Protect the sanctity of marriage

[JoS]

We cannot allow homosexuals to amrry. We must preserve the sanctity of the institution of marriage. It is a special bond between a man and a women. It is pure and cannot be corrputed by sodomites. It is a tradition as old as man, the last bastion of moral decency.

[sdhonda]

You and your mod hax.....

[stafffighter]

Gay or stright you shouldn't marry a whore.

[sdhonda]

Anywho, ya, gays shouldent be allowed to marry if their religon goes against it. However, gay couples ought to have all the rights of straight ones.

Instead, the government ought to stop recognizing marraige, and just use a legal couples system, thereby taking any religous arguements over who is elegible out of the picture.

[JoS]

Marriage is an institution that embodies the human spirt. Marriage is a foundation of christianity, a religious and spiritual journy. It is first and foremost a religious commitment made bewteen a man and women in the presecence of God, and sometimes a man dressed up like Elvis. God (or Elvis) did not want men to marry men or women to marry women or men to marry donkeys.

[JoS]

Marriage is sucha powerful insititution that we atke it to the grave, with death do us part. Take for example Britney Spears and her former husband Jason Alexander, he died, and she then moved on.

[wwwyzzerdd]

http://marriage.abou..icenses/a/cousin.htm

[thecentipede]

the sanctity of marriage? if marraige is defined by sancity,, then what is sanctity defined by? I've always said love. sanctity is not based on what manner of genitals one posses. Love=marraige. I'm not really somone who believes in marraige in a legal sense because marraige isn't necessarily the goal or value of everyone. i belive that love is sacred and that it boils down to more of an issue then puzzle pieces in how someone has sex.

thinking there is only one more "bastion" of morality in society doesn't sound very pure to me. non-tolerance is actually the most impure thing I can think of.

[Cereal]

At 10/16/06 01:52 AM, JoS wrote: We cannot allow homosexuals to amrry. We must preserve the sanctity of the institution of marriage. It is a special bond between a man and a women. It is pure and cannot be corrputed by sodomites. It is a tradition as old as man, the last bastion of moral decency.

Habitat: Ontario, Canada mand I thought you were cool

Marrige should be burned, it only causes complications >:(

[goozebump]

I noticed the irony in the thread JOS..Anyway i hate those asses who ay stuff about "preserve the sanctity of marriage" but have no qualms about cheating on their spouses. Thats where the real problems is. But nooo they won't discuss that. hypocrites.

[JackLee]

The way I see this argument is this. Think of marriage as a club. Straight people invented it, practiced it for thousand of years, and they have the right to deny anyone they wish into the club. Straight people have the rights to the club. At the same time, when those in charge wish to include gays into this club, so be it.

What the gays should do, they should go and create their own little club that is like marriage, but call it something different and practice it in a way that is unique to them and gay culture. They should however have the same benefits of a married couple, as gay people also pay taxes and contribute to society.

[EnragedSephiroth]

I agree JoS, don't let homos marry (boo), save the sanctity of marriage, will somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN?! and so on...

[goozebump]

At 10/16/06 02:59 AM, JackLee wrote: The way I see this argument is this. Think of marriage as a club. Straight people invented it, practiced it for thousand of years, and they have the right to deny anyone they wish into the club. Straight people have the rights to the club. At the same time, when those in charge wish to include gays into this club, so be it.

what the hell ae yout talking about, marriage was their way longer than "Straight/christianity" etc; Who is "in charge" of marriage? I thought it was jsut love between two people in front of a commitment to God? WHat the hell is it your business? Are yous peaking for god now, blasphemous.

[xXpolygraphXx]

Your being sarcastic, right? With all the celebrity marriage things? Honestly, celebrity marriages are a bigger problem than gay marriage.

Marriage and religion don't necessarily have a direct link anymore. Marriage is a type of legal agreement between two people (usually a man and woman).

I think any two people who love eachother that deeply should be able to get married regardless of gender.

I REALLY hate the "homophobes" who are so strongly against gay marriage but would give anything to see lesbians making out. There's no such thing as homophobic, grow up...

[JackLee]

At 10/16/06 03:45 AM, goozebump wrote:

At 10/16/06 02:59 AM, JackLee wrote: The way I see this argument is this. Think of marriage as a club. Straight people invented it, practiced it for thousand of years, and they have the right to deny anyone they wish into the club. Straight people have the rights to the club. At the same time, when those in charge wish to include gays into this club, so be it.

what the hell ae yout talking about, marriage was their way longer than "Straight/christianity" etc; Who is "in charge" of marriage? I thought it was jsut love between two people in front of a commitment to God? WHat the hell is it your business? Are yous peaking for god now, blasphemous.

I was using it as an analogy, I wasn't referring literally to marriage as being a club. Who is in charge? There are obviously people in charge who dictate what constitutes as marriage, ie. the pope, George Bush. Both you and I also also have our views as what constitutes as marriage. Ultimately, in our culture it is straight people that decide if gays marry or not, and as marriage is a cultural aspect of straight people, they have every right to decide whether or not they want to include gays into the circle. The fact that gays cannot marry at the moment I feel is a reflection on the fact that as a whole straight people do not want to allow gays into the marriage circle.

I did not include god into my analogy because I feel that these days marriage is more a component of our culture (specifically straight culture), and less to do with religion.

[goozebump]

At 10/16/06 04:14 AM, JackLee wrote:

I did not include god into my analogy because I feel that these days marriage is more a component of our culture (specifically straight culture), and less to do with religion.

"A component of straight culture." So i guess straight people should not be fashionable becuase its a component of gay culture. I should not eat pizza ebucase its a component of italian culture. I should not visit another country becuase im not a component of their culture. Or maybe something called "Equal rights for all" is not something you agree with?

[fli]

That's like one of the most retardest analogies I've read...

But being a good sport that I am, I'll go along with it.

If marriage is like a club, then marriage is subject by rules by society like a club.

Meaning, if a "club" such as Catholic Charities don't believe in something such as, say, letting openly gay people in their club, then they must follow the problems entailed by their decisions.

If they believe so strongly of those principles, then they should be willing to suffer the consequences such as losing financial support by the government tax money.

Meaning, unless there is equality on both sides, then our secular government, whose purpose is to serve all people equally, should remove the legal benefits of a marriage until gay people can marry legally and thus force the old "club rules" to be inclusive because...

A club who limits its people generally doesn't last long.

[JackLee]

At 10/16/06 04:21 AM, goozebump wrote: "A component of straight culture." So i guess straight people should not be fashionable becuase its a component of gay culture. I should not eat pizza ebucase its a component of italian culture. I should not visit another country becuase im not a component of their culture. Or maybe something called "Equal rights for all" is not something you agree with?

You are not interpreting what I am saying correctly. I am saying that certain cultures have particular aspects that they wish keep unique to themselves, which they have every right to do so. For instance, it is socially acceptable for black people to call each other the "n" word, but not white people. I would not say the N word because I respect that doing so is a unique aspect to their culture, and not an aspect they wish to share with other cultures (for obvious reasons). Cultures should have every right to pick and choose what they want to share with other cultures.

[JackLee]

At 10/16/06 04:43 AM, fli wrote: That's like one of the most retardest analogies I've read...

But being a good sport that I am, I'll go along with it.

If marriage is like a club, then marriage is subject by rules by society like a club.

Meaning, if a "club" such as Catholic Charities don't believe in something such as, say, letting openly gay people in their club, then they must follow the problems entailed by their decisions.

If they believe so strongly of those principles, then they should be willing to suffer the consequences such as losing financial support by the government tax money.

Meaning, unless there is equality on both sides, then our secular government, whose purpose is to serve all people equally, should remove the legal benefits of a marriage until gay people can marry legally and thus force the old "club rules" to be inclusive because...

A club who limits its people generally doesn't last long.

I was referring to a club in a more traditional sense, such as a club were males go to smoke cigars, as apposed to a dancing club incase there is any confusion.

Now imagine how dumb it would be if a woman wanted to go join one of these male only clubs where they smoke their cigars and dress in suits. That would defeat the purpose of making the club, and would go against the club's rules. Don't you think it would be rude of the woman to want to gain entry into this club and mess it up for some of the people, when she can just go and make her own little club that is more specific to her needs.

As for the government benefits, I was not using this analogy in such a broad context.

[MortifiedPenguins]

Thats one of the worst analagies ever made.

Because, most of the people bitching out gay marraige, are also bitching out pop culture.

Your not even making an argument here, your just showing scenes from other corrupted American values.

[LazyDrunk]

At 10/16/06 04:43 AM, fli wrote: That's like one of the most retardest analogies I've read...

But being a good sport that I am, I'll go along with it.

If marriage is like a club, then marriage is subject by rules by society like a club.

What the fuck are you talking about? Which club is ruled by society? Boy scouts?

Meaning, if a "club" such as Catholic Charities don't believe in something such as, say, letting openly gay people in their club, then they must follow the problems entailed by their decisions.

Like what?

If they believe so strongly of those principles, then they should be willing to suffer the consequences such as losing financial support by the government tax money.

You just crossed from "society" into "governmental".

Using this logic, if gay groups won't admit straight couples, they should all federal funding also. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have neither group getting a cent of my dollar, but what you're saying is actually a losing strategy. Christian groups, like Catholics, are able to raise more money than special interest groups like homosexuals for special rights. There's just more people who are willing to donate.

Meaning, unless there is equality on both sides, then our secular government, whose purpose is to serve all people equally, should remove the legal benefits of a marriage until gay people can marry legally and thus force the old "club rules" to be inclusive because...

A club who limits its people generally doesn't last long.

A club is established for the sole purpose that it can be different from the forced norm.

Have you ever started a book club? You wouldn't let a ski ball fanatic who knows jack-all about books into your club, would you? Why not?

Lastly, why would a ski ball enthusiast want to fag up a book club hodown when they could start their club, get their own members, and NOT be considered the thorn in the side of the book club.

Is it the title that homosexual people envy? The societal acceptance that they've never found anywhere else, but may in marriage? The financial benefits that come with spawning? Is it that sense of belonging that you feel is denied because you can't have your caik and eat it too?

What is stopping the gay community from establishing their own family unit?

[JudgeDredd]

At 10/16/06 03:09 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: What is stopping the gay community from establishing their own family unit?

Offspring?

Lazy is right. Nobody is stopping ppl dressing up and having a ceremony and calling it what they want. In NZ we call same sex marriages Civil Unions ...the name is one of those politically acceptable (PC) terms, but it passed thru parliment, and offers same legal staus as marriage. Legal status and societal acceptance is a BIG step forward considering the whole subject was taboo just 10 or 15 years ago.

[Rasto]

At 10/16/06 01:52 AM, JoS wrote: We cannot allow homosexuals to amrry. We must preserve the sanctity of the institution of marriage. It is a special bond between a man and a women. It is pure and cannot be corrputed by sodomites. It is a tradition as old as man, the last bastion of moral decency.

So think about you in this situation. You are a gay man thinking of getting married. All of a sudden, a group of religious fanatics somehow convinces the governor/premier/whatever of wherever you live to ban gay marriage. What would you do? Simply agree with them ruining your love life because of "tradition"? I'm sure as hell I wouldn't if I were in that situation.

[Rasto]

Also, take a look at this quote from the rules.

The "BIG ONES"

If you break these rules, you'll earn an instant ban, regardless of which moderator sees the post(s).

-Using racist, sexist, homophobic or hateful language.

[YHWH]

Er, he is a mod. He can circumvent the rules.

[SolInvictus]

damn you homosexuals, damn you!

even outside homosexuality, why is sodomy so bloody popular (even in heterosexual marriages *gasp*!)

[YHWH]

At 10/16/06 04:02 PM, UnusQuoMeridianus wrote: even outside homosexuality, why is sodomy so bloody popular (even in heterosexual marriages *gasp*!)

Because but secks feels good.

[fallen-son]

At 10/16/06 01:52 AM, JoS wrote:

lawl

nice man. i got it. ya i dont really think that anyone should be protesting gay marriage cause they arent gonna hurt anyone by getting married. all i have to say to you anti gay marriage ppl is..... come on...... COME ON

[SolInvictus]

At 10/16/06 04:03 PM, Peternormous wrote: Because but secks feels good.

so does regular secks, if it aint broke, why fix it?

[defactoidZERO]

At 10/16/06 04:52 PM, UnusQuoMeridianus wrote: so does regular secks, if it aint broke, why fix it?

but secks os for gathic industrials who think normal secks is too normal.