First  Prev  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  115  116  117  118  Next  Last
Post Reply Gay Marriage
3416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 6/28/13 , edited 6/28/13

FlyinDumpling wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

If a gay man falls in love with a straight woman, that means that he's not gay. It means that he's bi. Derp.
and how does this disprove my point?


Well seeing as they weren't your words, I figured that if you didn't know how to answer the person that said those words, you could deliver my message to him/her, seeing as I couldn't find the comment myself.

I sincerely hope that you yourself are not under the impression that being gay is a choice... Are you?
27003 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / your mind
Offline
Posted 6/28/13
I agree with this thread, marriage is gay
9316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
101 / M / Ontario, Canada
Offline
Posted 6/28/13
"As long as there's love, it doesn't matter if he's a man, right?"

c wut i did der
12038 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F
Offline
Posted 7/1/13 , edited 7/1/13
Guys, marriage is gay

like seriously

a guy puts a ring, piece of jewelry, on another's finger, surrender the fact they'll never be able to touch anyone again, and celebrate by dancing

yup, actually, that seems super straight to me

...
66 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Nashville
Offline
Posted 7/2/13
I've lived my life with a Live and Let Live mind set. It's worked so far. I don't really care what you're all about, just please don't shove it in my face and down my throat. That's really the only thing I hate about this whole ordeal
9952 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / fairy tail
Offline
Posted 7/3/13
My best friend mother brother is gay. He was in Washington the other day and Met Ellen DeGeneres
Posted 7/3/13



This is how I view any bigot who opposes gay marriage.
1025 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 7/4/13
What is this "marriage" gays are looking for? Civil unions? Then sure, each state should allow or disallow it as they see fit. It shouldn't be federally outlawed. If it's religious (specifically, Christian) marriage, shouldn't it be up to the priest? You can't force someone to marry a couple if it's against their belief. I'm sure there are straight couples that a priest will refuse to marry. Just find one who will.
23965 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / *in his heart and...
Offline
Posted 7/4/13
3416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 7/5/13

DuckQuickly wrote:
What is this "marriage" gays are looking for? Civil unions? Then sure, each state should allow or disallow it as they see fit.


No, they shouldn't. Because it is discrimination and a violation against equality and human rights.




DuckQuickly
It shouldn't be federally outlawed. If it's religious (specifically, Christian) marriage, shouldn't it be up to the priest? You can't force someone to marry a couple if it's against their belief. I'm sure there are straight couples that a priest will refuse to marry. Just find one who will.


There will always be priests willing to wed gay couples. And even if not, there is always secular marriage as an alternative.
This is no excuse.
22561 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Northern California
Offline
Posted 7/5/13 , edited 7/5/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:
There will always be priests willing to wed gay couples. And even if not, there is always secular marriage as an alternative.


To further expand on this point, when states are allowed to make marriage equality illegal on religious grounds, it is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause, because:

A. It is a government endorsement of a particular religious view, to which it is supposed to remain neutral, according to the Constitution. (No matter what any theocrats or Dominionists may believe, they are and always will be factually wrong on this.) Plus there's the whole separation of church and state issue, which many legislators feel it is their religious duty to ignore.

B. It would also trample on the religious freedom of the churches that would willingly perform the ceremonies. The tyranny of the majority is rarely demonstrated as well as organized religion in control of the political system.

The case that brought down DOMA as unconstitutional was brought about due to a conflict between Federal and State recognition of a legal marriage. The marriage was performed in Canada, where it is legal; the state of New York recognized it as legal; but the Federal government did not recognize it as legal because of DOMA, and saddled the widow with over $360k in inheritance taxes - taxes that a widow or widower of a heterosexual marriage would not have had to pay. You want a recent example of why "separate but equal" fails? This is just one of many. The issue is further complicated by all the other rights straight couples can get, which gay couples won't get in certain states, including the right to visit their partner in the hospital.

And of course, as the Prop 8 decision proved, the ONLY reason legislation to ban marriage equality exists, is to single out a particular minority group for discrimination, and deny them equal protection under the law, while at the same time using government to push a strictly religious agenda. It is undeniable that most of the money that went to fund Prop 8's campaign in California came from out of state religious groups. It is also because equal protection under the law did not exist that DOMA was struck down as unconstitutional, and on the same day, no less. That this legislation was motivated solely by religion is a further reason legislation like it and Prop 8 will continue to be ruled unconstitutional, and these laws will continue to be struck down. The tide has begun to turn against bigotry, and it's about damn time.
Posted 7/5/13
I am neutral to this subject.
1025 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 7/7/13 , edited 7/7/13


Syndicaidramon


DuckQuickly
It shouldn't be federally outlawed. If it's religious (specifically, Christian) marriage, shouldn't it be up to the priest? You can't force someone to marry a couple if it's against their belief. I'm sure there are straight couples that a priest will refuse to marry. Just find one who will.


There will always be priests willing to wed gay couples. And even if not, there is always secular marriage as an alternative.
This is no excuse.


No excuse for what, exactly? What does it matter whether the state does or does not recognize your love or marriage? Then is it the marriage benifits that are sought after?


Syndicaidramon wrote:


DuckQuickly wrote:
What is this "marriage" gays are looking for? Civil unions? Then sure, each state should allow or disallow it as they see fit.


No, they shouldn't. Because it is discrimination and a violation against equality and human rights.


In the case above, then sure, it would be discrimination against gay couples to not receive the same benefits. But even if those benefits were also taken from straight couples, I still don't see any human rights violations.

Edit: @Spazticus

A. I agree that the government should not ban gay marriage, on religious grounds or not. That is not its job.
Not being able to visit your partner sounds messed up. That state law should be fixed.

B. From what I've heard, the law recently passed is on the opposite end of the spectrum. It forces priests to marry a couple even if it is against their beliefs. Separation of church and state? Let the priest decide whether or not to marry them.
23622 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / playing tag, ur i...
Offline
Posted 7/7/13
I'm for it my little sister is gay. I love her all the same just want her to be happy!
3416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 7/8/13

DuckQuickly wrote:



Syndicaidramon


DuckQuickly
It shouldn't be federally outlawed. If it's religious (specifically, Christian) marriage, shouldn't it be up to the priest? You can't force someone to marry a couple if it's against their belief. I'm sure there are straight couples that a priest will refuse to marry. Just find one who will.


There will always be priests willing to wed gay couples. And even if not, there is always secular marriage as an alternative.
This is no excuse.


No excuse for what, exactly? What does it matter whether the state does or does not recognize your love or marriage? Then is it the marriage benifits that are sought after?


No, it is merely the acknowledgement that gay people have the right to marry the ones they love just as much as straight people do.
It's a matter of principle and not clinging to idiotic, outdated beliefs that serves NO PURPOSE WHAT SO EVER other than essentially saying that gay people are less worth than straight people.




DuckQuickly

Syndicaidramon wrote:


DuckQuickly wrote:
What is this "marriage" gays are looking for? Civil unions? Then sure, each state should allow or disallow it as they see fit.


No, they shouldn't. Because it is discrimination and a violation against equality and human rights.


In the case above, then sure, it would be discrimination against gay couples to not receive the same benefits. But even if those benefits were also taken from straight couples, I still don't see any human rights violations.


It is a human rights violation because it's discriminatory.
How about we go back to having a seperate drinking spot for black people, and not allow them to drink from the white stand? Sounds good?
How about we go back to not allowing people to get married because they are of different races? Sounds like a good idea?
First  Prev  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  115  116  117  118  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.