Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

dcmacdaddy · Apr 29, 2005, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by budster101

Nonsense. Making gay marriage legitimate is rediculous. I made no points for you.

You made the point that the state grants civil unions and religions grant marriages. Or was that not the point of your chart there?

I have been arguing for about two years now that states get out of the business of granting marriages so you *did* support my point. Thanks!

budster101 · Apr 29, 2005, 03:02 PM

I don't have a clue as to why the state has anything to do with marriage. $.

zerostar · Apr 29, 2005, 03:08 PM

The 'state' and government it too far involved in marriage to change it now. Taxes, medical benefits, beneficiaries, insurance plans and the like all involve marriage are state/federal regulations.

I have yet to see a reason why gay marriage should NOT be allowed. If I was was married by the state, and no church or religion was involved. I am married as far as the U S of A is concerned. Religion does not need to be part of it.

Because you hate gays and don't want them involved in your 'marriage' that is not a valid reason to me. Seems discrimination is just ok with some.

krankklown · Apr 29, 2005, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by zerostar

I have yet to see a reason why gay marriage should NOT be allowed.

I have yet to see a reason why gay marriage should BE allowed.

zerostar · Apr 29, 2005, 04:34 PM

What as insightful statement.

I have yet to see a reason why straight marriage should BE allowed.

budster101 · Apr 29, 2005, 04:46 PM

PROCREATION. Dum bass.

loki74 · Apr 29, 2005, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by budster101

PROCREATION. Dum bass.

...um, duh? zerostar--you do know how you got here, right?

nredman · Apr 29, 2005, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by zerostar

What as insightful statement.

I have yet to see a reason why straight marriage should BE allowed.

i have yet to see a reason why this thread isn't locked.

i am going go eat an apple now.

el chupacabra · Apr 29, 2005, 07:15 PM

We should just get rid of state civil unions then nobody will have anything to complain about. If people want to just call themselves married they have that right.

AKcrab · Apr 29, 2005, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by budster101

PROCREATION. Dum bass.

You have to get married to procreate? I guess the girls in my high school didn't know that.

zerostar · 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by budster101

PROCREATION. Dum bass.

Im fairly certain this can, and has, been done without marriage.
Dumb ass.

You can use your purely religious beliefs all you like to discriminate but don't hide behind lies. You are discriminating cause you don't like them fags.

budster101 · Apr 30, 2005, 12:08 PM

AK and Zerostar:

"I'm pretty certain this can and has been done without marriage".
By gay people?

You don't need to be married to procreate. I was giving you a reason for straight marriage.
As opposed to homo-marriage, where they can just adopt and twist the minds of their adopted children.

Jac kass.

zerostar · 06:41 PM

You can use your purely religious beliefs all you like to discriminate but don't hide behind lies. You are discriminating cause you don't like them.

OreoCookie · Apr 30, 2005, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by budster101

AK and Zerostar:

"I'm pretty certain this can and has been done without marriage".
By gay people?

You don't need to be married to procreate. I was giving you a reason for straight marriage.
As opposed to homo-marriage, where they can just adopt and twist the minds of their adopted children.

Jac kass.

And you don't need to procreate once you're married. So what exactly is your point?

Once, you claim the state should meddle in religious affairs (which is fine by me), and even question why the state should be involved at all in the institution marriage (which is non-sense).

If gays don't attempt to change the religious meaning, why should anyone stop them to change the legal meaning? I don't understand what you mean by autrocity (sic!) in that context

(except for that otracity in orthography).

zerostar · 06:47 PM

His point is:

'As opposed to homo-marriage, where they can just adopt and twist the minds of their adopted children.'

It is just hate.

If gays don't attempt to change the religious meaning, why should anyone stop them to change the legal meaning?

Exactly, I don't know what there is to be opposed to here. Keep your church, your religion the way you want it. Marriage is officially granted by state and you need a marriage license from THE STATE even for a religious marriage. If you want to bypass that and only do a religious wedding that is fine but it wont be recognized by the state.

So why should this be limited to hetro couples? Anyone with a real reason out there?

loki74 · May 1, 2005, 08:27 PM

ok. the fags can have their leagal rights etc. but call it something else. Not marriage. Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the institution was founded, this is true in all 3 of the major faiths (as I understand it) , and then some (and dont pull any "Im an athiest" bullsh!t either.)

So dont change the definition of a word for the very few fags we have here in America, and defile the word for the millions of straight couples. Sheesh talk about freaking selfish.

goMac · May 1, 2005, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by loki74

ok. the blacks can have their leagal rights etc. but call it something else. Not unity. Unity has been between white men since the institution was founded, this is true in all 3 of the major faiths (as I understand it) , and then some (and dont pull any "Im an athiest" bullsh!t either.)

So dont change the definition of a word for the very few blacks we have here in America, and defile the word for the millions of whites. Sheesh talk about freaking selfish.

Change a few nouns and it doesn't sound so great anymore, does it? It's separate but equal all over again. Learn from history, don't repeat it.

zerostar · May 1, 2005, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

Change a few nouns and it doesn't sound so great anymore, does it? It's separate but equal all over again. Learn from history, don't repeat it.

Thats what I was thinking when reading that post.

Yose · May 2, 2005, 01:39 AM

If government gets out of marriage and only grants civil-unions I would imagine it would be easier for those support same-sex marriage to come together and form a new church. Actually, I believe it's already happened with the United Church (correct me if I'm wrong).

If this comes to pass, will those who are against the state "sanctifying" same-sex marriage stop arguing because a seperate church/religious institution is performing them? At that point what business is it of anybodies what another that religious institution does within the confines of the law?