What's new
By:

Gay Marriage is GO...

moevillini said:
Dutch, you seem to be the only one who's sticking labels on people. Why do you feel such a need to label?
Click to expand...
not labeling *****. i am against gay "mariage" but everywhere you go from real live social circkels to twitter to internet forums, the moment you state your for tradional man woman mariage. you ar elabeled a homophobe and or biggot sometimes even a racist.

just saying what i experienced from my own personal experience. but watch different kinda mainstream en lowly media. i watch cnn, msnbc, fox, abc and even uber liberal faux news like young turks and conspiracy theorist anti governmant "liberal" alex jones.
and they seem to share same sentiment.


never mind low iwins paraderts spit on pastors and stopped at churches to spit on the stepp of churches.

now it might be an illusion or just my personal experience. but i reallye xperienced it when saying "mariage is between man an woman no exceptions".
 
moevillini View Post are you for or against gay "mariage"
if you are against it and voiced it and have not been labaled you must be lucky
if you are for it just as an experiment go ahead and take up devils advocate position. go on twitter go on internet forums go to certain social gatherings and state that you are against it. then come back and tell me you have not been labeled and looked down upon.

i cant recall if you are for or against it. but too lazy to look it up in your post history
 
DutchJazzer said:
not labeling *****. i am against gay "mariage" but everywhere you go from real live social circkels to twitter to internet forums, the moment you state your for tradional man woman mariage. you ar elabeled a homophobe and or biggot sometimes even a racist.

just saying what i experienced from my own personal experience. but watch different kinda mainstream en lowly media. i watch cnn, msnbc, fox, abc and even uber liberal faux news like young turks and conspiracy theorist anti governmant "liberal" alex jones.
and they seem to share same sentiment.


never mind low iwins paraderts spit on pastors and stopped at churches to spit on the stepp of churches.

now it might be an illusion or just my personal experience. but i reallye xperienced it when saying "mariage is between man an woman no exceptions".
Click to expand...

I never got the use of the word 'homophobe' anyway.

Homo = Man (as in mankind)
Phobe = Hate

Homophobe = People that hate our species???
 
LogGrad98 said:
Litigation and false apologies. Same old story. Ad nauseum.
Click to expand...

Parts of Texas and Kentucky along with the states of Alabama and Lousiana have taken action against the ruling. Some counties are simpyl refusing to comply and some state judges are trying to order stays on implimenting the new ruling to allow time for counter suits.

Wonder how far this spreads...
 
let's simplify this for those who are too simple to grasp the complexities - - because it's really not that complex


the Supreme Court ruling basically says that the ability for two people to enter into a specific legal partnership status shall not be denied because of the gender of the those involved

prior to this ruling, some states could block the ability of certain individuals to enter into this particular status on the basis of their gender - - now all states must offer this partnership benefit equally regardless of the gender of those involved.

(this partnership status most commonly has been historically referred to as "marriage" but there's no point in splitting hairs over what we call it)

Dogs, cats, robots, cars, and other objects cannot enter into legal agreements.

Now the bigger question is:
What if a state (or county or whatever entity it is that issues the licenses) decides it's not going to issue them anymore for anyone? Do you think that's possible?
 
Jamezz said:
I never got the use of the word 'homophobe' anyway.

Homo = Man (as in mankind)
Phobe = Hate

Homophobe = People that hate our species???
Click to expand...


homo is also a prefix that means "the same" as in homogenous or homonym

and phobe more correctly is "fear"
(not hate, though it's not unheard of to hate that which causes fear)
 
They're just delaying the inevitable.

Those who oppose civil liberty legislation do not fair well historically.
 
Stoked said:
Parts of Texas and Kentucky along with the states of Alabama and Lousiana have taken action against the ruling. Some counties are simpyl refusing to comply and some state judges are trying to order stays on implimenting the new ruling to allow time for counter suits.

Wonder how far this spreads...
Click to expand...

Like I mentioned, if they want to shut it down all together for everyone, that's one thing - - and I'd be curious to see how that would be handled. But I would think that just to deny it for one specific class would be illegal and a clerk who refused could face charges.
 
ElRoach0 said:
Marriage is a legal union, and has been around longer than most religions. It is also the status quo; not letting homosexual couples into the status quo based on their orientation is discrimination. Therefore, the term marriage should belong to the people, not any religion. Hence having religions get out of the marriage game, instead of the people getting out of it.

Even though it was put trollish, an oddly good question DJ. Thanks for actually bringing something.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sick of the "Marriage has been around longer than religion" argument.
I completely disagree with it.

I believe religion or belief in God has been around from the beginning and that Adam and Eve were married and that it was part of their religion.

There have definitely been lots of ups and downs in the history of the world in regards to marriage as well as religion, but marriage does not pre date belief in God or religion.

I'm not looking to prove it to you, nor do I care if you try to prove it to me.
Just letting you know that "proven fact" statements like this are not common ground as to marriage.
Many don't agree with that statement, so it has no holding power in a discussion/argument on this topic if both sides have not yet met on common ground.

This is not specifically in response to you ElRoach0, it just happens to be that I responded to your post.
I also realize the wording in your post is "has been around longer than most religions".
My reply is not directed at you, just the idea in general I've seen in multiple posts.
 
moevillini said:
Like I mentioned, if they want to shut it down all together for everyone, that's one thing - - and I'd be curious to see how that would be handled. But I would think that just to deny it for one specific class would be illegal and a clerk who refused could face charges.
Click to expand...

as is stated in this and other threads.
seperation of church and state. government should get out of the mariage business. it worked in other countries.
this way only divides people and create "hate" and tension
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top