Gay Rights

But I like my liberal friends here essentially doing nothing but like botting the posts.

 

meh I dont really mind but its a little spammy. I've notice that you tend to be over the top and write loudy.
I'm not saying any of this is a bad thing its your personalty and some of them are interesting. Still sometimes it would be nice if you communicate what you believe in your own words. I would pay more attention to them. A lot of time when you write like this Its hard to read so i don't even bother.

 

You shouldn't be gay, God didn't make you that way

 

Well, I know it's not a choice. Here's something I've always wanted to ask someone...

Where in the Bible does it say being gay is a choice?

 

I don't like how the gay rights topic is something that is still being discussed.
And if your going to be deciding if people can be married then your arguments shouldn't be because of religion or because you think its disgusting.

 

Right beside the passage where it says that Jesus was white and that Muslim people worship satan and are all going to burn in hell. (which if you think about it is sort of the point if they do worship satan. )

 

I believe. if a Gay Couple get married seeing as a Marriage is Religious it should be called a "Legal Binding" and they get all the perks and benefits of a Married couple EXCEPT it is not done in a religious institution

 

Somewhat agreed. Marriage isn't necessarily a religious institution, but it is a lot of the time. There are faiths that allow same-sex marriage, and marriage is also recognized outside of religion. I think it should be called marriage, but churches should not be forced to recognize them.

 

thERE

yOU SSEEE


Society has developed a very miniscule part of the bible into one of the most debatable "problem" to date.

It should not be this way, there are much, much larger things mentioned more than once or twice in the bible.

oh, and Kappa

 

Holy Matrimony, i believe, is the religioud name for it.
I still believe honestly, that it shouldnt be called marraige due to the legal implications.
let me explain
FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND (and no computer so domeone please correvt if I'm wrong)
marraige is a binding contract between a man and a woman. Thus, they'd have to change SOOOO many documents or the meaning of marriage in soooo many documents (as it is defined inquite a few of them) that it's actually much easier to call it a partnership or something and create a lawnor somethint thay makes it synonymous... idek. But I'm pretty sure it's easier legally (and also in my preference. It's NOT the same as a marriage, and it shouldnt be called such. I dont care if it's subject to the same laws and stuff, equal rights. But i dont believe it should be called that).

 

Honestly, I don't care what they call it. If the rights are the exact same, then fine by me. The current "civil unions" in the USA don't provide the same benefits as marriage, which is why I think an extra step is necessary.

 

I'm just talking about two people getting the same legal rights as married people. They don't have to be married. Or even sexually attracted to each other. This way churches and people of faith can support the legal rights and freedoms of any two people without feeling like they are going to hell for supporting "gay marriage"
A persons faith is powerful. A long lasting marriage has everything to do with the work and faith two people have for each other. It has nothing to do with what the government thinks. This is part of the reason i think government should have nothing to do with marriage.

If that's not enough think about it this way.
Two old women come my checkout where im working. As I wrap up their candles to protect them I comment that they must have something special planned. They smile at each other in a way that only long time couples can do and one of them tells me that they are going to celebrate their fiftieth anniversary of marriage.
Here is my question, where the old ladys telling me the truth?

 

Yes, there are quite old LGBT couples, there's even two women in their nineties that go to my UU church that have been together since I think their thirties or something. (universalist Unitarian places of worship are really uber liberal and awesome to go to)

 

that's not my point. The lady's I'm talking about told me that they have been married for fifty years. Legally in the eyes of the law that's not true. Still I believe with my whole heart these women where telling the truth...do you?

 

Yes, because you don't need the state to recognize your marriage, it can just be done with a ceremony with you and your partner and you can consider that when you got married. I'm very open minded about these things.
Though the legal rights that come with a state recognized marriage are also very good. And it's sad that they need states to recognize their marriage to have custody of a child (in some cases) etc. ):

 

I believe sexual attraction is not necessary to have a strong family. If a strait father wants to get together with other strait father and raise their kids together with all the legal backing as a married couple I think that should be allowed.
I believe healthy loving family's of all types should be treated equally.

 

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 16, 2014, Original Post Date: Jul 14, 2014 ---

I'll just win this thread now.

 

Much better, now here are some other things that "I will make up from tumblr/facebook" just to keep your bigotry entertained enough to prove how ignorant you really are.
Racism, sexism, transphobia, androgynous, sapio-sexual, diversity, and remember the gayness, which you know is contagious. So what ever you do, do not drink any water, or eat anything, because somewhere down the line, some gay person/person which is transgendered or something else you don't believe in touched an ancestor of the plant or animal you eat, or drank from the same body of water that you drank from recently, and no, no amount of filters can filter out the gayness. OHHhhh ooooo, ohhhh!