The threat of Gay marriage apparently.
- Thread starter Lord George
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Are we sure this isn't a joke? I couldn't help but laugh through it. They're complaining that their rights are going to be taken away? They're the ones denying gay people the right to get married! I can't believe how fucking stupid people can be. Who are the ones being denied rights here?
I really don't see what the problem is. Perhaps they misunderstand the issue being debated? "Gay marriage" does not mean that every single person in the world has to have sex with someone of the same gender. It means that gay people get to get married. Gay marriage can be allowed and these oppressive dipshits can live their ignorant lives exactly the same as they did before. It doesn't effect them!
I really don't see what the problem is. Perhaps they misunderstand the issue being debated? "Gay marriage" does not mean that every single person in the world has to have sex with someone of the same gender. It means that gay people get to get married. Gay marriage can be allowed and these oppressive dipshits can live their ignorant lives exactly the same as they did before. It doesn't effect them!
Yeah, under the term 'Civil Union'.Froobyx said:
I thought calling their group a 'rainbow coalition' was amusing, given rainbow colours are more generally associated with homosexualness.
Anywho, yeah, an advert by anti-homosexual bigots who want to try and make their point of view seem justified - "I'm forced to watch as my son is taught that gay marriage is ok" - Yes, because society at large is allowed to suggest that your PoV isn't the absolute truth.
Argh, I was already in a depressive mood, this video just adds to the general temporal melechonly I currently feel to the human race in general.
In the beginning ... (dun dun daaaahhh ...) religious institutions used to control marriage.
Eventually, because it became a matter of public policy, governments became involved. For many many years, religious marriage and civil marriage were conflated; very few people now think of the two as separate. But they are. You can have a marriage ceremony in a church if you want, but you still need to submit your marriage certificate to a governmental institution, or it's not valid in court.
1) As a function of government, monogamous civil marriage cannot be denied to gay men and women. It's discrimination to withhold civil rights from some citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation.
2) As a function of a religious institution, the acceptance of religious marriage of gay men and women cannot be dictated to any church by government (at least here in the U.S. - elsewhere, your results may vary). Your church is free to discriminate in the bestowal of its sacraments and rites.
-----
Calling civil marriage between gay people "civil unions" hasn't worked so far because, in practice, it has not been the functional equivalent of current civil marriage. [I think this is the essence of the Iowa court decision].
Religious people can agitate to impose their values on the rest of us, but the groups that do this are morally and ethically wrong. As a member of a religion, you don't have to like gay marriages, and your church doesn't have to perform them; you just can't stop the government from granting civil marriage. Really, as a member of a religion, you are free to believe any silly thing you want without retribution or penalty from _government_, but that does not protect you from being laughed at or judged by _other people_. While you are busy believing what you want please note that gravity still works, natural selection still happens, and there are no saviors from space to take us away before the rapture.
(By the way: There are a plenty of religious groups that agree that bans on gay marriage are morally and ethically wrong.)
There were American churches that defended slavery and Jim Crow laws. They were wrong too.
Eventually, because it became a matter of public policy, governments became involved. For many many years, religious marriage and civil marriage were conflated; very few people now think of the two as separate. But they are. You can have a marriage ceremony in a church if you want, but you still need to submit your marriage certificate to a governmental institution, or it's not valid in court.
1) As a function of government, monogamous civil marriage cannot be denied to gay men and women. It's discrimination to withhold civil rights from some citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation.
2) As a function of a religious institution, the acceptance of religious marriage of gay men and women cannot be dictated to any church by government (at least here in the U.S. - elsewhere, your results may vary). Your church is free to discriminate in the bestowal of its sacraments and rites.
-----
Calling civil marriage between gay people "civil unions" hasn't worked so far because, in practice, it has not been the functional equivalent of current civil marriage. [I think this is the essence of the Iowa court decision].
Religious people can agitate to impose their values on the rest of us, but the groups that do this are morally and ethically wrong. As a member of a religion, you don't have to like gay marriages, and your church doesn't have to perform them; you just can't stop the government from granting civil marriage. Really, as a member of a religion, you are free to believe any silly thing you want without retribution or penalty from _government_, but that does not protect you from being laughed at or judged by _other people_. While you are busy believing what you want please note that gravity still works, natural selection still happens, and there are no saviors from space to take us away before the rapture.
(By the way: There are a plenty of religious groups that agree that bans on gay marriage are morally and ethically wrong.)
There were American churches that defended slavery and Jim Crow laws. They were wrong too.
I was about to say the exact same thing! This sounds like something you'd hear on one of the slanderous campaign commercials on every station.Kiefer13 said:
Well, in America, yeah. The UK civil unions are effectivity marriages in all but name. I think its because our church lost is power and control over the masses a long time ago, and the majority of people don't really care over here. There was probably some whining from the old guard, but again, very few people care what they think anymore.SchnorriS said:
Although they aren't technically civil marriage, thats just an artifical gap created to keep the old guard quieter.
theres only 1 threat of gay marriage, straight people pretending to be married to avoid paying taxes.
tax breaks for married couples are supposed to encourage saving for children.
i have nothing against gays; but logically, they shouldnt get the tax breaks imo.
tax breaks for married couples are supposed to encourage saving for children.
i have nothing against gays; but logically, they shouldnt get the tax breaks imo.
I think we desperately need to protect Traditional Marriage or the institute will crumble. I'm just disgusted by the LIE-berals that want to destroy what marriage is all about....two people forced into marriage by their parents in order to get a huge dowry or heightened status in the community which wouldn't end in divorce unless the woman couldn't produce male children. Also, the woman couldn't leave the house.
SAVE TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE!!!
SAVE TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE!!!
