Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Originally posted by Darkrunner
What I hate is the homosexual propaganda machine telling us that homosexuality is perfectly normal.

And the conservative homosexuals hate the heterosexual propaganda machine telling them that homosexuality is perfectly abnormal.

Look into a mirror now and then. Heterosexuals are not moral for simply being heterosexual.

Thats all well and good but what we are talking about is changing and challenging the meaning of marriage and gays need to understand that. As it stands hetrosexuals are not considered immoral simply for being hetro whiel homosexuals are and gay marriage wont change that it would seem.

The "meaning" of "marriage" you are so nobly bound to has already lost it's religious meaning you are trying so desperately to cling on to. Your marriage was not performed in accordance with your religious establishments. And I can guarantee that.

Yet you feel you're way is right, because of what your religion says. Yet you CHOOSE to ignore your own religions view on marriage. And instead substitute it with that of societies accepted view of what marriage is. Not that of your own religion.

And as marriage is now a contractual obligation between two adults, AND the state. It is no longer a religious ceremony despite performing it at say a church or by a priest/pastor.

That is merely ritual superseded by government.

And as it is in accordance to what is acceptable by society, then should society deem it a contractual obligation between two parties and the state (not a religious ceremony) then who is to deny them for religious reasons as obviously religion has no part of it.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by mryanbrown]

EDIT: YEAH SOMEONE REBUT THAT.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by mryanbrown]

reply to post by OldDragger



Changing the meaning of marriage philosophically is everybodys bizz. We dont have to fall back and let gays just waltz on in and attach themeselves
to this meaning as if the parts are interchangeable and without any meaning other than contract or because of happiness.

Originally posted by Logarock
We dont have to fall back and let gays just waltz on in and attach themeselves
to this meaning as if the parts are interchangeable and without any meaning other than contract or because of happiness.

Why? How does this in the least bit affect you? This is starting to sound like the interracial marriage problem up until 60 years ago. So bad the gov't had to pass a law making it legal.

Interracial marriage in the United States has been fully legal in all U.S. states since the 1967 Supreme Court decision that deemed anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, with many states choosing to legalize interracial marriage at much earlier dates.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by mryanbrown


I believe I said in my original post that I believe gays should have the right to marry if they wish, or did you miss that part?

I just said homosexuality is an aberration, be it genetic or what have you.

To say that homosexuality is normal is an outright lie. If it were, then that's what everybody would be doing, would they not?

And again, I'm not some right wing religious nut. Marry whomever you wish-just don't try telling me that that behavior is normal.

reply to post by mryanbrown


Your lack of understanding about what marriage is is all the more reason it shouldnt be allowed in a gay context.

And you may have some points on a marriage not being what it should be in all ways based on some religion. But the bed is still sanctifed in a hetrosexual marriage, the union itself not being challanged here and any weak points are within that context and not a challange to the whole.

That cant be said and shouldnt be said for gay marriage. You can whittle it down to your size all you like but its all in your mind.

reply to post by Logarock


Dancing enough?
hilarious> You just waltzed right on by what I said and post utter nonsense
where's the intellect?
IS THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT TO FUTHER AND PROTECT YOUR , OR ANYONE ELES RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND VALUES?
This is my last reply to someone so, not so honest.

Originally posted by Darkrunner
reply to post by mryanbrown

 

I believe I said in my original post that I believe gays should have the right to marry if they wish, or did you miss that part?

I just said homosexuality is an aberration, be it genetic or what have you.

To say that homosexuality is normal is an outright lie. If it were, then that's what everybody would be doing, would they not?

And again, I'm not some right wing religious nut. Marry whomever you wish-just don't try telling me that that behavior is normal.

I'm not arguing your position. Just the accusation that religion has any bearing on marriage anymore. Or that the religious meaning will somehow be changed. Because that happened long ago.

I'm heterosexual. I believe in the spiritual bond between a man and a woman. But if it takes a homosexual relationship powered by actual love for an individual not specifically the sexual act to find happiness, then I find solace in allowing homosexuals to marry.

Because in that scenario there is more love in the relationship than a man and a woman who marry simply because that is the thing to do. And it's all about love.

Once love can be found, then the world can actually make a shift to naturally find balance overtime. Forcing it only complicates things.

There was a wonderful passage from Jesus I was attempting to locate but have had no luck. The summary being that Jesus was trying to teach us love above all else. Where we could love someone beyond their sex whether a man loving a man, woman loving a woman, man loving a woman, or woman loving a man.

It was about overcoming the physical form and loving someone fully for who they are. And once that is achieved then sex, and marriage is no longer necessary.

Which is why I say both sides are faulty, and as such just let the other be in peace. So that we may all rise, instead of the fallen bringing all of us down with them.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by mryanbrown]

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by mryanbrown

 

Your lack of understanding about what marriage is is all the more reason it shouldnt be allowed in a gay context.

You are right. Let's go with the dictionary definition:

▸ noun: the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony ("Their marriage was conducted in the chapel")
▸ noun: two people who are married to each other ("His second marriage was happier than the first")
▸ noun: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce) ("A long and happy marriage")
▸ noun: a close and intimate union ("The marriage of music and dance")

www.onelook.com...

Hmm, I don't see "gays" mentioned there. Maybe YOU don't know what a marriage is.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by intrepid]

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by mryanbrown

 

Your lack of understanding about what marriage is is all the more reason it shouldnt be allowed in a gay context.

And you may have some points on a marriage not being what it should be in all ways based on some religion. But the bed is still sanctifed in a hetrosexual marriage, the union itself not being challanged here and any weak points are within that context and not a challange to the whole.

That cant be said and shouldnt be said for gay marriage. You can whittle it down to your size all you like but its all in your mind.

Where is my lack of understanding? Especially after you agree marriage is not in accordance to religion. "Sanctification" has absolutely no bearing with the State. The state doesn't care because they are not the religious institution.

The rest of your post is just fluff. I'm confused by whatever point(s) you're trying to convey.

I too believe marriage should keep its historic and religious definition. I also believe salary should also keep it. We should get paid with salt just like in the good old days.

PS: It's been a long time since this forum became inadequate to discuss gay subjects.

Originally posted by Darkrunner
reply to post by mryanbrown

 

I believe I said in my original post that I believe gays should have the right to marry if they wish, or did you miss that part?

I just said homosexuality is an aberration, be it genetic or what have you.

If homosexuality is an aberration then gay marriage is a boondoggle. There is a powerfull confirmation of nature, of original intent that is found in hetrosexual marriage that is not found in gay marriage.

And even thought many join in hetrosexual marriage with less than a solid grip, violate it, demean it and discharge it, it is none the less a sacred established union to such a degree that the consequence of its abuse serve to show the truth of its order by God.

reply to post by Radiobuzz


Can we include garlic salt in that?
how about clams?
I don't see this as a "gay' issue, but an equal rights, rights garanteed as an American issue.

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Originally posted by Darkrunner
reply to post by mryanbrown

 

I believe I said in my original post that I believe gays should have the right to marry if they wish, or did you miss that part?

I just said homosexuality is an aberration, be it genetic or what have you.

To say that homosexuality is normal is an outright lie. If it were, then that's what everybody would be doing, would they not?

And again, I'm not some right wing religious nut. Marry whomever you wish-just don't try telling me that that behavior is normal.

I'm not arguing your position. Just the accusation that religion has any bearing on marriage anymore. Or that the religious meaning will somehow be changed. Because that happened long ago.

I'm heterosexual. I believe in the spiritual bond between a man and a woman. But if it takes a homosexual relationship powered by actual love for an individual not specifically the sexual act to find happiness, then I find solace in allowing homosexuals to marry.

Because in that scenario there is more love in the relationship than a man and a woman who marry simply because that is the thing to do. And it's all about love.

Once love can be found, then the world can actually make a shift to naturally find balance overtime. Forcing it only complicates things.

There was a wonderful passage from Jesus I was attempting to locate but have had no luck. The summary being that Jesus was trying to teach us love above all else. Where we could love someone beyond their sex whether a man loving a man, woman loving a woman, man loving a woman, or woman loving a man.

it was about overcoming the physical form and loving someone fully for who they are. And once that is achieved then sex, and marriage is no longer necessary.

Which is why I say both sides are faulty, and as such just let the other be in peace. So that we may all rise, instead of the fallen bringing all of us down with them.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by mryanbrown]

You and I are in agreement then somewhat.

Coming from a libertarian standpoint, I don't care if someone wants to marry their dog, as long as it harms no one else more power to em.

It's not something I would partake in, but I've got enough # going on in my own life with work, bills, relationships without having to worry about my neighbor marrying another dude. Whatever floats your boat, is what I think.

Originally posted by Radiobuzz
I too believe marriage should keep its historic and religious definition. I also believe salary should also keep it. We should get paid with salt just like in the good old days.

PS: It's been a long time since this forum became inadequate to discuss gay subjects.

lol. That's the funny point. Is everyone wants marriage to stay in accordance with religion.

Then you can only marry a virgin, and must make a trade proportionate to her value. The woman and husband have no say in the matter. Just the fathers. And the father may sell his bride to whomever he wishes.

If she isn't a virgin, the father of the bride must pay back the father of the groom. And the bride must immediately be put to death.

Not to mention a bride is eligible for marriage at what was it? 12 or 13?

Anyone who wants marriage to follow religious establishments is nothing but a slave trading, murderous pedophile.

EDIT: Except if you listen to Jesus. And Jesus was essentially like...

"Homosexuality is bad, but you as humans are not worthy to judge it as a sin. Therefor ESS TEE EFF YOU. Love them, and let them be and I will handle it when they die."

[edit on 10-7-2010 by mryanbrown]

reply to post by Logarock


JUST ANSWER THIS SIMPLE QUESTION PLEASE!
IS THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT TO FUTHER AND PROTECT YOUR , OR ANYONE ELES RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND VALUES?

Or will you evade and run.....again?

Originally posted by Radiobuzz

PS: It's been a long time since this forum became inadequate to discuss gay subjects.

A gay subject isnt being discussed here. Marriage is.

With "gay subjects" I meant any sort of subject with the word "gay" on it.

Originally posted by Radiobuzz
With "gay subjects" I meant any sort of subject with the word "gay" on it.

You should change your avatar background color, because purple on grey makes my eyes bleed.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Radiobuzz

PS: It's been a long time since this forum became inadequate to discuss gay subjects.

A gay subject isnt being discussed here. Marriage is.

You must be in the wrong thread then:

"Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional" And the law doesn't agree with you.

Edit: I noticed you didn't answer my above post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 10-7-2010 by intrepid]

reply to post by Logarock


Got to hand it to you!
you will be a God lovin' queer, uh, disliking, homphobic, hide prejudice behind religion neanderthal thinkin boy till the end! Reminds me of the good ol boys that swore they would never accept no 'n-word's! Good company! You are amazing.