CosmicBills Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Supporting the premise of a law, but being against which entity took it upon itself to make that law IS possible, you know. \ Just becuase he (and I) dont think its the Fed's job the be in the marriage business, that doesnt mean we want all gays to burn in hell. Or like the debate Im in with those two nimrods on this board....just becuase a religious institution wants to limit who they marry to men and women, that shouldnt affect a gay couple from being allowed to marry through one of the many other channels to do so available to them. Why cant liberals figure this out? I am in no way, in any of my posts, attempting to judge what's in your heart, RkFast. I'll call out your dated pop cultural references as a means of poking fun, but not in a serious way. I would never assume you wanted "gays to burn in hell" even if you're against gay marriage. It's your right to be against it. But as much as you're complaining Liberals don't get your central tenant, the underlined portion of your quote above is the problem I personally have with your viewpoint. Maybe you can help me understand it (seriously, not trying to be a dick, I'm honestly asking). No (serious) person is asking the Federal Government (or State) to force any Religious institution to marry gay couples. They are asking for equal rights for gay couples under the law -- it has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with equal protection for citizens. Even if you think being homosexual is a sin (and I'm not saying you do), I think most reasonable people would agree that it's a sin that does not affect anyone other than that person. It's not as if the homosexual community is attempting to punish straight men and women for having a different sexual orientation or deny them any freedoms or rights. But what happened in NC for example is essentially straight men and women limiting the rights of people who do not share the same sexual orientation. They didn't pass legislation that said the Church doesn't have to marry gay couples -- they passed legislation that removed any option for homosexual couples to be a couple in the eye of the state. You're saying a religious institution has the right to determine who gets married and who doesn't so long as there are other channels available. But, in the most recent case, the vote was to remove ALL channels. How is that not discrimination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 You're saying a religious institution has the right to determine who gets married and who doesn't so long as there are other channels available. No. Im saying a religious institution has the right to determine who gets married and who doesnt within the confines of its doors. Thats it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Im sorry......did you say something? I did. But you wouldn't be interested in it. It was all about bad hair bands from the 80s and horrible mini-series that my grandfather watched. No. Im saying a religious institution has the right to determine who gets married and who doesnt within the confines of its doors. Thats it. But that's not what you said. You said this: "just becuase a religious institution wants to limit who they marry to men and women, that shouldnt affect a gay couple from being allowed to marry through one of the many other channels to do so available to them." In NC they not only banned gay marriage but they banned civil unions. There is absolutely no recourse left for gay couples in NC to marry -- inside the church or outside of the church. It flies in the face of what you're advocating. How do you rectify that if you're a NC citizen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 If you honestly are against gay marriage, you are probably in the closet. Why do people give 2 craps about what other people do? If gay people want to be as miserable as married straight people, let them. It doesn't affect me. And this sucks because I can't stand Mayweather. But this was a completely idiotic statement by MP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 If you honestly are against gay marriage, you are probably in the closet. If you honestly believe that, you are probably a pretentious little ****head. Just shut up already, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 If you honestly believe that, you are probably a pretentious little ****head. Just shut up already, man. Careful, he might invite you to the home opener Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 But this was a completely idiotic statement by MP. Am I the only person in the world who realizes he NEVER said anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) Am I the only person in the world who realizes he NEVER said anything? No, but Biscuit takes the first thing he hears and never lets it go. Edited May 18, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Am I the only person in the world who realizes he NEVER said anything? Nope. The topic has become more about the substance behind his words and the topic he was speaking out about rather than the specific quote. I know I'm new around here, but isn't that the norm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 No (serious) person is asking the Federal Government (or State) to force any Religious institution to marry gay couples. They are asking for equal rights for gay couples under the law -- it has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with equal protection for citizens. Even if you think being homosexual is a sin (and I'm not saying you do), I think most reasonable people would agree that it's a sin that does not affect anyone other than that person. It's not as if the homosexual community is attempting to punish straight men and women for having a different sexual orientation or deny them any freedoms or rights. This is actually the primary concern of a lot of religious people. Being mindful of the historical trend of Government intrusion being implemented incrementally, the concern is that once gay marriage is legal the church can be compelled to perform such ceremonies on the grounds of equal/civil rights. Whether this would occur or not is anyone's guess, but seeing as how the Government sees fit to compell the church to provide birth control, it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 This is actually the primary concern of a lot of religious people. Being mindful of the historical trend of Government intrusion being implemented incrementally, the concern is that once gay marriage is legal the church can be compelled to perform such ceremonies on the grounds of equal/civil rights. Whether this would occur or not is anyone's guess, but seeing as how the Government sees fit to compell the church to provide birth control, it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Quite likely that some yahoo will sue some church because their "civil right" is being withheld by said church, if gay marriage is defined at the federal law. Yet another reason to keep it at the state level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts