in NY, sorry Mass. is going to have to wait awhile . . .13/f/taiwan wrote:
nothing is stopping them.
I, personally, do not believe in the whole "private parties can discriminate all they want" idea. It's completely backwards in my eyes.lowing wrote:
Yeah but then you get into the church that does not cater to gays, are they allowed to discriminate against them, or are they allowed to stay true to what they believe in? Will the church get sued for not marrying a gay couple that happens to also be religious?SEREMAKER wrote:
everyone should follow the bill of rights
No-one should be able to exclude people on the background of race or sexuality. Preferably we should do our best to erase the lines between them. Everyone should be on equal terms, even in church.
However, when it comes to marriage, it's kind of complicated. If the church decides that marriage is a thing between a man and a woman, then I guess it's difficult to tell them how to do their own ceremonies. As long as the government/system puts a gay marriage and a straight marriage, be it in church or anywhere else, as perfectly equal entities, I guess I'm fine with it. Tbh, 'gay marriage' is a term I wouldn't mind if ceased to exist. It should be called marriage.
Meh, marriage is gradually becoming a thing of the past. It's basically just for tax/pension benefits anyways. And as soon as the government decide to give those benefits to unmarried couples, I think marriage will lose more and more importance. Hopefully the church will go with it.
That would be nice.
but you have to be straight to marry the opposite sex, so why isn't that a special right?lowing wrote:
It is IF you have to be gay in order to marry same sex.tuckergustav wrote:
Marrying the person you love has been a right allowed to straight people for a long time. Granting that right to gay people is not giving them special rights, it is extending the right to include everyone.
you miss the point in fanaticism. in religion, there is always a hierarchy - God, Messiah, man who speaks for God to men on earth, men who carry out the bidding of man who speaks for God to men on earth, men who show up regularly in the same vicinity of men who carry out the bidding of man who speaks for God to men on earth, and men who's wives drag them into the same vicinity of men who carry out the bidding of man who speaks for God to men on earth. There can be no disruption of this order if you are a true believer of "X" religion, and if said religion doesn't support gay marriage, well you*re sodomized unlawfully.Jenspm wrote:
Everyone should be on equal terms, even in church.
Sure they do burndd, You are no stranger to your report button. I know, how about you run back to them and beg some more for a lowing ignore button as well? lol13urnzz wrote:
the mods aren't protecting me, you get to launch personal attacks on me all the time.lowing wrote:
whatever you wanna say Jay, I know you got the mods protecting your precious feelings from a response so I won't bother giving you one.Jay wrote:
Lowing is coming further out of the closet with every post. I'm happy for you man. Next step is a rainbow sticker for your truck.
ontopic; i agree with Jay's post.
That is retarded.lowing wrote:
I would like to continue the discussion of "gay rights", and specifically about NY allowing same sex marriages to only gay people. To me that is discrimination against everyone else.
No, and there aren't afaik.Should there be laws that cater to specific groups like the gay community? Allowing them special rights over another person, or even special hate crimes that punish worse for hurting one of them over hurting a straight person?
Why can't I co-file my taxes with anyone I want?
Fuck Israel
move to new york, who cares?Dilbert_X wrote:
Why can't I co-file my taxes with anyone I want?
because the government is stupidDilbert_X wrote:
Why can't I co-file my taxes with anyone I want?
I never got the big deal with people not liking gay people.
Its not hurting you so who cares
Its not hurting you so who cares
less competition
Tu Stultus Es
you got sucked in to it, didn't you?Stimey wrote:
I never got the big deal with people not liking gay people.
Its not hurting you so who cares
Why gay couples would want to marry in a church that clearly doesn't want them is beyond me.
Gotta disagree. People should have the right to associate with whoever the hell they want without govt. forcing them to accept people in their circles that they do not like or want there. So what if a club excludes, it is their club.Jenspm wrote:
I, personally, do not believe in the whole "private parties can discriminate all they want" idea. It's completely backwards in my eyes.lowing wrote:
Yeah but then you get into the church that does not cater to gays, are they allowed to discriminate against them, or are they allowed to stay true to what they believe in? Will the church get sued for not marrying a gay couple that happens to also be religious?SEREMAKER wrote:
everyone should follow the bill of rights
No-one should be able to exclude people on the background of race or sexuality. Preferably we should do our best to erase the lines between them. Everyone should be on equal terms, even in church.
However, when it comes to marriage, it's kind of complicated. If the church decides that marriage is a thing between a man and a woman, then I guess it's difficult to tell them how to do their own ceremonies. As long as the government/system puts a gay marriage and a straight marriage, be it in church or anywhere else, as perfectly equal entities, I guess I'm fine with it. Tbh, 'gay marriage' is a term I wouldn't mind if ceased to exist. It should be called marriage.
Meh, marriage is gradually becoming a thing of the past. It's basically just for tax/pension benefits anyways. And as soon as the government decide to give those benefits to unmarried couples, I think marriage will lose more and more importance. Hopefully the church will go with it.
That would be nice.
Same goes for the church, although I find it hypocritical as hell, the church should not be interfered with by govt. forcing them to accept or do things that goes against their beliefs.
It is not that they don't like "gay people", I think it is they don't like it thrown in their faces. Gay pride parades and shit, the constant begging for attention. THey want everyone one to know they are gay and want to be offended when no one gives a shit and would rather they just go away.Stimey wrote:
I never got the big deal with people not liking gay people.
Its not hurting you so who cares
no you don't.Dauntless wrote:
but you have to be straight to marry the opposite sex, so why isn't that a special right?lowing wrote:
It is IF you have to be gay in order to marry same sex.tuckergustav wrote:
Marrying the person you love has been a right allowed to straight people for a long time. Granting that right to gay people is not giving them special rights, it is extending the right to include everyone.
So the basic premise of this argument is that you can be both straight or gay and marry someone of the opposite sex
but
You have to be gay in order to marry someone of the same sex?
And this is somehow a major fucking issue. Lowing why don't you go try to marry some dude and take it to court in order to fight for this obviously very fundamental human right to marry another straight man.
but
You have to be gay in order to marry someone of the same sex?
And this is somehow a major fucking issue. Lowing why don't you go try to marry some dude and take it to court in order to fight for this obviously very fundamental human right to marry another straight man.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
I'm sure not allowing gay marriage is lowing's version of non government interference in the ordinary lives of citizens.
/sarcasm
/sarcasm
look, people do not get married for love only any more. They get married for a shit load of reasons, mainly to advantage to them. IF the govt. is saying gays can marry same sex while no one else can, that is the issue. Special rights and considerations is the issue, not wether or not I want to marry a dude. Stop making it personal.presidentsheep wrote:
So the basic premise of this argument is that you can be both straight or gay and marry someone of the opposite sex
but
You have to be gay in order to marry someone of the same sex?
And this is somehow a major fucking issue. Lowing why don't you go try to marry some dude and take it to court in order to fight for this obviously very fundamental human right to marry another straight man.
The whole premise of this thread is shit. If you go to wikipedia and look up "gay marriage" it comes up with "same-sex marriage" with the first paragrpah being:
So basically this thread exists because someone doesn't know how to do a research. Noob.
ie. it does not state you have to be specifically gay, it is just the term used. Because who in their right mind would marry someone of the same gender if you are both heterosexual?Same-sex marriage (also called gay marriage)[1] is a legally and/or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender. The term marriage equality describes support for legal recognition of same-sex marriage.[2]
So basically this thread exists because someone doesn't know how to do a research. Noob.
Jaekus wrote:
Because who in their right mind would marry someone of the same gender if you are both heterosexual?
Wonder what will happen if 2 known and well established straight guys decide to apply for a marriage license and make no bones about being straight, and getting married for financial benefit. We will see, but I am betting it would be challenged because they are not gay.Jaekus wrote:
The whole premise of this thread is shit. If you go to wikipedia and look up "gay marriage" it comes up with "same-sex marriage" with the first paragrpah being:ie. it does not state you have to be specifically gay, it is just the term used. Because who in their right mind would marry someone of the same gender if you are both heterosexual?Same-sex marriage (also called gay marriage)[1] is a legally and/or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender. The term marriage equality describes support for legal recognition of same-sex marriage.[2]
So basically this thread exists because someone doesn't know how to do a research. Noob.
Ya know, this bullshit about the sanctity of marriage is just that bullshit. People have open marriages which is hardly a traditional monogamous marriage. There is no reason to think 2 straight women or 2 straight men would get married if there was a profit to be made from it.
And so you feel discriminated against if they were prevented from being married because they are clearly not gay? And yet when someone suggests you try it yourself you ask it not to become personal?lowing wrote:
Wonder what will happen if 2 known and well established straight guys decide to apply for a marriage license and make no bones about being straight, and getting married for financial benefit. We will see, but I am betting it would be challenged because they are not gay.Jaekus wrote:
The whole premise of this thread is shit. If you go to wikipedia and look up "gay marriage" it comes up with "same-sex marriage" with the first paragrpah being:ie. it does not state you have to be specifically gay, it is just the term used. Because who in their right mind would marry someone of the same gender if you are both heterosexual?Same-sex marriage (also called gay marriage)[1] is a legally and/or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender. The term marriage equality describes support for legal recognition of same-sex marriage.[2]
So basically this thread exists because someone doesn't know how to do a research. Noob.
Ya know, this bullshit about the sanctity of marriage is just that bullshit. People have open marriages which is hardly a traditional monogamous marriage. There is no reason to think 2 straight women or 2 straight men would get married if there was a profit to be made from it.
And yet if they did this for tax breaks, you would no doubt be complaining.
Man, the hypocrisy is mind boggling.
lol, I said do not make it personal because this is not about me. I will not feel discriminated against, but you better bet your ass someone will challenge it in court. I mean c'mon we got people going to court over "in god we trust", do you think a perceived discrimination will go un-noticed and un challenged?Jaekus wrote:
And so you feel discriminated against if they were prevented from being married because they are clearly not gay? And yet when someone suggests you try it yourself you ask it not to become personal?lowing wrote:
Wonder what will happen if 2 known and well established straight guys decide to apply for a marriage license and make no bones about being straight, and getting married for financial benefit. We will see, but I am betting it would be challenged because they are not gay.Jaekus wrote:
The whole premise of this thread is shit. If you go to wikipedia and look up "gay marriage" it comes up with "same-sex marriage" with the first paragrpah being:
ie. it does not state you have to be specifically gay, it is just the term used. Because who in their right mind would marry someone of the same gender if you are both heterosexual?
So basically this thread exists because someone doesn't know how to do a research. Noob.
Ya know, this bullshit about the sanctity of marriage is just that bullshit. People have open marriages which is hardly a traditional monogamous marriage. There is no reason to think 2 straight women or 2 straight men would get married if there was a profit to be made from it.
And yet if they did this for tax breaks, you would no doubt be complaining.
Man, the hypocrisy is mind boggling.
Not sure what the second part is about, I am all for tax breaks however you can get them, therefore no hypocrisy. The more a person can keep their money the better.