OK, lets ignore religious reasons for a moment here, and just consider social reasons. The fact is, Gay Marriage is disliked by the majority of Americans. So, if Homosexuals want to be recognized by the law, what's wrong with a legal equivalent called a Civil Union? And it's not like I am coming up with this idea, it's been used for a long time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

 

 

 

Now, there are some problems with this currently, the main one being the federal governments stance on the whole issue, which prevents this from being a proper alternative to marriage.

 

 

 

But really folks, I think we are going way off topic here, and should get back to Michal Savage, and the British government's actions yesterday, and those people who where banned like Geert Wilders, a man who I respect for having the courage to talk about the Islamic invasion of Europe, especially considering that people in his country have been murdered by Muslims for talking about it. Last time I checked, London alone has over a million Muslims- and that population has come out in full protest on more than one occasion, calling for the death of the queen, and the implementation of Sharia Law.

 

 

 

 

 

But really folks, I think we are going way off topic here, and should get back to Michal Savage, and the British government's actions yesterday, and those previously that banned people like Geert Wilders, a man who I respect for having the courage to talk about the Islamic invasion of Europe, especially considering that people in his country have been murdered by Muslims for talking about it. Last time I checked, London alone has over a million Muslims- and that population has come out in full protest on more than one occasion, calling for the death of the queen, and the implementation of Sharia Law.

 

 

 

You're taking a tiny minority of Muslims and using them to tar the whole Muslim population with the same brush. That's like saying all Americans are obese - ridiculous. Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to live where they want, if they emigrate legally then there is no reason why they shouldn't and if they were born here then they have the same rights as the so called white majority. You're an American, one of your ancestors emigrated there (unless you're a Native American) or is that somehow different because you white and Christian?

 

 

 

Yeah, well, I am definitely painting those Muslims as violent and dangerous. They are Islamists- muslims who want Islam to conquer the world.

 

 

 

Yeah, well, I am definitely painting those Muslims as violent and dangerous. They are Islamists- muslims who want Islam to conquer the world.

 

 

 

Normally, I'd argue with you more just because you have no debating skills but you really are a moron. This is the point where I don't waste any more of tonight making reasonable responses to your rubbish.

OK, lets ignore religious reasons for a moment here, and just consider social reasons. The fact is, Gay Marriage is disliked by the majority of Americans. So, if Homosexuals want to be recognized by the law, what's wrong with a legal equivalent called a Civil Union? And it's not like I am coming up with this idea, it's been used for a long time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

 

 

 

Now, there are some problems with this currently, the main one being the federal governments stance on the whole issue, which prevents this from being a proper alternative to marriage.

 

 

Why not give blacks different water fountatains, i mean it's still the same water. Those mexicans can use different restrooms, it's not *that* inconvenient. Lets make the indians stand up in buses, after all it's only for 5 minutes.

 

Due to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed by Bill Clinton during his 1996 re-election campaign, same-sex couples in marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships in the U.S. do not have the 1,138 rights, benefits and privileges that a married couple has under federal law

 

There are *no* social/rational reasons for gays not to be allowed married it's all fueled directly by religion.

 

 

 

 

 

On the story, as much as i deplore Michael Savage, there is no possible way i would support *banning* him for his views, this a direct and obvious attempt at stifling free speech and it's obviously coming from the same place that the sharia law/courts and banning hate speech against muslims(aka disagreeing with them) comes from.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources: http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer ... docID=1161 [pdf]

Magekiller, on the whole issue of Gay Marriage, religious people everywhere find it offensive, and can quote the bible on why they don't want it.

 

 

 

I can quote the Bible about many things to justify many other things. Who cares what the Bible says? We're not a theocracy, our law is not based around the Bible.

 

 

 

And my religion of worship of the magical space duck says that forum users named Bufoman should be tortured for having bigoted views, but does that justify it? No.

 

 

 

How about a Civil Union instead of Gay Marriage? That would give two people the same status as a married couple legally, but it wouldn't be disrespectful to religious people, as it's not being called marriage, or sanctioned by a religious authority, mearly the government.

 

 

 

I heard that term a long time ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

 

 

 

Separate but equal isn't equal, bigot.

 

 

 

And second, civil unions aren't equal because they're not recognized in every state, and they don't have the same rights.

And my religion of worship of the magical space duck says that forum users named Bufoman should be tortured for having bigoted views

 

 

 

I die a little each time a false entity is made up on the spot in replacement to god. :(

 

 

 

Separate but equal isn't equal

 

 

 

That's what I never got. "Okay, okay, let's compromise. Gays can get married but we'll call it something different." Why does there even need to be a compromise? And how does gay marriage even effect straight marriage in any way/shape/form/fashion whatsoever?

Wow, I have been called a Moron and a Bigot by two different users. I have come to expect character attacks from Magekiller, it's what he does. I will try to refrain from attacking your character Magekiller, and talking about those pre-formatted arguments you have that you compulsively copy and paste into topics whenever the opportunity arises. I make no secret that I don't much care for you coming on my topics, and calling me names. I'm liable to complain that you have been harassing me, but I have to remind myself that you do this sort of thing to anyone who dares to disagree with you.

 

 

 

So, now I'm a bigot because I have proposed an alternative to Same Sex Marriage. Instead of attacking the idea, once again, you attack me. Who here is intolerant of other views and the right of people to have them? And what ever happened to Gay's just wanting to be left alone? Oh, and sure, I am definitely a moron for providing the link to a video that helps demonstrate the type of people I am talking about, for those of you who have no idea what I am talking about.

 

 

 

Oh, and guess what guy's, Bufoman happens to be rather good at argumentative writing, perhaps better than Magekiller here. So, over the next few day's, he's going to make it his mission to answer your questions honestly, and see if we cant come to some agreement on some of these issues.

 

 

 

So, lets start with the one's directed at me so far.

 

 

 

 

Certain religions think that women shouldn't be educated, should we all defer to that belief or are just just cherry picking?

 

 

 

OK, I will drop the whole religion thing, because you do make a good point regarding them being conflicted, and I am in no mood to promote any particular religion as being right on all issues, because I don't believe any are.

 

 

 

 

You're taking a tiny minority of Muslims and using them to tar the whole Muslim population with the same brush. That's like saying all Americans are obese - ridiculous. Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed to live where they want, if they emigrate legally then there is no reason why they shouldn't and if they were born here then they have the same rights as the so called white majority. You're an American, one of your ancestors emigrated there (unless you're a Native American) or is that somehow different because you white and Christian?

 

 

 

OK, lets assume for a moment we are talking about a minority of Muslims, what's being done about that violent minority? And is anything being done about Sharia Law which as I understand it is being implemented on English soil, and overriding the common law of Great Britain.

 

 

 

 

Why not give blacks different water fountatains, i mean it's still the same water. Those mexicans can use different restrooms, it's not *that* inconvenient. Lets make the indians stand up in buses, after all it's only for 5 minutes.

 

 

 

There are *no* social/rational reasons for gays not to be allowed married it's all fueled directly by religion.

 

 

I Edited that to deal with the questions pertaining to me.

 

 

 

OK, Well, for starters, I am not talking about segregating our gay population and making them live in certain districts, or doing any of the things in your examples. On your second point regarding there being no social/rational reasons to appose Gay Marriage, I should say that marriage is in fact a religious institution, or at least that's how I regard it. By that token, government acts regarding marriage are in fact in violation of our Separation of Church and State. Now, I am starting to sound like I am on the fringe here, and maybe I am. To me, Marriage shouldn't be delt with directly by the government, but by the religious authorities. That means tax writeoffs and laws regarding Marriage are in fact unconstitutional. Therefor, by this reasoning, Civil Unions should be the manor in which the government recognizes marriage, as a legal construct, not a religious one, thus meaning Marriage becomes optional from the religious side of things. And if the religious authorities won't marry a certain segment of the population (homosexuals for example) it really is no big deal, as they would be recognized by the government authorities via the new Civil Union that applies to everyone wanting recognition by the law.

And my religion of worship of the magical space duck says that forum users named Bufoman should be tortured for having bigoted views

 

 

 

I die a little each time a false entity is made up on the spot in replacement to god. :(

 

 

Hey what the [bleep] man its God you're talking about, leave Ducky alone or I'll execute you myself. :evil:

 

 

 

I thought we, as a country and government, agreed that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional? Civil Unions and marriages are...guess what! "Separate but equal!" z0mg!

I have come to expect character attacks from Magekiller, it's what he does. I will try to refrain from attacking your character Magekiller, and talking about those pre-formatted arguments you have that you compulsively copy and paste into topics whenever the opportunity arises.

 

 

 

Sorry? When I see someone making unapologetic homophobic statements, I'm going to call you out on it. It's not a character attack, it's calling a spade a spade. You are a bigot, there's no mincing words here.

 

 

 

I make no secret that I don't much care for you coming on my topics, and calling me names. I'm liable to complain that you have been harassing me, but I have to remind myself that you do this sort of thing to anyone who dares to disagree with you.

 

 

 

Lol, harassing you? Yeah, I guess that's the common bigoted defense these days: those evil liberals are intolerant of my bigoted views!

 

 

 

So, now I'm a bigot because I have proposed an alternative to Same Sex Marriage.

 

 

 

Yep. Just as Jim Crow was a racist for his separate but equal laws.

 

 

 

Instead of attacking the idea, once again, you attack me.

 

 

 

False. I presented why you're idea is tripe, and why your ideas make you a bigot.

 

 

 

My premises + conclusion:

 

 

 

1.) Separate but equal proponents are bigots.

 

2.) If marriage was not recognized by the state and we only recognized civil unions, then it would not be separate but equal because heterosexual "joinings" would be recognized the same as homosexual: as civil unions.

 

3.) Civil unions are separate but equal because marriage is recognized by the state.

 

4.) Civil unions are not even equal because they're not awarded the same rights as marriages, nor are they recognized in states where civil unions aren't recognized like Virginia, Texas, or Ohio.

 

5.) Therefore, because civil unions are proven to be separate but equal, because proponents of separate but equal are bigots, and because Bufoman is arguing in favor of civil unions + marriages as state-recognized, Bufoman is a bigot.

 

 

 

Who here is intolerant of other views and the right of people to have them?

 

 

 

Typical bigoted spin.

 

 

 

I'm intolerant of intolerance, but I still let you speak your mind, just as I said earlier in this thread.

 

 

 

And what ever happened to Gay's just wanting to be left alone?

 

 

 

They want to be given equal rights for the equal amount of taxes that they pay.

 

 

 

 

 

OK, Well, for starters, I am not talking about segregating our gay population and making them live in certain districts, or doing any of the things in your examples.

 

 

 

Lol. You are segregating them. How can you say it's not segregation? You're talking about separate but equal, the definition of segregation.

 

 

 

On your second point regarding there being no social/rational reasons to appose Gay Marriage, I should say that marriage is in fact a religious institution, or at least that's how I regard it.

 

 

 

That would make you an idiot, too, because marriages are not issued out by religious institutions, but by the state.

 

 

 

government acts regarding marriage are in fact in violation of our Separation of Church and State.

 

 

 

Maybe you'd be correct if marriages weren't licensed by the state, but they are. Second, many churches in the Christian faith recognize homosexual marriage, what about their religious freedom? You're not just discriminating against homosexuals, you're discriminating against other religions and churches.

 

 

 

Now, I am starting to sound like I am on the fringe here, and maybe I am.

 

 

 

You listen to Michael Savage. I know Rush Limbaugh listeners that think Michael Savage is a lunatic. There's no maybes about it.

 

 

 

To me, Marriage shouldn't be delt with directly by the government, but by the religious authorities.

 

 

 

That's fair, then stop proposing civil unions for just homosexuals. People like you say that, but you don't mean it. You'd cry bloody murder if the government refused to recognize your marriage. I can see it now: "The government is after us good-hearted Christian folk by no longer recognizing marriage!"

 

 

 

You hide your bigotry in your religion. It's sad.

 

 

 

That means tax writeoffs and laws regarding Marriage are in fact unconstitutional.

 

 

 

No, they're not. What basis are you saying that they're unconstitutional? Marriage is nothing more than a legal document.

simply stating your opposed to gay marriage does not make you a homophobe. it simply means your opposed to the idea.

 

 

 

Marriage is a religious institution. there is a reason its done in a church with a priest. its the joining of two people (man and women) under a religious connection. if that religion has decided that it does not accept the decision to wed two people of the same sex, i cant see how it is an issue.

 

 

 

Religious doctrine (catholisism) states marriage is between man and women. so to be married under Christian values and to be of two of the same sex would be seen as going against the churches wishes. Im all for equal rights, but to say homosexual people should have the right to be married under christian values is discriminating against the church. A Civil Union would eliminate this if the union did in turn offer the same amount of options and legal abilities that married people had.

 

 

 

I do not agree with catholisism, im an Athiest. but the fact is the entire idea of this is trying to make a pentagon fit into a square shape. it wont work.

 

 

 

Gay people want the church to change their beliefs so that they can get equal rights. see how this just wont work?

 

 

 

Change it to the civil union, make the Civil Union give them the same rights as Marriage and i honestly cannot see the problem with it. by claiming that gay people have every right to be lawfully married is being a religious bigot.

simply stating your opposed to gay marriage does not make you a homophobe. it simply means your opposed to the idea.

 

 

 

Yes it does, just in the same way that genocide denial of historically accepted genocides almost undoubtedly means that you're a racist. You have no reason to deny a certain genocide when the facts are plainly obvious...except that you have an underlying dislike for the race that was victimized. See: David Irving.

 

 

 

Marriage is a religious institution. there is a reason its done in a church with a priest.

 

 

 

No, marriage ceremonies are "done" in a church in front of a priest, if the couple so chooses. The actual marriage happens in a courthouse, like when my friend Hali was married. There was no ceremony, they were married by a judge.

 

 

 

its the joining of two people (man and women) under a religious connection.

 

 

 

Not legally.

 

 

 

if that religion has decided that it does not accept the decision to wed two people of the same sex, i cant see how it is an issue.

 

 

 

The church doesn't have to accept their marriage, the state does.

 

 

 

Religious doctrine (catholisism) states marriage is between man and women.

 

 

 

Is religious doctrine law?

 

 

 

so to be married under Christian values and to be of two of the same sex would be seen as going against the churches wishes.

 

 

 

And?

 

 

 

Im all for equal rights, but to say homosexual people should have the right to be married under christian values is discriminating against the church.

 

 

 

No it's not. The churches aren't forced to perform marriage ceremonies.

 

 

 

A Civil Union would eliminate this if the union did in turn offer the same amount of options and legal abilities that married people had.

 

 

 

Separate but equal has already been thrown down, champ.

 

 

 

I do not agree with catholisism, im an Athiest.

 

 

 

So you just don't like gay people because....? At least the religious folk have a ridiculous dogma to try and justify their bigotry.

 

 

 

but the fact is the entire idea of this is trying to make a pentagon fit into a square shape. it wont work.

 

 

 

What?

 

 

 

Gay people want the church to change their beliefs so that they can get equal rights. see how this just wont work?

 

 

 

Uh...you clearly don't have any understanding of the issue at hand.

 

 

 

Change it to the civil union, make the Civil Union give them the same rights as Marriage and i honestly cannot see the problem with it.

 

 

 

Separate but equal. Do you have an issue with black people having the same water fountains, but lawfully they can't be used by white people?

 

 

 

by claiming that gay people have every right to be lawfully married is being a religious bigot.

 

 

 

No, they're civil rights advocates, arguing against injustices about bigots like yourself.

The government has the latitude to override religion, or else murder in the name of god would not land you in prison. You guys are making it seem like the state doesn't already clash with religion.

[hide=]

simply stating your opposed to gay marriage does not make you a homophobe. it simply means your opposed to the idea.

 

 

 

Yes it does, just in the same way that genocide denial of historically accepted genocides almost undoubtedly means that you're a racist. You have no reason to deny a certain genocide when the facts are plainly obvious...except that you have an underlying dislike for the race that was victimized. See: David Irving.

 

 

 

Marriage is a religious institution. there is a reason its done in a church with a priest.

 

 

 

No, marriage ceremonies are "done" in a church in front of a priest, if the couple so chooses. The actual marriage happens in a courthouse, like when my friend Hali was married. There was no ceremony, they were married by a judge.

 

 

 

its the joining of two people (man and women) under a religious connection.

 

 

 

Not legally.

 

 

 

if that religion has decided that it does not accept the decision to wed two people of the same sex, i cant see how it is an issue.

 

 

 

The church doesn't have to accept their marriage, the state does.

 

 

 

Religious doctrine (catholisism) states marriage is between man and women.

 

 

 

Is religious doctrine law?

 

 

 

so to be married under Christian values and to be of two of the same sex would be seen as going against the churches wishes.

 

 

 

And?

 

 

 

Im all for equal rights, but to say homosexual people should have the right to be married under christian values is discriminating against the church.

 

 

 

No it's not. The churches aren't forced to perform marriage ceremonies.

 

 

 

A Civil Union would eliminate this if the union did in turn offer the same amount of options and legal abilities that married people had.

 

 

 

Separate but equal has already been thrown down, champ.

 

 

 

I do not agree with catholisism, im an Athiest.

 

 

 

So you just don't like gay people because....? At least the religious folk have a ridiculous dogma to try and justify their bigotry.

 

 

 

but the fact is the entire idea of this is trying to make a pentagon fit into a square shape. it wont work.

 

 

 

What?

 

 

 

Gay people want the church to change their beliefs so that they can get equal rights. see how this just wont work?

 

 

 

Uh...you clearly don't have any understanding of the issue at hand.

 

 

 

Change it to the civil union, make the Civil Union give them the same rights as Marriage and i honestly cannot see the problem with it.

 

 

 

Separate but equal. Do you have an issue with black people having the same water fountains, but lawfully they can't be used by white people?

 

 

 

by claiming that gay people have every right to be lawfully married is being a religious bigot.

 

 

 

No, they're civil rights advocates, arguing against injustices about bigots like yourself.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Because the best way to get progress is to accuse everyone of homophobia and bigotry we have magekillr

Michael Savage is a sick and twisted human being, promoting hatred and xenophobia day in and day out on his radio show. He views anyone that's not white and male as sub-human, and that they should treat their white male corporate masters with the utmost admiration and respect.

 

 

 

However, free speech is something that I will always defend, and this is a horrible move by England.

 

um...dude, he's conservative. you basically just said you're lefter then Barrack Obama...

[hide=]

simply stating your opposed to gay marriage does not make you a homophobe. it simply means your opposed to the idea.

 

 

 

Yes it does, just in the same way that genocide denial of historically accepted genocides almost undoubtedly means that you're a racist. You have no reason to deny a certain genocide when the facts are plainly obvious...except that you have an underlying dislike for the race that was victimized. See: David Irving.

 

 

 

Marriage is a religious institution. there is a reason its done in a church with a priest.

 

 

 

No, marriage ceremonies are "done" in a church in front of a priest, if the couple so chooses. The actual marriage happens in a courthouse, like when my friend Hali was married. There was no ceremony, they were married by a judge.

 

 

 

its the joining of two people (man and women) under a religious connection.

 

 

 

Not legally.

 

 

 

if that religion has decided that it does not accept the decision to wed two people of the same sex, i cant see how it is an issue.

 

 

 

The church doesn't have to accept their marriage, the state does.

 

 

 

Religious doctrine (catholisism) states marriage is between man and women.

 

 

 

Is religious doctrine law?

 

 

 

so to be married under Christian values and to be of two of the same sex would be seen as going against the churches wishes.

 

 

 

And?

 

 

 

Im all for equal rights, but to say homosexual people should have the right to be married under christian values is discriminating against the church.

 

 

 

No it's not. The churches aren't forced to perform marriage ceremonies.

 

 

 

A Civil Union would eliminate this if the union did in turn offer the same amount of options and legal abilities that married people had.

 

 

 

Separate but equal has already been thrown down, champ.

 

 

 

I do not agree with catholisism, im an Athiest.

 

 

 

So you just don't like gay people because....? At least the religious folk have a ridiculous dogma to try and justify their bigotry.

 

 

 

but the fact is the entire idea of this is trying to make a pentagon fit into a square shape. it wont work.

 

 

 

What?

 

 

 

Gay people want the church to change their beliefs so that they can get equal rights. see how this just wont work?

 

 

 

Uh...you clearly don't have any understanding of the issue at hand.

 

 

 

Change it to the civil union, make the Civil Union give them the same rights as Marriage and i honestly cannot see the problem with it.

 

 

 

Separate but equal. Do you have an issue with black people having the same water fountains, but lawfully they can't be used by white people?

 

 

 

by claiming that gay people have every right to be lawfully married is being a religious bigot.

 

 

 

No, they're civil rights advocates, arguing against injustices about bigots like yourself.

[/hide]

 

You just crossed the line, bucko. they neglected to point this out, but what if they adopt a kid and teach it to be gay? would u want a gay kid running around yours? no, for obvious reasons.

We're at the point where everything that the higher-ups don't approve of ban. My country has turned to complete [cabbage] ever since we adopted this government; thus proving that socialism does not work in the real world. You see, people are corrupt. Socialism is, in fact, a brilliant idea. A brilliant idea, on paper only. In actual fact, and this has been proven by my country, it's just a stepping stone to capitalism.

 

 

 

Eh? You'll need to explain that to me. New Labour is not a socialist party.

 

 

 

As for the banning of Savage, I just think this is another example of a New Labour posting this list in an attempt to recapture the initiative after a rocky month. The banning of a shock-jock is not the greatest violation of civil liberties to come from Jacqui Smith.

simply stating your opposed to gay marriage does not make you a homophobe. it simply means your opposed to the idea.

 

 

 

Yes it does, just in the same way that genocide denial of historically accepted genocides almost undoubtedly means that you're a racist. You have no reason to deny a certain genocide when the facts are plainly obvious...except that you have an underlying dislike for the race that was victimized. See: David Irving.

 

 

 

It has nothing to do with the denial of facts? where did you pull this ridiculous analogy from? i deny gay marriage because i believe that Christian marriage is a religious practice. there is "facts per say" condonning the joining of two men / women in holy matromony so does that make you the bigot and denier of the sacredy of marriage and therefore a denier of the holocaust. what a bigot you are Mr Mage

 

 

 

Marriage is a religious institution. there is a reason its done in a church with a priest.

 

 

 

No, marriage ceremonies are "done" in a church in front of a priest, if the couple so chooses. The actual marriage happens in a courthouse, like when my friend Hali was married. There was no ceremony, they were married by a judge.

 

 

 

The joining of men and women has always been of religious value, while it has changed in recent times and is now sometimes seen as a formality it is still in its essence the joining of two people under christ.

 

 

 

its the joining of two people (man and women) under a religious connection.

 

 

 

Not legally.

 

 

 

if that religion has decided that it does not accept the decision to wed two people of the same sex, i cant see how it is an issue.

 

 

 

The church doesn't have to accept their marriage, the state does.

 

 

 

Religious doctrine (catholisism) states marriage is between man and women.

 

 

 

Is religious doctrine law?

 

 

 

The law is based off of the religious doctrine. so yea, the basis of it is.

 

 

 

so to be married under Christian values and to be of two of the same sex would be seen as going against the churches wishes.

 

 

 

And?

 

 

 

your merely discriminating against the church and being a bigot.

 

 

 

Im all for equal rights, but to say homosexual people should have the right to be married under christian values is discriminating against the church.

 

 

 

No it's not. The churches aren't forced to perform marriage ceremonies.

 

 

 

read above concerning the origins of marriage etc etc

 

 

 

A Civil Union would eliminate this if the union did in turn offer the same amount of options and legal abilities that married people had.

 

 

 

Separate but equal has already been thrown down, champ.

 

 

 

I do not see the point behind being separate but equal not being accepted.

 

 

 

I do not agree with catholisism, im an Athiest.

 

 

 

So you just don't like gay people because....? At least the religious folk have a ridiculous dogma to try and justify their bigotry.

 

 

 

I never said i dont like gay people, please dont try to fill in gaps to discredit my information based on assumptions on your part. i have no problems with gay people and have a few that i call friends. i just believe marriage should be between a man and women as it has it ties to the church and these ties should be respected as customs and beliefs of the church. rather then hatred for the gay community. and why do you hate religious folks so much? at least gay people have a reason to justify their bigotry towards the church.

 

 

 

but the fact is the entire idea of this is trying to make a pentagon fit into a square shape. it wont work.

 

 

 

What?

 

 

 

was in regards to attempting to make a religious ideal fit around a different ideal that goes against the beliefs of religion.

 

 

 

Gay people want the church to change their beliefs so that they can get equal rights. see how this just wont work?

 

 

 

Uh...you clearly don't have any understanding of the issue at hand.

 

 

 

I think you will find that is the issue at hand. Gay people want equal rights, Religious people want to protect there beliefs... not an overly difficult subject, perhaps you forgot to remember that and just decided to run around and calling all opposed to you a bigot?

 

 

 

Change it to the civil union, make the Civil Union give them the same rights as Marriage and i honestly cannot see the problem with it.

 

 

 

Separate but equal. Do you have an issue with black people having the same water fountains, but lawfully they can't be used by white people?

 

 

 

no, both people get the same use of the water fountain, one calls it a bubbeler the other a water fountain. who gives a flying [bleep] what its called to be perfectly honest.

 

 

 

by claiming that gay people have every right to be lawfully married is being a religious bigot.

 

 

 

No, they're civil rights advocates, arguing against injustices about bigots like yourself.

 

 

 

No i think you will find they are religious hateing people who want to command the government to change law based upon what they consider to be right and in case cause people to loose a certain part of their religion that they believe to be truthfull and holy because of these people. i call that discrimination and as such i believe you are in fact, a bigot (bigot really is the new black isnt it)

[hide=]

simply stating your opposed to gay marriage does not make you a homophobe. it simply means your opposed to the idea.

 

 

 

Yes it does, just in the same way that genocide denial of historically accepted genocides almost undoubtedly means that you're a racist. You have no reason to deny a certain genocide when the facts are plainly obvious...except that you have an underlying dislike for the race that was victimized. See: David Irving.

 

 

 

Marriage is a religious institution. there is a reason its done in a church with a priest.

 

 

 

No, marriage ceremonies are "done" in a church in front of a priest, if the couple so chooses. The actual marriage happens in a courthouse, like when my friend Hali was married. There was no ceremony, they were married by a judge.

 

 

 

its the joining of two people (man and women) under a religious connection.

 

 

 

Not legally.

 

 

 

if that religion has decided that it does not accept the decision to wed two people of the same sex, i cant see how it is an issue.

 

 

 

The church doesn't have to accept their marriage, the state does.

 

 

 

Religious doctrine (catholisism) states marriage is between man and women.

 

 

 

Is religious doctrine law?

 

 

 

so to be married under Christian values and to be of two of the same sex would be seen as going against the churches wishes.

 

 

 

And?

 

 

 

Im all for equal rights, but to say homosexual people should have the right to be married under christian values is discriminating against the church.

 

 

 

No it's not. The churches aren't forced to perform marriage ceremonies.

 

 

 

A Civil Union would eliminate this if the union did in turn offer the same amount of options and legal abilities that married people had.

 

 

 

Separate but equal has already been thrown down, champ.

 

 

 

I do not agree with catholisism, im an Athiest.

 

 

 

So you just don't like gay people because....? At least the religious folk have a ridiculous dogma to try and justify their bigotry.

 

 

 

but the fact is the entire idea of this is trying to make a pentagon fit into a square shape. it wont work.

 

 

 

What?

 

 

 

Gay people want the church to change their beliefs so that they can get equal rights. see how this just wont work?

 

 

 

Uh...you clearly don't have any understanding of the issue at hand.

 

 

 

Change it to the civil union, make the Civil Union give them the same rights as Marriage and i honestly cannot see the problem with it.

 

 

 

Separate but equal. Do you have an issue with black people having the same water fountains, but lawfully they can't be used by white people?

 

 

 

by claiming that gay people have every right to be lawfully married is being a religious bigot.

 

 

 

No, they're civil rights advocates, arguing against injustices about bigots like yourself.

[/hide]

 

You just crossed the line, bucko. they neglected to point this out, but what if they adopt a kid and teach it to be gay? would u want a gay kid running around yours? no, for obvious reasons.

 

 

 

There are no words to describe how [developmentally delayed]ed you sound.

 

 

 

1. You can't just TEACH someone to be gay.

 

2. If you could, what is wrong with a gay child?

 

3. Running around yours what? Your child? What's wrong with children learning that diversity isn't bad?

 

4. What obvious reasons? They might get infected with gayness? :ohnoes:

[hide=]

simply stating your opposed to gay marriage does not make you a homophobe. it simply means your opposed to the idea.

 

 

 

Yes it does, just in the same way that genocide denial of historically accepted genocides almost undoubtedly means that you're a racist. You have no reason to deny a certain genocide when the facts are plainly obvious...except that you have an underlying dislike for the race that was victimized. See: David Irving.

 

 

 

Marriage is a religious institution. there is a reason its done in a church with a priest.

 

 

 

No, marriage ceremonies are "done" in a church in front of a priest, if the couple so chooses. The actual marriage happens in a courthouse, like when my friend Hali was married. There was no ceremony, they were married by a judge.

 

 

 

its the joining of two people (man and women) under a religious connection.

 

 

 

Not legally.

 

 

 

if that religion has decided that it does not accept the decision to wed two people of the same sex, i cant see how it is an issue.

 

 

 

The church doesn't have to accept their marriage, the state does.

 

 

 

Religious doctrine (catholisism) states marriage is between man and women.

 

 

 

Is religious doctrine law?

 

 

 

so to be married under Christian values and to be of two of the same sex would be seen as going against the churches wishes.

 

 

 

And?

 

 

 

Im all for equal rights, but to say homosexual people should have the right to be married under christian values is discriminating against the church.

 

 

 

No it's not. The churches aren't forced to perform marriage ceremonies.

 

 

 

A Civil Union would eliminate this if the union did in turn offer the same amount of options and legal abilities that married people had.

 

 

 

Separate but equal has already been thrown down, champ.

 

 

 

I do not agree with catholisism, im an Athiest.

 

 

 

So you just don't like gay people because....? At least the religious folk have a ridiculous dogma to try and justify their bigotry.

 

 

 

but the fact is the entire idea of this is trying to make a pentagon fit into a square shape. it wont work.

 

 

 

What?

 

 

 

Gay people want the church to change their beliefs so that they can get equal rights. see how this just wont work?

 

 

 

Uh...you clearly don't have any understanding of the issue at hand.

 

 

 

Change it to the civil union, make the Civil Union give them the same rights as Marriage and i honestly cannot see the problem with it.

 

 

 

Separate but equal. Do you have an issue with black people having the same water fountains, but lawfully they can't be used by white people?

 

 

 

by claiming that gay people have every right to be lawfully married is being a religious bigot.

 

 

 

No, they're civil rights advocates, arguing against injustices about bigots like yourself.

[/hide]

 

You just crossed the line, bucko. they neglected to point this out, but what if they adopt a kid and teach it to be gay? would u want a gay kid running around yours? no, for obvious reasons.

 

 

 

There are no words to describe how [developmentally delayed] you sound.

 

 

 

1. You can't just TEACH someone to be gay.

 

2. If you could, what is wrong with a gay child?

 

3. Running around yours what? Your child? What's wrong with children learning that diversity isn't bad?

 

4. What obvious reasons? They might get infected with gayness? :ohnoes:

 

 

 

Actually, I'm going to be straight to the point. The kid's a [bleep]ing hypocrite, and is outright idiotic and ignorant. I wish we could make people like that just... dissapear.

[hide=]

simply stating your opposed to gay marriage does not make you a homophobe. it simply means your opposed to the idea.

 

 

 

Yes it does, just in the same way that genocide denial of historically accepted genocides almost undoubtedly means that you're a racist. You have no reason to deny a certain genocide when the facts are plainly obvious...except that you have an underlying dislike for the race that was victimized. See: David Irving.

 

 

 

Marriage is a religious institution. there is a reason its done in a church with a priest.

 

 

 

No, marriage ceremonies are "done" in a church in front of a priest, if the couple so chooses. The actual marriage happens in a courthouse, like when my friend Hali was married. There was no ceremony, they were married by a judge.

 

 

 

its the joining of two people (man and women) under a religious connection.

 

 

 

Not legally.

 

 

 

if that religion has decided that it does not accept the decision to wed two people of the same sex, i cant see how it is an issue.

 

 

 

The church doesn't have to accept their marriage, the state does.

 

 

 

Religious doctrine (catholisism) states marriage is between man and women.

 

 

 

Is religious doctrine law?

 

 

 

so to be married under Christian values and to be of two of the same sex would be seen as going against the churches wishes.

 

 

 

And?

 

 

 

Im all for equal rights, but to say homosexual people should have the right to be married under christian values is discriminating against the church.

 

 

 

No it's not. The churches aren't forced to perform marriage ceremonies.

 

 

 

A Civil Union would eliminate this if the union did in turn offer the same amount of options and legal abilities that married people had.

 

 

 

Separate but equal has already been thrown down, champ.

 

 

 

I do not agree with catholisism, im an Athiest.

 

 

 

So you just don't like gay people because....? At least the religious folk have a ridiculous dogma to try and justify their bigotry.

 

 

 

but the fact is the entire idea of this is trying to make a pentagon fit into a square shape. it wont work.

 

 

 

What?

 

 

 

Gay people want the church to change their beliefs so that they can get equal rights. see how this just wont work?

 

 

 

Uh...you clearly don't have any understanding of the issue at hand.

 

 

 

Change it to the civil union, make the Civil Union give them the same rights as Marriage and i honestly cannot see the problem with it.

 

 

 

Separate but equal. Do you have an issue with black people having the same water fountains, but lawfully they can't be used by white people?

 

 

 

by claiming that gay people have every right to be lawfully married is being a religious bigot.

 

 

 

No, they're civil rights advocates, arguing against injustices about bigots like yourself.

[/hide]

 

You just crossed the line, bucko. they neglected to point this out, but what if they adopt a kid and teach it to be gay? would u want a gay kid running around yours? no, for obvious reasons.

 

There are no words to describe how [developmentally delayed] you sound.

 

 

 

1. You can't just TEACH someone to be gay.

 

2. If you could, what is wrong with a gay child?

 

3. Running around yours what? Your child? What's wrong with children learning that diversity isn't bad?

 

4. What obvious reasons? They might get infected with gayness? :ohnoes:

 

1: you can, actually.

 

2:...if it's your only child, bye bye last name. plus, it's just wrong.

 

3: lol... some diversity IS bad...

 

4: no, the gay kid could tell your kid about this. they would explain what could be possible (see #5) and they might...like it...ugh.

 

5: being gay is really just an excuse to "have fun" (you know what i mean) all night without the disadvantages of doing it with a girl. (i.e. teen pregnancy)

[hide=]

simply stating your opposed to gay marriage does not make you a homophobe. it simply means your opposed to the idea.

 

 

 

Yes it does, just in the same way that genocide denial of historically accepted genocides almost undoubtedly means that you're a racist. You have no reason to deny a certain genocide when the facts are plainly obvious...except that you have an underlying dislike for the race that was victimized. See: David Irving.

 

 

 

Marriage is a religious institution. there is a reason its done in a church with a priest.

 

 

 

No, marriage ceremonies are "done" in a church in front of a priest, if the couple so chooses. The actual marriage happens in a courthouse, like when my friend Hali was married. There was no ceremony, they were married by a judge.

 

 

 

its the joining of two people (man and women) under a religious connection.

 

 

 

Not legally.

 

 

 

if that religion has decided that it does not accept the decision to wed two people of the same sex, i cant see how it is an issue.

 

 

 

The church doesn't have to accept their marriage, the state does.

 

 

 

Religious doctrine (catholisism) states marriage is between man and women.

 

 

 

Is religious doctrine law?

 

 

 

so to be married under Christian values and to be of two of the same sex would be seen as going against the churches wishes.

 

 

 

And?

 

 

 

Im all for equal rights, but to say homosexual people should have the right to be married under christian values is discriminating against the church.

 

 

 

No it's not. The churches aren't forced to perform marriage ceremonies.

 

 

 

A Civil Union would eliminate this if the union did in turn offer the same amount of options and legal abilities that married people had.

 

 

 

Separate but equal has already been thrown down, champ.

 

 

 

I do not agree with catholisism, im an Athiest.

 

 

 

So you just don't like gay people because....? At least the religious folk have a ridiculous dogma to try and justify their bigotry.

 

 

 

but the fact is the entire idea of this is trying to make a pentagon fit into a square shape. it wont work.

 

 

 

What?

 

 

 

Gay people want the church to change their beliefs so that they can get equal rights. see how this just wont work?

 

 

 

Uh...you clearly don't have any understanding of the issue at hand.

 

 

 

Change it to the civil union, make the Civil Union give them the same rights as Marriage and i honestly cannot see the problem with it.

 

 

 

Separate but equal. Do you have an issue with black people having the same water fountains, but lawfully they can't be used by white people?

 

 

 

by claiming that gay people have every right to be lawfully married is being a religious bigot.

 

 

 

No, they're civil rights advocates, arguing against injustices about bigots like yourself.

[/hide]

 

You just crossed the line, bucko. they neglected to point this out, but what if they adopt a kid and teach it to be gay? would u want a gay kid running around yours? no, for obvious reasons.

 

There are no words to describe how [developmentally delayed] you sound.

 

 

 

1. You can't just TEACH someone to be gay.

 

2. If you could, what is wrong with a gay child?

 

3. Running around yours what? Your child? What's wrong with children learning that diversity isn't bad?

 

4. What obvious reasons? They might get infected with gayness? :ohnoes:

 

1: you can, actually.

 

2:...if it's your only child, bye bye last name. plus, it's just wrong.

 

3: lol... some diversity IS bad...

 

4: no, the gay kid could tell your kid about this. they would explain what could be possible (see #5) and they might...like it...ugh.

 

5: being gay is really just an excuse to "have fun" (you know what i mean) all night without the disadvantages of doing it with a girl. (i.e. teen pregnancy)

 

I find no words to describe how stupid you are, umm you make scientologists look smart. Did you suffer brain damage as a child?

I'm not sure whether you're trolling or you are just a [bleep] Ragmar.

[hide=]

simply stating your opposed to gay marriage does not make you a homophobe. it simply means your opposed to the idea.

 

 

 

Yes it does, just in the same way that genocide denial of historically accepted genocides almost undoubtedly means that you're a racist. You have no reason to deny a certain genocide when the facts are plainly obvious...except that you have an underlying dislike for the race that was victimized. See: David Irving.

 

 

 

Marriage is a religious institution. there is a reason its done in a church with a priest.

 

 

 

No, marriage ceremonies are "done" in a church in front of a priest, if the couple so chooses. The actual marriage happens in a courthouse, like when my friend Hali was married. There was no ceremony, they were married by a judge.

 

 

 

its the joining of two people (man and women) under a religious connection.

 

 

 

Not legally.

 

 

 

if that religion has decided that it does not accept the decision to wed two people of the same sex, i cant see how it is an issue.

 

 

 

The church doesn't have to accept their marriage, the state does.

 

 

 

Religious doctrine (catholisism) states marriage is between man and women.

 

 

 

Is religious doctrine law?

 

 

 

so to be married under Christian values and to be of two of the same sex would be seen as going against the churches wishes.

 

 

 

And?

 

 

 

Im all for equal rights, but to say homosexual people should have the right to be married under christian values is discriminating against the church.

 

 

 

No it's not. The churches aren't forced to perform marriage ceremonies.

 

 

 

A Civil Union would eliminate this if the union did in turn offer the same amount of options and legal abilities that married people had.

 

 

 

Separate but equal has already been thrown down, champ.

 

 

 

I do not agree with catholisism, im an Athiest.

 

 

 

So you just don't like gay people because....? At least the religious folk have a ridiculous dogma to try and justify their bigotry.

 

 

 

but the fact is the entire idea of this is trying to make a pentagon fit into a square shape. it wont work.

 

 

 

What?

 

 

 

Gay people want the church to change their beliefs so that they can get equal rights. see how this just wont work?

 

 

 

Uh...you clearly don't have any understanding of the issue at hand.

 

 

 

Change it to the civil union, make the Civil Union give them the same rights as Marriage and i honestly cannot see the problem with it.

 

 

 

Separate but equal. Do you have an issue with black people having the same water fountains, but lawfully they can't be used by white people?

 

 

 

by claiming that gay people have every right to be lawfully married is being a religious bigot.

 

 

 

No, they're civil rights advocates, arguing against injustices about bigots like yourself.

[/hide]

 

You just crossed the line, bucko. they neglected to point this out, but what if they adopt a kid and teach it to be gay? would u want a gay kid running around yours? no, for obvious reasons.

 

There are no words to describe how [developmentally delayed] you sound.

 

 

 

1. You can't just TEACH someone to be gay.

 

2. If you could, what is wrong with a gay child?

 

3. Running around yours what? Your child? What's wrong with children learning that diversity isn't bad?

 

4. What obvious reasons? They might get infected with gayness? :ohnoes:

 

1: you can, actually.

 

2:...if it's your only child, bye bye last name. plus, it's just wrong.

 

3: lol... some diversity IS bad...

 

4: no, the gay kid could tell your kid about this. they would explain what could be possible (see #5) and they might...like it...ugh.

 

5: being gay is really just an excuse to "have fun" (you know what i mean) all night without the disadvantages of doing it with a girl. (i.e. teen pregnancy)

 

I find no words to describe how stupid you are, umm you make scientologists look smart. Did you suffer brain damage as a child?

 

do you have "I don't have an argument" syndrome?

[hide=]

simply stating your opposed to gay marriage does not make you a homophobe. it simply means your opposed to the idea.

 

 

 

Yes it does, just in the same way that genocide denial of historically accepted genocides almost undoubtedly means that you're a racist. You have no reason to deny a certain genocide when the facts are plainly obvious...except that you have an underlying dislike for the race that was victimized. See: David Irving.

 

 

 

Marriage is a religious institution. there is a reason its done in a church with a priest.

 

 

 

No, marriage ceremonies are "done" in a church in front of a priest, if the couple so chooses. The actual marriage happens in a courthouse, like when my friend Hali was married. There was no ceremony, they were married by a judge.

 

 

 

its the joining of two people (man and women) under a religious connection.

 

 

 

Not legally.

 

 

 

if that religion has decided that it does not accept the decision to wed two people of the same sex, i cant see how it is an issue.

 

 

 

The church doesn't have to accept their marriage, the state does.

 

 

 

Religious doctrine (catholisism) states marriage is between man and women.

 

 

 

Is religious doctrine law?

 

 

 

so to be married under Christian values and to be of two of the same sex would be seen as going against the churches wishes.

 

 

 

And?

 

 

 

Im all for equal rights, but to say homosexual people should have the right to be married under christian values is discriminating against the church.

 

 

 

No it's not. The churches aren't forced to perform marriage ceremonies.

 

 

 

A Civil Union would eliminate this if the union did in turn offer the same amount of options and legal abilities that married people had.

 

 

 

Separate but equal has already been thrown down, champ.

 

 

 

I do not agree with catholisism, im an Athiest.

 

 

 

So you just don't like gay people because....? At least the religious folk have a ridiculous dogma to try and justify their bigotry.

 

 

 

but the fact is the entire idea of this is trying to make a pentagon fit into a square shape. it wont work.

 

 

 

What?

 

 

 

Gay people want the church to change their beliefs so that they can get equal rights. see how this just wont work?

 

 

 

Uh...you clearly don't have any understanding of the issue at hand.

 

 

 

Change it to the civil union, make the Civil Union give them the same rights as Marriage and i honestly cannot see the problem with it.

 

 

 

Separate but equal. Do you have an issue with black people having the same water fountains, but lawfully they can't be used by white people?

 

 

 

by claiming that gay people have every right to be lawfully married is being a religious bigot.

 

 

 

No, they're civil rights advocates, arguing against injustices about bigots like yourself.

[/hide]

 

You just crossed the line, bucko. they neglected to point this out, but what if they adopt a kid and teach it to be gay? would u want a gay kid running around yours? no, for obvious reasons.

 

There are no words to describe how [developmentally delayed] you sound.

 

 

 

1. You can't just TEACH someone to be gay.

 

2. If you could, what is wrong with a gay child?

 

3. Running around yours what? Your child? What's wrong with children learning that diversity isn't bad?

 

4. What obvious reasons? They might get infected with gayness? :ohnoes:

 

1: you can, actually.

 

2:...if it's your only child, bye bye last name. plus, it's just wrong.

 

3: lol... some diversity IS bad...

 

4: no, the gay kid could tell your kid about this. they would explain what could be possible (see #5) and they might...like it...ugh.

 

5: being gay is really just an excuse to "have fun" (you know what i mean) all night without the disadvantages of doing it with a girl. (i.e. teen pregnancy)

 

I find no words to describe how stupid you are, umm you make scientologists look smart. Did you suffer brain damage as a child?

 

do you have "I don't have an argument" syndrome?

 

Why should I argue with a person who clearly has no grasp on reality and the mindset of an insane christian, not all christians are insane. I could have a better conversation with a brick wall. Do you even know gay people? Because the ones I know are not sex crazy idiots, hell having lots of sex does not have anything to do with race, sex, sexual preference, etc. I also find that most people that have the views you do on gay people are actually very deep in the closet.