinks the Earth is only 3000 years old or something?
The contradiction is STRONG in your post but regardless, there's tons of evidence of same sex marriage being acknowledged all the way back to Mesopotamian societies
- 2,478
- 1,022
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
Ancient Rome and Greece were all bout that "bi" life.
How people can grasp that we're all different yet not accept someones preference in a companion is beyond me.
Especially minorities. Civil rights is still fairly new and same people who are benefiting from the struggle are trying to put that struggle on the GAL community.
- 207
- 43
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2004
I think we have two different ideas of what the "beginning of time" means. There is a big difference between "time" and "recorded time", and especially, between "recorded time" and "Judeo-Christian Recorded Time".
- 43,078
- 27,934
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
I agree with you, but a can of worms has been opened with that statement.Ancient Rome and Greece were all bout that "bi" life.
How people can grasp that we're all different yet not accept someones preference in a companion is beyond me.
Especially minorities. Civil rights is still fairly new and same people who are benefiting from the struggle are trying to put that struggle on the GAL community.
Last edited:
- 2,478
- 1,022
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
being black, latino and asian, etc were all looked upon as being unequal. It's just reversed now with black, latino and asians, etc being looked upon as unequal because of their preference in partner.I agree with you, but a can of worms has been opened with that statement.
Civil rights isn't just for race and gender, its about equal rights for all.
I'm ready.
Last edited:
- 2,784
- 610
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2008
I cannot and do not want to picture the amount of gay couples raising children in the next 40 years.
I don't care I think that is wrong.
Let them marry though I guess.
I don't care I think that is wrong.
Let them marry though I guess.
- 2,740
- 216
- Joined
- May 9, 2007
So you'd rather see kids 'oprhaned' than be raised by gay couples?
Just out of curiosity, where do you live?
- 10,497
- 10,530
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
rell826
Banned
- 6,740
- 2,125
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2013
Someone just had to compare blacks and gays. It never fails. Never.