Lucifers Angel King For A Couple Of Days Age: - Gender: Female Posts: 4751
June 20th, 2006 at 11:56am
Bloodraine:
Magne:
you said marrage shouldnt come with union benefits what about the married persons tax alowance? when your married and we dont call it marrage what can we call it? (just out of curiosity i dont want to cause an arguement)
Married persons tax allowance is just another excuse for me to say not letting gays marry is discrimination.
If you're not married, we can call it a 'union', like none of the RE teachers at my school actually let you call it gay 'marriage', we have to call it a 'union'.
i understand if you love some one then you should have the right to get married but i just think that it makes a mockery of my marrage, i dont know i must be old fashioned or somthing, because i was bought up to believe that gays and lesbians were the dirtiest of people arond I HOW EVER DO NOT THINK THAT looking back on what people have been saying about same sex couples i understand that you cant help who you love but not in a church please lets have some place where some people can have they're faith.
Matt Smith Admin Age: 33 Gender: Female Posts: 31134
June 20th, 2006 at 11:59am
Magne:
i understand if you love some one then you should have the right to get married but i just think that it makes a mockery of my marrage, i dont know i must be old fashioned or somthing, because i was bought up to believe that gays and lesbians were the dirtiest of people arond I HOW EVER DO NOT THINK THAT looking back on what people have been saying about same sex couples i understand that you cant help who you love but not in a church please lets have some place where some people can have they're faith.
What about gay christians?
They have their faith, they might be really strong christians, yet they can't get married in their church which is a shame.
People overlook that.
Lucifers Angel King For A Couple Of Days Age: - Gender: Female Posts: 4751
June 20th, 2006 at 12:01pm
Bloodraine:
Magne:
i understand if you love some one then you should have the right to get married but i just think that it makes a mockery of my marrage, i dont know i must be old fashioned or somthing, because i was bought up to believe that gays and lesbians were the dirtiest of people arond I HOW EVER DO NOT THINK THAT looking back on what people have been saying about same sex couples i understand that you cant help who you love but not in a church please lets have some place where some people can have they're faith.
What about gay christians?
They have their faith, they might be really strong christians, yet they can't get married in their church which is a shame.
People overlook that.
and its the same for The Latter Day Saints and many other religions, we shouldnt let years of tradition go out the window
spill_no_sick Falling In Love With The Board Age: 31 Gender: - Posts: 8588
June 20th, 2006 at 12:01pm
Bloodraine:
Magne:
i understand if you love some one then you should have the right to get married but i just think that it makes a mockery of my marrage, i dont know i must be old fashioned or somthing, because i was bought up to believe that gays and lesbians were the dirtiest of people arond I HOW EVER DO NOT THINK THAT looking back on what people have been saying about same sex couples i understand that you cant help who you love but not in a church please lets have some place where some people can have they're faith.
What about gay christians?
They have their faith, they might be really strong christians, yet they can't get married in their church which is a shame.
People overlook that.
the Bible says that gays can't marry
it doesn't say why, it just says they can't
so they would have to marry outside of the Church anyway
the Bible doesn't see being gay as a sin, just the sex, which is because you can't have sex unless you're married, but they can't have a religious marriage because of the Bible
I don't see why it is such a big deal, in Canada it is legal for them to marry and there's no problem. They can marry legally in city halls and courthouses and in a church if the church agrees. It works well. Many churches are tolerant, so gays don't have difficulties to get married. Why would it be a scandal in the United States?
I don't see why it is such a big deal, in Canada it is legal for them to marry and there's no problem. They can marry legally in city halls and courthouses and in a church if the church agrees. It works well. Many churches are tolerant, so gays don't have difficulties to get married. Why would it be a scandal in the United States?
What would happen if a gay couple moved from Canada to the States? Would they still be married?
Kitti Falling In Love With The Board Age: 34 Gender: Female Posts: 5688
June 20th, 2006 at 01:47pm
Apocalypse:
I don't see why it is such a big deal, in Canada it is legal for them to marry and there's no problem. They can marry legally in city halls and courthouses and in a church if the church agrees. It works well. Many churches are tolerant, so gays don't have difficulties to get married. Why would it be a scandal in the United States?
Because of our undying hunger for scandal and a need to keep media attention OFF the real issues the US is facing.
You make a good point.
But Americans are just not relaxed enough or tolerant enough or something enough for it to be non-issue like it is in Canada.
Kitti Falling In Love With The Board Age: 34 Gender: Female Posts: 5688
June 20th, 2006 at 01:50pm
I_worship_tre_Cool:
Apocalypse:
I don't see why it is such a big deal, in Canada it is legal for them to marry and there's no problem. They can marry legally in city halls and courthouses and in a church if the church agrees. It works well. Many churches are tolerant, so gays don't have difficulties to get married. Why would it be a scandal in the United States?
What would happen if a gay couple moved from Canada to the States? Would they still be married?
Yes. They have diplomatic sovreignty and are bound by the laws of their country, NOT American law. Permanent move...I think that still applies except in the case that they wanted American citizenship, then they might have to be remarried.
spill_no_sick Falling In Love With The Board Age: 31 Gender: - Posts: 8588
June 20th, 2006 at 06:25pm
Kitti:
Apocalypse:
I don't see why it is such a big deal, in Canada it is legal for them to marry and there's no problem. They can marry legally in city halls and courthouses and in a church if the church agrees. It works well. Many churches are tolerant, so gays don't have difficulties to get married. Why would it be a scandal in the United States?
Because of our undying hunger for scandal and a need to keep media attention OFF the real issues the US is facing.
You make a good point.
But Americans are just not relaxed enough or tolerant enough or something enough for it to be non-issue like it is in Canada.
no offence, but in Canadia everything goes
Canadia is a very layback country, and the US isn't
for some things being layback is good (marriage, open trade with countries America won't trade with), and in some ways it's bad (if anyone decides to attack poor Canadia they're FUCKED!
I don't see why it is such a big deal, in Canada it is legal for them to marry and there's no problem. They can marry legally in city halls and courthouses and in a church if the church agrees. It works well. Many churches are tolerant, so gays don't have difficulties to get married. Why would it be a scandal in the United States?
Because of our undying hunger for scandal and a need to keep media attention OFF the real issues the US is facing.
You make a good point.
But Americans are just not relaxed enough or tolerant enough or something enough for it to be non-issue like it is in Canada.
no offence, but in Canadia everything goes
Canadia is a very layback country, and the US isn't
for some things being layback is good (marriage, open trade with countries America won't trade with), and in some ways it's bad (if anyone decides to attack poor Canadia they're FUCKED!
Well, terrorists tried to take on the parliament 2-3 weeks ago to take hostages and ask for the retirement of the canadian troops in Irak (they even planned to decapite the prime minister.) But the terrorists failed...
spill_no_sick Falling In Love With The Board Age: 31 Gender: - Posts: 8588
June 20th, 2006 at 06:41pm
Apocalypse:
spill_no_sick:
Kitti:
Apocalypse:
I don't see why it is such a big deal, in Canada it is legal for them to marry and there's no problem. They can marry legally in city halls and courthouses and in a church if the church agrees. It works well. Many churches are tolerant, so gays don't have difficulties to get married. Why would it be a scandal in the United States?
Because of our undying hunger for scandal and a need to keep media attention OFF the real issues the US is facing.
You make a good point.
But Americans are just not relaxed enough or tolerant enough or something enough for it to be non-issue like it is in Canada.
no offence, but in Canadia everything goes
Canadia is a very layback country, and the US isn't
for some things being layback is good (marriage, open trade with countries America won't trade with), and in some ways it's bad (if anyone decides to attack poor Canadia they're FUCKED!
Well, terrorists tried to take on the parliament 2-3 weeks ago to take hostages and ask for the retirement of the canadian troops in Irak (they even planned to decapite the prime minister.) But the terrorists failed...
if the US defense wasn't already up, and the world wasn't already afraid, and it was an ordinary day in 2030 and the war has been over for twenty years.....Canadia would have been fucked
I don't see why it is such a big deal, in Canada it is legal for them to marry and there's no problem. They can marry legally in city halls and courthouses and in a church if the church agrees. It works well. Many churches are tolerant, so gays don't have difficulties to get married. Why would it be a scandal in the United States?
Because of our undying hunger for scandal and a need to keep media attention OFF the real issues the US is facing.
You make a good point.
But Americans are just not relaxed enough or tolerant enough or something enough for it to be non-issue like it is in Canada.
I'll point out that while it is legal in Canada, there's been a lot of unhappy people because it went through. Ministers and congregations are, in some communities, very much against it. Perhaps we're laid back on the surface, but I think Canada isn't so dramatically "media-ized" as some countries. The law came in when we had a different party in power, and the new party has made noises about re-voting it. (As in try to make it illegal again)
I don't see why it is such a big deal, in Canada it is legal for them to marry and there's no problem. They can marry legally in city halls and courthouses and in a church if the church agrees. It works well. Many churches are tolerant, so gays don't have difficulties to get married. Why would it be a scandal in the United States?
Because of our undying hunger for scandal and a need to keep media attention OFF the real issues the US is facing.
You make a good point.
But Americans are just not relaxed enough or tolerant enough or something enough for it to be non-issue like it is in Canada.
I'll point out that while it is legal in Canada, there's been a lot of unhappy people because it went through. Ministers and congregations are, in some communities, very much against it. Perhaps we're laid back on the surface, but I think Canada isn't so dramatically "media-ized" as some countries. The law came in when we had a different party in power, and the new party has made noises about re-voting it. (As in try to make it illegal again)
Yeah I know. But what's weird with Stephen Harper is that he wants to make them vote about if they should vote this law again, instead of just voting directly to make it illegal. Anyway, I doubt they'll be able to outlaw it, and if so well watch out the next elections...they'll lose lots of vote, probably enough to loose power. Canada is kinda a liberal country in its thoughts (well, the Liberal party ruled 14 years before the Conservatives won this year ; and they wouldn't have won if it wasn't for the Gomery enquiry.)
Sorry for the off-topic.
GD Addicts Anonymous Falling In Love With The Board Age: 33 Gender: Female Posts: 5896
June 20th, 2006 at 11:32pm
I'm sorry if this bothers anyone but frankly I don't think they should have that right. I mean, maybe it's because I'm a Christian, but I just think it's wrong according to the Bible. I have nothing against homosexuals and I think they should be treated like any other human being but I still don't think they should be able to be married or adopt.
Kitti Falling In Love With The Board Age: 34 Gender: Female Posts: 5688
June 21st, 2006 at 08:59am
ixlovexbilliexjoe:
I'm sorry if this bothers anyone but frankly I don't think they should have that right. I mean, maybe it's because I'm a Christian, but I just think it's wrong according to the Bible. I have nothing against homosexuals and I think they should be treated like any other human being but I still don't think they should be able to be married or adopt.
See Article 16
Now bear with me.
It says "men and women of full age."
Yes.
But it never specifies the gender of the person they have to marry to get these rights.
Which means regardless of sexual orientation, people are all guaranteed that right.
The Bible says you can't marry someone of the same sex. So long as you don't, you're going along with the Bible.
But orientation and love don't really see religious or political bounds. There are plenty of homosexual couples who are better candidates for parenthood than most heterosexual couples I know. There are plenty of homosexual couples who deserve the right to be married more than most heterosexual couples do, who love each other more.
People are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage and its religious connotations...I think that we can work around that, being a civilized group of people.
Whatever spill_no_sick tells you, marriage was civil union entirely arranged in convenience before it was a religious institution. Marriage as we see it now is based very deeply in religious concepts, but originally it was not (yes, Nick, we really are kind of agreeing here, but your history is a bit off...seems we have different definitions of marriage), it was simply an arrangement of dividing inheritance because (oh, this is fun, I hate saying this part) even in matrilinear Jewish culture, WOMEN COULDN'T OWN LAND.
So why not fix it so it's not a religious union? There are other ways you can declare someone spiritually bonded with you (I know of a couple pagan ones, but not sure about Christian ones. There has to be something though). Romantic love is a fourteenth century idea anyway.
spill_no_sick Falling In Love With The Board Age: 31 Gender: - Posts: 8588
June 21st, 2006 at 01:28pm
Kitti:
ixlovexbilliexjoe:
I'm sorry if this bothers anyone but frankly I don't think they should have that right. I mean, maybe it's because I'm a Christian, but I just think it's wrong according to the Bible. I have nothing against homosexuals and I think they should be treated like any other human being but I still don't think they should be able to be married or adopt.
See Article 16
Now bear with me.
It says "men and women of full age."
Yes.
But it never specifies the gender of the person they have to marry to get these rights.
Which means regardless of sexual orientation, people are all guaranteed that right.
The Bible says you can't marry someone of the same sex. So long as you don't, you're going along with the Bible.
But orientation and love don't really see religious or political bounds. There are plenty of homosexual couples who are better candidates for parenthood than most heterosexual couples I know. There are plenty of homosexual couples who deserve the right to be married more than most heterosexual couples do, who love each other more.
People are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage and its religious connotations...I think that we can work around that, being a civilized group of people.
Whatever spill_no_sick tells you, marriage was civil union entirely arranged in convenience before it was a religious institution. Marriage as we see it now is based very deeply in religious concepts, but originally it was not (yes, Nick, we really are kind of agreeing here, but your history is a bit off...seems we have different definitions of marriage), it was simply an arrangement of dividing inheritance because (oh, this is fun, I hate saying this part) even in matrilinear Jewish culture, WOMEN COULDN'T OWN LAND.
So why not fix it so it's not a religious union? There are other ways you can declare someone spiritually bonded with you (I know of a couple pagan ones, but not sure about Christian ones. There has to be something though). Romantic love is a fourteenth century idea anyway.
pretty much, other than a few disagreements here and there
I think that the civil union should be offered with less hassle, and the religious union shouldn't be tied together with the civil union
and my definition of civil union is your defintion of both civil union and marriage
my definition of marriage matches up to nothing you've said
Matt Smith Admin Age: 33 Gender: Female Posts: 31134
June 21st, 2006 at 01:51pm
ixlovexbilliexjoe:
I'm sorry if this bothers anyone but frankly I don't think they should have that right. I mean, maybe it's because I'm a Christian, but I just think it's wrong according to the Bible. I have nothing against homosexuals and I think they should be treated like any other human being but I still don't think they should be able to be married or adopt.
I'm sorry if this bothers anyone but frankly the bible is a 2000 year old piece of paper. Yet, we're still setting our standards by it. Now, I have no problem with that, because 99% of it is fine, but 1% of it is outdated bullshit. Yes, Leviticus, i'm talking about that.
'Marriage', fine, gays can't marry. I don't have to like that but i'll settle for it.
Union?. Yes, gays have the right to a legal declaration and to hell with anyone who disagrees with me, we all deserve those rights. Yeah?.
I won't spit on the age-old 'marriage' ceremony as long as nobody kicks up a fuss about a Union.
spill_no_sick Falling In Love With The Board Age: 31 Gender: - Posts: 8588
June 21st, 2006 at 02:04pm
Bloodraine:
ixlovexbilliexjoe:
I'm sorry if this bothers anyone but frankly I don't think they should have that right. I mean, maybe it's because I'm a Christian, but I just think it's wrong according to the Bible. I have nothing against homosexuals and I think they should be treated like any other human being but I still don't think they should be able to be married or adopt.
I'm sorry if this bothers anyone but frankly the bible is a 2000 year old piece of paper. Yet, we're still setting our standards by it. Now, I have no problem with that, because 99% of it is fine, but 1% of it is outdated bullshit. Yes, Leviticus, i'm talking about that.
'Marriage', fine, gays can't marry. I don't have to like that but i'll settle for it.
Union?. Yes, gays have the right to a legal declaration and to hell with anyone who disagrees with me, we all deserve those rights. Yeah?.
I won't spit on the age-old 'marriage' ceremony as long as nobody kicks up a fuss about a Union.
Leviticus is only outdated out of context which means you obviously have to be responding to a Jewish argument if you think that Leviticus has no ties in with the New Testament
homosexual sex is a sin as cited by Leviticus and Chorinthians....now, what major event happend in the four gospels of the New Testament again
my mind is slipping here, some one give me a hint?
oh yeah! Jesus died so that we can ask for forgiveness, and be delivered forgiveness, that's right!
so it's just as bad a sin as lying.....which can also be forgiven by repeating this (and more or less meaning it), "forgive me Jesus"
I know it's difficult and plenty of people have more pride than that, but that's too bad
now, homosexuals should have a legal union, that's what I've been saying
seperate religious marriage from legal marriage and everyone is happy.....or have extremists say that homosexuality is a sin and they can't have either marriage, then have extremists say that the Bible is an outdated 2,000 year old piece of paper and homosexuals should have both
now, I still think we should split up the religious and legal aspects of marriage
honestly, what's wrong with my plan?
me feelings are genuinely hurt here, why is my plan so bad?
Matt Smith Admin Age: 33 Gender: Female Posts: 31134
June 21st, 2006 at 02:09pm
spill_no_sick:
Bloodraine:
ixlovexbilliexjoe:
I'm sorry if this bothers anyone but frankly I don't think they should have that right. I mean, maybe it's because I'm a Christian, but I just think it's wrong according to the Bible. I have nothing against homosexuals and I think they should be treated like any other human being but I still don't think they should be able to be married or adopt.
I'm sorry if this bothers anyone but frankly the bible is a 2000 year old piece of paper. Yet, we're still setting our standards by it. Now, I have no problem with that, because 99% of it is fine, but 1% of it is outdated bullshit. Yes, Leviticus, i'm talking about that.
'Marriage', fine, gays can't marry. I don't have to like that but i'll settle for it.
Union?. Yes, gays have the right to a legal declaration and to hell with anyone who disagrees with me, we all deserve those rights. Yeah?.
I won't spit on the age-old 'marriage' ceremony as long as nobody kicks up a fuss about a Union.
Leviticus is only outdated out of context which means you obviously have to be responding to a Jewish argument if you think that Leviticus has no ties in with the New Testament
homosexual sex is a sin as cited by Leviticus and Chorinthians....now, what major event happend in the four gospels of the New Testament again
my mind is slipping here, some one give me a hint?
oh yeah! Jesus died so that we can ask for forgiveness, and be delivered forgiveness, that's right!
so it's just as bad a sin as lying.....which can also be forgiven by repeating this (and more or less meaning it), "forgive me Jesus"
I know it's difficult and plenty of people have more pride than that, but that's too bad
now, homosexuals should have a legal union, that's what I've been saying
seperate religious marriage from legal marriage and everyone is happy.....or have extremists say that homosexuality is a sin and they can't have either marriage, then have extremists say that the Bible is an outdated 2,000 year old piece of paper and homosexuals should have both
now, I still think we should split up the religious and legal aspects of marriage
honestly, what's wrong with my plan?
me feelings are genuinely hurt here, why is my plan so bad?
Your plan isn't bad.
It makes sense.
Isn't that what I just said?
I won't spit on the age-old 'marriage' ceremony as long as nobody kicks up a fuss about a Union. I won't demand that gays be married, let us first allow them to be legally joined. Even better, lets stick with Nicks plan and make them totally separate, that way its even more equal.
The bible is still outdated. Any book written 2000 years ago is outdated, but that might not be a bad thing in all cases. Sure, it is when it comes to things like gay rights and womens rights, but it still has a somewhat...purity, it hasn't been tainted by our modern day society.
spill_no_sick Falling In Love With The Board Age: 31 Gender: - Posts: 8588
June 21st, 2006 at 02:13pm
Bloodraine:
spill_no_sick:
Bloodraine:
ixlovexbilliexjoe:
I'm sorry if this bothers anyone but frankly I don't think they should have that right. I mean, maybe it's because I'm a Christian, but I just think it's wrong according to the Bible. I have nothing against homosexuals and I think they should be treated like any other human being but I still don't think they should be able to be married or adopt.
I'm sorry if this bothers anyone but frankly the bible is a 2000 year old piece of paper. Yet, we're still setting our standards by it. Now, I have no problem with that, because 99% of it is fine, but 1% of it is outdated bullshit. Yes, Leviticus, i'm talking about that.
'Marriage', fine, gays can't marry. I don't have to like that but i'll settle for it.
Union?. Yes, gays have the right to a legal declaration and to hell with anyone who disagrees with me, we all deserve those rights. Yeah?.
I won't spit on the age-old 'marriage' ceremony as long as nobody kicks up a fuss about a Union.
Leviticus is only outdated out of context which means you obviously have to be responding to a Jewish argument if you think that Leviticus has no ties in with the New Testament
homosexual sex is a sin as cited by Leviticus and Chorinthians....now, what major event happend in the four gospels of the New Testament again
my mind is slipping here, some one give me a hint?
oh yeah! Jesus died so that we can ask for forgiveness, and be delivered forgiveness, that's right!
so it's just as bad a sin as lying.....which can also be forgiven by repeating this (and more or less meaning it), "forgive me Jesus"
I know it's difficult and plenty of people have more pride than that, but that's too bad
now, homosexuals should have a legal union, that's what I've been saying
seperate religious marriage from legal marriage and everyone is happy.....or have extremists say that homosexuality is a sin and they can't have either marriage, then have extremists say that the Bible is an outdated 2,000 year old piece of paper and homosexuals should have both
now, I still think we should split up the religious and legal aspects of marriage
honestly, what's wrong with my plan?
me feelings are genuinely hurt here, why is my plan so bad?
Your plan isn't bad.
It makes sense.
Isn't that what I just said?
I won't spit on the age-old 'marriage' ceremony as long as nobody kicks up a fuss about a Union. I won't demand that gays be married, let us first allow them to be legally joined. Even better, lets stick with Nicks plan and make them totally separate, that way its even more equal.
The bible is still outdated. Any book written 2000 years ago is outdated, but that might not be a bad thing in all cases. Sure, it is when it comes to things like gay rights and womens rights, but it still has a somewhat...purity, it hasn't been tainted by our modern day society.
I don't think it's outdated yet
that's like saying George Washington's philosiphies are outdated because of their age....they're still way ahead of our time
"politcal parties will split up the nation" and we're so naive we don't even see it
the Bible is still ahead of its time, so it isn't, yet, outdated
What would happen if a gay couple moved from Canada to the States? Would they still be married?
