Author Topic: Insensative Euros Protest (Read 1263 times)

AVRO1 · « **Reply #30 on:** June 19, 2005, 06:30:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger well considering I live in a democracy or at least close ot one the majority opinion does count. Especially when I AGREE with it.

I still have yet to see anyone show me what law right now takes away from homosexual rights?????? last I checked they had the same rights as anyone else.

and again what does religion have to do with it?

Because marriage is a religious ceremony. Some religions are willing to do SSM, not allowing them to do so violates their freedom which is anti-constitutionnal.

If you can tell them who they can marry then why can't they do the same to us ?

Majority opinion counts in a democracy but it doesn't mean that that position is right. People who believed the earth was flat were dead wrong for example. If they were wrong then maybe those spaniards also are.

Your position is as hard to defend as fort Alamo.

Curval · « **Reply #31 on:** June 19, 2005, 07:40:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by fd ski
What about straight parents of all gay people ? JAIL THEM !!!

Yes. Someone is always to "blame".

lol

Gunslinger · « **Reply #32 on:** June 19, 2005, 07:49:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AVRO1
Because marriage is a religious ceremony. Some religions are willing to do SSM, not allowing them to do so violates their freedom which is anti-constitutionnal.

If you can tell them who they can marry then why can't they do the same to us ?

Majority opinion counts in a democracy but it doesn't mean that that position is right. People who believed the earth was flat were dead wrong for example. If they were wrong then maybe those spaniards also are.

Your position is as hard to defend as fort Alamo.

in the US our govt does not legislate religion. In fact when you get married it's through the GOVT that you get a marriage liscense not the church. it's the GOVT that sets the rules reguarding marriage. You don't have to be religious to get married.

No one's civil rights are being violated right now. A gay person has the same right as a strait person.

Sandman · « **Reply #33 on:** June 19, 2005, 10:08:17 PM »

It's a great big semantic argument.

The church wants to hold on to the word, "marriage" and yet there are legal benefits to a legally recognized union.

What ever you call it... How about this... Marriages are done in churches and civil unions happen anywhere else, but legally they're the same thing.

Then, everyone can just quit worrying about it.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #34 on:** June 19, 2005, 11:15:26 PM »

The problem isn't what two adults decide to do in their own home.

The problem is them going out into the public demanding that we see that there is nothing wrong with their lifestyle.

Toad · « **Reply #35 on:** June 19, 2005, 11:26:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
and yet there are legal benefits to a legally recognized union.

My comment was along this line.

WHY should their be legal benefits to ANY "recognized union".

Two people are single. They pay a certain amount of tax.

These two people form a "legally recognized union". Why should they now pay any less or any more tax then they individually did before?

RTSigma · « **Reply #36 on:** June 19, 2005, 11:37:27 PM »

I think the reason the church looks down upon it is because they believe according the Bible that a family consists of a Man, a Woman, and a child(ren).

I personally am not for gay marriage, but thats my personal opinion. Although I'm not going to go out there and beat up all gays and lesbians that marry, I'm not going to support them having children. I don't believe it is right for the CHILD to be raised in a household with two men or women as their parents. The child is going to grow up to percieve that the right way for two people to reproduce is two of the same sex. If not messed up that way, then another. That kid might grow up to be attracted to the same sex or even be angry towards children who grew up with mother/dad families.

If gays and lesbians want to be wed then let them. If they want to raise a family then too bad. A normal family should be and always will be a Male Father and Female Mother and a Child(ren).

Sandman · « **Reply #37 on:** June 19, 2005, 11:46:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
My comment was along this line.

WHY should their be legal benefits to ANY "recognized union".

Two people are single. They pay a certain amount of tax.

These two people form a "legally recognized union". Why should they now pay any less or any more tax then they individually did before?

Taxes are one thing... what about property?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #38 on:** June 19, 2005, 11:50:38 PM »

Property should be handled like any partnership. Whether it be a marraige or "Ed and Joes Pizzaria"

Toad · « **Reply #39 on:** June 20, 2005, 12:05:21 AM »

Yep, property subject to the terms in the contract, whichever one they both agree on and sign.

How about why a company gives a single individual medical coverage on himself/herself alone but if two individuals in the same company choose to form a "legally recognized union" they get improved coverage (almost always in the deductibles area) AND they get coverage of any progeny. Why is that?

SMIDSY · « **Reply #40 on:** June 20, 2005, 12:46:29 AM »

what you are all fortetting is that homosexuals are people too. gay marriage wont lead to people marrying sheep (regardless of how sexy the sheep are) because sheep cant say "i do." there is nothing wrong with people in same sex relationships. did you all know that castro street ("gay" district) in san francisco is one of the safest urban environments in the US? these human beings deserve the same rights as every other human being (exept those bastard irish!:mad:). this has nothing to do with politics, this has to do with the basic rights of humans.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #41 on:** June 20, 2005, 03:38:47 AM »

Sorry for using a cliche', but should a married person be able to marry anyone they want? They are people too, if all three or five or whatever want to marry, who are we to say no?

Answer:
In a civil or religious context, marriage is a societal approval of a relationship. If you want approval of that society, you have to follow that society's rules.

SMIDSY · « **Reply #42 on:** June 20, 2005, 05:03:01 AM »

but civil rights movement was greatly opposed (specially in the south). should we wait untill society grows up? or stand up for what is right.

PS
multiple spouses is something completely different. stay on topic. there are more gay people who want to get married than polygamists.

lada · « **Reply #43 on:** June 20, 2005, 05:21:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin

Answer:
In a civil or religious context, marriage is a societal approval of a relationship. If you want approval of that society, you have to follow that society's rules.

Do not mix marriage with religions. These 2 things are not related, depended on each other.

Few religion fanatics in europe still think so, but it doesnt matter.

Anyway there has been introduced new term, its called registred partnership. basicaly its same thing as marriage from legislativ point of view, but it has diferent name and its used for Gays, lesb.

Religion tards in europe are not that strong as they are in US, so when 20 bishops go to streets for riot, most of the people over here just laugh with finger pointed on history of europe.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #44 on:** June 20, 2005, 05:31:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SMIDSY
multiple spouses is something completely different. stay on topic. there are more gay people who want to get married than polygamists.

It is the same topic. The definition of marraige is what all the constranation is about.

Just because there are fewer folks who want it one way than another... is that a reason to ignore it? There are more straight than gays who want to be married, so lets ignore the gays.

The point is if you want official societal recognition of a relationship, there will always be rules the society sets forth to get that official recognition.