 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 725 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614087 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah, I really feel sad that my existence and my relationships are going to ruin the lives of these people. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
really, how does it affect their lives? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i guess something that goes against their believes and them therefor having to think about it (the 'gay lifestyle') is already seen as invading their lives. because they hate other peoples freedom |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
'...helplessley watching public schools teach my son that same sex marriage is ok...' HA! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
more precisely, they think the institution about marriage is compromised and so they're affected. why do i have to figure out what they mean? oh, because they used unbased fear as a tool. we can only hope that people that fall for that crap are some old generation that dies out soon, young people do not tolerate this, only they get old (and stupid) too? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think that as you get a lot older you get stuck in your ways and fear change a lot more. If however 'your ways' involve being pro-same sex marriage, interracial marriage, inanimate object marriage, whatever then it should be ok. But then I've never been old. Also there are loads of young people who would buy this stuff. I go to uni with a hell of a lot of homophobes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i dunno if it's okay then. there should be a law that forces people to think |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't see why this is such a politically charged issue. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
issues like abortion and gay marriage are very important to a lot of Americans. maybe it's important to them because the church tells them it's important, i'm pretty sure a lot of sermons every week touch on these subjects. also the republican party makes these issues big because it the only ones they have left, now that they proved themselves to be weak on economy and war (=strong nationalism) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
just cos graham norton is a national treasure dosn't mean that people are safe with the gay ting. things have moved on a lot but i dunno how much people have changed. i mean look at racism and how that's still got a long way to go, and black people aren't nearly as morally threatening as homosexuality. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This annoys me and makes me dislike America more. I mean, I oculd never imagine something like this in Britain. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
My mate doesn't think gay marriage is necessarily okay. He thinks there are one of each gender necessary in bringing up healthy, balanced children, which I guess it onto the adoption thing more than marriage, but it is linked. But anyway, what does he know? He's black... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
america is the home of a lot of stupid people, and you should be supportive to the ones that aren't |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The argument that a child must have one of each gender to raise him/her in order to have a healthy child is unfounded. Men are not clones of each other (nor women). We all have different personalities and traits that if I was to pick any guy to raise a child with that child would still benefit from having two unique individuals. And I don't mean one parent needs to be the "daddy" and the other "mommy". (btw, I have no interest in raising children of my own) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
will chew your balls into submission |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The solution to me seems simple. Have the state recognize and perform a civil union, and leave the term marriage to the churches. That way, any couple can have their union recognized by the state, and get all of the tax benefits and legal bindings now available to married people, but the state would not be using the term marriage because it would be considered a religious term. It would be up to individual churches to decide what criteria they put on performing or observing a marriage. A liberal church could marry a gay couple, and as far as the couple, that church, and anyone else who agreed with it were concerned they would be married. They would have a certificate of marriage from the church and a certificate of civil union from the state. Conservative churches and people would only be forced to observe it as a legal civil union, and could choose to only marry or call married those who met the criteria of their religion. That way the term marriage can maintain it's sanctity to each person or group, because each person or group decides whether or not they call it as such. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This is sensible and true. I agree. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I disagree on the separate "civil union" for gays and "marriage" for straights distinction. One reason is because it would make it too easy for state/federal laws to pass legislation that could benefit one group over the other. Say, for example, if a state or the govt wanted to enact a tax cut for married couples it could conceivably "discriminate" against those only in "civil unions" (and that could affect both straights and gays). I know many say that "marriage" is just a word, but in the context of law the distinction has much more weight to it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you misunderstand, it would be the same for straight and gay couples. the state would only perform a civil union for any couple, straight or gay. that civil union could be blessed as a marriage by a church, or not, depending on their beliefs. marriage would no longer be a legal term as far as the government was concerned. the government would have no more say over who is or isn't married than they do over who is or isn't baptized. any citizen would have the right to a civil union, be they gay or straight, religious or irreligious, etc. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok, I understand what you mean now, with "marriage" defined by individual churches and separate from the legal defintion of "civil union". It is an entertaining thought you've proposed. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Thats the way to deal with intolerance. Being intolerant. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hm, i can't but call the people that made that commercial stupid, or backwards. i don't want to be intolerant to them. i was trying to get tractern to be nicer to americans anyway |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ah cute, the primates are having some sort of controversial political dumbassedness. I like how that one fag said 'the storm is brewing' in an accent of some other language, kinda hit home about how people from all over the world care about this vital issue, whatever it was I forgot. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
of course their futures look grim... instead of working hard at the office and trying to get somewhere in life, and spending some good quality time with their kids at home, they're too busy attacking like 15% of the earth's population. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i always ask. why the fuck does anyone want to get married anyway? fucking bullshit. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
