11 of 11 US states vote against gay marriage

[nzdbox]

NOTE: the above topic was written by Peregrine in an attempt to make people that think in a different way than him look bad.. these posts are splitten from another thread.

(just to let people know that I'm not a fool that auto insults himself)

 

I won't even comment on the posts between this one and my last one, nor will I say anything about the results of the election. Know that I'm utterly, utterly disappointed, as is my whole family, as is my whole school, as are all my online friends, as is a forum (with more than 40 members) that I belong to.

Great. Now we must see this smirking chimp on TV again.

Ah well.

 

Translation: I won't comment on any of those posts, because Peregrine completely and utterly owned me. I know that any reply I make would only make me look like more of a fanatic liberal idiot, so I'll just make some vague comments about Bush winning.

 

I'm disappointed in you nzdbox. I expected a lot more from you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Funny to see a mod actually flame someone. That sure as heck looks like an insult (liberal idiot.. no thanks, I just really really dislike Bushy, and for not few reasons). I thought it was not allowed in the rules.

Wich is why I didn't post any comments. Otherwise, I would probably have one of those nice warning levels added to me.

 

Oh yeah, and about that talking horse thing. Know that I wasn't really really excited about the idea of having Kerry as president either. The only important thing for me was that Bush got out of office. Wich sadly didn't happen. Kerry isn't the best choice for a president: very many agree on that. But he is still a lot better than Bush, for many reasons. I must go now, and at any rate I won't post the reasons of why he is a bad choice IMO unless someone asks me to. Wich I doubt.

 

EDIT: quick add before I get busy again.

Peregrine is right. Now, this forum is only meant to express your grief... ahem, I mean, to discuss your ideas concerning G.W. Bush's reelection.

Hundinman, I think I kind of agree with you on your views on abortion... but I am afraid that this is the only topic on which my views are republican. For instance, I think that gay people should be allowed to marry if they want to... isn't America the land of freedom? Or did you just mean "freedom for all except the minorities"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I, for one, am against gay marriage anyway. For a simple reason. The Bible dictates that marriage is an event between two people of OPPOSITE sex. NOT SAME sex. If homosexuals want to be socially connected (I don't know actually the term for it, at any rate, the same connection that you have when you marry someone), then they can call it gayrriage or something like that. That would settle the case, mostly. They can still do their sick things, for all I care. They just *cant* use the term marriage, because it doesn't make sense.

[Malchik]

The Bible dictates that marriage is an event between two people of OPPOSITE sex.

 

The word 'marriage' derives from the French and before that Latin. It was certainly never in the Bible when it was written. So the 'word' is completely irrelevant.

[Dark0ne]

I, for one, am against gay marriage anyway. For a simple reason. The Bible dictates that marriage is an event between two people of OPPOSITE sex. NOT SAME sex. If homosexuals want to be socially connected (I don't know actually the term for it, at any rate, the same connection that you have when you marry someone), then they can call it gayrriage or something like that. That would settle the case, mostly. They can still do their sick things, for all I care. They just *cant* use the term marriage, because it doesn't make sense.

 

Except for the Bible part I generally agree with this viewpoint.

 

Homosexuals are different to hetrosexuals - not in looks or appearance, but in their sexuality. They can have their equal rights, they can have their rights as a legal "couple" just as hetrosexually married people do, but why take something from the hetrosexuals when you can simply have the union without actually calling it marriage?

 

People argue "whats the big deal, its just a word" - surely that works both ways?

[batesmotel34]

Much of the heat around this issue is due to this very fact that "marriage" really is a religious term. The criteria for marriage should be left up to indiviidual religions to set. In a nation based on the separation of church and state, the government shouldn't have anything to say about marriage. The government does have an interest in the civil issues that have accrued around the institution of marriage, whether it's providing for the care of children after a divorce, or insuring the property and inheritance rights of couples, or insuring that its citizens have health care coverage provided by the private sector. All of these could be handled under a term such as "civil union" without the government trespassing into the religious instituion of marriage. This is the real fix for this issue rather than forcing the term "marriage" to fit in situations where many religions find it unacceptable or having some strange form of double entry laws where every place marriage is mentioned must also include a separate reference to civil unions.

 

 

I, for one, am against gay marriage anyway. For a simple reason. The Bible dictates that marriage is an event between two people of OPPOSITE sex. NOT SAME sex. If homosexuals want to be socially connected (I don't know actually the term for it, at any rate, the same connection that you have when you marry someone), then they can call it gayrriage or something like that. That would settle the case, mostly. They can still do their sick things, for all I care. They just *cant* use the term marriage, because it doesn't make sense.

 

Except for the Bible part I generally agree with this viewpoint.

 

Homosexuals are different to hetrosexuals - not in looks or appearance, but in their sexuality. They can have their equal rights, they can have their rights as a legal "couple" just as hetrosexually married people do, but why take something from the hetrosexuals when you can simply have the union without actually calling it marriage?

 

People argue "whats the big deal, its just a word" - surely that works both ways?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Peregrine]

Funny to see a mod actually flame someone. That sure as heck looks like an insult (liberal idiot.. no thanks, I just really really dislike Bushy, and for not few reasons). I thought it was not allowed in the rules.

 

It was an insult. Glad to see you're at least smart enough to understand that much.

 

Anyone who attempts to use Michael Moore as an unbiased and valid source of information is a liberal idiot. You did that. Therefore you are a liberal idiot.

Wich is why I didn't post any comments. Otherwise, I would probably have one of those nice warning levels added to me.

 

Fine, since you just accused me of abusing my power: where have I ever punished someone just for disagreeing with me (no matter how opposite the position). Oh, that's right, I never have.

 

So you just refused to reply because you can't post a reply other than "I concede".

 

I, for one, am against gay marriage anyway. For a simple reason. The Bible dictates that marriage is an event between two people of OPPOSITE sex. NOT SAME sex.

CONCESSION ACCEPTED.

 

Right there, you lose, and demonstrate yourself to be one of the ignorant narrow-minded fanatics who are doing their best to destroy this country's basic principles.

 

Ever hear of something called "separation of church and state"? The fact that the Bible says something matters about as much as what my dog thinks of marriage. In other words, not even slightly. By attempting to use the Bible as justification for a law, you are supporting an unconstitutional and illegal act, for no better reason than enforcing your narrow-minded beliefs on the rest of the country.

 

I hope someday you find your precious bible banned with a penalty of execution for reading it, all because someone else's book and god told them it was the right thing to do.

 

=================================

 

Except for the Bible part I generally agree with this viewpoint.

 

Homosexuals are different to hetrosexuals - not in looks or appearance, but in their sexuality. They can have their equal rights, they can have their rights as a legal "couple" just as hetrosexually married people do, but why take something from the hetrosexuals when you can simply have the union without actually calling it marriage?

 

People argue "whats the big deal, its just a word" - surely that works both ways?

 

"The big deal" is that marriage is a legal status given by the government. This is entirely separate from any religious context. I, a devout atheist, could go get the papers signed and be just as married as someone who had a full religious ceremony. And someone married with a full religious ceremony wouldn't be married at all to the government unless they did all the paperwork. Therefore any discrimination by the government in recognizing marriage is illegal.

 

Let me quote your argument with a couple minor changes and tell me if you still think it's true:

 

Black people are different to white people - not in sexuality, but in their looks and appearance. They can have their equal rights, they can have their rights as a legal "couple" just as all white married people do, but why take something from the white people when you can simply have the union without actually calling it marriage?

 

Just so you know, the courts didn't find it valid.

[Dark0ne]

"The big deal" is that marriage is a legal status given by the government.

 

They can have their equal rights, they can have their rights as a legal "couple"

 

Did you flagrantly disregard that line? They can have their legal mumbo-jumbo for all I care.

 

This is entirely separate from any religious context. I, a devout atheist, could go get the papers signed and be just as married as someone who had a full religious ceremony.

 

Perhaps you didn't notice I spoke nothing of religion in respect to this argument. I, infact, denounce its use in this argument.

 

Let me quote your argument with a couple minor changes and tell me if you still think it's true:

 

Black people are different to white people - not in sexuality, but in their looks and appearance. They can have their equal rights, they can have their rights as a legal "couple" just as all white married people do, but why take something from the white people when you can simply have the union without actually calling it marriage?

 

This has no relevence to the argument. The dictionary says that marriage is between "man and woman"...its right there, 1a of the dictionary definition of marriage - "The union of a man and woman as husband and wife". This doesn't ratify your changing the argument to a completly irrelevent format.

 

The very defining parameters are "man" and "woman". Not colour, height, age or weight or anything else. But your actual sex..thats all.

 

Just so you know, the courts didn't find it valid.

 

As far as I'm aware several courts have disallowed such marriages taking place, and I'm only aware of Mass. currently accepting homosexual marriage as legal.

[valdir]

I don't see why gay people need to get married, considering marriage is just a "title" given to a couple by the state.

 

I've long given up the "marriage needs to be between man and women" but if the gay community wants their "right" sooo bad, do what nzdbox said and rename the title.

 

Instead of Joe and Steve being "married" they'll be homogamous.

 

As for Rynos' view on "Clinton coming back", the only reason he did as well as he did was because the country was reaping the benefits that past presidents set into action. That and Clinton can't run again.

 

I'm glad that Bush was elected again, only because I (a suburban, white, teenage, male living in Northern Indiana) feel safe under his "rule"(for lack of a better word). I don't really have an excuse, except that I'm American and don't like change. :huh:

 

Plus, responding to my own post, my opinion won't reach higher authority anyway.

 

~V

[Dinin]

Let gay couples have a civil union but do not let them "marry".

 

Even if it is just word, it's an important word. Allowing a gay couple to marry is like a slap to the Christian Church. Its about as bad as someone getting on live television and dropping the N-bomb.

 

Let them have the same advantages a married couple receives, but just don't call it marriage.

 

"The big deal" is that marriage is a legal status given by the government.

 

Before it was a legal status, it was a holy sacrament in the Bible (Catholic Church).

[Dark0ne]

Let gay couples have a civil union but do not let them "marry".

 

Even if it is just word, it's an important word. Allowing a gay couple to marry is like a slap to the Christian Church. Its about as bad as someone getting on live television and dropping the N-bomb.

 

Let them have the same advantages a married couple receives, but just don't call it marriage.

 

"The big deal" is that marriage is a legal status given by the government.

 

Before it was a legal status, it was a holy sacrament in the Bible (Catholic Church).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Do the clever thing next time and don't mention religion in your debates...you just give Peregrine a reason to go anile on us all :rolleyes:

[Slaiv]

Gay Marriage - no. By allowing gay marriage, a President would alienate nearly every Christian Church. I'm not talking about bringin religion into state - without these votes, a President would have no chance of election. Allow union, but defacing the word "marriage" would, as stated, alienate many people. That would be a very, very stupid move for the Pres.

 

Plus, y'know, I just don't like homosexuality. ;)

 

For all I care, clone Nixon and make him Pres. His clone wouldn't have been elected 2 times, so it's prefectly Constitutional. In fact, we should do that. Now. Before I get Cambodian on your a**es.