Gay Marriage 2008- Topic revisited

[Summa]

In other news, some species of sharks are reproducing a-sexually!!!!! WHATZZZZ???? EVOLUTION B4 OUR EYES!!!!?!?!?!?!? EAT THAT EVANGELICAL FUNDAMENTALISTS!

wow, why do i get the feeling that this thread will soon degrade into dead baby jokes?


i think we came to a conclusion a while ago that this is strictly economical for our government which is shit b/c they are putting a price on their citizens happiness, and for the most part evangelicals are just pissed over the word marriage. many people in america are wage slaves, having to live pay check to pay check and submit to their employer to stay alive in this world. if we were to change the employee's title to slave and the employer's to master, or even indentured servant and master, shit would hit the fan, but in essence slavery is occurring. ahhhhh the power of words! don't you just love them?

[Zerzera]

I would rather eat my kid than to see him grow up to be a DAMN DIRTY HOMO

Who says you are even capable of reproducing?

[TagMor]

[IMG] [/IMG]

[Liquid Blue]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the way tax structures of most states are set up, don't the states get more money out of you if you file joint taxes?

so wouldn't everyone be saving more money by letting gay couples marry?

[genocidal]

I was going to let this alone since wark is way out of his element, but what the hell I like kicking a dead horse.

So be it, the whole argument from Christians about gay marriage is the "marriage" portion of it, if it was a gay union sanctioned by the state and not the church, that has every government ruling from a marriage in it but leaving out god it wouldn't be a problem. This isn't gays wanting rights, its gays attacking the church because the church is by the writings of god against gayness.

This is categorically wrong. There is nothing correct about what you think the debate is about.

Let's start with the religious aspect first. The state has no ability to tell a church whether or not they can marry (or "unionize") gay people in their church. I'll say it one more time: the government has no right to tell a church what to do. At best it's a state issue which would end up being overturned when brought before a federal court because, after all, separation of church and state is a two-way street. It means both that religion may not enter the state's domain and that the state may not enter religion's domain.

To segue into my next point, why do you think there is a huge debate around preachers talking politics from the pulpit? You guessed it! Separation of church and state. Why does the state cares about separation of church and state on this one issue but not as much on others (like 10 Commandments in front of courthouses)? You guessed it! Economics (read: taxes).

Which brings me to my second point about how you're totally mischaracterizing your own opinion on the debate: it's the economy, stupid! (Thanks Carville.) The government doesn't want to give tax breaks to gay couples which is the only thing marriage means as far as the state is concerned. Sure people you listen to pay lip service to marriage "being between a man and a woman because the Bible says so," but that doesn't fucking matter as far as the state is concerned because they only have the ability to tax.

Any gay couple can get married in a church willing to perform the ceremony, it's just that the state won't recognize that marriage in the legal sense. The debate is over the legal sense, not some religious sense. The fact that people like wark muddle these two up confuses the debate and makes people inject their emotions into it, which is exactly what evangelicals want. It's a brilliant strategy because people don't want to think, they want to feel.

Because I really want wark to understand my point I'm going to give a reader's digest version of what I just typed:

1) Separation of church and state means two things: no church in state and no state in church.
2) The state, thus, only has power to control marriage in the legal sense - which means taxes. The real debate is about economics.
3) Conservative evangelicals confuse the political and the religious in order to make people think they are logically connected by, ironically, appealing to their emotions. This is incorrect.

<Insert pointless news article about some British woman not liking gays>

Dude listen: what I (and Epi) posted was not arguing with your stance at all. I am showing you why your stance doesn't matter because that's not what the debate is about. The debate is about tax breaks for gay marriages, or no tax breaks. The semantics argument is a red herring used to fool people like you into bringing emotions into their viewpoint on the debate. Oddly enough, you and I functionally agree on this matter.

So exactly why the fuck are you posting articles about British retards who take jobs that conflict with their religious beliefs?

Do you want to address what I've said big man? Or are you just going to post another news article, not germane to any discussion being had, and say, "wow i owned that genoicdal fuck how does it feel to be owned by a high school dropout in every thread: fuck gays they are dirty foul humans that lord our savior will burn!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

And the funniest part is that for all intents and purposes wark is pro-gay marriage.

[kthx]

I'm not pro gay marriage, I am pro homosexuals doing whatever they want to do as long as it isn't called marriage. However, when their filth spews out into the street and it affects me and my future family then I will be offended.

[Troll King]

Yet you don't have a problem with your filth spewing out here and offending people. Hell, you often champion people who do that here, saying they bring life to this community.

I'm still trying to figure out how whether people you don't know and may never know can possibly affect you or the children that you may someday sire. Seriously, how much of an impact would it have on your life?

[genocidal]

I'm not pro gay marriage, I am pro homosexuals doing whatever they want to do as long as it isn't called marriage. However, when their filth spews out into the street and it affects me and my future family then I will be offended.

Don't you get it though? You have no say over someone's free speech. If a church wants to marry two people and call it marriage that's up to them. If a church wants to marry two people and call it "the Lord's Christfuck of Allah's dick in Jesus's asshole" then they can.

[Fluffz]

Well i think the equalisation of different partnerships in the last 50 years created Problems (at least in my country). Before i continue let me state 2 things:

A.) Kids learn different things from males and females. This is what i got taught this is why most schools try to have an equal amount of male and female teachers.
B.) Western culture is a good thing.

So even if you give the same rights to a gay couple it might be not beneficial for the child. But actually thats not even my concern, as long as those kids are a minority society will probably gain strength. A far bigger problem is the process of equalisation in general.
The state used to support families, by giving the same rights to flat sharers, gays or short term relationships government had to cut this support. One law is applied to everyone, thats why there is no tax difference between a pair that wants a child and one that doesnt. That is a small part of the first world problem: Decline of births. Of course the equalisation had benefits (an old couple that lives together reduces health care costs for example) but is not perfect.

Ok, so we allow the gay couple to adopt the child and start supporting them just alike. Well thats not going to be fair either. A woman cant work when she is pregnant, and while she has to breastfeed her baby. This lack of income is a huge problem. To be honest id rather separate the 2 forms of partnership and give increased financial support to the religious man-woman relationship. Gays call for equal rights, but as long as they cant give birth to a baby thats not fair. A millionaire doesnt belong in the same tax bracelet with Joe the plumber either. And if you are reading this Joe, i am abusing you for my cause.

[Epinephrine]

So even if you give the same rights to a gay couple it might be not beneficial for the child. But actually thats not even my concern, as long as those kids are a minority society will probably gain strength. A far bigger problem is the process of equalisation in general.
The state used to support families, by giving the same rights to flat sharers, gays or short term relationships government had to cut this support. One law is applied to everyone, thats why there is no tax difference between a pair that wants a child and one that doesnt. That is a small part of the first world problem: Decline of births. Of course the equalisation had benefits (an old couple that lives together reduces health care costs for example) but is not perfect.

Wait, so you think people have kids because they can get tax benefits??! Is that why poor people have way more kids than rich people? The reasons why people in richer nations don't have kids extends FAR beyond gay marriage. For example, Japan and Hong Kong have the lowest birth rates in the developed world, and you better believe they do not support gay marriage.

In fact supporting having kids and gay marriage are mutually exclusive. Here in Canada, everyone who has a kid gets a cheque from the government. The more kids, the more cheques. And yet we were one of the first nations on Earth to allow gay marriage.

Ok, so we allow the gay couple to adopt the child and start supporting them just alike. Well thats not going to be fair either. A woman cant work when she is pregnant, and while she has to breastfeed her baby. This lack of income is a huge problem. To be honest id rather separate the 2 forms of partnership and give increased financial support to the religious man-woman relationship. Gays call for equal rights, but as long as they cant give birth to a baby thats not fair. A millionaire doesnt belong in the same tax bracelet with Joe the plumber either. And if you are reading this Joe, i am abusing you for my cause.

Wait, isn't this an argument against ALL adoption? ANYONE who adopts a kid from gay couple from Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt gets an advantage because they don't have to take time off work and don't have to breastfeed. This isn't an argument against gay marriage, it's an argument against ALL ADOPTION.

[Izor]

Women should never be working in the first place. As a man, you should be providing enough money for the family so that someone can look over the kids

[Squeezer]

Women should never be working in the first place. As a man, you should be providing enough money for the family so that someone can look over the kids

I don't know how to feel about you and Wark.

On one hand, you're not stupid. On the other hand you both are.

Please explain more about this.

[DankNuggets]

Wwjd?

I'm just going to address the strictly religious part of this debate-

In the Bible, some rules, lessons, laws -- whatever you want to call them -- ARE valued differently.

In fact, as the Bible was written over the course of hundreds if not thousands of years (we're still rewriting it). It could easily be said that he more important stuff is near the end. At least that's what Evangelicals believe.

And I'm a Lutheran (that's an evangelical church, btw). Guess what? There were several homosexual partners that were members of our church. Some were even "staff" in the church. Some even read the daily lessons in the middle of service. Guess what, here in the center of South Carolina (America's kneepit), in the middle of an evangelical church, we are tolerant, even accepting of homosexuals. Why? Because it's WHAT JESUS WOULD DO.

Jesus added two commandments-- did you forget about these?

paraphrased (i don't have my Bible open next to me):

1) Love thy brother
2) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you


Since when are homosexuals not our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, children, neighbors?

Since when would you have a group deny your right to marriage?

I don't remember Jesus' sermons on why we should judge and hate homosexuals... because there not there... he practiced tolerance and "turn the other cheek" -- something absolutely no one wants to do anymore, for any reason what so ever.



Also in the Bible: "Let thee without sin cast the first stone"

Why the fuck are you judging these people? Why the fuck can't you follow your own religion, instead of the pastor's personal beliefs?



It sickens me to see people use religion to condemn others, no does any religion explicitly say that you should make it your own personal crusade to belittle your fellow man.

You guys are complete trolls. No one else would say things like "i'd rather eat a fetus" or "i'd punch my gf in the stomach" and still claim to have morals.

Good thing is, you guys are the minority -- just look at the microcosm of this game.

[Pandagirl!]

And I'm a Lutheran (that's an evangelical church, btw). Guess what? There were several homosexual partners that were members of our church. Some were even "staff" in the church. Some even read the daily lessons in the middle of service. Guess what, here in the center of South Carolina (America's kneepit), in the middle of an evangelical church, we are tolerant, even accepting of homosexuals. Why? Because it's WHAT JESUS WOULD DO.

ELCA I'm guessing?

[Kolar]

Wait, so you think people have kids because they can get tax benefits??! Is that why poor people have way more kids than rich people?

There's a lot of ways for you guys to save money. For example, you're all shootin' up, why not share needles? That's a no brainer. More money in your wallet, more drugs in your veins. My second piece of advice have as many kids as you can, cause it makes it more likely that one of those kids'll grow up and make it big in Hollywood. Then who's paying the bills, huh? Hollywood kid. Class dismissed.