Proposition 8 same sex marriage ban poll

Hey, if the whole idea is to procreate, why even have marriage at all? Wouldn't it make more sense for men to plant as many seeds as possible with multiple women? In this case, polygamists have a really good argument here.:) Also, if gay people are only spreading among themselves, all they would be doing is killing themselves off, right? And how the hell is everyone suddenly going to be gay?

[quote name='von551']I'll just leave it at this, no religion or morals involved, pure science:
The GLBT community is about 3% of the population. Now that small amount of our population accounts for 70% of all new HIV cases according to the CDC. Now is that healthy for any society? If everyone today turned gay, we'd all be EXTINCT within 100 years from either disease or the inability to procreate. Is it us heterosexuals that are expected to do the leg work for the homosexuals choice to not be able to procreate? How is that not science proving what a destructive lifestyle this is? I challenge the most liberal atheist to argue with those facts, which many agree with and see as reason to ban gay marriage. Just a tiny tip of the iceberg of how destructive this lifestyle can be to any society.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Good answer. :)

I, personally, think we should move to a "coming of age" ceremony - ...
This means some "adults" will not "come of age" until they are 40.[/QUOTE]

:rofl:What if you never pass?
 
I can't believe the California Supreme Court actually ruled against gay marriage just a year after they allowed it. Seems pretty low of them. At least they let the people already married stay married.

I guess it's okay. All of you gay people can come on over to Iowa. ;)
 
[quote name='von551']I'll just leave it at this, no religion or morals involved, pure science:
The GLBT community is about 3% of the population. Now that small amount of our population accounts for 70% of all new HIV cases according to the CDC. Now is that healthy for any society? If everyone today turned gay, we'd all be EXTINCT within 100 years from either disease or the inability to procreate. Is it us heterosexuals that are expected to do the leg work for the homosexuals choice to not be able to procreate? How is that not science proving what a destructive lifestyle this is? I challenge the most liberal atheist to argue with those facts, which many agree with and see as reason to ban gay marriage. Just a tiny tip of the iceberg of how destructive this lifestyle can be to any society.[/QUOTE]

Psst.... you can't use facts in this debate, because only the anti-gay marriage side has any, the other side relies on anecdotes, emotional arguments, and opinions, so they will mock you and your "so called" facts.
 
Can't the GLBT community sign some papers to be legally unified and be recognized by the state to receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples even with the bill in place that bans marriage between the GLBT's? Marriage that we recognize in the USA is obviously based around Christianity and the books are pretty blatant about disapproving of that "lifestyle" which makes me wonder why a GLBT couple would willingly want to attach themselves to that ancient philosophy just for the sake of "getting equal rights" when they can still get equal rights without some absurd label bathed in ignorance?

This made me wonder, can atheists be married?
 
[quote name='CrimsonSnipette']:rofl:What if you never pass?[/QUOTE]

Then it sucks to be you. You won't be eligible to drive, enroll in social services on your own, buy "adult" items (alcohol, etc.). This would also encourage parents to actually make their children grow up and be responsible. Who wants to take care of their 40 year old son?

Obviously, there will still be homes and programs for the developmentally disabled and challenged.

[quote name='docvinh']Also, if gay people are only spreading among themselves, all they would be doing is killing themselves off, right? And how the hell is everyone suddenly going to be gay?[/QUOTE]

Because the gays are going to spread their gayness around to all of us heterosexual people!
 
[quote name='Shrapnellistic']Can't the GLBT community sign some papers to be legally unified and be recognized by the state to receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples even with the bill in place that bans marriage between the GLBT's? Marriage that we recognize in the USA is obviously based around Christianity and the books are pretty blatant about disapproving of that "lifestyle" which makes me wonder why a GLBT couple would willingly want to attach themselves to that ancient philosophy just for the sake of "getting equal rights" when they can still get equal rights without some absurd label bathed in ignorance? [/QUOTE]

I apologize in advance if I'm completely wrong about this.

Short answer , no they can't.

Long Answer (which repeats some of the stuff you already mentioned and know) : The crutch of the whole problem isn't just a matter of marriage vs. civil union (or whatever version of that you want to use) , it's also the fact marriage carries many legal/financial/ect. benefits that unions don't. If civil unions had all the same rights/privilages that marriage had , there probably wouldn't be a problem , since everyone would just get a union instead. But since to get those benefits you have to be "married" and to be married you have to play by the churchs rules , then you have a problem.

To make it simple , its because "legal benefits" are tied into "religious beliefs".
 
Which is something that I feel needs to be addressed. We need to remove "Marriage" from either the church or the state. One can have "Marriage", one can have "Unions". What the church does with their's, I could care less.

The State, however, should treat their half as a legally binding agreement between two consenting individuals to share property and responsibility of said property (including bills, debt, taxes, etc.) in so far as the State is concerned.

Private companies, however, would (and should) be allowed to determine what benefits they wish to provide to what employees (and employees can decide what companies they want to work for).
 
[quote name='Shrapnellistic']Can't the GLBT community sign some papers to be legally unified and be recognized by the state to receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples even with the bill in place that bans marriage between the GLBT's? Marriage that we recognize in the USA is obviously based around Christianity and the books are pretty blatant about disapproving of that "lifestyle" which makes me wonder why a GLBT couple would willingly want to attach themselves to that ancient philosophy just for the sake of "getting equal rights" when they can still get equal rights without some absurd label bathed in ignorance?

This made me wonder, can atheists be married?[/QUOTE]

Separate but equal has proven time and time again to not work.

And of course atheists can be married, I'm pretty sure both judges and ship captains can marry people. I'm sure some atheists also get married in churches by ministers also.

Personally I think with gay marriage just let the church leaders decide. If the leaders don't want to marry gays they shouldn't have to, if they do then that's fine too.
 
But the problem is they don't want to :lol:
But I don't even want to be married in a church. I want to be married for legal reasons, not "RELIGIOUS".
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Which is something that I feel needs to be addressed. We need to remove "Marriage" from either the church or the state. One can have "Marriage", one can have "Unions". What the church does with their's, I could care less.

The State, however, should treat their half as a legally binding agreement between two consenting individuals to share property and responsibility of said property (including bills, debt, taxes, etc.) in so far as the State is concerned.

Private companies, however, would (and should) be allowed to determine what benefits they wish to provide to what employees (and employees can decide what companies they want to work for).[/QUOTE]

I wholeheartedly agree with you. The State, in order to treat all individuals equally, should consider any joining of individuals together as a "civil union". Unfortunately, the religious argument brings the slippery slope with it arguing that marrying one's dog or more than one person at a time is unnatural and should be outlawed. Arguing on the basis of a presumed "god's law" is not a valid, moral reason to create a law that impedes individual freedom. It makes us no better than those who institute sharia law as in Iran or Afghanistan by the Taliban.

I happen to think that if you want to marry your dog, that's your business. For that matter, if your pursuit of happiness means marrying 3 women, more power to you. The State really has no business telling individuals how to live their lives and with whom they are not allowed to associate. It is contrary to the principle of freedom as these actions do not violate the rights of any other individual.

Now let's see how long it takes the leftist fringe to misinterpret my opinion and call me a dog-fucker.
 
[quote name='von551']I'll just leave it at this, no religion or morals involved, pure science:
The GLBT community is about 3% of the population. Now that small amount of our population accounts for 70% of all new HIV cases according to the CDC. Now is that healthy for any society? If everyone today turned gay, we'd all be EXTINCT within 100 years from either disease or the inability to procreate. Is it us heterosexuals that are expected to do the leg work for the homosexuals choice to not be able to procreate? How is that not science proving what a destructive lifestyle this is? I challenge the most liberal atheist to argue with those facts, which many agree with and see as reason to ban gay marriage. Just a tiny tip of the iceberg of how destructive this lifestyle can be to any society.[/QUOTE]

mmmm, people like you always make me wonder why people are trying to limit late trimester abortions. If we allowed abortions past the up to and beyond the 100th trimester you wouldn't be around to bother the rest of the population.

As for your hypothesis that everyone would die if everyone was gay or lesbian: sperm bank. Heard of it?

I only read about the first 25 pages of this thread, so I'm not entirely sure if this has been posted before, but one of the main reasons why there hasn't been a whole lot of research done on gay genes / differences in the brains of heterosexuals vs homosexuals is because there are zealots threatening the lives of psychologists and the like. Sorry that i don't have a link or anything, but if you really wanted to find out more I'm sure a small amount of research would hopefully show that I'm not spouting BS.
 
[quote name='theloserboy']I only read about the first 25 pages of this thread, so I'm not entirely sure if this has been posted before, but one of the main reasons why there hasn't been a whole lot of research done on gay genes / differences in the brains of heterosexuals vs homosexuals is because there are zealots threatening the lives of psychologists and the like. Sorry that i don't have a link or anything, but if you really wanted to find out more I'm sure a small amount of research would hopefully show that I'm not spouting BS.[/QUOTE]

To be fair, the crazy, dangerous zealots make more threats to those doing cloning and stem cell research than those looking for the "gay gene". Yet, we can clone sheep?
 
[quote name='rickonker']Who cares if people choose to be gay or not? What difference does it make?[/QUOTE]

That was the point I was trying to make earlier, but I wasn't as clear as I should have been.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Who cares if people choose to be gay or not? What difference does it make?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='UncleBob']That was the point I was trying to make earlier, but I wasn't as clear as I should have been.[/QUOTE]

This.

Being gay, I felt there wasn't a choice. But science may know something one day. Maybe deep down inside I did choose this. Regardless of the fact, it should not matter.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']That was the point I was trying to make earlier, but I wasn't as clear as I should have been.[/QUOTE]

Got it. Going back to your earlier posts:

[quote name='UncleBob']Should we, as a society, just shrug our shoulders and say "Well, it's their nature - can't blame 'em." and walk on by? At what point do we, as a society, get to say "Your nature is wrong. Stop that."?[/QUOTE]

I'd say only when someone becomes violent.

[quote name='UncleBob']lol. That went out the window when the government decided it was okay to seize the private property of individuals for the "welfare" of the majority. If the government can trample all over private property rights, what's to stop them from trampling over whatever rights get in their way?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it's been funny watching progressives whine about rights all of a sudden. Of course gay marriage should be legal, but now they're worried about the majority trampling over rights?


[quote name='von551']I'll just leave it at this, no religion or morals involved, pure science:
The GLBT community is about 3% of the population. Now that small amount of our population accounts for 70% of all new HIV cases according to the CDC. Now is that healthy for any society? If everyone today turned gay, we'd all be EXTINCT within 100 years from either disease or the inability to procreate. Is it us heterosexuals that are expected to do the leg work for the homosexuals choice to not be able to procreate? How is that not science proving what a destructive lifestyle this is? I challenge the most liberal atheist to argue with those facts, which many agree with and see as reason to ban gay marriage. Just a tiny tip of the iceberg of how destructive this lifestyle can be to any society.[/QUOTE]

Who is forcing you to procreate? And how is banning gay marriage going to stop people from being gay?
 
[quote name='Kaijufan']I can't believe the California Supreme Court actually ruled against gay marriage just a year after they allowed it. Seems pretty low of them. At least they let the people already married stay married.

I guess it's okay. All of you gay people can come on over to Iowa. ;)[/QUOTE]


Uh, you know, in theory, the court is supposed to interpret the law, not just decide if it wants gay marriage to be legal or not. The two rulings were about different things.

Unless you're just admitting that the courts often do whatever the hell they want.
 
[quote name='theloserboy']mmmm, people like you always make me wonder why people are trying to limit late trimester abortions. If we allowed abortions past the up to and beyond the 100th trimester you wouldn't be around to bother the rest of the population.

As for your hypothesis that everyone would die if everyone was gay or lesbian: sperm bank. Heard of it?

I only read about the first 25 pages of this thread, so I'm not entirely sure if this has been posted before, but one of the main reasons why there hasn't been a whole lot of research done on gay genes / differences in the brains of heterosexuals vs homosexuals is because there are zealots threatening the lives of psychologists and the like. Sorry that i don't have a link or anything, but if you really wanted to find out more I'm sure a small amount of research would hopefully show that I'm not spouting BS.[/QUOTE]

wow, ignorance and intolerance from someone claiming to be the opposite? how ironic. really, you wish me dead because i have an opinion different than you? wow, i thought hitler was dead. there HAVE been a ton of studies on this subject because of the liberal, naturalistic, humanistic scientific world we live in. You have it backwards my friend, science will always be used for the culture, not the counter-culture truth. Everything always tries to point to Darwin, evolution and insignifigance in our existence. Ironically, there's so much evidence for creation it's overwhelming, yet supressed because no one wants to have to answer to a Higher Power. There still hasn't been any major findings despite numerous tries, not despite handcuffs by the zealots, haha. sperm bank, huh? really? so you want to rely on man-made technology for something we're naturally gifted at? how ridiculous is that? why don't you just walk around with your eyes closed all day and rely on people to tell you what they see for you? ignorance. i can't blame you though, society is the product of conformity and ignorance, we're all guilty and it's so easy to be blinded by it. i wish no harm on anyone gay it's sad that i get threatened for trying to protect marriage from the government's agenda. I shouldn't have to have my marriage license say Party A and Party B instead of Bride and Groom or get a Civil Union instead of a marriage. The bigger picture the threat to religous freedom of speech which is already being threatened in europe, canada, and now the states. Don't believe me? Click HERE to read how congress just made it hate speech to read passages in the Bible against homosexuality! It's all a big scheme to shut up the church's freedom of speech, which most of you want, but it's no different than making a bill saying you can't voice your opinion in favor of homosexuality without risk of imprisonment for an opinion. It's inevitable that the govenment/world will prevail in this, it's been written about thousands of years ago in the Bible, we're just trying to fight the good fight as long as possible.
 
[quote name='von551']Ironically, there's so much evidence for creation it's overwhelming.[/QUOTE]

I think we hooked a live one...
 
Von,

What if Marriages where only taken place at a church and civil unions where handed out by like..judges or something.

However, in terms of LEGAL stuff: Marriages = Civil Union.
Now, I can understand how the church may say "No" to same sex couples trying to get married in the church. That's fine. I am sure there are plenty of opposite sex couples who don't want a marriage in a church and are fine with a civil union.

What are your thoughts on this?
Remember: The ONLY difference in this situation is that a "Marriage" takes PLACE in a church.
 
[quote name='rickonker']And how is banning gay marriage going to stop people from being gay?[/QUOTE]

It's not about stopping people from being gay, it's about them trying to redefine the definition of marriage. They claim they had their right to be married taken away when it never was their right and shouldn't have been. three activist judges took it up themselves to overturn millions of citizen's votes after being influenced by Gavin Newsom, governor of San Francisco. a man who cheated on his ex with his good friend's wife, a man who clearly doesn't understand the definition of true marriage. how socialist can you be when you think it's ok for the government to overrule the people's vote? whether you agree with the decision or not, you can't be ok with the government not obeying the people. Doesn't the Constitution start out with "We the people"? Interesting. Again the government is considering overturning millions of votes, what's the point of voting if we're truly a country being run like a monarchy? Democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
 
[quote name='von551']i can't blame you though, society is the product of conformity and ignorance, we're all guilty and it's so easy to be blinded by it.[/QUOTE]

I find this hilarious, since organized religion is all about conformity AND ignorance. Do what the book tells you because some random guy in the sky tells you to. Don't question it, for it is the word of that guy in the sky. :D
 
[quote name='von551']It's not about stopping people from being gay, it's about them trying to redefine the definition of marriage. They claim they had their right to be married taken away when it never was their right and shouldn't have been. three activist judges took it up themselves to overturn millions of citizen's votes after being influenced by Gavin Newsom, governor of San Francisco. a man who cheated on his ex with his good friend's wife, a man who clearly doesn't understand the definition of true marriage. how socialist can you be when you think it's ok for the government to overrule the people's vote? whether you agree with the decision or not, you can't be ok with the government not obeying the people. Doesn't the Constitution start out with "We the people"? Interesting. Again the government is considering overturning millions of votes, what's the point of voting if we're truly a country being run like a monarchy? Democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections[/QUOTE]

This isn't a pure democracy in many ways that is a good thing.
 
[quote name='docvinh']I find this hilarious, since organized religion is all about conformity AND ignorance. Do what the book tells you because some random guy in the sky tells you to. Don't question it, for it is the word of that guy in the sky. :D[/QUOTE]

Even worse, it's not the guy in the sky. There would actually be more credence if there actually was some voice coming from the sky that nobody could explain. But no, not only is it some random guy in the sky, it's actually the written words of some random human guy who is interpreting what they think some random guy in the sky is saying, which isn't very clearly written and is a translation from another language in the first place, so there's another guy who interprets that guy who people then follow. So it's the words of some guy interpreting some other guy who, at the time, said that he was interpreting a guy in the sky.

Saying that it's the words of a random guy in the sky is giving it too much credit, IMO.

But, whatever, OT.
 
[quote name='lilboo']Von,

What if Marriages where only taken place at a church and civil unions where handed out by like..judges or something.

However, in terms of LEGAL stuff: Marriages = Civil Union.
Now, I can understand how the church may say "No" to same sex couples trying to get married in the church. That's fine. I am sure there are plenty of opposite sex couples who don't want a marriage in a church and are fine with a civil union.

What are your thoughts on this?
Remember: The ONLY difference in this situation is that a "Marriage" takes PLACE in a church.[/QUOTE]

i'm all for civil unions and equal rights, no one should have less rights (benefits, etc.) because of lifestyle. what i don't understand is why can't the gay community be fine with that? if it's just a word with the same rights as is the rheteric from the community, then why the hubub? take your civil unions, but don't force them on me and the other 97% of society. Heteros shouldn't have to jump through more hoops to get a marriage because gays can't get one. Alot of churchs will "marry" gays, so i know what you really want is the STATE, not church to recognize your "marriage". THe major flaw too is if this happens and gays get civil unions and not "married" in a church are they going to say they're "married" or "civil" or "partners"? I think we all know they'll say "married", who would say- "we just got civil!"? So then is the name or definition changing? I think it'd be the definition in the long run, right? This is all very unfortunate and I wish the government had never assumed the role of "owning" marriage, this could all be avoided. I don't like the government telling me they have the right to allow same-sex marriage just as much as you don't like them telling you they won't allow you to get same-sex marriage. the true enemy is them here, i believe, making enemy amongst citizens, thus weakening us, thus making them more powerful over us. just my slanted view...
 
[quote name='von551']i'm all for civil unions and equal rights, no one should have less rights (benefits, etc.) because of lifestyle. what i don't understand is why can't the gay community be fine with that? if it's just a word with the same rights as is the rheteric from the community, then why the hubub? take your civil unions, but don't force them on me and the other 97% of society. Heteros shouldn't have to jump through more hoops to get a marriage because gays can't get one.[/quote]

The thing is that: At the moment Civil Unions do NOT work. We have Civil Unions here in NJ. The problem is, some places ..like jobs (for health insurance) and hospitals (for visitations) do not recognize civil unions, only marriage. That is the current problem we have. To me, this is basically the issue.

Also, I don't understand the stuff I italicized. Can you elaborate?


Alot of churchs will "marry" gays, so i know what you really want is the STATE, not church to recognize your "marriage". THe major flaw too is if this happens and gays get civil unions and not "married" in a church are they going to say they're "married" or "civil" or "partners"? I think we all know they'll say "married", who would say- "we just got civil!"? So then is the name or definition changing? I think it'd be the definition in the long run, right?
Click to expand...

Don't you see how silly this whole debate is? This whole thing TRULY is over a word. People aren't allowed certain rights because of a word. A WORD.
Also, what churches "marry" gays? I don't understand what you mean. I also never said the church should recognize it. In what I asked you, I said the only difference between a "Marriage" and a "Civil Union" is that the "Marriage" took place in a church.
HOWEVER, it is up to the church to decide. IF a church says "SURE, we welcome same sexed couples to MARRY".. Why would that be a problem?

Also, what's the next debate? When gays are granted this right, are we allowed to call our ceremony a wedding? Are we allowed to have weddings? Or will that be another word that is related between ONLY A MAN AND A WOMAN? I suspect this will be the next big gay debate.

This is all very unfortunate and I wish the government had never assumed the role of "owning" marriage, this could all be avoided. I don't like the government telling me they have the right to allow same-sex marriage just as much as you don't like them telling you they won't allow you to get same-sex marriage. the true enemy is them here, i believe, making enemy amongst citizens, thus weakening us, thus making them more powerful over us. just my slanted view...
Click to expand...

The church, IMO, should be allowed to say No to same sex couples.
The government should not. Why do you dislike the government allowing same-sex marriage, but at the beginning you say you are for equal rights? Or are you just nit picking because of the term "marriage".
 
[quote name='SpazX']Even worse, it's not the guy in the sky. There would actually be more credence if there actually was some voice coming from the sky that nobody could explain. But no, not only is it some random guy in the sky, it's actually the written words of some random human guy who is interpreting what they think some random guy in the sky is saying, which isn't very clearly written and is a translation from another language in the first place, so there's another guy who interprets that guy who people then follow. So it's the words of some guy interpreting some other guy who, at the time, said that he was interpreting a guy in the sky.

Saying that it's the words of a random guy in the sky is giving it too much credit, IMO.

But, whatever, OT.[/QUOTE]

Sadly, you and docvinh don't know the Bible well enough to know you're in direct contradiction to what it teaches. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 tells us to "test all things", pertaining to scripture - in laymen's terms, don't believe everything you hear and think for yourself. On the contrary is you and the world that goes with the flow and believes what the majority tells you. A good analogy I use is the movie The Matrix how it talks about the world being a facade to blind us from the truth, "we're all slaves." If you even know the formula or code the Bible was written with you'd know it shows a Divine writer, not man's system of writing. The translation is a cop out by athiests that don't know that the dead sea scrolls are word-for-word verbatim of the texts we have in circulation! Thousands of years without missing a word? How is that not Divine? We're talking about Hebrew here guys, not some crazy extinct alien language we're trying to figure out still. A language that's one of the major ones still used by millions today that this Book was written with, where's the mystery? There a ton of on the shelf Bibles and commentaries to study in it's original texts, I own one and it's great, or you can learn Hebrew, so again, where's the missing link?
2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is God-breathed
 
[quote name='Msut77']I think we hooked a live one...[/QUOTE]

go to this SITE and research for yourself. They're the first scientific institute for creation and their findings are in your face strongly against darwin's theories that the scientific community is still trying to cling on to. even darwin admitted that one day evidence may prove his theories wrong, it's sad the scientific community doesn't listen to their leader's advice...Galileo, Isaac Newton, William Kelvin and Albert Einstein are among the most famous and influential scientists who were Christians and saw God's evidence proved by their science! Darwin was an inexperienced non-scientist young man that sailed (by luck he got on the boat through a friend) for just a few years after defecting from his religous upbringing when he developed his theory of evolution, hardly a match of knowledge and experience by the above mentioned scientists. do some research and you'll see the truth...
 
[quote name='von551']go to this SITE and research for yourself. They're the first scientific institute for creation and their findings are in your face strongly against darwin's theories that the scientific community is still trying to cling on to.[/QUOTE]

Kirin Lemon 6:1

THAT'S NOT SCIENCE, YOU STUPID TWAT.
 
[quote name='von551']go to this SITE and research for yourself. They're the first scientific institute for creation and their findings are in your face strongly against darwin's theories that the scientific community is still trying to cling on to. even darwin admitted that one day evidence may prove his theories wrong, it's sad the scientific community doesn't listen to their leader's advice...Galileo, Isaac Newton, William Kelvin and Albert Einstein are among the most famous and influential scientists who were Christians and saw God's evidence proved by their science! Darwin was an inexperienced non-scientist young man that sailed (by luck he got on the boat through a friend) for just a few years after defecting from his religous upbringing when he developed his theory of evolution, hardly a match of knowledge and experience by the above mentioned scientists. do some research and you'll see the truth...[/QUOTE]

Did you really think a place that tries to push a literal six day creation a few thousand years ago among other garbage is going to be taken seriously by anyone with more than three brain cells to rub together?

You are obviously criminally ignorant, Get a clue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='lilboo']The thing is that: At the moment Civil Unions do NOT work. We have Civil Unions here in NJ. The problem is, some places ..like jobs (for health insurance) and hospitals (for visitations) do not recognize civil unions, only marriage. That is the current problem we have. To me, this is basically the issue.

[/quote]

Your problem is that these are two separate issues.

I'm all for allowing people getting married to whomever they choose. It's called freedom of association, and the government's job is supposed to be to protect that right. The government is also supposed to refrain from "respecting the establishment of religion". Making laws that recognize marriage do just that and are violations of the constitution and violations of our freedom.

However, private insurance companies should have the freedom to choose what types of "couples" can be covered under their policies. If you don't like their policies, start your own insurance company. This is the downside of freedom, the fact that there are no guarantees and you cannot force people to provide you with service.

You seem to want more than freedom of marriage. You want to force people to give you things by owning a piece of the marriage moniker and penalize companies that refuse to serve you because of your lifestyle choices. It doesn't work that way. You can't demand freedom for yourself and then deny it to companies that wish to exercise the same freedom of choice. You can't have it both ways and claim to be asking for equal rights.
 
[quote name='von551']Sadly, you and docvinh don't know the Bible well enough to know you're in direct contradiction to what it teaches. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 tells us to "test all things", pertaining to scripture - in laymen's terms, don't believe everything you hear and think for yourself. On the contrary is you and the world that goes with the flow and believes what the majority tells you.
2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is God-breathed[/QUOTE]

Right. And the majority of Americans believe in God and the Bible. So what's your point here? I think for myself. The bible is a book, no more, no less. So really, you're the one who is going with the flow my friend.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Your problem is that these are two separate issues.

I'm all for allowing people getting married to whomever they choose. It's called freedom of association, and the government's job is supposed to be to protect that right. The government is also supposed to refrain from "respecting the establishment of religion". Making laws that recognize marriage do just that and are violations of the constitution and violations of our freedom.

However, private insurance companies should have the freedom to choose what types of "couples" can be covered under their policies. If you don't like their policies, start your own insurance company. This is the downside of freedom, the fact that there are no guarantees and you cannot force people to provide you with service.

You seem to want more than freedom of marriage. You want to force people to give you things by owning a piece of the marriage moniker and penalize companies that refuse to serve you because of your lifestyle choices. It doesn't work that way. You can't demand freedom for yourself and then deny it to companies that wish to exercise the same freedom of choice. You can't have it both ways and claim to be asking for equal rights.[/QUOTE]

bmulligan: wishing you had the freedom to keep those dirty blacks outta your lunch counter.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']bmulligan: wishing you had the freedom to keep those dirty blacks outta your lunch counter.[/QUOTE]

I have to agree with him though. If it's my business, I should be allowed to freely choose which customers I want to serve - just as the customers are allowed to freely choose which businesses they want to be served by.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I have to agree with him though. If it's my business, I should be allowed to freely choose which customers I want to serve - just as the customers are allowed to freely choose which businesses they want to be served by.[/QUOTE]

Except what happens when the customers don't have a choice because NONE of the businesses want to serve them?
 
[quote name='docvinh']Right. And the majority of Americans believe in God and the Bible. So what's your point here? I think for myself. The bible is a book, no more, no less. So really, you're the one who is going with the flow my friend.[/QUOTE]

As crazy as this may sound to you, people that believe in the Bible possibly think about what they believe in? "I think for myself". That phrase is one of those phrases that is completely over used.
 
The Bible should have NOTHING to do with this. Countless marriages performed outside of the Catholic church (Jewish ceremonies, Buddhist ceremonies, Muslim ceremonies, etc.) are recognized by the state and the nation for purposes of legality, and absolutely no one should be using the Bible as basis for any of this if it doesn't allow for glass-breaking and tea ceremonies either.
 
It's funny though. It's really easy to say no to the minority, but what if it was the other way around?
Let's say Civil Unions became national, and to make all the lunatics happy..it WASN'T equal to marriage.

HOWEVER: All Civil Unions were granted free healthcare by the Government. ;)

So how many here would be PISSED? ;)
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']As crazy as this may sound to you, people that believe in the Bible possibly think about what they believe in? "I think for myself". That phrase is one of those phrases that is completely over used.[/QUOTE]

Hey, I'm just quoting what he wrote.:) I don't doubt that many people think about what they believe in, but he's acting like if you don't believe in the bible, you're not doing any critical though on it; instead, you're just going with the flow when in general, it's the exact opposite. Regardless, I say do away with recognizing anything except civil unions, that way everyone is happy.
 
[quote name='lilboo']It's funny though. It's really easy to say no to the minority, but what if it was the other way around?
Let's say Civil Unions became national, and to make all the lunatics happy..it WASN'T equal to marriage.

HOWEVER: All Civil Unions were granted free healthcare by the Government. ;)

So how many here would be PISSED? ;)[/QUOTE]


I think that the civil unions would be pissed since their only option is government healthcare.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']bmulligan: wishing you had the freedom to keep those dirty blacks outta your lunch counter.[/QUOTE]
Myke, how much you wanna bet that people like bmulligan would cry foul if insurance companies refused coverage to hetero couples that were legally married, irregardless of any type of status?
 
[quote name='VioletArrows']Except what happens when the customers don't have a choice because NONE of the businesses want to serve them?[/QUOTE]

Then two homosexual guys can get together and start an insurance company that caters to homosexual couples and they'll make a killing because they'll be the only company in town to offer it.
 
[quote name='VioletArrows']You say that as if anyone can just pull a multi billion dollar industry out of their ass.[/QUOTE]

How Freudian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top