Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Fundalmentaly then you're unfit to continue this discussion. Arrr...Indeed.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

I don't know about that. That's like saying that just because you're not black, it means you can't argue for black rights. It would mean that the idea of politicians would be ludicrous, because they cannot possibly represent everyone in their area.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Not necessarily. You can still have a thourough knowledge of homosexuals through personal relationships (friends, family members, etc.) without actually being gay. If you’re gay, that makes you all the better for a debate that involves homosexuality, but it’s not a prerequisite.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Yet he's already missrepresented them...He doesn't know why they're doing this movement...He's bounced from one to another.......He's unfitto argue not knowing their motivation.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

well, that's a question of competency, not sexuality or personality.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

That is where I come into this thread. I am gay, no questions asked. Don't care what anyone thinks, however, I am on both sides of this argument (the reasonable ones at least).

Gay things I am for:

More rights
No more unfair treatment (hmm, sound's like a lil thing we had called 'racism' huh?).
Civil Unions.


Gay things I am NOT for:

Constant religious BS about homosexuality. (there's more to the Bible then "Men lying down with men" & "Men kept for unnatural purposes"!)

My arguments:

Yes, gays deserve more rights who could argue with that? Simply humans like the rest of us. If there's two people one was gay, the other straight, who both tried to get the same job, yet the gay is more qualified, shouldn't the gay have a better chance getting the job?

Racism is a terrible thing, now we can't exactly get rid of the KKK now can we? But if we catch them doing horrid things we can get them for murder.
What's the difference between allowing a cult (so to speak) to thrive, and yet gays (a simple group) to be put down?

Religion is religion, it has NO place in politics in this day and age. Specifically in the U.S. If someone wants to keep two men from getting married, so be it. There will probably be someone, somewhere who is willing to do so.

Now, on a less serious note, feel free to twist my words around and shove them down my throat (for those of you who do that is) because I know you will. :nodding:

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

What rights besides Marriage(a religous sacament, as it has been since the beginning of human civilization)do you lack, exactly? And as I already said, I'm for Civili Unions, but the term marriage is a religous one, and should be left up to religous folk to use.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

No, I for one feel you're completely right.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

I could really care less what the homosexual element wants, or needs. It's not a priority of mine to concern myself one way or the other with the sexual habits of others, but as far as the quote above goes. Let me just say, you hit the nail on the head!

Rep for you when possible. (It says I can’t give you anymore right now.)

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Yeah. Maybe it did about 4 or 500 years ago, but not anymore, when science has taken its place so thoroughly.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

I was mainly going for a Civil Union thing, as you mentioned.

Thanks.

I think I might implement my statement into my sig, I rather like it. Also thanks for the rep when you can give it to me.

Yep, religion's fall in politics truly began with Henry the 8th. That's when things got real messy.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

This whole topic about gay marriage is a non-issue.

A couple of things I would like to point out here. Traditions can be changed. Slavery can be abolished. Marriage can come to include two men or two women. In the end, it should only be focused around who loves who, not whose penis is going into this man's ass. Who cares what two fags down the street do to eachother at night? It is no one's business but there's. If they do not effect you, then shut the fuck up.

This isn't pedophile legislation. If that were the case, then it would effect you because your children would be at risk by sick perverts who are out to satisfy their sick fetishes.

I am against stupidity, but you don't see me yelling at all the idiots posting their bigotry in this thread.

Yay for fag marriage, no to the stupidity that exists enmass in America.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

To you, maybe it is.

This one should be left alone for the straight people, like it always has.
No, a Civil Union can, not marriage.
omgz, make me!


Clever. I am also against idiots who believe the opposite that I do, but you don't see me calling them idiots.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

I agree he was rude, but on main topic...

Why? Just because something is 'tradition', doesn't mean it should be upheld at all costs, or more specifically the cost of the rights of gays.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Why invade on our tradition at all?
Its like a screaming kid at the supermarket.
Nobody is denying them their legal rights here, at least not me. Just the name they want to steal bothers me.
Calling two men married is not only abnormal but just plain wrong.
When a kid is told someone is married that kid should not have to wonder what sex they are.
Talk about dysfunctional.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Read a few pages back about the Christian holidays thing.

J00 stole our holidays!!!!11!! :uhoh:

When a kid is told about Christmas, presents shouldn't be the first thing that comes to mind.... Same logic, yet atheists celebrate Christmas.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Apples/oranges

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

He does have a point. the christmas thing is applicable here, just requires a bit of twisting around.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

If a tradition is "changed" it is no longer tradition. Tradition is something that stays the way it is.

What a stupid thing to say.

As I said Marriage is defined by the joining of a man and a woman. Two men is not marriage, they should really make it a separate ceremony or whatever, not change one that is already there.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Marriage is the religous ceremony that unites a man in a woman in the eyes of God and a particular religon. A Civil Union unites any two people into a legally recognized union, iwth equal rights no matter who happens to get it.

What is the problem with this set up? Wouldn't it appease all parties?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

If you think of connotations, marriage does not conjure up a same-sex union. It just doesn't. It is always "do you, Jim, take Lucy..." not "Do you Jim take John...", in accordance with the title of this thread.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

It was tradition in marriages for the woman's vowes to state she will 'obey' the man. That was changed, because it was sexist. No one complained about the tradition of marriage being defiled then. So thus, should the same changes be allowed for homosexual people. It doesn't hurt the marriages going on between straight people, and won't harm your life in any way. What's the problem?

And there's no need to say I'm stupid. Most people have the tact to apologise or put it in a more polite way

What a rude thing to say.

Here are several marriage definitions for you:

the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"

A contractually committed partnership, including sexualove, cohabitation, shared economy/property and mutual childrearing.

Socially approved and legally acknowledged emotional, sexual, and economic relationship between two or more individuals.

Prior to 2003, marriage was defined as the legal conjugal union of two persons of the opposite sex. Since 2003, the definition of marriage has been changed in some provinces and territories to include the legal conjugal union of two persons of the same sex.

Marriage is a relationship and bond, most commonly between a man and a woman, that plays a key role in the definition of many families. Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures, but it has been an important concept as a socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship.

Note that not one states that it has to be between a man and a woman. In fact, in all my research only one did. That was from medieval writings. Your definition is out of date and incorrect.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Quoted for truth. Truly this solves the conflict beyond a shadow of a doubt. With civil unions, all of the legal benefits are present, and the church definition of "marriage" is not changed. Why does a gay couple feel the need to be religiously married? The two are close to being mutually exclusive.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Maybe there's a gay couple who are devout christians, and having a civil union just won't cut it for them.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

So you say, I, and many others treat that day like any other day of the week. It's good for one thing though, overtime.

Devout christians and homosexuality in the same sentence for a positive context, amounts to a stark contradiction.
Then again, hypocrisy in religion isn’t really a new thing, is it. Actually it makes perfect sense.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Well, apart from the fact that its a national holiday (at least where I am, I don't know about everywhere else, is it?).

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Regardless of the latest statements, I stand by what I said.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Then you would find a Christian church that will marry two gays.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

What's the point of even taking part in this debate, then?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

well, what if god doesn't bless this union?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Because it would still not be equality.

A comparison could be made to blacks and the usage of buses. A few decades ago, blacks were allowed to use buses, although they not allowed to travel in the front rows.

Basicly same rights, but if you go into detail you'll find out that it's still not equality.The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.
- Hannah Arendt

1. Appeal to Tradition -> Fallacy.
2. Every tradition has a beginning. Traditions become what they are by common pratice, not because it was a default behavior at the beginning. Traditions are to be maintained, but not to be made a rule.
3. Whatever behavior is first seen today, could be a tradition in 50 years.How does it work in the US?
In Germany you have to get married in a registry office and later on you can marry in a church. Although not all couples choose to marry in a church afterwards.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Too bad. Freedom of religon means any relligon quite able to deny you it's blessing if they want to.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh, sorry, I just find this funny. Comparing Gay Rights ti Civil Rights is like comparing "evil Americans" to Nazi Germany. Apples and Oranges. Acually, it is more like Apples and Shoes.

Marriae is in no way, shape, or form a right. It is not a right. It is not a right. I can't say this enough, it is not a right. It is a RELIGOUS PRACTICE. When someone says "I'm going to a wedding." I bet you don't think of a courthouse, do you? You probaly think of a Church, or, at best, a chapel.

Legally, gays should have all the same rights as straights. Civil unions would allow this. You would have EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHTS. Straights would have to get a civil union to be legally recognized as well, so it wouldn't be seperate but equal. And gays could even get a marriage if they could find a Church to do it. But any way you slice it, the term "marriage" should be left for religon to deal with.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

So, if you had no holy place that would bless your marriage/union/whatever, then you would just have to settle for a civil union.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Gay Rights are not Civil Rights?

Discrimation is discrimation.

dis‧crim‧i‧na‧tion [di-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn]
–noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.Why are atheists allowed marry?
It doesn't matter what one thinks when someone says this or that.:uhh:

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Yes. But both gays and straights would have THE EXACT SAME RIGHTS when it comes to civil unions! Marriage should be controlled by religious groups.

And atheists wouldn't have their marriage recognized by the Chruch either, so they couldn't get "married" in the same sense as two straight religous peoples. But they could still get a Civil Union that would unite them as a couple in the eyes of the law.


Explain to me why this is insulting. What is the difference, to gays or atheists or whatever, between a Civil Union and a marriage. For fucks sake, you could even refer to yourselves as married if you wanted to, no one could stop you from doing that. The only difference is that legally you would be considered a United Couple or some such thing, instead of a married couple. It is really just a matter of words, words that religions find very important.

Note that even the Catholic Church doesn't have anything against Gays getting a civil union. The Catholic church preaches equality for homosexuals. They just want to keep the Sacrament of marriage a religious thing. They find it insulting that that people want the government to interfere in their religion. Separation of Church and State also means the government has to respect churches. They can't take a religious ceremony and suit it to their needs.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

A lot of churches do marriages as a commercial service, rather than a religious one. as such, they marry atheists as well.
Alternatively, one partner could be atheist and the other christian. Then, the union includes a christian, so that counts as well.
Also, it is very difficult to prove that somebody is christian or not without a direct confessional statement - a lot of atheists know a lot about Christianity and a lot of Christians know relatively little.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

The Catholic Church only marries an atheist with a Catholic if they get a letter from their local Bishop, I believe. I don't know about other religions or churches. But whatever they choose is their choice. If they want to marry atheists then go for it. If they want to marry homosexuals go for it. I'm just saying that the term marriage should be theirs, and civil unions should be the law's form of union. Both gays and straights would have to receive a civil union to be recognized by the law as legally united. Then you would find a Church to marry you if you want, and if they want to. If not you are still united and still get whatever legal benefits or obligations come with it.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Comparing the rights of homosexuals to marry with "ridding back of the bus", or "Der Fuhrer". lol…

That’s sad, and it’s also desperation at it’s finest…

Remember the law that states the longer a message board thread gets, the probability of eventually mentioning Hitler grows exponentially? Well with out fail, it gets proven routinely, and this is no exception.

To quote a religious figure - It's not fascism. Nor is it fanaticism. Its simply right from wrong. Black and white. Good and evil. You're going to hell, and you must repent. We simply can't let such flagrant disrespect for the 'law' of 'God Almighty' go unpunished. They're sinners. Plain and simple. They can't be allowed to marry.

The above quote is the only argument i've seen that makes any sense. This is the churches deal, they dislike qeers, so they will fight it. Anything else, is just a subsection of the above. You can say it disgusts you, but all your doing is repeating what the church instilled and or taught upon you. It's not a personal issue to anyone other then those denied it.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Huh? Hitler? Wha??

"Godwin's law" states the following:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.


What does Hitler have to do with blacks? That's pretty far fetched, is it not? :uhm:






Anyway, I guess all arguments have been stated. Any further debate is pointless. From what I see, certain arguments get ignored and then "omg lolz teh marriage is holy" is repeated constantly. :kerian:

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Yea, the whole argument is just revolving around in a big circle... And the constant comparisons to Hitler are just getting pathetic...I think Nazis are brought up in almost every debate topic on FileFront...

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

I suppose it would be, if you didn’t read what I stated. However it’s plain as day.
Lets look closer, shall we:
Notice the key word of ‘or’ in there. What does the word 'or' serve as when written? As always, it suggests an alternative, not a connection.

Several arguments presented here mentioned the civil rights movement. Referring to the oppression and discrimination of blacks in American History. IE 'back of the bus'. There have also been some remarks about hitler, hence my mentioning above. Does it make sense now?

Yep!

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Well Hitler didn't like gays, and neither does Bush, or conservatives, or bigots. So I'd say it is a fair comparison.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

The must fundalmental question is...What are they being prevented from doing. Whiteshark you can't represent Gay/Lesbian. You just haven't been capable of addressing the Issues at hand.

That's not a personal slight that's a read of ability.

If the constitution is to be changed...and Likely something Will happen along those lines in the New GOvernment...

Then What right are we talking about....Right to ......what....? Mary another man? That's happend already. What would this amendment look like? Right to spousal support because I can't support myself? Right to half of everything in the marriage?

When we're dealing with two men the needs become extremely problematic.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Yup, pretty much. Really annoying.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Who cares if two men get married, or two women? Do you seriously lose sleep over it? How can you be THAT bothered by it? I don't mind if they get married...and I'm not losing sleep over it. I've got my life to live - why should I forbid homosexuals equal rights? I remember a time when there was the same stigma about interracial marriage...

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Because religous rules protect the religious person, and the people around him. So an atheist gets the same rights as the religous person - at least in Western Christianity.

An atheist can marry just like a religious person. But he can't marry his dog, religious or not.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Why are atheist allowed to Mary?

That's not the question: The question is why would they want to?

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

What makes you think our reasons, or for that matter homosexuals' reasons, differ from your reasons

1. It's traditional and customary (though increasingly less so) to marry when you've decided to live together for the rest of your life.
2. It grants you financial benefits by many nations' governments.
3. It's believed by many (though I believe the number is decreasing) to strenghten your relationship.

I could just as easily ask why on Earth followers of various mythologies want to marry. It's a tradition founded by atheists, after all:

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

Yes. Its no wonder that the rates of single motherhood are skyrocketing.

Its sad and funny how people have knocked down the institution, yet acted surprised when the problems it was preventing come back.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?
 

I thought you were bored and annoyed.
Actually yes, it is the question. You're stealing customs too. And I'm sure you're aware that the earliest recorded occurance is actually biblical. Which one you chose to adopt as numero uno is as fickled as a dipped pickle.