| Same-sex Marriage? |
| Yes for Same-sex Marriage |
|
47% |
[ 18 ] |
| Religion out of the Gov't Civil Unions for All |
|
13% |
[ 5 ] |
| Same-sex Civil Unions are Okay |
|
7% |
[ 3 ] |
| No |
|
31% |
[ 12 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rainbowfied Mouse Vice Captain
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:28 pm
haydenhearts Rainbowfied Mouse haydenhearts Rainbowfied Mouse haydenhearts i think ppl need 2 just drop it and like i said is they truly luv each other then they don't need it on paper.... heart This should include straight marriage too then. well no..... i think marriage is between a man and a woman.... but there should be some way for gay couples to be legally 2gether but no it should not b called marriage Why? You stated they should drop it because you don't need love on paper to prove it? And why can't it be called marriage? Are we not all equal citizens? im well aware of wat i said! stressed ur really buging me! okay here let me spell it out 4 you. they SHOULD drop it and although they shouldnt need it on paper if their TRULY in love, but there should be some way for them 2 get it legally done if they r that bent about it got it!?!? Okay, but why gay people, and not straight people as well? And why not marriage, why does it have to be different?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:03 pm
Rainbowfied Mouse haydenhearts Rainbowfied Mouse haydenhearts Rainbowfied Mouse haydenhearts i think ppl need 2 just drop it and like i said is they truly luv each other then they don't need it on paper.... heart This should include straight marriage too then. well no..... i think marriage is between a man and a woman.... but there should be some way for gay couples to be legally 2gether but no it should not b called marriage Why? You stated they should drop it because you don't need love on paper to prove it? And why can't it be called marriage? Are we not all equal citizens? im well aware of wat i said! stressed ur really buging me! okay here let me spell it out 4 you. they SHOULD drop it and although they shouldnt need it on paper if their TRULY in love, but there should be some way for them 2 get it legally done if they r that bent about it got it!?!? Okay, but why gay people, and not straight people as well? And why not marriage, why does it have to be different? the definition on marriage is man+woman....besides marriage is a sacred religious symbol.... or at least it used to be and it still should be
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:39 pm
Exactly as I said but as Pumona said its not like you HAVE to recognize it as a religious symbol and more a legal sort of thing and now that i understand better it would be unconstitutional we are free to do what we want even if sadly that is same sex bonding i don't like it nor will i encourage and/or endorse it.It still should be allowed cusss i know my church ant marring them so I'm just gonna go pretend like it is not happening while banging my head every time i hear about it that is my solution
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:24 am
captin bigshot911NK Exactly as I said but as Pumona said its not like you HAVE to recognize it as a religious symbol and more a legal sort of thing and now that i understand better it would be unconstitutional we are free to do what we want even if sadly that is same sex bonding i don't like it nor will i encourage and/or endorse it.It still should be allowed cusss i know my church ant marring them so I'm just gonna go pretend like it is not happening while banging my head every time i hear about it that is my solution what about freedom of religion??? huh? if same sex marriage is aloud it goes against most ppls religion and if they have 2 let them get married the freedom of religion is being shut out.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:40 am
haydenhearts captin bigshot911NK Exactly as I said but as Pumona said its not like you HAVE to recognize it as a religious symbol and more a legal sort of thing and now that i understand better it would be unconstitutional we are free to do what we want even if sadly that is same sex bonding i don't like it nor will i encourage and/or endorse it.It still should be allowed cusss i know my church ant marring them so I'm just gonna go pretend like it is not happening while banging my head every time i hear about it that is my solution what about freedom of religion??? huh? if same sex marriage is aloud it goes against most ppls religion and if they have 2 let them get married the freedom of religion is being shut out..... Not so. Legalization of gay marriage does not mean churches will be forced to perform them. Churches would not be, and in fact, be protected from having to preform them. However, if another church, we'll say for argument's sake, Rastafarian, performs them, and the state recognizes them, that doesn't abrogate your freedom of religion in the slightest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:13 pm
but the other churches will be pressured into it.... u do realize this right....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rainbowfied Mouse Vice Captain
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:32 pm
haydenhearts the definition on marriage is man+woman....besides marriage is a sacred religious symbol.... or at least it used to be and it still should be Where is that definition? I get Quote: Main Entry: mar·riage Pronunciation: ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij Function: noun Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry Date: 14th century an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalitiesAnd-- don't we have the freedom of religion? Because my church says same-sex marriage is okay... and so do many others. Why can the government limit the rights of my church?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:04 pm
Rainbowfied Mouse haydenhearts the definition on marriage is man+woman....besides marriage is a sacred religious symbol.... or at least it used to be and it still should be Where is that definition? I get Quote: Main Entry: mar·riage Pronunciation: ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij Function: noun Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry Date: 14th century an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalitiesAnd-- don't we have the freedom of religion? Because my church says same-sex marriage is okay... and so do many others. Why can the government limit the rights of my church? wow u keep trying 2 make it sound like i have something against them being 2gether.... y does it matter if they can call it marriage its not like im saying they can't have a wedding and love each other and were did u get that definition??? what date was it published and by whom question
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:12 pm
okay wohoo this is gating hot headed
now look like i may not have bin clear enough
if it were legalized lets say I'm getting married to some dude and well i want to get married by this church well lets say they say NO as they would i would have to find a church that supports gay marriage like as you say yours or Meany others but NOT MYN so that is why i feel all good about it
and one of the main reasons they want this so bad is because the TAX benefits of being a married couple
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:36 pm
goodshot911SNK okay wohoo this is gating hot headed now look like i may not have bin clear enough if it were legalized lets say I'm getting married to some dude and well i want to get married by this church well lets say they say NO as they would i would have to find a church that supports gay marriage like as you say yours or Meany others but NOT MYN so that is why i feel all good about it and one of the main reasons they want this so bad is because the TAX benefits of being a married couple HMMMM u made me think....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:29 pm
haydenhearts but the other churches will be pressured into it.... u do realize this right.... Pressured by whom? Their believers? That sounds just fine to me. Other than that organizations in the US have a long and firm tradition of defending their independence and internal practices, and I doubt highly that they will cave to pressures from outside groups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:53 pm
I'm against it.
I'm an observent Greek Orthodox Christian, and it was the way I was taught and raised, and I completely agree. It's not the way God intended it.
Go ahead and say I'm wrong, but there's no point because it won't change my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:03 pm
Lord Bitememan haydenhearts but the other churches will be pressured into it.... u do realize this right.... Pressured by whom? Their believers? That sounds just fine to me. Other than that organizations in the US have a long and firm tradition of defending their independence and internal practices, and I doubt highly that they will cave to pressures from outside groups. I don't think that's what most of those who present that type of argument are worried about. I'm guessing it has more to do with financial pressures, where state funding intertwines with religiously based institutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:11 pm
fmkrit I'm against it.
I'm an observent Greek Orthodox Christian, and it was the way I was taught and raised, and I completely agree. It's not the way God intended it.
Go ahead and say I'm wrong, but there's no point because it won't change my opinion. If you are wrong you're supporting a position that would hurt many people in more than one way. If you're right than you're supporting a position that if embraced would greatly benefit others. What it comes down to though, is the rights of those living under a law that isn't supposed to cater to the wishes of any religious group. Anyway, Jesus never took political action, he wouldn't and didn't join the Zealots, he went to the people so why do many Christians now try to force their morality onto the state?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:59 am
Semiremis Lord Bitememan haydenhearts but the other churches will be pressured into it.... u do realize this right.... Pressured by whom? Their believers? That sounds just fine to me. Other than that organizations in the US have a long and firm tradition of defending their independence and internal practices, and I doubt highly that they will cave to pressures from outside groups. I don't think that's what most of those who present that type of argument are worried about. I'm guessing it has more to do with financial pressures, where state funding intertwines with religiously based institutions. And those are the fleas that come with the dog of taking public money. You are expected to use that money in a manner consistent with the laws and protections of the land. Just as we would expect to deny funds to a Nation of Islam charity that refused to provide services to whites, so too does the public have a right to expect that public funds used by religious institutions will not discriminate against citizens on the basis of sexual orientation. Churches, more than any other group, can opt out of this by declining public money and relying on their own donor base.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
