BF2S Forums Gay Marriage in CA? OK!

m3thod wrote:

Schittloaf wrote:

Gawwad wrote:

"I'd just like it if they'd call it something else and if they'd do a separate type of civil document (not marriage)."

I just don't understand people who feel this way...

why are you gay ? 

what is not to understand . only people who want them to get married are homosexuals themselves .  do we see animals being "Gay" ?  so its not natural  so to make them selves feel good about their gayness they try to twist their ideas into traditional marriage.

LOL many moons ago i've witnessed 2 male dogs shagging the life out of each other.  Homosexuality is not unnatural it's just not reproductive.

Thanks for the mental image...

I'll say it again...  The problem started when marriage and government were united.  Marriage should have remained a private institution for churches to fight over, while civil unions should be the only government recognized form of marriage.

After making this firm separation of church and state, then gay civil unions could be created without any religious nutjobs getting excited over it.

Schittloaf wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

Schittloaf wrote:

why are you gay ? 

what is not to understand . only people who want them to get married are homosexuals themselves .  do we see animals being "Gay" ?  so its not natural  so to make them selves feel good about their gayness they try to twist their ideas into traditional marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

nice get your info from wiki .. thats reliable!!

The references at the bottom of the page should help you.  Here let me help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual … sfencing-0

rawls2 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'll say it again...  The problem started when marriage and government were united.  Marriage should have remained a private institution for churches to fight over, while civil unions should be the only government recognized form of marriage.

After making this firm separation of church and state, then gay civil unions could be created without any religious nutjobs getting excited over it.

Are you fucking kidding? Imagine spending money for two ceremonies? Fuck that.

There would be no ceremony to civil unions -- you'd just register your union with the government for tax purposes.  The ceremony would be a purely voluntary and personal thing unrelated to government.

HurricaИe wrote:

m3thod wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

Thanks for the mental image...

They were taking turns every 30 seconds or so.  I had to ask my brother to confirm what i was watching.

when the fuck did you come back?

Yesterday when i karma'd you with:

An orderly procedure or process; regular manner of doing anything = m3thod.

rawls2 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'll say it again...  The problem started when marriage and government were united.  Marriage should have remained a private institution for churches to fight over, while civil unions should be the only government recognized form of marriage.

After making this firm separation of church and state, then gay civil unions could be created without any religious nutjobs getting excited over it.

Are you fucking kidding? Imagine spending money for two ceremonies? Fuck that.

you dont need a ceremony at a court house to be married by a justice of the peace.  I know dozens of people who had their marriages officiated in the privacy of a city hall by the city, only to remarry again for a ceremony in the future.  Last time I went to vegas was for wedding that was about just that.

rawls2 wrote:

This is what I am afraid of. Taking my kids to see Indiana Jones and have to pass them through this crowd.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24665965

oh noes, your kids will be infected with the gay!

m3thod wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

This is what I am afraid of. Taking my kids to see Indiana Jones and have to pass them through this crowd.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24665965

Men dancing? Doesn't take much to offend you.

Yes but, Allah won't be pleased that nobody is hacking them

edit: Hacking at them

Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-05-16 15:51:26)

rawls2 wrote:

This is what I am afraid of. Taking my kids to see Indiana Jones and have to pass them through this crowd.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24665965

That, my friend, is the burden of living in a free country.  Pandering to your prejudice would be no better than pandering to the prejudices of racists.

You may find gays repulsive, but if they aren't breaking any laws, then you really can't do much about their freedom of expression.

EDIT: and you do indeed have the freedom to be anti-gay....  just like people have the freedom to be racist, and people have the freedom to mock you and others for their prejudices.

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-05-16 15:52:18)

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

m3thod wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

This is what I am afraid of. Taking my kids to see Indiana Jones and have to pass them through this crowd.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24665965

Men dancing? Doesn't take much to offend you.

Yes but, Allah won't be pleased that nobody is hacking them

edit: Hacking at them

Maybe we should feed em beef burgers?

rawls2 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

This is what I am afraid of. Taking my kids to see Indiana Jones and have to pass them through this crowd.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24665965

Men dancing? Doesn't take much to offend you.

More like sickens me. Gay muslim men dancing, now that's offensive. What do you think?

I think it's proberbly happend before.  Like here!

Gay Muslims Pack a Dance Floor of Their Own

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/world … 20Nicholas

Burn baby burn! Disco inferno!

I find it amusing you're fire off all sorts of bigoted nonsense but when the mexicans slurs start you get the hump.

Turquoise wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

This is what I am afraid of. Taking my kids to see Indiana Jones and have to pass them through this crowd.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24665965

That, my friend, is the burden of living in a free country.  Pandering to your prejudice would be no better than pandering to the prejudices of racists.

You may find gays repulsive, but if they aren't breaking any laws, then you really can't do much about their freedom of expression.

EDIT: and you do indeed have the freedom to be anti-gay....  just like people have the freedom to be racist, and people have the freedom to mock you and others for their prejudices.

Would I be allowed to throw a hetrosexual parade? Have scantilly clad but legally dressed women dancing with shirtless men simulating sexual activities in the form of dance. Probably not. Double standard I say.