Page 1 of 6

Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:23 am
by JimmyPaeg
I realize that I'm Canadian and so a lot of what goes on south of the border is naturally beyond my comprehension, but honestly, why the fuck is this even an issue?

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:09 am
by VTM
:cup:

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:50 am
by sleewell
Many closed minded douchebags here, sadly. I can't see why someone else's happiness should effect you if they are minding their own business and just seeking fullfilment through marriage like everyone else.. Preserving the santicty of marriage my ass, we have game shows where strangers get married and the divorce rate is sky high.

The same bigots who are against gay marriage were the ones against civil rights. They just look like ignorant nitwits.

There is one gop guy who was outspoken against it for years until his son came out. Really? You need to have a family member come out before you realize how pathetic you are acting???

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:09 am
by benjamin801
At this point, even right-wing talking heads like O'Reilly, Beck, and Limbaugh are coming out in favor of marriage equality. The few people still shrieking about it are really, really going to be on the wrong side of history here.

To me, the whole thing is so wrongheaded: even if you believe that homosexuality is a sin, why do you believe that government should be in the business of defining relationships between consenting adults?

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:13 am
by sleewell
Bc they believe in less govt interfering with peoples lives










Oh wait, yeah that makes no sense.

Good point Benjamin

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:45 am
by Malfunction
I fail too see any reason to why gay-marriage should be a problem.

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:05 pm
by Dickarms
should be a non issue. people are grossed out by hairy butt sex, and use their god to rationalize it.

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:25 pm
by benjamin801
Y0UNGBL00D wrote:should be a non issue. people are grossed out by hairy butt sex, and use their god to rationalize it.


Yep, and if your god just happens to hate all the same things you do, that's probably a pretty good indicator that he's been made in your image rather than the other way around. :nono:

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:03 pm
by marshallnoise
Marriage is a religious institution; cohabitation on the other hand is an institution that probably predates religion. If proponents of a secular government want to argue about "gay marriage," they should argue for government getting out of the religious institution of marriage and call it a "civil union" or "domestic partnership." This removes all religious connotations and allows for people to be equal in the eyes of the government. And 90% of religious people would probably accept that and move on with life.

But we have gone down this road before; gays want those who don't approve of their lifestyle to be forced to accept them and the way they do that is by highjacking religious institutions such as marriage.

There, I said it.

Have fun boys.

Edit: And another thing; people of all stripes tend to view marriage as a moral choice/decision, so as much as religious folks are "forcing" their morality on gays, religious folks see gays "forcing" their morality on them. It is not like either side is exempt from fighting a moral war here. Again, best solution is to get government out of the business of regulating moral choices.

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:10 pm
by bonedish
Religious folks are usually against it because they believe it will bring on the Apocalypse sooner and they haven't had enough time to repent...

They don't realize that the Second Coming is actually the Second Coming Out Of the Closet..... wait..... maybe they do.....

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:38 pm
by benjamin801
marshallnoise wrote:Marriage is a religious institution; cohabitation on the other hand is an institution that probably predates religion. If proponents of a secular government want to argue about "gay marriage," they should argue for government getting out of the religious institution of marriage and call it a "civil union" or "domestic partnership." This removes all religious connotations and allows for people to be equal in the eyes of the government. And 90% of religious people would probably accept that and move on with life.

But we have gone down this road before; gays want those who don't approve of their lifestyle to be forced to accept them and the way they do that is by highjacking religious institutions such as marriage.

There, I said it.

Have fun boys.

Edit: And another thing; people of all stripes tend to view marriage as a moral choice/decision, so as much as religious folks are "forcing" their morality on gays, religious folks see gays "forcing" their morality on them. It is not like either side is exempt from fighting a moral war here. Again, best solution is to get government out of the business of regulating moral choices.


Marriage is not strictly a religious institution. I'm atheist and I'm damn well married. :lol: Religion doesn't have a trademark on the word "marriage," and even if it did, there are plenty of religions, including many Christian denominations, that have no problem with same-sex marriage. Do they have to call it something else too, just to make a particular group of Christians and Muslims happy?

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:03 pm
by marshallnoise
benjamin801 wrote:
marshallnoise wrote:Marriage is a religious institution; cohabitation on the other hand is an institution that probably predates religion. If proponents of a secular government want to argue about "gay marriage," they should argue for government getting out of the religious institution of marriage and call it a "civil union" or "domestic partnership." This removes all religious connotations and allows for people to be equal in the eyes of the government. And 90% of religious people would probably accept that and move on with life.

But we have gone down this road before; gays want those who don't approve of their lifestyle to be forced to accept them and the way they do that is by highjacking religious institutions such as marriage.

There, I said it.

Have fun boys.

Edit: And another thing; people of all stripes tend to view marriage as a moral choice/decision, so as much as religious folks are "forcing" their morality on gays, religious folks see gays "forcing" their morality on them. It is not like either side is exempt from fighting a moral war here. Again, best solution is to get government out of the business of regulating moral choices.


Marriage is not strictly a religious institution. I'm atheist and I'm damn well married. :lol: Religion doesn't have a trademark on the word "marriage," and even if it did, there are plenty of religions, including many Christian denominations, that have no problem with same-sex marriage. Do they have to call it something else too, just to make a particular group of Christians and Muslims happy?


Jews, Muslims and Christians. Makes up a shit load of the whole world. Historically, marriage has been a religious institution. Yeah, you are married, but did you have a religious person officiating? You could go to the courthouse and get a "marriage" certificate, but the document really has no meaning other than a formal partnership between you and your spouse in the eyes of the state.

The bottom line is that unless your marriage was performed in a religious manner, it is just a legal document binding you and your wife together until you both decide to split. Would you be butt hurt if they changed your "marriage" to "civil union?" Doing so might make the whole issue go away.

Pastors and preachers and priests aren't supposed to marry people who don't believe in God as a unifying force in the relationship. Yeah, some choose to ignore that and marry whomever they please, but that is again, a religious decision that pastor, preacher or priest made. He'll have to answer to God for his actions. Take that up with the church if you want, but I am just telling you how it is. If you and your wife are atheists, you aren't married in the eyes of the church (ie God).

You can view it as silly if you want and dismiss it altogether, but it doesn't change the way people believe.

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:06 pm
by rear naked
Marriage is a religious institution;


It is obviously also a state institution...which is what we're discussing.

If proponents of a secular government want to argue about "gay marriage," they should argue for government getting out of the religious institution of marriage and call it a "civil union" or "domestic partnership." This removes all religious connotations and allows for people to be equal in the eyes of the government. And 90% of religious people would probably accept that and move on with life.


So this is about gays stealing words from you? :cry:

The state grants many responsibilities, benefits, and rights to married couples that don't have anything to do with religion. Of course you know that, but you have to pick something to be the backbone of your argument.

But we have gone down this road before; gays want those who don't approve of their lifestyle to be forced to accept them and the way they do that is by highjacking religious institutions such as marriage.

There, I said it.

Have fun boys.

Edit: And another thing; people of all stripes tend to view marriage as a moral choice/decision, so as much as religious folks are "forcing" their morality on gays, religious folks see gays "forcing" their morality on them. It is not like either side is exempt from fighting a moral war here.


You aren't forced to condone or accept anything you dumb hillbillies. There is not a moral equivalency between the two sides. One is oppressive/restrictive, and one is tollerant and inclusive. More freedom of choice is not a FORCE.

Again, best solution is to get government out of the business of regulating moral choices


But as long as they are, you might as try to restrict the freedoms of homosexual couples AMEN

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:11 pm
by rear naked
marshallnoise wrote: If you and your wife are atheists, you aren't married in the eyes of the church (ie God).




I bet he doesnt give a shit.


He IS however, married in the eyes of the state, which is what the argument is about. I couldn't care less what your church recognizes about me.



I was part of a nice wedding ceremony many years ago when my father remarried. They were married by a JP. I'm very sad to hear that it wasn't a real marriage and it was all a sham.

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:16 pm
by benjamin801
marshallnoise wrote:Jews, Muslims and Christians. Makes up a shit load of the whole world. Historically, marriage has been a religious institution. Yeah, you are married, but did you have a religious person officiating? You could go to the courthouse and get a "marriage" certificate, but the document really has no meaning other than a formal partnership between you and your spouse in the eyes of the state.

The bottom line is that unless your marriage was performed in a religious manner, it is just a legal document binding you and your wife together until you both decide to split. Would you be butt hurt if they changed your "marriage" to "civil union?" Doing so might make the whole issue go away.

Pastors and preachers and priests aren't supposed to marry people who don't believe in God as a unifying force in the relationship. Yeah, some choose to ignore that and marry whomever they please, but that is again, a religious decision that pastor, preacher or priest made. He'll have to answer to God for his actions. Take that up with the church if you want, but I am just telling you how it is. If you and your wife are atheists, you aren't married in the eyes of the church (ie God).

You can view it as silly if you want and dismiss it altogether, but it doesn't change the way people believe.


You say "Jews, Muslims and Christians," but again, of those three groups, only Muslims are pretty much unanimous in their definition of marriage. My wife is a Reform Jew and her rabbi would happily marry a gay couple if it was legal in the state. So would plenty of Christian denominations, including a couple of fairly prominent ones.

Again, you seem to arguing from a viewpoint that all religions are in favor one man-one woman marriage, when really it's mostly the Muslims, the Catholics, Orthodox Jews, and a lot of the more conservative Protestant denominations. There is a wide world out there of people who consider themselves religious, and even consider themselves Christian, who do not feel that way. Why should they bow to the opinions of another group?

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:18 pm
by marshallnoise
Change the word marriage (religious word) to a secular word.

Is that so fucking hard?

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:19 pm
by sleewell
marshallnoise has spoken; thus is the absolute truth and none shall question the severe distance of how far the point was missed or inacuracy of the content.



i guess all were saying is that all human beings should be treated equally and all should recieve the same opportunities and benefits of marriage. can we agree on that at least without all the other irrelevant stuff?

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:21 pm
by marshallnoise
benjamin801 wrote:
marshallnoise wrote:Jews, Muslims and Christians. Makes up a shit load of the whole world. Historically, marriage has been a religious institution. Yeah, you are married, but did you have a religious person officiating? You could go to the courthouse and get a "marriage" certificate, but the document really has no meaning other than a formal partnership between you and your spouse in the eyes of the state.

The bottom line is that unless your marriage was performed in a religious manner, it is just a legal document binding you and your wife together until you both decide to split. Would you be butt hurt if they changed your "marriage" to "civil union?" Doing so might make the whole issue go away.

Pastors and preachers and priests aren't supposed to marry people who don't believe in God as a unifying force in the relationship. Yeah, some choose to ignore that and marry whomever they please, but that is again, a religious decision that pastor, preacher or priest made. He'll have to answer to God for his actions. Take that up with the church if you want, but I am just telling you how it is. If you and your wife are atheists, you aren't married in the eyes of the church (ie God).

You can view it as silly if you want and dismiss it altogether, but it doesn't change the way people believe.


You say "Jews, Muslims and Christians," but again, of those three groups, only Muslims are pretty much unanimous in their definition of marriage. My wife is a Reform Jew and her rabbi would happily marry a gay couple if it was legal in the state. So would plenty of Christian denominations, including a couple of fairly prominent ones.

Again, you seem to arguing from a viewpoint that all religions are in favor one man-one woman marriage, when really it's mostly the Muslims, the Catholics, Orthodox Jews, and a lot of the more conservative Protestant denominations. There is a wide world out there of people who consider themselves religious, and even consider themselves Christian, who do not feel that way. Why should they bow to the opinions of another group?


I am arguing from the standpoint that marriage is a religious term and should not be used in a secular government that everyone seems to want. So let the religious folks have their words and come up with a different one. Gays will want to do gay things and religious folks will want to do religious things and athiests will want to do athiest things; all equal in the eyes of the state, not equal among each other...and guess what? IT IS FUCKING OK!!!

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:33 pm
by marshallnoise
I don't understand why it has to be a zero sum game. Why can't the compromise be exactly what I postulated? Change the name from marriage to something else, non-religious.

There will still be some folks who don't want gays to have civil unions or whatever, but that would be a lot smaller portion of people than what is opposing gay marraige right now.

I am of the camp that wants people to do exactly what they want so long as they don't go out of their way to piss other people off. And in this instance, gays are not acknowledging or caring about pissing off religious folks. The solution is to remove religious connotations from the government in regard to marriage. The other solution, which many gays already enjoy, is legal naming of beneficiaries, powers of attorney, etc in order to get access to an injured loved one, etc.

Talk about one hold over that pisses me off is when a 25 year widow of a government employee is receiving benefits from their deceased spouse that are supposed to expire when they "remarry." Chick has been receiving benefits for 25 years and living with another man for 22 of them, practically "married" but legally not. Intent is important folks and that is what needs to be focused on if you ask me.

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:15 pm
by rear naked
Why should the government change the name of marriage to appease your bigotry? It wasn't a problem when the government granted marriage to non religious people. Just so long as they are not f*****s :cop:

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 6:21 pm
by marshallnoise
rear naked wrote:Why should the government change the name of marriage to appease your bigotry? It wasn't a problem when the government granted marriage to non religious people. Just so long as they are not f*****s :cop:


No, it was always a problem that the government confiscated a religious institution for it's own manipulative purposes.

How do you like that response?

Edit: And there shouldn't be any benefits assigned to married couples either just because of marriage. See the post just above. I illustrate a perfect reason why.

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:16 pm
by rear naked
marshallnoise wrote:
rear naked wrote:Why should the government change the name of marriage to appease your bigotry? It wasn't a problem when the government granted marriage to non religious people. Just so long as they are not f*****s :cop:


No, it was always a problem that the government confiscated a religious institution for it's own manipulative purposes.

How do you like that response?

Edit: And there shouldn't be any benefits assigned to married couples either just because of marriage. See the post just above. I illustrate a perfect reason why.


It wasn't a problem that got you religious people pissed off. Until they were f*****s trying to do it.

The rights and responsibilities granted by the state to a married couple have nothing to do with religion, whatever the origins of marriage may be. Your angle that it is a religious institution doesn't hold, and all you can argue is that the word marriage sounds religious. Give it a rest.

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:34 pm
by marshallnoise
rear naked wrote:
marshallnoise wrote:
rear naked wrote:Why should the government change the name of marriage to appease your bigotry? It wasn't a problem when the government granted marriage to non religious people. Just so long as they are not f*****s :cop:


No, it was always a problem that the government confiscated a religious institution for it's own manipulative purposes.

How do you like that response?

Edit: And there shouldn't be any benefits assigned to married couples either just because of marriage. See the post just above. I illustrate a perfect reason why.


It wasn't a problem that got you religious people pissed off. Until they were f*****s trying to do it.

The rights and responsibilities granted by the state to a married couple have nothing to do with religion, whatever the origins of marriage may be. Your angle that it is a religious institution doesn't hold, and all you can argue is that the word marriage sounds religious. Give it a rest.


Why do you like casting me in that group? I already told you my REASONABLE approach for a solution and you wholesale throw it out. California, for heaven's sake, defined marriage between a man and a woman.

You see, you ask for compromise if it only goes one way. But when you are presented with it, you reject it because just like the militant gays, you must alienate that which you disagree with. You share more in common with an Islamist and I do, oh the irony. It is their way or the highway too, just like what you have posted right here.

"Marshallnoise, you are wrong no matter what, fucking deal with it you bigot. I don't want to hear you and your religious talk because quite frankly, I disagree with it therefore any solutions you bring to the table are rendered invalid."

Again, jam it down our throats until we surrender to the gay lifestyle, or else! Must piss you off that people believe what they want to believe.

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:58 pm
by rear naked
marshallnoise wrote:
rear naked wrote:
marshallnoise wrote:
rear naked wrote:Why should the government change the name of marriage to appease your bigotry? It wasn't a problem when the government granted marriage to non religious people. Just so long as they are not f*****s :cop:


No, it was always a problem that the government confiscated a religious institution for it's own manipulative purposes.

How do you like that response?

Edit: And there shouldn't be any benefits assigned to married couples either just because of marriage. See the post just above. I illustrate a perfect reason why.


It wasn't a problem that got you religious people pissed off. Until they were f*****s trying to do it.

The rights and responsibilities granted by the state to a married couple have nothing to do with religion, whatever the origins of marriage may be. Your angle that it is a religious institution doesn't hold, and all you can argue is that the word marriage sounds religious. Give it a rest.


Why do you like casting me in that group? I already told you my REASONABLE approach for a solution and you wholesale throw it out. California, for heaven's sake, defined marriage between a man and a woman.

You see, you ask for compromise if it only goes one way. But when you are presented with it, you reject it because just like the militant gays, you must alienate that which you disagree with. You share more in common with an Islamist and I do, oh the irony. It is their way or the highway too, just like what you have posted right here.

"Marshallnoise, you are wrong no matter what, fucking deal with it you bigot. I don't want to hear you and your religious talk because quite frankly, I disagree with it therefore any solutions you bring to the table are rendered invalid."

Again, jam it down our throats until we surrender to the gay lifestyle, or else! Must piss you off that people believe what they want to believe.


Are you not in that group? If your proposed solution is not to happen, and the state still calls it marriage, are you FOR or AGAINST homosexual marriage? hmm? :o

I don't ask for compromise. I ask for freedom of choices for people in this country. We pissed off religious fundies when we integrated schools. We pissed them off when we allowed interracial marriage. Civil rights rule, fundies drool. Irrational fundies do not deserved to be compromised with just because they are upset. People deserve freedom and equality in the eyes of the state.

It has nothing to do with what you or I approve of, or condone. Surrender to the gay lifestyle? What the fuck does that even mean? Again, an expansion of freedoms is not a force of any kind. Stop with the equivalency. It is quite stupid.

Re: Shitstorm time--Gay Marriage thread

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:01 pm
by Cflat
marshallnoise wrote:...If you and your wife are atheists, you aren't married in the eyes of the church (ie God).


I prefer to be married in the eyes of those that actually exist. This is nothing but hot air excuses for trying to regulate how other people should live their lives according to an ancient book written by people who didn't know to wash the shit off their hands before eating(suspiciously omitted from god's word). Or as of late, trying to protect "your" word marriage.

Do you seriously think marriage originated with Christianity? It gets repeated enough through the years, and everyone starts believing it. It never should've been thought of as a religious institution to begin with. Go ahead and explain to everyone about the origins of marriage being a Christian institution. :loon:

Come up with your own word if you want so bad to differentiate yourself from such abomination.

There is no reason to oppose gay marriage other than because of religious reasons. Unfortunately for some, we are a secular nation. Give one good, rational reason why anyone should consider your particular book of fairy tales having a say in how marriage is defined in the USA.