Jump to content
MURDERcomplexx

Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

Recommended Posts

Not only that, but by recognizing homosexual unions as marriages, the state violates the free exercise clause of the first amendment by forcing those with religious convictions about the sinfulness of homosexual actions to recognize those marriages as legitimate and to provide them legal benefits. "Unconstitutional" means it violates the constitution, and I would ask you to show me which part of the constitution it violates.

If you wanna pull that card, I'd like to point out that:

 

a. Canada's doing just fine without rampant amoral homosexuality steamrolling over every church and religious doctrine you know and love, so don't worry about it violating your 'religious convictions about the sinfulness of homosexual rights'.

 

b. If I had a religion that said to kill black people by removing their testicles and slicing into their larger arteries while hanging them upside down, the government is not my violating my 'religious convictions' and generally it's not considered violating the first amendment for the government to outlaw that behavior.

 

c. Most of the legal benefits that would affect a Christain is maybe if their tax manager was religious, or if they went and one of them had an emergency and went to a catholic hospital. It's not like, again, homosexuality will be steamrolling every church, hospital, and charity group that happens to worship God and force you to accept their rainbows, love and tolerance.

Share this post


Link to post

What rights protected by the national government? Marriage? Because first let me say I don't think marriage should a legal entity at all. Second, homosexuals have exactly the same rights as anyone else. They can marry anyone they choose, heterosexually, as is the definition of marriage under the DOMA. Not only that, but by recognizing homosexual unions as marriages, the state violates the free exercise clause of the first amendment by forcing those with religious convictions about the sinfulness of homosexual actions to recognize those marriages as legitimate and to provide them legal benefits. "Unconstitutional" means it violates the constitution, and I would ask you to show me which part of the constitution it violates.

 

Here, find it yourself: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Amends

 

In regards to that humorous picture, if you're one of those Christians who finds the OT "outdated" and "useless," there are NT prohibitions on homosexuality. So citing all those laws would be useless talking to one of them. To be clear, I'm not one of those. Second, the punishment for many of those things listed (sideburns, shellfish) was, IIRC, ceremonial uncleanliness. Yes, the punishment for things like murder, adultery, kidnapping, and homosexuality was death. Assuming, as Christians do, that the Bible is the inspired word of God, it would in fact be YOU who is not 100% morally right.

 

Well no one on this planet, not even a book from the past, is 100% morally right, sister. So don't try to pin this bad name on only me okay? Everyone and everything has their flaws. And I'm sure that even God, if he was real, himself has his flaws too. Quote this:

 

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?”

 

I would appreciate not being labeled a bigot if you can restrain yourself. If you simply must throw around such ridiculous labels, I can only assume you're bigoted against Christians. There are a lot of us.

 

Okay, find. Then how would you like me to describe you people then?

Edited by Red Dragonette

Share this post


Link to post

If you wanna pull that card, I'd like to point out that:

 

a. Canada's doing just fine without rampant amoral homosexuality steamrolling over every church and religious doctrine you know and love, so don't worry about it violating your 'religious convictions about the sinfulness of homosexual rights'.

 

b. If I had a religion that said to kill black people by removing their testicles and slicing into their larger arteries while hanging them upside down, the government is not my violating my 'religious convictions' and generally it's not considered violating the first amendment for the government to outlaw that behavior.

 

c. Most of the legal benefits that would affect a Christain is maybe if their tax manager was religious, or if they went and one of them had an emergency and went to a catholic hospital. It's not like, again, homosexuality will be steamrolling every church, hospital, and charity group that happens to worship God and force you to accept their rainbows, love and tolerance.

Removing black men's testicles... yeah, that's generally considered immoral behavior. As can be seen whenever marriage goes to a simple up or down vote like in NC, on the whole homosexuality is considered immoral as well.

 

As far as who would be effected, my problem with the current homosexual agenda is it's not about "tolerance" or "not hating someone even if you disagree with them." It's, you're going to agree with me and accept everything I do or you're a hateful homophobic bigot who doesn't deserve to breathe the same air as I do.

 

 

Not seeing it. Besides, I don't have the burden of proof here. You're making the claim that it violates the constitution, it's up to you to show that.

 

Well no one on this planet, not even a book from the past, is 100% morally right, sister. So don't try to pin this bad name on only me okay? Everyone and everything has their flaws. And I'm sure that even God, if he was real, himself has his flaws too. Quote this: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

 

Was calling me by an incorrect gender specific pronoun meant to be insulting? Because it wasn't.

 

Oh the logical problem of evil. Lovely thing. It's easily answered by Christian theology, but you don't agree with Christian theology.

 

Okay, find. Then how would you like me to describe you people then?

 

"You people." So condescending. Refer to "us people" as someone with strong convictions that differ from your own, the exact same thing I would refer to "you people" as.

Edited by philpot123

Share this post


Link to post
Second, homosexuals have exactly the same rights as anyone else. They can marry anyone they choose, heterosexually, as is the definition of marriage under the DOMA.

So, we have the right to marry who the government wants us to, but not who we really love? How is this equal?

Share this post


Link to post
So, we have the right to marry who the government wants us to, but not who we really love? How is this equal?

Define love. There are people who truly believe they are in love with inanimate objects, or pets. Now, I'm not going all Santorum here and saying legalized gay marriage will lead to people marrying dogs and whatnot. I totally agree with this handy pie chart...

 

user posted image

 

That said though, that reasoning doesn't follow. Simply the fact that you love someone or something doesn't give you the inherent right to be married to them/it in the eyes of the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Removing black men's testicles... yeah, that's generally considered immoral behavior. As can be seen whenever marriage goes to a simple up or down vote like in NC, on the whole homosexuality is considered immoral as well.

 

As far as who would be effected, my problem with the current homosexual agenda is it's not about "tolerance" or "not hating someone even if you disagree with them." It's, you're going to agree with me and accept everything I do or you're a hateful homophobic bigot who doesn't deserve to breathe the same air as I do.

You know what else was considered immoral at some point? Freedom of slaves and not beating black people. But, y'know, Christians aren't less moral now for not beating on blacks. Also as your local murderous guy, there are much pettier reasons to want someone to stop breathing the same air as you. Hey, if you don't like it, you have private property and can remove their existence from your property. Again, as far as I know gays just want to be treated like people, marry who they love and not be judged upon by Christians who are supposed to leave the judging to God. To hold hands and kiss on the streets just like straight folk. If you really want to believe that all gay people are 'you are going to agree with me and accept everything I do or you're a bigot' then you already have your prejudices and should sort them out the the big man up the stairs.

Share this post


Link to post

Define love. There are people who truly believe they are in love with inanimate objects, or pets.

Loving an object or a pet is different than loving another human being. For one, pets and objects can't give consent to marriage, and objects definitely can't feel love back. Pets can't love on the same level a human can.

 

That said though, that reasoning doesn't follow. Simply the fact that you love someone or something doesn't give you the inherent right to be married to them/it in the eyes of the law.

Why not?

Share this post


Link to post

To be utterly frank, I do not give a damn how decadently sinful my relationship with my girlfriend appears to be to anyone of any faith. I don't want to make their opinions illegal-that would be ridiculous, what would we do, require hardliners to take 'I love gays' pills or something? I do want their opinions to have exactly no legal bearing on my rights. I imagine they would feel the same way, though since I don't want to outlaw their religion or self-expression, I'm not sure what rights I could be infringing upon.

 

That's my understanding of the gay agenda, as a participant in it. My relationship is legally equal to my brothers. My sexual orientation is not a legally acceptable reason to fire, assault or harrass me. That's all I and all of the other gay people I know want.

Share this post


Link to post

You know what else was considered immoral at some point? Freedom of slaves and not beating black people. But, y'know, Christians aren't less moral now for not beating on blacks. Also as your local murderous guy, there are much pettier reasons to want someone to stop breathing the same air as you. Hey, if you don't like it, you have private property and can remove their existence from your property. Again, as far as I know gays just want to be treated like people, marry who they love and not be judged upon by Christians who are supposed to leave the judging to God. To hold hands and kiss on the streets just like straight folk. If you really want to believe that all gay people are 'you are going to agree with me and accept everything I do or you're a bigot' then you already have your prejudices and should sort them out the the big man up the stairs.

Private property? What private property? You mean the patch of land I'm renting from the government that they'll take if I stop paying rent (property tax)? That they tell me what I can and can't do with it (zoning restrictions)? Wheee property rights!

 

I never said all gay people are like that. I have several gay friends that I love very much and we get along wonderfully, despite them knowing of my "bigotry." But the agenda pushed by the MSM and often by straight gay-rights proponents is that I'm less of a person for not bowing at the feet of their agenda. I treat homosexuals like people because they ARE people.

 

Why not?

 

From a legal standpoint, there are age restrictions, such as a 50 year old man not being able to marry an 8 year old girl that he loves very much. There are also gender restrictions under the defense of marriage act. Any religious reasons you'd disagree with, but in my view the definition of marriage is set in stone no matter what the government says about it either way. I'd rather have marriage not be a legal institution anymore, it shouldn't be. Let whoever wants to have a marriage ceremony have a marriage ceremony, and whether or not it's a "real" marriage is up to God. I think the legal benefits of marriage should NOT be applied to homosexual couples but rather taken from heterosexual ones.

 

My sexual orientation is not a legally acceptable reason to fire, assault or harrass me. That's all I and all of the other gay people I know want.

 

We're in total agreement. I wouldn't fire, assault, or harass someone for being gay. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Edited by philpot123

Share this post


Link to post

Not only that, but by recognizing homosexual unions as marriages, the state violates the free exercise clause of the first amendment by forcing those with religious convictions about the sinfulness of homosexual actions to recognize those marriages as legitimate and to provide them legal benefits.

 

Marriages by other religions exist and religions don't seem to be trying to make it illegal for people of other religions to get married. Don't religions have to recognize the marriages from other religions even though they would consider practicing that religion to be immoral? Doesn't Christianity also have a problem with premarital sex, yet they will marry two non-virgins despite their immoral relationship? Heck, I'm an atheist and I'm getting married in a christian church in 3 months. Not only will they recognize my marriage despite my sinful faithlessness, but they are even doing it tongue.gif .

 

That said though, that reasoning doesn't follow. Simply the fact that you love someone or something doesn't give you the inherent right to be married to them/it in the eyes of the law.

If you love something that is capable of giving consent, why can't you marry it? Animals, children, objects etc can't give consent, so it seems like those things are covered and would not be affected by homosexuals getting married.

 

From a legal standpoint, there are age restrictions, such as a 50 year old man not being able to marry an 8 year old girl that he loves very much. There are also gender restrictions under the defense of marriage act. Any religious reasons you'd disagree with, but in my view the definition of marriage is set in stone no matter what the government says about it either way. I'd rather have marriage not be a legal institution anymore, it shouldn't be. Let whoever wants to have a marriage ceremony have a marriage ceremony, and whether or not it's a "real" marriage is up to God. I think the legal benefits of marriage should NOT be applied to homosexual couples but rather taken from heterosexual ones.

Only because the little girl is unable to give consent due to her age. Two 25 year old homosexuals are both perfectly capable of giving consent. It's not one person loving another, it's two consenting adults loving each other who would have no trouble getting married if one had different genitalia.

 

Also, marriage was more of a legal institution before it was a religious one, especially a christian one. Maybe religion should be the one to get kicked out instead of the government.

 

As a canadian, homosexual marriage hasn't changed anything except for the fact that homosexuals can get married. And that the gay pride parade has very little point to it anymore since being gay is about as normal and boring as being straight. Now it's like having a straight pride parade.

Edited by Syaoransbear

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, find. Then how would you like me to describe you people then?

You know even I've been finding the way you talk about Christians to be uncomfortable - and I think everyone will back me up when I say I'm not a bigot, but I am a Christian.

 

Like Phil said 'you people' is also rather condescending. If you do wish to refer to Christians as a group then 'Christians' would suffice. You can qualify it by saying 'right-wing Christians' if you feel the need to.

 

To a certain extent I agree with Phil that I'd like to see the legal and religious institutions of marriage completely seperated. Meaning 'marriage' is the religious thing that has no legal standing whatsoever, and everyone (hetero- or homo-sexual) gets an identical civil union if they want the legal rights.

 

And, lets face it, the rights are what matter. If everyone is getting the same 'civil union' to confer their rights then we'll all still be calling it marriage, but the right-wing types won't have so much to get stressed over.

Share this post


Link to post

Alright, alright, sorry about what I said before. I didn't mean to sound like a bigot. I just have trouble talking to people sometimes. I'm not a very social person, so sometimes I may lack curtesy and don't know any other nicer things to say. So sorry if I unintentionally offend you guys. Okay, I'll correct my statement to 'ring-wing Christians', that way I won't say like I'm grouping all Christians together, which I'm not because I've seen some nice Christians who share my beliefs about homosexual marriage.

Share this post


Link to post

Red Dragonette, even as a non-Christian I have to say that your sig could be considered insulting as well. Implying that Christians (and other theists) are childish and/or deluded is... well, possibly very offensive. It doesn't really bother me personally but I can see where some would be upset by it.

 

As for the NC situation... sad to say, I'm not very surprised. There will probably be a form of karma in operation, however, when some of the heterosexual bigots who voted the amendment to passing suddenly discover that their own common-law marriages are on the legal chopping block because of it.

Edited by prairiecrow

Share this post


Link to post

There, my sig's change. So are we all cool now or do I need some more improvement?

 

As for the link you posted, I'm seeing this happening to NC soon and I'm getting scared. I just wish there was a way to repeal Amendment 1 now or soon.

Share this post


Link to post

First, having firm convictions about something does not make me a homophobic jerk. Homophobia implies a hatred, fear, or disdain for homosexuals. Disagreeing with their lifestyle =/= hatred. So dropping that silly attack would be beneficial for everyone.

Now to get all libertarian on you: If your firm convictions take the form of state amendments to ban civil unions so that people who are all ready in them will now face serious repercussions, I'm going to call a spade a spade and say that's being an anti-homosexual jerk. It is also incredibly short sighted because in this case, it does indeed threaten common-law marriages and any other kind of legal arrangement between anyone, not just those horrid gheyz.

 

I am horribly disappointed with NC right now : ( Young people right now and libertarians, keep trying, you'll be able to kill it dead some day.

 

Twenty years ago the conversation wouldn't even be able to be had, so things are going forward, even if it the people with their heads up their butts still have their heads up their butts.

 

ETA: Just so you know, Red Dragonette, I am a Christian and have the firm conviction that it's none of my, or any other human's for that matter, business to legislate how other people relate to one another in such a thing like marriage. We do not all express our religion by making laws.

 

ETAA:

To a certain extent I agree with Phil that I'd like to see the legal and religious institutions of marriage completely seperated. Meaning 'marriage' is the religious thing that has no legal standing whatsoever, and everyone (hetero- or homo-sexual) gets an identical civil union if they want the legal rights.

 

I'd say legal benefits in most cases (filing a certain way on tax forms is in no way a right) but yeah, pretty much this. Going back to common-law and updating it to reflect different kinds of unions would work for me, too--that would solve it pretty neatly.

 

ETAAA: http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/faculty/m...ureportnov8.pdf Link I found that discusses the legal ramifications of this particular amendment. It's frickin' absurd how far this thing goes considering same-sex marriage was already illegal in NC. So yes, anyone who voted for this and knew what it was about officially gets to wear their anti-homosexual jerk and all-around bonehead labels with pride. Even the guy who sponsored it says it went too far!

Edited by Princess Artemis

Share this post


Link to post

Not only that, but by recognizing homosexual unions as marriages, the state violates the free exercise clause of the first amendment by forcing those with religious convictions about the sinfulness of homosexual actions to recognize those marriages as legitimate and to provide them legal benefits.

And by not recognizing homosexual unions as marriages, the state violates the free exercise clause of the first amendment by forcing those with religious convictions about how marriage, whether between homosexual couples or heterosexual couples, is something wonderful, and to be encouraged, to not recognize them and not provide them with legal benefits. Your point being?

 

Marriage isn't a Christian institution. There are religions other than Christianity in this country. So why should religions (and people without religious affiliations) who don't disapprove of homosexual marriage be bound by the laws of a group that claims it goes against their religious beliefs?

Edited by Layn

Share this post


Link to post
And by not recognizing homosexual unions as marriages, the state violates the free exercise clause of the first amendment by forcing those with religious convictions about how marriage, whether between homosexual couples or heterosexual couples, is something wonderful, and to be encouraged, to not recognize them and not provide them with legal benefits. Your point being?

Pretty sure his point is that the government should get out of it entirely, so would not be running afoul of free exercise either way.

 

Except he confused me by posting about his firm convictions re: homosexuality after someone was talking about the amendment in North Carolina, so I'm not entirely sure what he's saying. But that's how I'd understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Pretty sure his point is that the government should get out of it entirely, so would not be running afoul of free exercise either way.

 

Except he confused me by posting about his firm convictions re: homosexuality after someone was talking about the amendment in North Carolina, so I'm not entirely sure what he's saying. But that's how I'd understand it.

problem is that it seems there's a mentality of "if it isn't expressly allowed, it's not allowed" so the government has to "get into it" to create the effect of not getting into it at all...

 

Which is very odd, but sadly, that seems to be the way the world works...

Share this post


Link to post
Private property? What private property? You mean the patch of land I'm renting from the government that they'll take if I stop paying rent (property tax)? That they tell me what I can and can't do with it (zoning restrictions)? Wheee property rights!

 

I never said all gay people are like that. I have several gay friends that I love very much and we get along wonderfully, despite them knowing of my "bigotry." But the agenda pushed by the MSM and often by straight gay-rights proponents is that I'm less of a person for not bowing at the feet of their agenda. I treat homosexuals like people because they ARE people.

1. You can remove people from your house, your business, your institution, etc. Don't give me that bs of 'lol what property rights' you know damn well what you can do with your 'patch of land'. Your complaint is that somehow two guys who happen to have dicks have romantic feelings that makes your old man upstairs feel that his jimmies are rustled, and that gives you the right to say that gay folk can't get married. As someone else mentioned, its a violation of the constitution to impress upon someone else marriage. Marriage wasn't even originally religious; it was far more governmental than religion first.

 

2. You treat homosexuals like their getting married to each other is like someone raping an 8 year old. Is that seriously how to treat people?

Share this post


Link to post

I am also confused. It feels like trying to have the cake and eat it too. IR, defend the law while simultaneously claiming that they'd never act in the way the law does. Which makes no sense because it doesn't look like a purely legal argument.

 

Fact is, this isn't just a religious debate when people's unions are getting dissolved and will abruptly lose their health care benefits. Doing that to people is bigotry and discrimination. One could even call it social engineering. Glossing it over doesn't change reality. Nor does it change the people I know who DID drive off the cliff due to the president's race. And I won't lie about their motives because it makes someone else uncomfortable. This is reality. Don't like it, can't just slap the phrase race card on it to make it go away. In fact, the wife of the man who wrote this law came out and said it was to preserve the Caucasian race. Explain to me clearly how that is not racist if you can.

 

And yes, I'm one of those Christians who thinks the NT > the OT. If I wanted to live by the OT, I'd be Jewish.

 

Citation

 

Oh, and site sharing

http://commonsensejesus.tumblr.com/page/2

 

user posted image

Share this post


Link to post
I am also confused. It feels like trying to have the cake and eat it too.

Yeah, that's kind of how it feels some days when dealing with religion inside of gay marriage.

Share this post


Link to post

Jesus had two fathers and he did OK....

Share this post


Link to post
Jesus had two fathers and he did OK....

hahaha, this. So this. What an awesome phrase.

 

Even if someone does object to SSM on a religious basis, there is NO ACTUAL religious basis. Jesus taught that the most important commandment was to love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. "Neighbor" being everyone in the world. Therefore, if you are trying to prevent SSM, you are directly disobeying your own scriptures because I bet you wouldn't want the gay people trying to prevent YOU from getting married.

 

LOGIC, wham.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.