RE: Homosexual’s marriages…

RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

LotusSong -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 5:49:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Hello, I hate to micturate in anybodies corn flakes, but the issue here is deeper than what the hell you call the people in a homosexual coupling. If I marry somebody with XX chromosomes, I pay less taxes, I can put her on my benefits plan at work (and vice versa), I can do all sorts of financially wonderful things. If I marry somebody with XY chromosomes, none of the above happens. Because of this, I think any law opposing gay marraige, and I have only seen religious groups in opposition, violates the separation of church and state clause in the United States constitution. This is my own opinion here, but I really do NOT care who a person wants to settle down with and make a life with. I am stridently opposed to a government agency looking between their legs and determine what they need to file taxes as. I am also opposed to the idea that two XX or XY people living together cannot claim the other person on their benefits. Either you make it so nobody can, or you make it so everybody can. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy I always thought marriage was a function of the state to keep track of lineage for the transfer of property and power. I have no idea where the religious ceremony aspect came in. Actually, I see no reason for it unless you intend to establish your own bloodline. I never wanted kids.. but if I wanted my mate we HAD to get married way back in the day. Go figure.

MizSuz -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 6:09:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Not. The plural of mouse is mice. The plural of louse is lice. Hence the plural of spouse is spice. I think a marriage between two lesbians would have spice. HA! Does that mean God is an iron? (If a person who commits a felony is a felon then...)

Arpig -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 6:30:17 AM)
quote: To begin with what they would be getting in Canada is a civil union. Very true Twice, but since, in Canada at least, a religious marriage has no validity or legality on its own, it is the civil union that matters. I was married in Canada, I know the procedure, you are not legally married till you sign the Gvt papers, no matter what the witch-doctor says. As far as religious marriages goes, if you want to marry your homosexual lover and your religion forbods same-sex marriages, then I suspect you should change religions/sects.

JerseyKrissi72 -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 7:29:13 AM)
I am a Christian, yes, and I hear alot of shit because I believe if someone loves someone they should be able to get married whether it's a male/ female relationship or a female/ female or male/ male.....to each~ their own.

ToGiveDivine -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 7:30:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LotusSong quote: ORIGINAL: SlaveAkasha quote: ToGiveDevine:My thanks to the people who responded from proving my point that if you get up in someone else's business, they're going to push back. Why shouldn't someone push back if they feel they aren't able to live their lives with the same rights as everyone else? Are they expected to just deal with the way things are, and not want them to change? I don't think anyone should when it comes to civil rights for homosexuals anymore than so many did for African American rights, and Womens Rights. As long as people are persecuted, they have a right to fight back and want their voices heard. It will be a sad world when they all just shut up and let things be, so that others don't get their panties in a wad. Akasha True. I just voted to allow Gay unions in Arizona. I think what the big problem is for most is semantics. Marriage has always been between a male and female. I have no problem giving same sex unions the exact same rights as het marriage. I just hate to give up the word that defined a het marriage. Maybe we hets need to think up a different word for our unions then. It's a thought. I'm thinking.... "A-vowed" or something... That's the point I'm trying to make - all this stuff about blacks and slavery, or women voting, etc. etc. has nothing to do with the Bible. Non-consensual slavery has been around for thousands of years (and it's still prevalent in too many parts of the world), some countries still don't allow women to vote. Even though these things are wrong, if it is accepted as part of a group's religion then arguing with them is a sure path to an ugly scene. Jesus loved everyone, even sinners. (Whatever anyone considers a sinner to be) You go to the Middle East and start bitching about the lack of rights for women and you'll get your head cut off because you are blaspheming Islam. My point is and continues to be - you mess with someone's religion and you will see intolerance like you've never seen; right or wrong, politically correct or not. More wars have been started as a result of religion and untold slaughter has been done due to religious zealots. An insignificant number of wars, in comparison, have been fought over slavery and women's rights. As for the separation of Church and State - that came about in order to forbid the government from picking a particular "religion" as the official religion of the country as England did. It has nothing to do with keeping God of of the government. The US was founded under Judeo-Christian principles and the Founding Fathers had no intention of having God wiped out of government. It's not our job to judge other people's lifestyle (believe it or not, I don't care if homosexuals couple up - hell, large numbers of hetero couples have divorced which is also a no-no - it's all semantics, homosexuality is referred to as depraved and an abomination in the Bible where divorce is just bad - the use of such strong language produces strong feelings) If you are a gay couple that truly love each other then more power to you - the world could use more love in it.

MistressSassy66 -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 7:43:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreSwank Either a really clean, well-decorated house, or synchronized menstration. OMG...now thats funny...Mine case is the latter...needless to say its not pleasant during what I call Split Personality Week...lol We had a Union Ceremony done by the Unitarian Universalist Church. We had to do 3 or 4 meetings with the Woman doing the ceremony just like with any church. I took it a step further and legally changed My last name to bishops.It was a 3 month process and I had to swear that I wouldnt use the last name to make people think we are married.Now other gay/lesbian couples can do the same because of the Precedent in the State of Maine Law books.The judge called us pioneers in the gay community. I guess we have our 15 minutes of fame now and forever,providing his ruling doesnt get overturned at some point.

twicehappy -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 7:59:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: To begin with what they would be getting in Canada is a civil union. Very true Twice, but since, in Canada at least, a religious marriage has no validity or legality on its own, it is the civil union that matters. It is the same in the USA.

darkinshadows -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 8:06:02 AM)
quote: The other method though is more controversial, even for the more reasonable people in the UK - as I have found in limited anecdotal experience at least. The second method allows the Birth Certificate to be changed, without the surgery and treatment, as long as the person can prove that they have lived in the adopted gender for a certain period. Of course, they will have the female gender identity in this case (for instance), but will retain the full physical features of their male birth sex. However, with the Birth Certificate changed - it is quite legal for this person to also marry a man and become his wife in the same way and to the same extent as any natural woman. I really do not see a problem. If people feel a particular sex, why should they be forced to live by stereotypical identity? In a country which is at the moment, beginning to press for 'citizanship agendas'[;)] - I fail to see that this is in anyway different. Being 'BRITISH' these days doesn't mean you have to be white. So why does being 'female' have to mean having breasts? Surely it is a state of mind? (yes, I know there is the whole genetic code, but that can be the same for race) I have a friend who's child was born both sexes, yet her sex was chosen for her purely because of gentic makeup (she had a vagina and a higher amount of female hormones than male) - but it is pretty obvious now - 15 years later - they made the wrong choice... and now she will have to decide as she reaches adulthood which path she is to take. In her own words, she is a girl and enjoys being a girl, but feels a like a boy inside. There are many other people who feel like this. If people want to change their identity, it doesn't mean they necessarily want to change their features. Peace and Rapture

LotusSong -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 8:24:15 AM)
One evening, I was watching the History channel. It was about the latter days of the Roman Empire. And in the program it said that the Romans (the ROMANS for Pete's sake!) OUTLAWED homosexuality because it was so prevalent that the population was in decline. Could this be the worry? Maybe what we need are breeder licenses? If there is a historian who can verify this to be sure I heard it right..please come forward.

LadyEllen -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 8:26:24 AM)
IMO, there is nothing really to be discussed in all this. If two people love each other, then whose business is it apart from theirs, what chromosomes they have? I find if I just look at it from the outside, (like I'm ET for instance - and yes, I see the resemblance too haha), it looks so crazy to say who can and who cant be together. Until we get rid of the Churchianity culture though - the only thing that is causing the problems in this and in so many other areas of life - it will remain an "issue". I'm not Christian, no one I know is Christian (apart from here on CM), true Christians realise that Jesus death and resurrection is all thats vital, not who should marry et al. Yet we retain this Churchianity view of white, heterosexual, church attender = good, everyone else = bad, throughout our society - and worst of all, when most of us are the baddies according to that view. Its enmeshed in our culture, in our laws and everything. E

ToGiveDivine -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 8:52:12 AM)
Religion has nothing to do with spirituality. Religions are groups of people that have gotten together with like interests in order to pray to God with people that believe the same things they do. Baptists don't believe in drinking or dancing - nothing in the Bible says anything against drinking or dancing (Jesus made wine from water for a friend's wedding reception). It just makes Baptists more comfortable to pray to God with people that have the same interests. Someone can start a new religion called "watutusi" for people that want to pray to God while dancing the Watusi in a tutu. Of course, when people join a religion they think their's is better than other religions and that's where the trouble start. Ironically, Christianity, Judism, and Islam all consider Abraham as their patriarch - but they just don't play well together. I am a Christian; I like the thought that Jesus died to cleanse me of my sin - even if you don't believe that, isn't it just a really wonderful thought that someone would go to such lengths for the love of his fellow man? I'm still a sinner and will continue to be until my last breath; just like everyone else, because nobody is perfect.

darkinshadows -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 9:22:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen IMO, there is nothing really to be discussed in all this. If two people love each other, then whose business is it apart from theirs, what chromosomes they have? I find if I just look at it from the outside, (like I'm ET for instance - and yes, I see the resemblance too haha), it looks so crazy to say who can and who cant be together. Until we get rid of the Churchianity culture though - the only thing that is causing the problems in this and in so many other areas of life - it will remain an "issue". I'm not Christian, no one I know is Christian (apart from here on CM), true Christians realise that Jesus death and resurrection is all thats vital, not who should marry et al. Yet we retain this Churchianity view of white, heterosexual, church attender = good, everyone else = bad, throughout our society - and worst of all, when most of us are the baddies according to that view. Its enmeshed in our culture, in our laws and everything. E (...sssshhh - your not supposed to mention the word true ...[:D]) I am a christian and I think its really easy to generalise christians as all thinking the same way. I can honestly say, I have never met or known a christian (in my life - not the net) that thinks it is 'wrong' to marry same sex or 'wrong' to be gay. Love willout. I do not believe religion is spirituality either, like TGD. I also would fight tooth and nail to discuss the point that homosexuality isn't even mentioned biblicly in the NT - and as I have stated before of other threads here, Jesus even healed homosexuals (as in ailments - not as in 'of their gayness') - why would a man do that if being gay is so wrong? Anyway - digressing... people are whatever they want to be to their significant other. You should see the looks I get calling the man who dominates me 'my Boy'. Does that bother me? Nope. End of the day - Love willout. Peace and Rapture

SirKenin -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 10:40:42 AM)
ToGiveDivine: Considering that the New Testament condemns homosexuality outright, to claim one's self a Christian and a practicing homosexual is a distinct contradiction in terms. Paul was instructed by God to give that message. Homosexuals deny it, and even erase it from their "special version" of the Bible, because it does not conform with what they want to believe. They use all kinds of magic to try and explain it away, even trying to redefine the Greek, to slip through the cracks and convince themselves that what they are doing is right. I have seen this a million times if I have seen it once. Countless debates. The arguments border on the absurd. I am fine with civil unions. If that makes them happy, go for it. Keep it behind closed doors and I do not really care what you do. However, homosexuals can not be happy with that. They never could be happy with that, and they never will be. If you give them an inch, they will demand a mile. That is just the way they are. They attack Christianity because Christianity condemns them. They are the enemy and they must be stopped at all costs. There is a very good book written about this very subject, how Americans are defined as the enemy and how the homosexuals will conquer them in a very detailed plan that is still followed by homosexual activist groups to this day. So far it is working. It was written by two PhDs who are absolutely brilliant. I have read most of it. It is all a strategy. America will learn to like it or they will have it rammed down their throats. You better get used to it. Even if homosexuals do get married in a church, it is not sanctified by God. A covenant between the parties requires the approval of all involved, and God has made it very clear through His messenger Paul that he does not, and will not, approve, so they are only fooling themselves. I gave up worrying about it a long time ago.

TreSwank -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 10:59:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine - it's all semantics, homosexuality is referred to as depraved and an abomination in the Bible where divorce is just bad - the use of such strong language produces strong feelings) The language in the Bible that supposedly condemns "homosexuality", never really condemns the romantic love of a man for another man, but it does forbid the act of male-on-male sodomy (laying with another man, as one does with a woman)...........as it also condemns EVERY act that is non-procreative as an outrage to Yahweh, such as Onanism (whacking your peter - no pun intended), oral sex, and the spilling of your precious splooge anywhere that doesn't resemble a snatch. God knows that I've read alot of langauge in the Bible that could be interpreted as ambiguously queer, especially with a work that discounts women for the most part, and focuses on loving relationships between men. To tell the truth, I think that the New Testament actually hints at the homosexuality of several key characters, but I don't think that certain rules always apply to everyone. Christ made a HUGE distinction between the "letter of the law", and the "spirit of the law", and broke many of his father's supposed decrees, much to the dismay of the Pharisees, who, failing to understand the need of compassion and mercy, condemned Christ for his association with sinners. In Leviticus 21:9, the proscribed law for prostitution, was burning until death, and yet notice how Jesus, in all of his loving, otherworldly compassion, forbade a"indignant" crowd to stone a whore to death in the new testament. "Outright condemnation"? I don't know about that. The New Testament is one of the most ambiguous works out there. If you really want to boil it down to semantics, you've got to say that the Bible condemns "a guy stickin' it in another dude's ass", instead of the mistaken claim that the Bible condemns men who have romantic feelings for other men.

ToGiveDivine -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 11:03:22 AM)
SirKenin, But isn't it fun to stir the pot on occasion? LOL What you write is true (Leviticus for those unfamiliar with where in the Bible that homosexuality is lambasted). Editted - True as in that what you said is in the Bible It has become standard operating procedure to attack and vilify all those to whom you disagree. It's not PC to attack someone based on their ethnicity (unless they're white) and you can't attack someone based on their religion (unless they're Christian) and you can't attack someone on their sexuality (unless they're straight), etc. (I'm generalizing here for effect people ;-) I don't believe in Racism, Sexism, etc. etc. - there are too many reasons to dislike people on an individual basis LOL

MisPandora -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 11:22:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Master96 When straight people get married. We have a husband and wife. What we have when two women marry each other or two men? Just curious… What does it matter what they call themselves? If it works for them, what does it matter to you? It sounds to me like a homophobic question.

LadyEllen -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 11:23:43 AM)
SirK - dont worry about the homosexuals taking over America. Surely the Jewish Conspiracy would never allow that? And then there's the Freemasons to take on too. Not to mention the Whoeverelseisconspiringtorulebecausewedontunderstandthems. E

MisPandora -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 11:25:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine quote: ORIGINAL: twicehappy quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse two human beings that love one another and wish to commit to spending the rest of their life together That is exactly how i feel! Jewel's daughter and her life partner have to go to Cananda to get married and i think that is just wrong. Marriage is a religious sacrament and homosexuality is not approved by the major religions. So, if religion doesn't approve of your lifestyle then why would you want to be joined by a sacrament of the disapproving religion? Why not get a civil union that provides the same benefits as marriage and be done with it? Either A) you want alot of attention or B) you want to tear down religions because you don't agree with them. If your goal is to tear down religion, then you deserve all the crap you get because most of the world's population believe in a supreme being and you are just wanting to fight the world. Homosexuals don't like their beliefs to be questioned or attacked by religion, so why would you want to attack religion in return? Someone has to be the bigger person, if it's not going to be the uber-religious, then maybe the homosexuals should take the higher ground. You're not gay, and I can't expect you to understand this...but the folks that I know who have pushed to get married and have that RIGHT did it because they are PEOPLE and they have every right to be MARRIED just like two straight people can. Why should they have to accept an alternative because someone is uncomfortable seeing homosexuals in the same arrangement, living a loving, happy life together?

ToGiveDivine -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 11:26:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen SirK - dont worry about the homosexuals taking over America. Surely the Jewish Conspiracy would never allow that? And then there's the Freemasons to take on too. Not to mention the Whoeverelseisconspiringtorulebecausewedontunderstandthems. E Ooooooooo, I really hate that group - they're just nasty ;-D

SirKenin -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 11:30:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen SirK - dont worry about the homosexuals taking over America. Surely the Jewish Conspiracy would never allow that? And then there's the Freemasons to take on too. Not to mention the Whoeverelseisconspiringtorulebecausewedontunderstandthems. E Ohhhh, their plan is not to take over America. I am not too worried about that.. Their plan is to shove it in everyone else's face until people are so sick of listening to them they will just cave in and give the homosexuals whatever they want.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125