Lil Bit Special Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Gee, thanks for posting the book cover pic. That was awfully special of yah. Made my day. Sorry chick pea.... Didnt mean to bum you out on a rainy day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsJETStime Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Lol, a lot of people's reasoning for whatever position they hold within this argument are flawed in so many ways BUT I will tell one stance and reasoning that is not flawed.... 1) Marriage is a RELIGIOUS symbol of the unity of two people (male and female) under God. 2)Marriage symbolizes a RELIGIOUS sacrament.......... In other words, marriage has bases from religion itself therefore allowing 2 people of the same sex to marry would make a mockery of a religious sacrament as religion is opposed to homosexuality to begin with--> thats the real reason homosexual marriage should not be allowed.................... One might argue that many straight people are not religious yet still marry and ask a ridiculous question as how is this not a making a mockery of the religious sacrament and the answer is quite simple one doesn't have to religious in order to follow perform the religious as being nonreligious and performing a religious sacrament is not making a mockery of it instead it might symbolize ur acceptance of the religion and willingness to move toward it or it might just be ur approval of the religious views HOWEVER, gays, religious or not, because of the religions disapproval of homosexuality it is a disgrace if a religious sacrament is taken and subjected to that type of mockery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004. Hasn't affected my life at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Lol, a lot of people's reasoning for whatever position they hold within this argument are flawed in so many ways BUT I will tell one stance and reasoning that is not flawed.... 1) Marriage is a RELIGIOUS symbol of the unity of two people (male and female) under God. 2)Marriage symbolizes a RELIGIOUS sacrament.......... In other words, marriage has bases from religion itself therefore allowing 2 people of the same sex to marry would make a mockery of a religious sacrament as religion is opposed to homosexuality to begin with--> thats the real reason homosexual marriage should not be allowed.................... One might argue that many straight people are not religious yet still marry and ask a ridiculous question as how is this not a making a mockery of the religious sacrament and the answer is quite simple one doesn't have to religious in order to follow perform the religious as being nonreligious and performing a religious sacrament is not making a mockery of it instead it might symbolize ur acceptance of the religion and willingness to move toward it or it might just be ur approval of the religious views HOWEVER, gays, religious or not, because of the religions disapproval of homosexuality it is a disgrace if a religious sacrament is taken and subjected to that type of mockery. So because some religious people are intolerant, gays shouldn't be able to join in a civil union called "marriage"? Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Lol, a lot of people's reasoning for whatever position they hold within this argument are flawed in so many ways BUT I will tell one stance and reasoning that is not flawed.... 1) Marriage is a RELIGIOUS symbol of the unity of two people (male and female) under God. 2)Marriage symbolizes a RELIGIOUS sacrament.......... In other words, marriage has bases from religion itself therefore allowing 2 people of the same sex to marry would make a mockery of a religious sacrament as religion is opposed to homosexuality to begin with--> thats the real reason homosexual marriage should not be allowed.................... One might argue that many straight people are not religious yet still marry and ask a ridiculous question as how is this not a making a mockery of the religious sacrament and the answer is quite simple one doesn't have to religious in order to follow perform the religious as being nonreligious and performing a religious sacrament is not making a mockery of it instead it might symbolize ur acceptance of the religion and willingness to move toward it or it might just be ur approval of the religious views HOWEVER, gays, religious or not, because of the religions disapproval of homosexuality it is a disgrace if a religious sacrament is taken and subjected to that type of mockery. Religion!? Is that still a thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004. Hasn't affected my life at all. Your posts say differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoping4ASuperBowl Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Religion!? Is that still a thing? Harold Camping seems to think so. Repent before the rapture! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted June 23, 2011 Author Share Posted June 23, 2011 Lol, a lot of people's reasoning for whatever position they hold within this argument are flawed in so many ways BUT I will tell one stance and reasoning that is not flawed.... 1) Marriage is a RELIGIOUS symbol of the unity of two people (male and female) under God. 2)Marriage symbolizes a RELIGIOUS sacrament.......... In other words, marriage has bases from religion itself therefore allowing 2 people of the same sex to marry would make a mockery of a religious sacrament as religion is opposed to homosexuality to begin with--> thats the real reason homosexual marriage should not be allowed.................... One might argue that many straight people are not religious yet still marry and ask a ridiculous question as how is this not a making a mockery of the religious sacrament and the answer is quite simple one doesn't have to religious in order to follow perform the religious as being nonreligious and performing a religious sacrament is not making a mockery of it instead it might symbolize ur acceptance of the religion and willingness to move toward it or it might just be ur approval of the religious views HOWEVER, gays, religious or not, because of the religions disapproval of homosexuality it is a disgrace if a religious sacrament is taken and subjected to that type of mockery. Apparently literacy is not a religious sacrament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I'd f*ck Klacko. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
war ensemble Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 EDIT: Ignore this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Lol, a lot of people's reasoning for whatever position they hold within this argument are flawed in so many ways BUT I will tell one stance and reasoning that is not flawed.... 1) Marriage is a RELIGIOUS symbol of the unity of two people (male and female) under God. 2)Marriage symbolizes a RELIGIOUS sacrament.......... In other words, marriage has bases from religion itself therefore allowing 2 people of the same sex to marry would make a mockery of a religious sacrament as religion is opposed to homosexuality to begin with--> thats the real reason homosexual marriage should not be allowed.................... One might argue that many straight people are not religious yet still marry and ask a ridiculous question as how is this not a making a mockery of the religious sacrament and the answer is quite simple one doesn't have to religious in order to follow perform the religious as being nonreligious and performing a religious sacrament is not making a mockery of it instead it might symbolize ur acceptance of the religion and willingness to move toward it or it might just be ur approval of the religious views HOWEVER, gays, religious or not, because of the religions disapproval of homosexuality it is a disgrace if a religious sacrament is taken and subjected to that type of mockery. That reasoning, thought nationwide amongst way too many pundits to be flawless, is actually incredibly flawed considering marriage is a legally regulated institution. When tax, insurance, and immigration benefits are provided to one select group over another based on nothing more than sexual orientation, that is most certainly a Constitutional issue, unquestionably superseding any religious doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Lol, a lot of people's reasoning for whatever position they hold within this argument are flawed in so many ways BUT I will tell one stance and reasoning that is not flawed.... 1) Marriage is a RELIGIOUS symbol of the unity of two people (male and female) under God. 2)Marriage symbolizes a RELIGIOUS sacrament.......... In other words, marriage has bases from religion itself therefore allowing 2 people of the same sex to marry would make a mockery of a religious sacrament as religion is opposed to homosexuality to begin with--> thats the real reason homosexual marriage should not be allowed.................... One might argue that many straight people are not religious yet still marry and ask a ridiculous question as how is this not a making a mockery of the religious sacrament and the answer is quite simple one doesn't have to religious in order to follow perform the religious as being nonreligious and performing a religious sacrament is not making a mockery of it instead it might symbolize ur acceptance of the religion and willingness to move toward it or it might just be ur approval of the religious views HOWEVER, gays, religious or not, because of the religions disapproval of homosexuality it is a disgrace if a religious sacrament is taken and subjected to that type of mockery. I want you to look my cousin in the eye and tell her she is less of an American than you are. I can't do that. I find it hard to believe that anyone would have the balls to say that to any fellow American citizen. Based on your opinion, she, and many like her, are lesser than you. I don't understand how any American can feel that way - can't quite wrap my head around that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I want you to look my cousin in the eye and tell her she is less of an American than you are. I can't do that. I find it hard to believe that anyone would have the balls to say that to any fellow American citizen. Based on your opinion, she, and many like her, are lesser than you. I don't understand how any American can feel that way - can't quite wrap my head around that. I think you're all lesser than me, but that certainly has nothing to do with your sexual preferences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
war ensemble Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I think you're all lesser than me, but that certainly has nothing to do with your sexual preferences. As long as there's a religious basis for this belief, I can't hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 That reasoning, thought nationwide amongst way too many pundits to be flawless, is actually incredibly flawed considering marriage is a legally regulated institution. When tax, insurance, and immigration benefits are provided to one select group over another based on nothing more than sexual orientation, that is most certainly a Constitutional issue, unquestionably superseding any religious doctrine. What I find most interesting about this is the supposed issue here is the use of a word. The fact is, a religious marriage and a legal marriage are not the same thing, although they do often go hand in hand. If you call the latter something slightly different, does that suddenly make everything go away? After all, any change in laws will have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what each religious institution chooses to allow or not, but will simply grant certain legal rights to a wider variety of people. So for those who have an issue with it strictly because of the idea that marriage is religious, is it really that hard to comprehend that the topic that is being discussed is really in no-way religion-based, other than use of the same word to describe two similar, but ultimately different, ideas? Frankly, I just don't get what's so difficult about that, or what the big deal is to begin with. And this is coming from a political conservative and Roman Catholic, so what the hell does that tell you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
war ensemble Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 What I find most interesting about this is the supposed issue here is the use of a word. The fact is, a religious marriage and a legal marriage are not the same thing, although they do often go hand in hand. If you call the latter something slightly different, does that suddenly make everything go away? After all, any change in laws will have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what each religious institution chooses to allow or not, but will simply grant certain legal rights to a wider variety of people. So for those who have an issue with it strictly because of the idea that marriage is religious, is it really that hard to comprehend that the topic that is being discussed is really in no-way religion-based, other than use of the same word to describe two similar, but ultimately different, ideas? Frankly, I just don't get what's so difficult about that, or what the big deal is to begin with. And this is coming from a political conservative and Roman Catholic, so what the hell does that tell you? Xenophobia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 What I find most interesting about this is the supposed issue here is the use of a word. The fact is, a religious marriage and a legal marriage are not the same thing, although they do often go hand in hand. If you call the latter something slightly different, does that suddenly make everything go away? After all, any change in laws will have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what each religious institution chooses to allow or not, but will simply grant certain legal rights to a wider variety of people. So for those who have an issue with it strictly because of the idea that marriage is religious, is it really that hard to comprehend that the topic that is being discussed is really in no-way religion-based, other than use of the same word to describe two similar, but ultimately different, ideas? Frankly, I just don't get what's so difficult about that, or what the big deal is to begin with. And this is coming from a political conservative and Roman Catholic, so what the hell does that tell you? The largest problem, as I see it, comes in the fact that pragmatically, it's just stupid. It's the definition of bad business. Treating them as separate institutions with equal legal rights would be an absurd waste of time, money, and resources. The major irony of course being that those who are so in favor of the notion are usually the ones who bitch the most about wasteful government spending in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 That reasoning, thought nationwide amongst way too many pundits to be flawless, is actually incredibly flawed considering marriage is a legally regulated institution. While I agree with this, I just don't see why people would choose to get married in a church if its simply a legal agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 The largest problem, as I see it, comes in the fact that pragmatically, it's just stupid. It's the definition of bad business. Treating them as separate institutions with equal legal rights would be an absurd waste of time, money, and resources. The major irony of course being that those who are so in favor of the notion are usually the ones who bitch the most about wasteful government spending in the first place. Oh, I absolutely agree. Don't get me wrong, I was in no way suggesting that would be the way to go, as I think the idea is completely asinine. My point simply being that marriage is already really a divided thing, between it's religious and legal meanings, and any proposed changes are strictly to the legal component. The government has never nor will they ever tell religions how they should operate. If you're really going the uber-religious route on this one, then even if gay marriage is legalized they will still never be married "in the eyes of God" according to these people, so what difference could it possibly make? There's an endless list of things that certain religions consider wrong and completely forbid, and they're certainly not all illegal. Besides, what's stopping a gay couple now from going through a nearly identical union ceremony as a marriage? Absolutely nothing, the only difference is the legal implications, which call me crazy, I'm not exactly sure God's supposed concern about gay marriage is their tax benefits. That is however my concern, married people of all sexual orientations should have to pay more taxes... ******* bullsh*t, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vudu Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 F-ck David Tyree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 F-ck David Tyree! Wait, so you don't agree with him? I'm in shock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vudu Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Wait, so you don't agree with him? I'm in shock. He wants my kind to burn in hell so **** him and all that he stands for lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 He wants my kind to burn in hell so **** him and all that he stands for lol **** him figuratively speaking I assume, otherwise this is getting really confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 While I agree with this, I just don't see why people would choose to get married in a church if its simply a legal agreement. I don't think I stated or implied that it was. But so long as that's part of it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Oh, I absolutely agree. Don't get me wrong, I was in no way suggesting that would be the way to go, as I think the idea is completely asinine. My point simply being that marriage is already really a divided thing, between it's religious and legal meanings, and any proposed changes are strictly to the legal component. The government has never nor will they ever tell religions how they should operate. The government has most certainly told organized religions not only how they should, but more importantly how they may operate. And thank God for that. If you're really going the uber-religious route on this one, then even if gay marriage is legalized they will still never be married "in the eyes of God" according to these people, so what difference could it possibly make? There's an endless list of things that certain religions consider wrong and completely forbid, and they're certainly not all illegal. Besides, what's stopping a gay couple now from going through a nearly identical union ceremony as a marriage? Absolutely nothing, the only difference is the legal implications, which call me crazy, I'm not exactly sure God's supposed concern about gay marriage is their tax benefits. That is however my concern, married people of all sexual orientations should have to pay more taxes... ******* bullsh*t, man. Terminology vs religious sacrament. Never-ending battle. You should dig into the Establishment Clause's role in religion and schooling sometime. That's an entire rollercoaster in itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted June 23, 2011 Author Share Posted June 23, 2011 And this is coming from a political conservative and Roman Catholic, so what the hell does that tell you? Closeted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Closeted? You really just don't take rejection well do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I am not sure what the hell is going on here. But these threads used to be easy to lock. Yet everyone is being civil and discussing things without fighting. KNOCK IT OFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Bit Special Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I am not sure what the hell is going on here. But these threads used to be easy to lock. Yet everyone is being civil and discussing things without fighting. KNOCK IT OFF. You've banned all the troublemakers. All thats left is kind hearted souls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 You've banned all the troublemakers. All thats left is kind hearted souls. How did you get around the ban? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Bit Special Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 How did you get around the ban? I moved, got married, and got a new I.P. address. Now I troll endlessly waiting to pounce like a tiger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I moved, got married, and got a new I.P. address. Now I troll endlessly waiting to pounce like a tiger A big sexy tiger....lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachTsurfing Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 yeah. he is a douchebag. The last thing we need in our lives is more intolerance. I'm amazed at the anger and violence people display when it comes to sports and frankly its embarrassing. Then this is just dumb. I wish people would just chill out. it's his opinion. i don't agree, but i don't think he's a douchebag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachTsurfing Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 That reasoning, thought nationwide amongst way too many pundits to be flawless, is actually incredibly flawed considering marriage is a legally regulated institution. When tax, insurance, and immigration benefits are provided to one select group over another based on nothing more than sexual orientation, that is most certainly a Constitutional issue, unquestionably superseding any religious doctrine. agree to a certain extent. marriage is a religious ceremony that should be only between a man and woman. the gov. has made it so they get special benefits or sometimes not special. gay people should have ever right that married people do if they are in a cival union. i think the problem is that the gov. doesn't want people saying they are together to receive their partners benefits. on a different note, why do singles get better tax breaks then married couples do??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Bit Special Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 A big sexy tiger....lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.