Jump to content

Gay Marriage


neverclear5
 Share

Recommended Posts

You silly sons o' bitches. :-)

 

Your hatred is obvious. You claim to know your own truth, as opposed to the Christian truth. What you fags and lesbians do is O.K. in your view. But what Christians do, including popping out little versions of themselves is wrong. But how you raise your children is OK? You can't have it both ways, and I'll bet that your hatred will come forth in your posts following mine. Mark these words...

 

Your logic is flawed, your attitudes are nasty, and you are hurting your 'point' more than helping it.

 

AKR,

 

Sex between Christians is disgusting to you? Or 'fat people'? How about sex between two gay fat people? Would you stick up for them? Or two lesbian Christians? Would you find that wrong and bad also? How many Christians have you seen having sex?

 

This thread is so full of backwards thinking, that I can't believe it. This isn't supposed to be a hate forum, it's supposed to be an ex-Christian forum, and how you snuck in here in your diapers makes me wonder...is this the place I thought it was, or is this a place for babies to post hate messages that they can't back up?

 

I mean, I can spew too. It's just not prudent or productive.

 

This kind of crap gives Ex-C a bad name, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You silly sons o' bitches. :-)

 

Your hatred is obvious.

 

we hate those that judge people for stupid things like their sexuality. we hate people that try to make gay sex, gay marriage, and gay adoption illegal. we hate people that try to fuck with the lifes of innocent people, not based on logic and evidence, but based on a dusty, old, unproven book. yeah, we hate alright. but i guess all christians do is love. :lmao:

 

 

You claim to know your own truth, as opposed to the Christian truth. What you fags and lesbians do is O.K. in your view.

 

it's pretty silly to assume someone is gay just because they defend it. that's like saying i must be black for defending black people, or have a vagina because i defend women.

 

 

But what Christians do, including popping out little versions of themselves is wrong. But how you raise your children is OK? You can't have it both ways, and I'll bet that your hatred will come forth in your posts following mine. Mark these words...

 

 

it's funny how you keep speaking of hatred. we're defending innocent people.

 

how is it both ways? in one version, they are taught to hate/judge people based on a pile of old writings that strongly lack evidence and logic. in another version, they are being raised to not judge people for such stupid reasons as their sexuality. that's like saying that because i don't want people to raise their kids as racists, that i shouldn't be able to raise mine to see people as equal. you're way off here.

 

Your logic is flawed, your attitudes are nasty, and you are hurting your 'point' more than helping it.

 

AKR,

 

Sex between Christians is disgusting to you? Or 'fat people'? How about sex between two gay fat people? Would you stick up for them? Or two lesbian Christians? Would you find that wrong and bad also? How many Christians have you seen having sex?

 

i can see you're having trouble understanding what the point of me saying that was. do you realize that i was turning the argument around on the people that say you should ban things just because you find them gross? think about it a little more. maybe you'll get it.

 

This thread is so full of backwards thinking, that I can't believe it. This isn't supposed to be a hate forum, it's supposed to be an ex-Christian forum, and how you snuck in here in your diapers makes me wonder...is this the place I thought it was, or is this a place for babies to post hate messages that they can't back up?

 

I mean, I can spew too. It's just not prudent or productive.

 

This kind of crap gives Ex-C a bad name, IMHO.

 

lol, yeah, how terrible of us for sticking up for people's sexuality. what a shame. how terriblly childish and hateful of us. you're a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an important issue to a lot of xtians because they are (rightly) concerned that they will be proven wrong yet again.

 

If gay marriage is allowed and society doesn't fall apart (which it won't) the xtians will have to make the same adjustments they had to make when interracial marriage was decriminalized and when slavery was abolished. They tried to use the babble to 'prove' that interracial marrige was wrong and slavery was right. When they didn't get their way, they all had to do an internal reboot to be able keep up and fit in with the rest of society. :phew:

 

It's an uncomfortable position to be in for anyone, especially when they are so certain they're right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can't deal with the Devil's advocate, then you aren't sure.

 

If there is no God as the bible claims, then you shouldn't bother to argue. Why do you have to defend your position?

 

Do what you must. Do what you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can't deal with the Devil's advocate, then you aren't sure.

 

If there is no God as the bible claims, then you shouldn't bother to argue. Why do you have to defend your position?

 

Do what you must. Do what you will.

 

dude, you don't even make any sense. if you're going to play devil's advocate, at least make a little sense. we have to defend our position because there's millions of people out there with a twisted sense of reality, attacking it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to church wedding. I want to have my relationship recognized and have all the legally bestowed benifits that comes with marraige. To be able to tell the insurance industry "stick that in your actuarial tables". Beyond that, it's personal. I have no religous affiliation, although my partner is catholic, so I'd rather have it just here at home surrounded by my friends and family.

 

Great Post Kenny!

 

I love the quip about the actuarial tables.

 

My current partner and I have been together for over eight years now and I find myself waffling back and forth on the issue of gay marriage. I definitely want all the legal protections that marriage currently offers, but because I don’t insist that this legal partnership be labeled “marriage” I am often the odd man out when discussing the issue with my gay friends.

 

I think this difference of opinion comes from the fact that 19 years ago my first partner died in helicopter crash at the age of 29. We had also been together for eight years when this happened. While his death was certainly the most painful thing I had ever had to deal with, what happened afterwards was in many ways worse. My first partner’s parents had been divorced since he was four years old. My partner had not seen nor heard from his farther since he was 12, and his mother and step-father had disowned him when he came out as gay at the age of 20. I had never met nor heard from ANY of his family members during our eight years together. After his death the police came to our apartment to find out his “next-of-kin.” My partner’s “family” had to be notified. I was in all legal intents and purpose his roommate.

 

To make a very long and sad story short, his biological parents sued for Wrongful Death and split $360,000. In addition they cleaned out my partner’s bank accounts (where much of MY money was being held). I was left with the debt on our car and an anger that would take years to relinquish.

 

This is why I am so impatient about the state recognizing my current partner as my next-of-kin. Even though my current partner and I have spent nearly $1000 to create legal documents binding us together, they do NOT make him part of my family like a marriage certificate does. If my current partner died in an accident tomorrow, I would still be viewed as his roommate in the eyes of the law. Only his ‘family’ can sue for Wrongful Death. I desperately want that kind of legal protection and the state can call it CRAP for all I care. Someday in future the separate-but-equal status will be seen for what it is and we can then all agree to call these arrangements marriage. But until then, I am willing to take second best.

 

I Broke Free

 

 

One more little piece of injustice

 

I finished my BS in Accounting last Christmas and found a great job at Fidelity Investments as a Mutual Fund Accountant. I was not surprised to find out that my health insurance would not be extended to my partner, but what really pissed me off is that they have a policy (to thwart insider trading) where all family members must move their investments to Fidelity. Believe it or not they have the gall to insist that Domestic Partners of gay employees must also move their investments to Fidelity! Can you believe the hypocrisy? When it comes to security, the partners of gay employees are suddenly ‘family,’ but when it comes time to dole out benefits, they are nothing but your roommate. UGH!!! :vent:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You silly sons o' bitches. :-)

 

Your hatred is obvious. You claim to know your own truth, as opposed to the Christian truth. What you fags and lesbians do is O.K. in your view. But.../snip/

This post really confuses me, dude. A few months ago you told everyone you were homosexual. This was the result of a gay woman, smarter than you, calling you on your bullshit. Are you bullshitting people again because she is no longer posting? Or are you just posting while drunk, as usual?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If two gay people get married and live next door to a heterosexual married couple, how is the marriage of the hetero couple undermined? It is still meaningful to them. Why deny gay people something that is meaningful to themselves?

 

How is society in anyway benefited by oppresing a minority of its citizens and denying something that will increase their happiness?

 

How is there anything negative for society in people expressing love and commitment to each other?

 

 

Common sense to me the answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man I love this thread. Not a single christian prepared to answer my question. If thats not proof of their attitude being a load of bollocks I don't know what is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:wicked: "Gay Marriage, does it errode the sanctity"

 

Yes, it does. Or at least we all hope so. This item is very high on Our Agenda, as was demonstrated at last month's meeting of Homosexuals Of The World Unite (HOTWU), where it got a not-surprising 100% Approval Rating. :vent:

 

Running a close second was our petition drive to get Drag Imitations Of Barbra Streisand established as an Olympic Competition. The only objections to this come from the Butch Quarter, who deny their inherent sissiness. They are still deluded in thinking that we are just like everyone else! Can you imagine? :lmao:

 

Still hotly debated was the issue of whether to admit publicly that, yes, we actually ARE all child-molesters and only wanted to infiltrate the Boy Scouts just to fuck their brains out.

:wicked::woohoo::Wendywhatever:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You silly sons o' bitches. :-)

 

Your hatred is obvious. You claim to know your own truth, as opposed to the Christian truth. What you fags and lesbians do is O.K. in your view. But.../snip/

 

 

 

This post really confuses me, dude. A few months ago you told everyone you were homosexual. This was the result of a gay woman, smarter than you, calling you on your bullshit. Are you bullshitting people again because she is no longer posting? Or are you just posting while drunk, as usual?

 

 

Roman,

 

I wasn't bullshittiing then, and I'm not now. Misunderstood in my intentions, yes; but that's my fault. Also, I said I was bi...not homosexual (only). It wasn't said as a result of any 'gay woman'.

 

I guess I need to find better ways to speak and get my point across. I can see after re-reading my stuff that it does sound pretty dumb sometimes. :twitch: But you still don't need to be so touchy. I'm just a poster.

 

If I remember correctly, you and I had words and it got nasty. Bullshit is in the eyes of the beholder, and before it's on again on, I'm outta this thread. Not blaming you, it's me that wasn't clear in my point.

 

The 'drunk as usual' comment wasn't really needed, Judge.

 

Duder

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Neverclear5 and AKR,

 

I thought the 'smilie' after my opening salvo would show that I was being sarcastic. I guess not (see above). I've actually heard 'Christians' talk that way, and I was playing Devil's, err, God's advocate, as it were. I should have just said I'll argue as an Ex-C, until a real Christian shows up. Please don't think I'm backpedaling, because why would I?

So for what it's worth, here's my point of view...

 

I have a rant on 'same sex' marriages, the hypocrosy of the 'state' and those that push for a federal constitutional amendment making it law defining what 'marriage' is, but I'll spare you that...most likely you would feel the same.

 

I wonder if it's even a Christian vs. non- Christian thing as much as it's a religious influence vs. freethought thing. My reason for saying that are the many religions worldwide that attempt to define what a man should be/do, and what a woman should be/do, not just Christianity.

 

Religions don't seem to care how we spend our money...as long as they get their share from us first. They don't care who we kill, from abortion clinic bombings to car bombings, as long as it's done in the name of the God you grew up with.

But man, oh man! When you get naked with another adult human and giggle under a blanket? Woe unto you!!

 

It's a wonder I can even get off at all, what with the dog and God both watching.

 

I hope that makes it more clear, you silly sons o' bitches. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to church wedding. I want to have my relationship recognized and have all the legally bestowed benifits that comes with marraige. To be able to tell the insurance industry "stick that in your actuarial tables". Beyond that, it's personal. I have no religous affiliation, although my partner is catholic, so I'd rather have it just here at home surrounded by my friends and family.

 

Although in the Catholic faith, a marriage hasn't occured until it has happened in a Catholic church performed by a Catholic priest.

 

If we want to go all theocracy on marriage, maybe that should be the new law, then we'll see how the homophobic xtians take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something I'm surprised no one has pointed out yet.

 

Gay marriage isn't winning any battles because indeed the US has far more evangelicals than not. It's not allowed because the bible is against it. it's punishable by death, it's an abomination. If the christians voted yes on gay marriage they'd be endorsing the sin so in a way I can see where they're coming from.

 

Here's where the flaw comes in. Why aren't they complaining that atheists can get married? Surely being an atheist is just as much an abomination unto god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone here...

 

What does 'phobic' mean?

 

Homophobic, agoraphopic, claustraphobic, etc.

 

Pardon any spelling errors, but really, what does 'phobic' mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it means you have a particular phobia which is what I think you really wanted to ask.

 

A phobia is an exaggerated irrational fear something. An illogical fear. Though to be honest I used to call bullshit on the definition because I have (what I thought) arachnophobia. Problem is I don't. I don't flinch when I see em on TV or in a book. I only flinch when I see one in person up close and not in a tank. During these moments it's completely logical to have a fear of spiders because I have previous experience with them.

 

Someone with true arachnophobia would flinch at the mere picture of a spider in a magazine. That's when it becomes an illogical fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone here...

 

What does 'phobic' mean?

 

Homophobic, agoraphopic, claustraphobic, etc.

 

Pardon any spelling errors, but really, what does 'phobic' mean?

 

Psychologically, it means "fearing," to an irrational and debilitating level. Literally, it means "hating," the opposite being "phylic" (loving.) Thus, one who is homophobic would be, literally, one who hates sameness. Psychologically, it would be one who has an irrational fear of sameness.

 

In this context, since it's used to define those that hate homosexuals, it SHOULD be homo<b>sexual</b>phobic-with-literal-and-not-psychological-meanings.

 

The other phobias you listed would be irrational fears with a psycholgical diagnosis, which is a seperate type of "phobia."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, leftopunk,

 

Thank you.

 

Then why would I be considered a 'homophobe'? I'm not 'afraid' of homosexuals. I've been called a 'homophobe', but I'm not. In fact, I'm 'Bi'. I have no irrational fear of anyone, no matter what their sexuality. Maybe some are "Bi-O-Phobes".

 

This isn't directed at you, lefto , but at those who would claim that I'm a 'homophobe' ( no names, but the initials are...well, you know...

 

As I said before (many moons ago), does that make them 'heterophobes'?

 

I'm not one, but damn, why so militant against my ideas? What are 'they' afraid of??

 

Why the big division based on sexual preference? Who really keeps this fight going?

 

BTW, atheists can get married. It has to happen in the 'court', and not in the 'church'.

 

How f*cked up is that? The same court that says 'till death do you part' for a fee, also can say 'Nevermind' for another fee.

 

The same said marriage had been consumated over and over and over.

 

But 'she' is exonerated. Thus the sincerity of my wife and her Catholic Church, and my Protestant.

 

Yeah, and I'm the sicko here, Roman. Why do you need to fuck with me?

 

Have you considered that we are on 'the same side' big guy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

duderonomy - Read my post, it explains the literal meaning of "phobic," and also point out the fallacies of the term homophobe. But it has come to be a common term for those who hate gays. I don't see how those who hate homophobes would be heterophobes, since the reason they hate them aren't that they are straight, but that they are unreasonable and prejudiced.

 

BTW, atheists can get married. It has to happen in the 'court', and not in the 'church'.

 

It can also be in a home, park, or any other indoor or outdoor setting of the couple's choosing. Just like religious weddings. If I ever get married, it obviously won't be in a church, but it's not like that's gonna make me trot on in to the courthouse either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and yes, I'm bitter. Anyone that wants to make fun of me for that...knock yourself out.

 

I just can't give too much credit or 'power' or authority to any court, that you can't question those that claim authority over any married couple that bought a license and got married in front of anyone that the State said were then 'Husband and Wife', yet when she was sick of me the Catholic Church said 'it never happened'.

 

Can I get my money back for that license? I mean, does the state or the church determine such things? Maybe they get all entangled with the fees and money, and the cost of divorce?

 

Where then, is the separation of our church and our state? Should then our unions ( of love, not labor), be sanctioned by the State? The Church?

 

Are they really separate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Neverclear5 and AKR,

 

I thought the 'smilie' after my opening salvo would show that I was being sarcastic. I guess not (see above). I've actually heard 'Christians' talk that way, and I was playing Devil's, err, God's advocate, as it were. I should have just said I'll argue as an Ex-C, until a real Christian shows up. Please don't think I'm backpedaling, because why would I?

 

 

at first, i DID think you were being sarcastic. but once you got into it, it didn't seem sarcastic or even sensical. i have no problem with someone playing devil's advocate, but the whole point of playing devil's advocate is to point out seemingly valid flaws in an argument, not spew nonsensical rebuttals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Neverclear5 and AKR,

 

I thought the 'smilie' after my opening salvo would show that I was being sarcastic. I guess not (see above). I've actually heard 'Christians' talk that way, and I was playing Devil's, err, God's advocate, as it were. I should have just said I'll argue as an Ex-C, until a real Christian shows up. Please don't think I'm backpedaling, because why would I?

 

 

at first, i DID think you were being sarcastic. but once you got into it, it didn't seem sarcastic or even sensical. i have no problem with someone playing devil's advocate, but the whole point of playing devil's advocate is to point out seemingly valid flaws in an argument, not spew nonsensical rebuttals.

 

AKR,

As Devil's advocate, I'd have to obey God's rule. Lucifer never did anything that God didn't require or ask of him. I said I was playing God's advocate. He can do anything. :wicked:

 

Again, it's my fault for not explaining myself. What I mean is if we were in a one to one conversation, you'd get what I am saying (I think). It's my posting that is flawed so many times, and I don't blame you for seeing me as an ass.

 

Have you read the Bible? Have you listened to the preaching? Have you studied the Catechisms? Talk about spew! Here's what I mean...

 

I'm not a Christian anymore, but I hate arguments and tirades against 'God' or the 'Church' that are unfounded, and based only on hatred or fear, not on facts. I think some people just go with the crowd, Christian or not.

 

I have issues with courts that take money for marriage, but then for a fee, change their mind. They quote the Bible's precepts, and marry you accordingly, yet for a few bucks they will divorce the same couple. And the Church, which is supposed to be above all of this, for a small stipend, will 'annul' a marriage. Both of them, Church and State, like it never even happened. For money.

 

So when I see the 'government' making laws concerning 'gay marriage' and ballots that propose to change the Constitution, on a state or federal level, I have to ask, where is the separation of church and state?

 

When people who love each other have to look to the government for validation of their togetherness, or the legal defenition of a couple, there is something terribly wrong. No one yet has convinced me, from what I read in the Bible, that having many many wives is a sin. Stupid yes, but not a sin. ;-) What would the 'State' think of that? Like they know the Bible or 'religion'!

 

When it comes down to health insurance and other things...does the employer care who the 'spouse' is? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But the 'Government' sure does! Why is it their business? Isn't the role of Government to promote the welfare of the people? To keep them safe, and without outside threats, that they may persue their God given unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Beyond that, Government oversteps it's purpose, and thus should be spoken to by voting, or if that doesn't do the trick, impeached and negated by popular demand.

 

Again, I really thought the 'smilie' after my post would show that I was being sarcastic. But now you know what I mean/meant. I should have been more clear in the first place. My bad.

 

You silly Sons O'... :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.