gay marriage

[Al Quandt]

Yeah I posted a political thing again.

Points.

1. What is marriage?

• In America, it is a bond between a man and a woman.
  
  We f**k that up enough as it is. But next point.

2. What is love?

• Well in this day and age, it's anything. If a man loves a woman or a man loves a man, I can't argue with that.
  
  Love is love. It's mysterious, and that is why we have it.
  
  So I dont care if a woman wants to be with a woman for the rest of their lives, or vice versa.
  
  That is a bond that should not be discriminated against.
  
  But point 3 is, what should be blatantly obvious.

3. Who is really getting offended and discriminated against with gay marriage?

• Christians, as well as other religions. Why pry into their sacred rituals? If you really love that person in your life then do that! Love them and stay with them you dont need to steel a label that is very important to another culture, that f**ks them up and just as you want validity so do they.

4. Respect. Bottom line.

5. They only reason to pry is for the same legal and tax rights, which I think should be available to everyone in a bond of that mature.

• So yes I am against gay marriage. Marriage is for someone else and their own beliefs, but you should be able love who you love and stay committed to them and reap that rewards that other "bonded" people get.

my take.
_al

[Al Quandt]

queer marriage only got stated because of the censorship rule on the site

[Grindspine]

Well stated.

It'd be great if the gay community didn't go after the religious practice of marriage. As you stated though, legal rights cause it to be something more than religious tradition. That's just another reason I believe so firmly in separation of church and state.

[sevesd93]

I agree, the queers should be allowed to lose half their sh*t too!! Let em' get together.

[Al Quandt]

i just think that folks are coming down on the religious community too hard these days and not realizing that just because they are "different" doesn't mean they should be shut out. Which is why people are coming down on them, becuase the "people" are different. So I get it! We are all different. can we please leave each others sh*t alone?

I am not a chrstian, but I was born in to the religion and though I dont agree with the religion much anymore, I am not going to protest thier ability to have it.

And really, the people that fight religion and constantly bash it are only against it becuase it has rules. Who wants that?

My religion has rules and I am okay with that. it keeps me in check. I get out of my box sometimes but I still have something to set me straight.

The outstanding amount of people out thier that continually bash religion and try to strip it of its innards really scares me.

Some people need to realize that not only this country but this world as we know it was/has been founded on religion. Ther is a good reason that it is around, and who are we to sh*t on someones "lifestyle" especially homosexuals who dont want sh*t on either.

[sharkmansix]

And really, the people that fight religion and constantly bash it are only against it becuase it has rules. Who wants that?

I don't know if I bash religion, but I definitely have issues with it. It's not because of the 'rules' but rather the logistical problems within the bible (and ergo the church).

Plus I disagree with many of it's inner workings.

However, I've never been against someone and their faith. Faith is something that has mistified me and for those who have it, more power to you.

My religion has rules and I am okay with that. it keeps me in check. I get out of my box sometimes but I still have something to set me straight.

I can self-govern and don't need an outside source to keep me in line. I never went to church growing up and do not see a reason to start now.

The outstanding amount of people out thier that continually bash religion and try to strip it of its innards really scares me.

Don't worry too much it's counter balanced by the amount of religious missionaries. I had 2 morman's at my door yesterday who were really nice. I would wager for every 'basher' there's a religious 'inforcer'.

Have you ever had someone come to your door and ask you to become Athiest?

Some people need to realize that not only this country but this world as we know it was/has been founded on religion.

Yes. I'm glad we came to our sences and now worship a carpenter from 2000 years ago as opposed to gods that represent phenomena of nature.

[The Hand of Poo]

you dont need to steel a label that is very important to another culture, that f*cks them up and just as you want validity so do they.

Explain to me how, in the face of Las Vegas quickie chapels, 30 second celebrity marriages and young models sucking rich old geezers dry, that marriage is still sacred.

The church has no problems with using marriage as a financial lever, then? Because I don't believe I've seen them protest that too much.

I like respect as a bottom line. But I don't think the queer marriage debate is about respect for christians, I think it's blatant and purposeful disrespect for another certain segment of society.

It'd be great if the queer community didn't go after the religious practice of marriage. As you stated though, legal rights cause it to be something more than religious tradition.

Right you are chuck. Here's a question though: Where are those legal rights? If we say, "It's okay to be queer, just not married" then those rights need to be in place yesterday. Otherwise we're sending out, "It's okay to be queer, but we only say that to save a bunch of forking face."

[Al Quandt]

Have you ever had someone come to your door and ask you to become Athiest?

haha, no but I think some one should.


@ Poo

Yeah I stated that Marriage is already messed up enough. I am not at all against a civil union that has equal merit to Marriage, but obviously the church feels very srongly about keeping marriage between a man and woman, and who are we to tell them different. Its theirs so let them have it and work another angle.

[The Hand of Poo]

Yeah I stated that Marriage is already f#cked up enough. I am not at all against a civil union that has equal merit to Marriage

Ok, cool, me too. At the same time I want to express how hypocritical I think it is to protest gay marriage but not the other obvious offences against it.

but obviously the church feels very srongly about keeping marriage between a man and woman, and who are we to tell them different. Its theirs so let them have it and work another angle.

What about homosexual christians?

[Oliver's Army]

(sadly) Most hide it or attend liberal churches.

[WBOB]

IMHO

Marriage should be defined as a legal and or holy
union between a man and a woman.
Anything else under that term, I would
consider a perversion.

That being said, I've nothing against a legal
union of others being queer or whatever.
(cant think of the right term for this)

Must be my upbringing.

Oh well,..my .02

[The Hand of Poo]

(sadly) Most hide it or attend liberal churches.

Right. The church (generally) would never allow them to marry, if not exclude them from parishioning should they outed.

Therefore, IMHO, it seems much more like a prejudice against than a lack of respect for.

[sharkmansix]

That being said, I've nothing against a legal
union of others being queer or whatever.
(cant think of the right term for this)

This reminds me of the whole 'seperate but equal' position from 50's.
I'm not advocating gay marriage in churches (they're kinda like a club, they can make their own rules) but the title should be the same.

[Oliver's Army]

You have to remember that openly gay people are a relatively new issue for the church.

The mindset and approach to this issue is slow to take hold in most heavily organized churches and the old school elders are a tough bunch.

As these older members start to pass, and younger progressive thinking people come in these, practices *may* relax.

I agree with most.

Leave the church wedding for the ones who practice and provide a legal, binding and RECOGNIZED union for those those who don't.

[The Hand of Poo]

holy union between a man and a woman.
Anything else under that term, I would
consider a perversion.

That being said, I've nothing against a legal
union of others being queer or whatever.

Are you against las vegas overnighters? I'm just trying to find the moral line here.

I am. I married to create a family environment, and because I love my wife. I'm not religous, and did not do so for religous reasons. My upbringing was a religous one, however I was not raised to believe marriage was a holy entity but a loving one. My current union is not for sake of holiness, is this a perversion?

If I WAS religous, my upbringing would still dictate you marry for love and family and I would have no issue with homosexual marriage.

At the same time, I don't want to step on anybody's toes. I think that the church can go ahead and take marriage in lieu of large-scale arguments, but in doing so, laws need to be put in place NOW that justify the good intentions of homosexual unions. The fact that those laws aren't in place reeks of homosexual prejudice being the real issue.