What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Gay marriage (1 Viewer)

Are you for or against?

  • For

    Votes: 291 80.2%

  • Against

    Votes: 72 19.8%
  • Total voters
    363
'Maurile Tremblay said:
Others will say that atheists are discriminated against because dollar bills refer to God.
Click to expand...
I agree that this is not invidious discrimination. However, IIRC, only religious beliefs can support a determination that someone is conscientious objector entitled to a draft exemption. Atheists, no matter how philosophically opposed to violence, cannot claim the same status. So I'd say that's one, particularly narrow and somewhat funky, instance of invidious discrimination.
 
'Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
'Maurile Tremblay said:
Others will say that atheists are discriminated against because dollar bills refer to God.
Click to expand...
I agree that this is not invidious discrimination. However, IIRC, only religious beliefs can support a determination that someone is conscientious objector entitled to a draft exemption. Atheists, no matter how philosophically opposed to violence, cannot claim the same status. So I'd say that's one, particularly narrow and somewhat funky, instance of invidious discrimination.
Click to expand...
"Congress shall make no law establishing a personal philosophy regarding violence" doesn't have the same ring.
 
'wdcrob said:
'Maurile Tremblay said:
I agree with Tim that forbidding gay marriage is the last really bad, overt, invidious discrimination by the government. For now.
Click to expand...
Which is really pretty ####### amazing when you stop and think about it.
Click to expand...
And yet there are always people in this country, mostly of a social conservative bent, who are constantly moaning about how terrible our values are now, how things were much better back in a different time. I always challenge them when I hear this: when have our values ever been better than now?
 
'Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
'Maurile Tremblay said:
Others will say that atheists are discriminated against because dollar bills refer to God.
Click to expand...
I agree that this is not invidious discrimination. However, IIRC, only religious beliefs can support a determination that someone is conscientious objector entitled to a draft exemption. Atheists, no matter how philosophically opposed to violence, cannot claim the same status. So I'd say that's one, particularly narrow and somewhat funky, instance of invidious discrimination.
Click to expand...
We haven't had the military draft since the mid 1970s. Almost 40 years. Thanks to technology changing the very nature of war, I doubt we will ever need large manpower for military drafts again. So while these laws are on the books, it's a rather moot point, IMO.
 
'timschochet said:
'wdcrob said:
'Maurile Tremblay said:
I agree with Tim that forbidding gay marriage is the last really bad, overt, invidious discrimination by the government. For now.
Click to expand...
Which is really pretty ####### amazing when you stop and think about it.
Click to expand...
And yet there are always people in this country, mostly of a social conservative bent, who are constantly moaning about how terrible our values are now, how things were much better back in a different time. I always challenge them when I hear this: when have our values ever been better than now?
Click to expand...
They mean values for white men to have among themselves, not other stuff.
 
'timschochet said:
'wdcrob said:
'Maurile Tremblay said:
I agree with Tim that forbidding gay marriage is the last really bad, overt, invidious discrimination by the government. For now.
Click to expand...
Which is really pretty ####### amazing when you stop and think about it.
Click to expand...
And yet there are always people in this country, mostly of a social conservative bent, who are constantly moaning about how terrible our values are now, how things were much better back in a different time. I always challenge them when I hear this: when have our values ever been better than now?
Click to expand...
They watch too many Leave it to Beaver re-runs and think there used to be some happy utopian society in America.
 
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H.
 
'IvanKaramazov said:
Edit: Also, wage discrimination is one of the most well-studied topics in labor economics. There are literally hundreds of papers on this issue. Citing just one as if it particularly settled the issue isn't very helpful.
Click to expand...
One of the things I always wonder about with "wage discrimination" is how much is due to how the genders perceive themselves at the salary negotiation phase. What kind of studies are there that look at how aggressive men are at negotiating salary vs women?
 
SacramentoBob said:
'IvanKaramazov said:
Edit: Also, wage discrimination is one of the most well-studied topics in labor economics. There are literally hundreds of papers on this issue. Citing just one as if it particularly settled the issue isn't very helpful.
Click to expand...
One of the things I always wonder about with "wage discrimination" is how much is due to how the genders perceive themselves at the salary negotiation phase. What kind of studies are there that look at how aggressive men are at negotiating salary vs women?
Click to expand...
This is somewhat studied. Generalizing (of course), men tend to focus on salary in negotiations, and women tend to focus on other benefits - paid time off, flexible hours, health insurance, etc. They also tend to be more willing to walk away from a job if the negotiations don't go in their favor.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish said:
badmojo1006 said:
Indiana amends their criminal code to make it a crime for clergy to perform Gay Marriages.

Seriously, W T H?
Click to expand...
I wonder where the Christians are that should be ranting about the intrusion of government on religious freedoms?
Click to expand...
I'd be one if that's what was really happening.

Doesn't seem like that's what's really happening though.

Here's the Indiana code that is linked in the article:

IC 31-11-11

Chapter 11. Offenses

IC 31-11-11-1 Version a

False information in marriage license application

Note: This version of section effective until 7-1-2014. See also following version of this section, effective 7-1-2014.

Sec. 1. A person who knowingly furnishes false information to a clerk of the circuit court when the person applies for a marriage license under IC 31-11-4 commits a Class D felony.

As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.3.

IC 31-11-11-1 Version b

False information in marriage license application

Note: This version of section effective 7-1-2014. See also preceding version of this section, effective until 7-1-2014.

Sec. 1. A person who knowingly furnishes false information to a clerk of the circuit court when the person applies for a marriage license under IC 31-11-4 commits a Level 6 felony.

As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.158-2013, SEC.307.

IC 31-11-11-2 Version a

False information in verified written consent

Note: This version of section effective until 7-1-2014. See also following version of this section, effective 7-1-2014.

Sec. 2. A person who knowingly furnishes false information in a verified written consent under IC 31-11-2 commits a Class D felony.

As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.3.

IC 31-11-11-2 Version b

False information in verified written consent

Note: This version of section effective 7-1-2014. See also preceding version of this section, effective until 7-1-2014.

Sec. 2. A person who knowingly furnishes false information in a verified written consent under IC 31-11-2 commits a Level 6 felony.

As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.158-2013, SEC.308.

IC 31-11-11-3 Version a

False information concerning applicant's physical condition

Note: This version of section effective until 7-1-2014. See also following version of this section, effective 7-1-2014.

Sec. 3. An applicant for a marriage license who knowingly furnishes false information concerning the applicant's physical condition to the clerk of a circuit court commits a Class D felony.

As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.41-2005, SEC.1.

IC 31-11-11-3 Version b

False information concerning applicant's physical condition

Note: This version of section effective 7-1-2014. See also preceding version of this section, effective until 7-1-2014.

Sec. 3. An applicant for a marriage license who knowingly furnishes false information concerning the applicant's physical condition to the clerk of a circuit court commits a Level 6 felony.

As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.41-2005, SEC.1; P.L.158-2013, SEC.309.

IC 31-11-11-4

Acceptance of false information concerning applicant's physical condition

Sec. 4. A clerk of the circuit court or a deputy of the clerk who issues a license to marry, knowing that the information concerning the physical condition of an applicant is false, commits a Class B misdemeanor.

As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.3.

IC 31-11-11-5

Solemnization of marriage in violation of this article

Sec. 5. A person who:

(1) is authorized to solemnize marriages by IC 31-11-6; and

(2) solemnizes a marriage in violation of this article;

commits a Class C infraction.

As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.3.

IC 31-11-11-6

Attempt to solemnize marriage by person not authorized to solemnize marriages

Sec. 6. A person who:

(1) attempts to solemnize a marriage; and

(2) is not authorized to solemnize marriages by IC 31-11-6;

commits a Class B misdemeanor.

As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.3.

IC 31-11-11-7

Solemnization of marriage between persons prohibited from marrying

Sec. 7. A person who knowingly solemnizes a marriage of individuals who are prohibited from marrying by IC 31-11-1 commits a Class B misdemeanor.

As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.3.

IC 31-11-11-8

Failure to timely file marriage license and duplicate marriage certificate

Sec. 8. A person who:

(1) solemnizes a marriage; and

(2) fails to file the marriage license and a duplicate marriage certificate with the clerk of the circuit court not later than ninety (90) days after the date the marriage was solemnized;
Click to expand...
It appears to me that this code punishes a person for misusing a privilege afforded to them by the state (namely, solomnizing a marriage absent a state official or whatever the legal grounds would otherwise be) by furnishing false information to the clerk.

The article goes on to discuss the definition of solemnization, but it seems pretty misleading to me because if you look at the entire section here, solemnization clearly means more than just a private citizen performing a ceremony and saying "ok you're married now". It looks like solemnization is a process by which someone formally authorized to act on behalf of the state in officiating at the marriage who subsequently furnishes to the state a license making representations about the people requesting the marriage license. It looks like the state's way of making sure that someone acting as their proxy has consequences for subsequently lying about the specifics of the individuals getting married.

Incidentally, false information could apply to more than just same sex couples. It could apply to under age participants, it could apply to polyamorous groups. If Indiana had a law against interracial marriage (which of course would be both wrong and unconstitutional), it could apply to that as well. None of that would interfere with religious practices in any way as far as I can tell, just the government's recognition of what constitutes Marriage.

If I'm wrong about this and someone can show me that, I would definitely be one of those Christians who would be sharing this article on Facebook and #####ing about freedom of religion.

 
Actually, it gets even sillier, since as I re-read this, it looks like the last 2 sections which the article cites aren't even actually changing.

 
Now this is interesting and a bit strange but I suppose technically it's in keeping with the law. Just odd that the clerk felt a need to state it. It's kind of like saying you were off on a scheduled PTO instead of called in sick is falsifying company documents or something. OK, so?

LAFAYETTE, Ind., July 10 (UPI) --
Same-sex couples seeking to marry could be jailed for submitting a marriage license application in Tippecanoe County, Ind., the county clerk warned.



Indiana's marriage license application has spaces designated for "male applicant" and "female applicant," and Tippecanoe County Clerk Crista Coffey noted only one man and one woman may seek marriage in the state.



"Applicants for marriage do sign their paperwork under penalty of perjury," Coffey said, adding two men or two women applying to marry could trigger the 1997 law.



Perjury is a felony in Indiana, punishable by as much as 18 months in prison and a potential fine of $10,000.



"When our government doesn't support us, the LGB (lesbian, gay, bisexual) community, and we have all these gay-straight alliances pop up, and you have all these bullying issues, what type of message does that send to our children?," Ashley Smith, of the group Pride Lafayette, told WLFI-TV, Lafayette, Ind.
Click to expand...
(thanks Drudge for linking this story :o )

 
So this is the thread I should have bumped yesterday-

Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Not sure which thread to tack this into. But several things popped up while browsing news.google.com today-

1) Freedom to Marry gave The Atlantic an advanced script to a press conference (today I think) of its strategy and goals for the next few years

[SIZE=10.5pt]Goals [/SIZE]

  • [SIZE=10.5pt]60 percent national support, (the issue generally polls between 50 and 58 percent)[/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=10.5pt]a majority of Americans in states with gay marriage (Currently about 30%)[/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=10.5pt]a national law to overturn DOMA, [/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=10.5pt]Provide a receptive society for the Supreme Court to make the sweeping change of finding all bans on same sex marriage unconstitutional[/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=10.5pt]Put Freedom to Marry out of business[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]Strategy [/SIZE]

  • [SIZE=10.5pt](2013-2014) state legislation or ballot initiative:[/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]Illinois,[/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=10.5pt]New Jersey,[/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=10.5pt]Hawaii, [/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=10.5pt]Oregon[/SIZE]
[*][SIZE=10.5pt]2015-16[/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=10.5pt]Colorado,[/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=10.5pt]Nevada[/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=10.5pt]New Mexico[/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=10.5pt]Ohio[/SIZE]
[*][SIZE=10.5pt]Possibly:[/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=10.5pt]Arizona [/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=10.5pt]Michigan[/SIZE]
[*][SIZE=10.5pt]Push to pass the Respect for Marriage Act, which would undo DOMA and other federal marriage restrictions,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]Supported by just 18 senators and 108 representatives when it was introduced in 2011, the bill now has 42 senators and 161 representatives publicly backing it[/SIZE]

"the successes to date have depended on a deliberate, strategic approach, and it will be important to proceed in the same careful manner"

2) A.C.L.U.

In the lawsuit, the ACLU said banning gay marriage satisfies no legitimate government or child welfare concerns of the state-

The law passed in 1996 with overwhelming majorities in the state Legislature. During debate, the lawmaker who wrote the amendment, Republican House Rep. Allan Egolf, said: "This amendment does not take anything away from anyone that they now have. It is simply an expression of Pennsylvania's traditional and longstanding policy of moral opposition to same-sex marriages."

The American Civil Liberties Union announced today that it wants to challenge North Carolina’s ban on same-sex marriages by asking the state Attorney General to allow the group to amend an existing case on second-parent adoptions.

3) And then there is Indiana keeping Jesus in tears.
Click to expand...
 
Thank God for evolution!

"In every courthouse, in every proceeding and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States, they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections and rights as opposite-sex marriages under federal law," US Attorney General Eric Holder announced Saturday night in a speech to the Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group that works on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender equal rights.
Among other things, Holder told his audience:
• The Justice Department will recognize that same-sex spouses of individuals involved in civil and criminal cases should have the same legal rights as all other married couples, including the right to decline to give testimony that might violate the marital privilege. Under this policy, even in states where same-sex marriages are not recognized, the federal government will not use state views as a basis to object to someone in a same-sex marriage from invoking this right.
• The US Trustee Program will take the position that same-sex married couples should be eligible to file for bankruptcy jointly and that domestic support obligations should include debts such as alimony owed to a former same-sex spouse.
• Federal prisoners in same-sex marriages will be entitled to visitation by a spouse, inmate furloughs during a crisis involving a spouse, escorted trips to attend a spouse's funeral, correspondence with a spouse and compassionate release or reduction in sentence based on an inmate's spouse being incapacitated.
• The Justice Department will also provide death and educational benefits, through the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Program, to same-sex spouses of law enforcement officers and firefighters who suffer catastrophic or fatal injuries in the line of duty.
Click to expand...
:thumbup:

 
Cook County started issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples today.

CHICAGO (CBS) – Same-sex couples wasted no time getting marriage licenses on Friday, shortly after a federal judge ruled they don’t have to wait until June to tie the knot in Cook County.

“There is no reason to delay further when no opposition has been presented to this Court and committed gay and lesbian couples have already suffered from the denial of their fundamental right to marry,” U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman wrote in a ruling issued Friday.

Theresa Volpe and Mercedes Santos were the first couple to take advantage of Coleman’s ruling, after a Cook County judge waived the normal 24-hour waiting period for any couple to wed after obtaining a marriage license. They, along with several other couples, filed a lawsuit in state court in 2012 seeking to overturn the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. State lawmakers approved gay marriages in Illinois before that case reached a conclusion in the court system.

Cook County Clerk David Orr performed the ceremony for Santos and Volpe, who have three children. His office was the defendant in a federal lawsuit seeking to allow same-sex weddings right away, after lawmakers passed legislation forcing gay couples to wait until June 1 to get married. That technicality in the state’s same-sex marriage legislation was due to the timing of the vote.

Santos and Volpe are not the first same-sex couple to wed in Illinois, however. Late fall, a lesbian couple — Vernita Gray and Patricia Ewert — filed a lawsuit in federal court, seeking to be allowed to wed right away, because Gray is dying of cancer. Coleman granted their request, and the couple married in a private ceremony on Nov. 27, 2013.

Other couples later sued Orr — who issues marriage licenses for Cook County — seeking to allow same-sex marriages immediately for anyone who wants them. Coleman sided with those plaintiffs on Friday, citing Orr’s decision to support the plaintiffs, rather than oppose the lawsuit.

“Since the parties agree that marriage is a fundamental right available to all individuals and should not be denied, the focus in this case shifts from the ‘we can’t wait’ for terminally ill individuals to ‘why should we wait’ for all gay and lesbian couples that want to marry. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: the time is always ripe to do right,” Coleman wrote.

Orr’s office released a statement that he will begin “issuing same-sex marriage licenses immediately” in light of the judge’s ruling. Couples must wait a day after getting a marriage license before performing the ceremony.

The clerk’s office’s Bureau of Vital Records in the lower level of the Daley Center will be open an extra two hours Friday — until 7 p.m. — to allow same-sex couples to get marriage licenses after work, if they wish. However, Orr urged gay couples not to hurry to obtain a marriage license unless they plan to have a ceremony within two months. Marriage licenses are valid for 60 days after they are issued.

“Don’t rush to get your license if you have a summer wedding planned because you don’t want the license to expire before your big day,” Orr said.

Only the clerk’s office at the Daley Center will issue marriage licenses on Friday. Branch offices in the suburbs (Bridgeview, Markham, Maywood, Rolling Meadows, and Skokie) will begin issuing licenses on Monday.

Other counties were not affected by Coleman’s ruling, because the plaintiffs sued only Orr’s office, not other county clerks.

Orr’s office said the normal $60 fee for a marriage license will be waived for same-sex couples who already have a civil union license, and wish to convert their civil union date to a marriage. However, they must wait until June 1 for their marriage, because Coleman’s ruling did not address existing civil unions that might be converted to marriages.
Click to expand...
 
Judge strikes down Tex. same-sex marriage ban, paving way for shift in conservative state

In his ruling, Garcia echoed the logic used by federal judges in five other states, where recent rulings have invalidated laws that banned same-sex marriage or laws that denied recognition to gay couples married in other states. All the decisions followed the Supreme Court’s decision last year to strike down a key section of the Defense of Marriage Act, which had barred federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

These rulings have suddenly brought the prospect of same-sex marriage to some of the more conservative places in the union: Utah (where some marriages were performed), Oklahoma, Kentucky, plus politically divided Ohio and Virginia. Now Texas, the nation’s second-most-populous state and a bastion of modern social conservatism, becomes another unexpected battleground. The state has been so certain in its views that it banned gay marriage in 1997 — and again in 2003. And yet again, in 2005, when a constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions passed with 76 percent of the vote. Polls show that support for gay marriage in Texas lags behind the approval level nationwide.

In his ruling, Garcia echoed the reasoning used by other federal judges in recent decisions. He essentially found that same-sex marriage was not a new right or a privilege separate from heterosexual marriage that Texas could choose to offer or not.
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judge-strikes-down-texas-gay-marriage-ban-paving-way-for-shift-in-conservative-bastion/2014/02/26/201d6cd0-9f1f-11e3-9ba6-800d1192d08b_story.html

 
Wonder how our individual views in this have evolved in the TEN YEARS of this thread. Pretty crazy.

 
squistion said:
LinusMarr said:
Koya said:
Wonder how our individual views in this have evolved in the TEN YEARS of this thread. Pretty crazy.
Click to expand...
Mine are about the same. I like to be "consistent"....
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Peens said:
I dont believe God created Homosexuals. I think they choose to do this. Just like I dont think he created me or you to be an adulterer. That is something we CHOOSE to do.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Its like throwback Thursday in the FFA, almost made me tear up..... :mellow:

 
squistion said:
LinusMarr said:
Koya said:
Wonder how our individual views in this have evolved in the TEN YEARS of this thread. Pretty crazy.
Click to expand...
Mine are about the same. I like to be "consistent"....
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Peens said:
I dont believe God created Homosexuals. I think they choose to do this. Just like I dont think he created me or you to be an adulterer. That is something we CHOOSE to do.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That analogy from 2004 doesn't work. You're an adulterer if you give into the temptation to cheat, not just because you have the temptation.You're gay (or at least bi) if you have the temptation to get with dudes, whether or not you give into it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
squistion said:
LinusMarr said:
Koya said:
Wonder how our individual views in this have evolved in the TEN YEARS of this thread. Pretty crazy.
Click to expand...
Mine are about the same. I like to be "consistent"....
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Peens said:
I dont believe God created Homosexuals. I think they choose to do this. Just like I dont think he created me or you to be an adulterer. That is something we CHOOSE to do.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That analogy from 2004 doesn't work. You're an adulterer if you give into the temptation to cheat, not just because you have the temptation.You're gay (or at least bi) if you have the temptation to get with dudes, whether or not you give into it.
Click to expand...
I know we've covered this before, but that's not what a lot of religious conservatives use as a definition of homosexuality.

 
That would be news to me. I know some Christians think that homosexuality is not sinful unless it's acted on. I don't know of any who think it's not even homosexuality unless it's acted on.

Waiting on a ruling from Peens...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
That would be news to me. I know some Christians think that homosexuality is not sinful unless it's acted on. I don't know of any who think it's not even homosexuality unless it's acted on.

Waiting on a ruling from Peens...
Click to expand...
There have been post here over the years that essentially said that there are no homosexual virgins. Which of course begs the question...
 
Jericho said:
These threads absolutely disgusts me. It sickens me and fills me with overwhelming rage that people who claim to be good people can so callously display such ignorant bigotry and prejudice. People who will happily subjugate and dehumanize other people simply because they disagree with their lifestyle. As Men-in-Cleats (who's almost making me wish I were gay so I could reward him properly for outstanding posting here) has repeatedly pointed out, all arguments against gay marriage are vacuous, hollow and completely farcical. It's a weak charade to parade your own fears and discriminations around in the guise of such tripe as "family values" and "tradition", all the while ignoring how completely inapplicable these arguments are. Hypocrites. HYPOCRITES. You want to keep trying to build your master race? Not on my watch.
Click to expand...
Please come back Smoo!

 
bigbottom said:
Jericho said:
These threads absolutely disgusts me. It sickens me and fills me with overwhelming rage that people who claim to be good people can so callously display such ignorant bigotry and prejudice. People who will happily subjugate and dehumanize other people simply because they disagree with their lifestyle. As Men-in-Cleats (who's almost making me wish I were gay so I could reward him properly for outstanding posting here) has repeatedly pointed out, all arguments against gay marriage are vacuous, hollow and completely farcical. It's a weak charade to parade your own fears and discriminations around in the guise of such tripe as "family values" and "tradition", all the while ignoring how completely inapplicable these arguments are. Hypocrites. HYPOCRITES. You want to keep trying to build your master race? Not on my watch.
Click to expand...
Please come back Smoo!
Click to expand...
Things do change. Now it's under the guise of "religion".

 
Henry Ford said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
squistion said:
LinusMarr said:
Koya said:
Wonder how our individual views in this have evolved in the TEN YEARS of this thread. Pretty crazy.
Click to expand...
Mine are about the same. I like to be "consistent"....
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Peens said:
I dont believe God created Homosexuals. I think they choose to do this. Just like I dont think he created me or you to be an adulterer. That is something we CHOOSE to do.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That analogy from 2004 doesn't work. You're an adulterer if you give into the temptation to cheat, not just because you have the temptation.You're gay (or at least bi) if you have the temptation to get with dudes, whether or not you give into it.
Click to expand...
I know we've covered this before, but that's not what a lot of religious conservatives use as a definition of homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Well, they're wrong... as usual.

 
fatness said:
bigbottom said:
Jericho said:
These threads absolutely disgusts me. It sickens me and fills me with overwhelming rage that people who claim to be good people can so callously display such ignorant bigotry and prejudice. People who will happily subjugate and dehumanize other people simply because they disagree with their lifestyle. As Men-in-Cleats (who's almost making me wish I were gay so I could reward him properly for outstanding posting here) has repeatedly pointed out, all arguments against gay marriage are vacuous, hollow and completely farcical. It's a weak charade to parade your own fears and discriminations around in the guise of such tripe as "family values" and "tradition", all the while ignoring how completely inapplicable these arguments are. Hypocrites. HYPOCRITES. You want to keep trying to build your master race? Not on my watch.
Click to expand...
Please come back Smoo!
Click to expand...
Things do change. Now it's under the guise of "religion".
Click to expand...
It is all they have left. Actually it was pretty much all they had to begin with as the family values/tradition positions didn't hold up well to critical logical arguments (which is why they are not used much anymore).

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rockaction
  • Poll
The Death/Loss Of Religion In America
15 16 17
Replies
813
Views
21K
Goldminer1
Goldminer1
supermike80
Thread---Marital Advice
2
Replies
70
Views
2K
coopersdad
C
Terminalxylem
Older *demented* parents dating/getting remarried
2 3
Replies
112
Views
3K
WVU Alum
WVU Alum

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top