Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 11/2/2009 9:19:53 AM EST
Ballots are due this week, please vote to reject this referendum IF you believe that marriage is a sacred union of a man and a woman. This initiative would pave the way for Same Sex Marriage in Washington. I don't oppose civil unions and the like, I just feel that "marriage" should remain a sacred union between husband and wife. If you agree please vote to reject. This thread is not intended to start hate speech or anything so let's please keep it civil. I just wanted to try and reach any fellow voters that I could. Thanks for your time.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:23:15 AM EST
Don't Tread on Me unless I don't agree
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:24:00 AM EST
done.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:24:02 AM EST
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:
Don't Tread on Me unless I don't agree


Exactly

Don't tread on me.... but it's fine to tread the gheys....
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:28:08 AM EST
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:
Don't Tread on Me unless I don't agree


Exactly

Don't tread on me.... but it's fine to tread the gheys....


Thanks guys, my view is that the term marriage is sacred and applies to the union of husband and wife. It should be preserved. Same sex couples should be entitled to civil unions and the same legal rights and protections but I don't believe they should call it marriage. Different values and beliefs. Feel free to vote as you see fit.

Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:32:22 AM EST
marriage is sacred, and a religious term. it got screwed up when the states decided it needed to be recorded and taxed. once the state got involved the term "marriage" lost all religious meaning. now if gays get married in churches, different story. afaik the church hasnt approved the gayness yet. it is all about the wording
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:33:13 AM EST
So if some gay guy you don't know shacks up with another man and calls himself married, it somehow affects you and your marriage?

Yet you're ok with "Civil Unions."

I see. You're ok with guys butt fucking, but you just don't what them to be able to call each other sugar pie or honey bunch while they do it. Because, you know, that somehow hurts your marriage.


In other news, the government made a big push to make you and your children a permanent fucking slave of the government. No biggie. Let's be sure to drop everything and make sure gay dudes can't use a term for marital status that you use. You know, because it's not like it's just a word or anything.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:34:08 AM EST
Originally Posted By stacks04:
marriage is sacred, and a religious term. it got screwed up when the states decided it needed to be recorded and taxed. once the state got involved the term "marriage" lost all religious meaning. now if gays get married in churches, different story. afaik the church hasnt approved the gayness yet. it is all about the wording


good point

Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:35:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
So if some gay guy you don't know shacks up with another man and calls himself married, it somehow affects you and your marriage?

Yet you're ok with "Civil Unions."

I see. You're ok with guys butt fucking, but you just don't what them to be able to call each other sugar pie or honey bunch while they do it. Because, you know, that somehow hurts your marriage.


In other news, the government made a big push to make you and your children a permanent fucking slave of the government. No biggie. Let's be sure to drop everything and make sure gay dudes can't use a term for marital status that you use. You know, because it's not like it's just a word or anything.

Good to see more true freedom minded people! Not just those that want the freeedoms for only what they agree with
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:36:52 AM EST
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
So if some gay guy you don't know shacks up with another man and calls himself married, it somehow affects you and your marriage?

Yet you're ok with "Civil Unions."

I see. You're ok with guys butt fucking, but you just don't what them to be able to call each other sugar pie or honey bunch while they do it. Because, you know, that somehow hurts your marriage.


In other news, the government made a big push to make you and your children a permanent fucking slave of the government. No biggie. Let's be sure to drop everything and make sure gay dudes can't use a term for marital status that you use. You know, because it's not like it's just a word or anything.



I believe it's a sin but it's not for me to judge, that's left for God.
I think it would be discrimination to not allow them to have the same legal rights for insurance, etc but I would like to see the union of "marriage" untainted
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:37:46 AM EST
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
So if some gay guy you don't know shacks up with another man and calls himself married, it somehow affects you and your marriage?

Yet you're ok with "Civil Unions."

I see. You're ok with guys butt fucking, but you just don't what them to be able to call each other sugar pie or honey bunch while they do it. Because, you know, that somehow hurts your marriage.


In other news, the government made a big push to make you and your children a permanent fucking slave of the government. No biggie. Let's be sure to drop everything and make sure gay dudes can't use a term for marital status that you use. You know, because it's not like it's just a word or anything.


QFT

Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:39:22 AM EST
Originally Posted By jsdoyle:
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
So if some gay guy you don't know shacks up with another man and calls himself married, it somehow affects you and your marriage?

Yet you're ok with "Civil Unions."

I see. You're ok with guys butt fucking, but you just don't what them to be able to call each other sugar pie or honey bunch while they do it. Because, you know, that somehow hurts your marriage.


In other news, the government made a big push to make you and your children a permanent fucking slave of the government. No biggie. Let's be sure to drop everything and make sure gay dudes can't use a term for marital status that you use. You know, because it's not like it's just a word or anything.



I believe it's a sin but it's not for me to judge, that's left for God.
I think it would be discrimination to not allow them to have the same legal rights for insurance, etc but I would like to see the union of "marriage" untainted


I think plenty of straight couples have tainted it all by themselves. As you say, it's left to God, so leave it to Him.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:39:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By jsdoyle:
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
So if some gay guy you don't know shacks up with another man and calls himself married, it somehow affects you and your marriage?

Yet you're ok with "Civil Unions."

I see. You're ok with guys butt fucking, but you just don't what them to be able to call each other sugar pie or honey bunch while they do it. Because, you know, that somehow hurts your marriage.


In other news, the government made a big push to make you and your children a permanent fucking slave of the government. No biggie. Let's be sure to drop everything and make sure gay dudes can't use a term for marital status that you use. You know, because it's not like it's just a word or anything.



I believe it's a sin but it's not for me to judge, that's left for God.
I think it would be discrimination to not allow them to have the same legal rights for insurance, etc but I would like to see the union of "marriage" untainted


Marriage and untainted in the same sentence . You also better get on trying to ban divorce because that taints marriage more the gays getting married ever will
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:39:36 AM EST
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
So if some gay guy you don't know shacks up with another man and calls himself married, it somehow affects you and your marriage?

Yet you're ok with "Civil Unions."

I see. You're ok with guys butt fucking, but you just don't what them to be able to call each other sugar pie or honey bunch while they do it. Because, you know, that somehow hurts your marriage.


In other news, the government made a big push to make you and your children a permanent fucking slave of the government. No biggie. Let's be sure to drop everything and make sure gay dudes can't use a term for marital status that you use. You know, because it's not like it's just a word or anything.


Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:40:01 AM EST
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
So if some gay guy you don't know shacks up with another man and calls himself married, it somehow affects you and your marriage?

Yet you're ok with "Civil Unions."

I see. You're ok with guys butt fucking, but you just don't what them to be able to call each other sugar pie or honey bunch while they do it. Because, you know, that somehow hurts your marriage.


In other news, the government made a big push to make you and your children a permanent fucking slave of the government. No biggie. Let's be sure to drop everything and make sure gay dudes can't use a term for marital status that you use. You know, because it's not like it's just a word or anything.



Agreed. I do like having the issue though, it brings conservatives to the polls. But I dont give a shit if gays marry or not.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:40:04 AM EST
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
So if some gay guy you don't know shacks up with another man and calls himself married, it somehow affects you and your marriage?

Yet you're ok with "Civil Unions."

I see. You're ok with guys butt fucking, but you just don't what them to be able to call each other sugar pie or honey bunch while they do it. Because, you know, that somehow hurts your marriage.


In other news, the government made a big push to make you and your children a permanent fucking slave of the government. No biggie. Let's be sure to drop everything and make sure gay dudes can't use a term for marital status that you use. You know, because it's not like it's just a word or anything.

Good to see more true freedom minded people! Not just those that want the freeedoms for only what they agree with






It's just a different value system, I'm not trying to persecute anyone or discriminate. I just don't want the sacred union of marriage between man and woman to be lowered and tainted.

Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:41:59 AM EST
Since it isn't marriage and just giving them the same rights as everybody else I don't see how it is a bad thing. Allowing them to have the same rights doesn't affect anybody but them, so I have no problem with it. If they were to try forcing churches to marry them, well that's a completely different subject.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:42:25 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/2/2009 9:56:45 AM EST by ZeroZero]
Sorry bud.

Freedom is for everybody.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:44:29 AM EST
Originally Posted By Wespe:
Since it isn't marriage and just giving them the same rights as everybody else I don't see how it is a bad thing. Allowing them to have the same rights doesn't affect anybody but them, so I have no problem with it. If they were to try forcing churches to marry them, well that's a completely different subject.


If you read the wording it will allow for same sex marriages in the state. They already are entitled to the same legal rights, being next of kin, receiving insurance benefits, etc but this referendum will pave the way for same sex marriage.

Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:44:34 AM EST
Somehow, I don't think this thread is turning out the way the OP intended.

Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:44:36 AM EST
Originally Posted By Wespe:
Since it isn't marriage and just giving them the same rights as everybody else I don't see how it is a bad thing. Allowing them to have the same rights doesn't affect anybody but them, so I have no problem with it. If they were to try forcing churches to marry them, well that's a completely different subject.


This would be my only problem with it. I can see a day when militant gays try to force that on churches though. If it were to come on the ballot here, I would probably vote for it.

Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:45:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By jsdoyle:
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
So if some gay guy you don't know shacks up with another man and calls himself married, it somehow affects you and your marriage?

Yet you're ok with "Civil Unions."

I see. You're ok with guys butt fucking, but you just don't what them to be able to call each other sugar pie or honey bunch while they do it. Because, you know, that somehow hurts your marriage.


In other news, the government made a big push to make you and your children a permanent fucking slave of the government. No biggie. Let's be sure to drop everything and make sure gay dudes can't use a term for marital status that you use. You know, because it's not like it's just a word or anything.

Good to see more true freedom minded people! Not just those that want the freeedoms for only what they agree with






It's just a different value system, I'm not trying to persecute anyone or discriminate. I just don't want the sacred union of marriage between man and woman to be lowered and tainted.


That "sacred union of marriage" makes me lol if you want to have marriage be as it was in the bible you best start trying to ban divorce among other things if you don't want it "lowered and tainted".
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:46:31 AM EST
Originally Posted By ZeroZero:
Fuck that.

Who somebody marries is their business and nobody else's. It also has literally NO bearing on my marriage to my wife.

I'm voting for it.

Yes, I peed in your thread.



I accept by starting the thread I cannot dictate which way it goes and certainly it may raise some attention for the opposition. I accept that. Just trying to do what I can the best I can. If I seem like a hypocrite or intolerant oh well, just trying to speak out for what I feel is right. Everyone has the right to do the same.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:46:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/2/2009 9:48:17 AM EST by TacticalMOLONLABE]

Originally Posted By Wespe:
Since it isn't marriage and just giving them the same rights as everybody else I don't see how it is a bad thing. Allowing them to have the same rights doesn't affect anybody but them, so I have no problem with it. If they were to try forcing churches to marry them, well that's a completely different subject.


No one is saying anything about forcing churches to marry gays. The church can make up their own mind about it. See thats freedom! But forcing your morals on others is not freedom
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:47:10 AM EST
Done .I am not aginst gay's just the progressive movement behing the gay agenda!
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:48:00 AM EST
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:

Originally Posted By Wespe:
Since it isn't marriage and just giving them the same rights as everybody else I don't see how it is a bad thing. Allowing them to have the same rights doesn't affect anybody but them, so I have no problem with it. If they were to try forcing churches to marry them, well that's a completely different subject.


No one is saying anything about forcing churches to marry gays. The church can make up their own mind about it. See thats freedom!


We both know that would not be the outcome.Back to DU
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:48:03 AM EST
Originally Posted By Squatch:
Somehow, I don't think this thread is turning out the way the OP intended.



It's beyond my control, I understood that in the beginning

Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:49:31 AM EST
Another all for my rights not for yours person.

In my mind that is the definition of liberal, want everything their way, they don't like guns so you can't have any. You are fighting the same argument. You don't like gays getting married so no gays can be married.

Grow up.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:51:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/2/2009 9:53:26 AM EST by TacticalMOLONLABE]

Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:

Originally Posted By Wespe:
Since it isn't marriage and just giving them the same rights as everybody else I don't see how it is a bad thing. Allowing them to have the same rights doesn't affect anybody but them, so I have no problem with it. If they were to try forcing churches to marry them, well that's a completely different subject.


No one is saying anything about forcing churches to marry gays. The church can make up their own mind about it. See thats freedom!


We both know that would not be the outcome.Back to DU


I dislike liberals as much or if not more then I do social conservatives


As long as it doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg is my view and gay marriage does not
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:51:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/2/2009 9:55:59 AM EST by CELTICWARRIOR67]
Originally Posted By jsdoyle:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:
Don't Tread on Me unless I don't agree


Exactly

Don't tread on me.... but it's fine to tread the gheys....


Thanks guys, my view is that the term marriage is sacred and applies to the union of husband and wife. It should be preserved. Same sex couples should be entitled to civil unions and the same legal rights and protections but I don't believe they should call it marriage. Different values and beliefs. Feel free to vote as you see fit.



"marriage" is defined in the Bible. coincidentally, so is sodomy....
i just dont get why they feel they need to call it marriage.

however, as this is a free country, i dont care what you do inside your own house, but its the fags prancing around in the street or running through mass which annoys me.

but the argument that they are not treated equal is ridiculous. everyone has the same rights, and no one is allowed to "marry" their same sex, or even their cousin. so should cousins start marching on capitals claiming that they are being discriminated against? no, they can marry whom ever they wish.

next someone will find true love w/ a dog.
"but woofy and i are in love and you cant discriminate against us!"
(i saw a clip on TV of a woman marrying a dolphin in england, so dont say it cant happen)

eta: however i dont disagree w/ someone of the same sex being able to make medical decisions and the like, but why do they have to be gay? it should be allowed, and prior consent should be given, but why cant two guys who are friends have this ability?
reminds me of the movie, I now pronounce you chuck and larry, where it should be legal for gays to do that, but then it should also be legal for straights to do that. why should you have to be but fucking in order to have legal rights.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:52:26 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/2/2009 9:58:11 AM EST by hotbiggun42]
Originally Posted By jsdoyle:
Originally Posted By Squatch:
Somehow, I don't think this thread is turning out the way the OP intended.



It's beyond my control, I understood that in the beginning



Just as the Blacks fought for their freedom .We must fight to preserve our freedom ,The Gay rights movement is not about Gays having the same Rights it is about gays have special rights.It is a progressive issue. And as we all know Progressives hate The USA as it now exists.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:52:57 AM EST
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:

Originally Posted By Wespe:
Since it isn't marriage and just giving them the same rights as everybody else I don't see how it is a bad thing. Allowing them to have the same rights doesn't affect anybody but them, so I have no problem with it. If they were to try forcing churches to marry them, well that's a completely different subject.


No one is saying anything about forcing churches to marry gays. The church can make up their own mind about it. See thats freedom!


We both know that would not be the outcome.Back to DU




TM may be libertarian but that doesnt make him a liberal.

Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:53:16 AM EST
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:

Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:

Originally Posted By Wespe:
Since it isn't marriage and just giving them the same rights as everybody else I don't see how it is a bad thing. Allowing them to have the same rights doesn't affect anybody but them, so I have no problem with it. If they were to try forcing churches to marry them, well that's a completely different subject.


No one is saying anything about forcing churches to marry gays. The church can make up their own mind about it. See thats freedom!


We both know that would not be the outcome.Back to DU


I dislike liberals as much or if not more then I do social conservatives


A man with no beliefs is worse than a Liberal
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:53:52 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/2/2009 9:54:57 AM EST by Gunnerpalace]
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:

Originally Posted By Wespe:
Since it isn't marriage and just giving them the same rights as everybody else I don't see how it is a bad thing. Allowing them to have the same rights doesn't affect anybody but them, so I have no problem with it. If they were to try forcing churches to marry them, well that's a completely different subject.


No one is saying anything about forcing churches to marry gays. The church can make up their own mind about it. See thats freedom!


We both know that would not be the outcome.Back to DU


Right after the whole California thing and Arfcom's "all they want is marriage and they will leave us alone"

Eharmony (A private business) gets sued for no gay stuff.

Somebody a while ago said that prior to the fall of Greece,Rome, and a couple other ancient powers there was a increase in deviancy. Oh Well.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:55:16 AM EST
Whatever spins your prop.

Personally, I think the homosexuals are just going to find out how much fun family law is. Divorce court sessions are going to become very, very entertaining.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:56:01 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/2/2009 9:56:11 AM EST by anekrel]
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:

Originally Posted By Wespe:
Since it isn't marriage and just giving them the same rights as everybody else I don't see how it is a bad thing. Allowing them to have the same rights doesn't affect anybody but them, so I have no problem with it. If they were to try forcing churches to marry them, well that's a completely different subject.


No one is saying anything about forcing churches to marry gays. The church can make up their own mind about it. See thats freedom! But forcing your morals on others is not freedom


Actually, the Oregon Domestic Partnership Law was held up in committee because there was no written clause to protect churches from lawsuits to force them to perform same-sex marriages. This was because there were already radical gay people who were trying to do this when Multnomah County briefly was allowing the marriages. Once the law was amended, it passed with no opposition from either side.

I have another thought, though. Let this pass to take the fight out of the gay marriage movement, and then sue to add the protections in for churches.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:56:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:

Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:

Originally Posted By Wespe:
Since it isn't marriage and just giving them the same rights as everybody else I don't see how it is a bad thing. Allowing them to have the same rights doesn't affect anybody but them, so I have no problem with it. If they were to try forcing churches to marry them, well that's a completely different subject.


No one is saying anything about forcing churches to marry gays. The church can make up their own mind about it. See thats freedom!


We both know that would not be the outcome.Back to DU


I dislike liberals as much or if not more then I do social conservatives


A man with no beliefs is worse than a Liberal

I have beliefs My belief is Don't Tread on Me and As long as it doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:56:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:
Don't Tread on Me unless I don't agree

There is a home for you in Nevada my friend.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:57:38 AM EST
Originally Posted By CELTICWARRIOR67:
Originally Posted By jsdoyle:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:
Don't Tread on Me unless I don't agree


Exactly

Don't tread on me.... but it's fine to tread the gheys....


Thanks guys, my view is that the term marriage is sacred and applies to the union of husband and wife. It should be preserved. Same sex couples should be entitled to civil unions and the same legal rights and protections but I don't believe they should call it marriage. Different values and beliefs. Feel free to vote as you see fit.



"marriage" is defined in the Bible. coincidentally, so is sodomy....
i just dont get why they feel they need to call it marriage.

however, as this is a free country, i dont care what you do inside your own house, but its the fags prancing around in the street or running through mass which annoys me.

but the argument that they are not treated equal is ridiculous. everyone has the same rights, and no one is allowed to "marry" their same sex, or even their cousin. so should cousins start marching on capitals claiming that they are being discriminated against? no, they can marry whom ever they wish.

next someone will find true love w/ a dog.
"but woofy and i are in love and you cant discriminate against us!"
(i saw a clip on TV of a woman marrying a dolphin in england, so dont say it cant happen)


How are they equal? If you gave gays their own country they would cease to exist in a generation .They want special rights not equal rights. Their goal is to teach alternative lifestyles in schools. So if a person is born gay why would it be necessary to teach an alternative lifestyle?
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:58:33 AM EST
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:

Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:

Originally Posted By Wespe:
Since it isn't marriage and just giving them the same rights as everybody else I don't see how it is a bad thing. Allowing them to have the same rights doesn't affect anybody but them, so I have no problem with it. If they were to try forcing churches to marry them, well that's a completely different subject.


No one is saying anything about forcing churches to marry gays. The church can make up their own mind about it. See thats freedom!


We both know that would not be the outcome.Back to DU


I dislike liberals as much or if not more then I do social conservatives


A man with no beliefs is worse than a Liberal


Nothing he said in any way indicates he has no beliefs.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:59:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By anekrel:
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:

Originally Posted By Wespe:
Since it isn't marriage and just giving them the same rights as everybody else I don't see how it is a bad thing. Allowing them to have the same rights doesn't affect anybody but them, so I have no problem with it. If they were to try forcing churches to marry them, well that's a completely different subject.


No one is saying anything about forcing churches to marry gays. The church can make up their own mind about it. See thats freedom! But forcing your morals on others is not freedom


Actually, the Oregon Domestic Partnership Law was held up in committee because there was no written clause to protect churches from lawsuits to force them to perform same-sex marriages. This was because there were already radical gay people who were trying to do this when Multnomah County briefly was allowing the marriages. Once the law was amended, it passed with no opposition from either side.

I have another thought, though. Let this pass to take the fight out of the gay marriage movement, and then sue to add the protections in for churches.


See if there is no protection for the church I would be against that
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 9:59:31 AM EST
Originally Posted By colklink:
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:

Originally Posted By Wespe:
Since it isn't marriage and just giving them the same rights as everybody else I don't see how it is a bad thing. Allowing them to have the same rights doesn't affect anybody but them, so I have no problem with it. If they were to try forcing churches to marry them, well that's a completely different subject.


No one is saying anything about forcing churches to marry gays. The church can make up their own mind about it. See thats freedom!


We both know that would not be the outcome.Back to DU




TM may be libertarian but that doesnt make him a liberal.



No but his beliefs make him a Progressive liberal the fact that he is confused about his beliefs doesnt change a thing.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 10:00:49 AM EST
Originally Posted By Gunnerpalace:
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:

Originally Posted By Wespe:
Since it isn't marriage and just giving them the same rights as everybody else I don't see how it is a bad thing. Allowing them to have the same rights doesn't affect anybody but them, so I have no problem with it. If they were to try forcing churches to marry them, well that's a completely different subject.


No one is saying anything about forcing churches to marry gays. The church can make up their own mind about it. See thats freedom!


We both know that would not be the outcome.Back to DU


Right after the whole California thing and Arfcom's "all they want is marriage and they will leave us alone"

Eharmony (A private business) gets sued for no gay stuff.

Somebody a while ago said that prior to the fall of Greece,Rome, and a couple other ancient powers there was a increase in deviancy. Oh Well.


exactly, just as the govt has been working on forcing health care providers into doing abortions against their beliefs, churches will be sued if they refuse to marry gays.

infact i remember in the last week or so on O'reillly there was a woman in england who got charged w/ hate speech because she wrote a letter about a gay rights parade and how she disagreed w/ them based on her religion (forget the fact that they dance through the streets half naked pretending to perform sexual acts on one another)
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 10:01:04 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/2/2009 10:03:36 AM EST by TacticalMOLONLABE]

Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Originally Posted By colklink:
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:

Originally Posted By Wespe:
Since it isn't marriage and just giving them the same rights as everybody else I don't see how it is a bad thing. Allowing them to have the same rights doesn't affect anybody but them, so I have no problem with it. If they were to try forcing churches to marry them, well that's a completely different subject.


No one is saying anything about forcing churches to marry gays. The church can make up their own mind about it. See thats freedom!


We both know that would not be the outcome.Back to DU




TM may be libertarian but that doesnt make him a liberal.



No but his beliefs make him a Progressive liberal the fact that he is confused about his beliefs doesnt change a thing.


Your avatar pic sure means nothing to you
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 10:05:27 AM EST
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Originally Posted By CELTICWARRIOR67:
Originally Posted By jsdoyle:
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:
Don't Tread on Me unless I don't agree


Exactly

Don't tread on me.... but it's fine to tread the gheys....


Thanks guys, my view is that the term marriage is sacred and applies to the union of husband and wife. It should be preserved. Same sex couples should be entitled to civil unions and the same legal rights and protections but I don't believe they should call it marriage. Different values and beliefs. Feel free to vote as you see fit.



"marriage" is defined in the Bible. coincidentally, so is sodomy....
i just dont get why they feel they need to call it marriage.

however, as this is a free country, i dont care what you do inside your own house, but its the fags prancing around in the street or running through mass which annoys me.

but the argument that they are not treated equal is ridiculous. everyone has the same rights, and no one is allowed to "marry" their same sex, or even their cousin. so should cousins start marching on capitals claiming that they are being discriminated against? no, they can marry whom ever they wish.

next someone will find true love w/ a dog.
"but woofy and i are in love and you cant discriminate against us!"
(i saw a clip on TV of a woman marrying a dolphin in england, so dont say it cant happen)


How are they equal? If you gave gays their own country they would cease to exist in a generation .They want special rights not equal rights. Their goal is to teach alternative lifestyles in schools. So if a person is born gay why would it be necessary to teach an alternative lifestyle?


sorry, but i dont understand your comment. my point is that under the laws, everyone has the same rights, and they all have a right to marry a person of the opposite sex. I agree with you that they want special rights not equal rights.

also, they claim that it is biological, but you are right that if they were to live on an island they would cease to exist because gays cant reproduce (but then you get into the murkeyness of someone becoming gay after having kids or being straight which i would say is more due to their experiences w/ the opposite sex-usually abuse or rape- rather than anything biological.)
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 10:08:13 AM EST
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:

Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Originally Posted By colklink:
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:

Originally Posted By Wespe:
Since it isn't marriage and just giving them the same rights as everybody else I don't see how it is a bad thing. Allowing them to have the same rights doesn't affect anybody but them, so I have no problem with it. If they were to try forcing churches to marry them, well that's a completely different subject.


No one is saying anything about forcing churches to marry gays. The church can make up their own mind about it. See thats freedom!


We both know that would not be the outcome.Back to DU




TM may be libertarian but that doesnt make him a liberal.



No but his beliefs make him a Progressive liberal the fact that he is confused about his beliefs doesnt change a thing.


Your avatar pic sure means nothing to you


you are right, because our founders who originally flew that flag supported gay marriage. thats why its in the constitution....

in my opinion the fact that they didnt think they had to list gay marriage and abortion is clear to their feelings on it
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 10:08:39 AM EST
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Originally Posted By colklink:
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:

Originally Posted By Wespe:
Since it isn't marriage and just giving them the same rights as everybody else I don't see how it is a bad thing. Allowing them to have the same rights doesn't affect anybody but them, so I have no problem with it. If they were to try forcing churches to marry them, well that's a completely different subject.


No one is saying anything about forcing churches to marry gays. The church can make up their own mind about it. See thats freedom!


We both know that would not be the outcome.Back to DU




TM may be libertarian but that doesnt make him a liberal.



No but his beliefs make him a Progressive liberal the fact that he is confused about his beliefs doesnt change a thing.



I would disagree.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 10:08:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/2/2009 10:14:24 AM EST by anekrel]
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:


See if there is no protection for the church I would be against that


I overheard when I was in college, some of the Oregon Citizens Alliance (kinda like Christian Coalition) supporters we had on campus saying that they wouldn't oppose a gay marriage law that had protections for churches written in, or even passed and then added later. Oh, and the Domestic Partnership Law? Once the legal protections for churches were written in, the OCA backed off. Oh, and on the other side, there was some whining initially, until us smert people informed them that the Constitution also provides for religious freedom (that was a fun one to explain).

There was a great write up during the Prop. 8 fight in the LA Times about how both sides are kind of at an empasse since they are both constitutionally right, and I wish I could find it.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 10:09:50 AM EST
Originally Posted By jsdoyle:
Ballots are due this week, please vote to reject this referendum IF you believe that marriage is a sacred union of a man and a woman. This initiative would pave the way for Same Sex Marriage in Washington. I don't oppose civil unions and the like, I just feel that "marriage" should remain a sacred union between husband and wife. If you agree please vote to reject. This thread is not intended to start hate speech or anything so let's please keep it civil. I just wanted to try and reach any fellow voters that I could. Thanks for your time.


I think understand what you're saying in that you believe marriage is a religious determination and, according to the religion, only qualifies a union between man and a woman, but then is it really the government's place to define a religious word? Is it then really the government's place to determine who qualifies for a religious act and who does not? Should the government have the power to determine who qualifies and does not qualify for Catholic Confirmation? Baptism? Sainthood?
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 10:10:14 AM EST
Celtic I grabbed the wrong quote my mistake
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 10:11:57 AM EST
Originally Posted By CELTICWARRIOR67:
everyone has the same rights, and they all have a right to marry a person of the opposite sex. I agree with you that they want special rights not equal rights.



Why should anybody (you, me, the gubbermint, anybody) have a say in who someone marries?

For the life of me, I can't understand why you would suggest that it's not only acceptable, but preferable that somebody else should be able to decide who someone can marry.

I simply cannot support restricting people's freedoms to do things that have no impact on me whatsoever. It's shameful.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top