How was this not posted? Gay marriage
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=181846
Printed Date: 04 February 2026 at 5:55pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: How was this not posted? Gay marriage
Posted By: Linus
Subject: How was this not posted? Gay marriage
Date Posted: 27 May 2009 at 5:15pm
|
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage
Gay marriage ban in Calif stands, says Calif Supreme Court. ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 27 May 2009 at 5:30pm
|
WOOOOO CIVIL RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
------------- <just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs> |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 27 May 2009 at 5:32pm
| Wow, that's surprising and unfortunate. |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 27 May 2009 at 5:47pm
|
Wow, lame.
-------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 27 May 2009 at 5:49pm
|
The moral majority rejoices while one of the final steps in American civil rights is pushed back by another decade. Awesome. |
Posted By: God
Date Posted: 27 May 2009 at 5:49pm
| It will be on the ballot again next election till it passes, and the marriages that were performed are still legal so I dont see this roadblock to more legal gay marriage in CA lasting very long. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 27 May 2009 at 6:16pm
|
This issue is a tough one. Do we protect the civil rights of the people of California by u[holding their decision? or Do we protect the civil rights of the gay community by overturning a vote that was made by the people of the state? Whom do we protect and whom do we urinate on with a blatant disregard for their rights as American citizens? ------------- ? |
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 27 May 2009 at 6:35pm
|
I for one am relatively pleased with this outcome. I was very displeased that proposition 8 passed, however I would have been more displeased if the courts decided to overthrow the rights of the people. I hope some form of civil unions are made legal to gays come the next election. ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 27 May 2009 at 6:44pm
|
The state should not recognize marriage at all, only civil unions.
------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> |
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 27 May 2009 at 6:46pm
I'm going to also go ahead and second this. ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Bolt3 wrote:Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 27 May 2009 at 7:08pm
Cali already does have civil unions... -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 27 May 2009 at 8:37pm
| I still don't get why anyone cares. It would be like asking me to vote whether someone who lives a block away from me could get married. I don't know them, its up to them if they want to be legally bound to one another. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 27 May 2009 at 8:40pm
This is a beautiful point. When the fancy words get boiled away, its really just some people making a decision that really doesn't concern them. That being said, it isn't the voter's fault. They were asked, and they registered their opinions. I"m glad that those opinions were upheld in the name of 'democracy' (I know that's a stretch) but on the other hand, I'm shaking my head at the idiots who thought this was something that should be as have been asked in the first place. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 27 May 2009 at 11:09pm
|
Yeah I'm glad they didn't overturn it because, what was it 70%?, of the people said and it would be unconstitutional to reject the people's decision. |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 27 May 2009 at 11:24pm
|
Gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Marriage is a religious thing, and homosexuality is generally not an accepted part of that. The issue is that religion has become such a pathetically thinned institution. The legal implications of marriage are not a good idea, and should be removed or made equal to civil unions. This issue is much deeper than dudes banging each other. It could become an issue of interaction between the church and state. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 27 May 2009 at 11:27pm
| Exactly. The state is interfering too much with religion. |
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 27 May 2009 at 11:53pm
And here I thought it was the governments place to protect the rights of the minority, whatever the majority may think? A majority of the time, the majority has their heads shoved too far up their brown eye to make the right decision. Amendments 13-15 and 19 come to mind. |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 12:15am
If marriage is a religious issue, then the state has no business regulating it unless it poses a demonstrated and direct harm to people (like child sacrifice). To say it shouldn't be allowed is to favor some religions over others by the government, which is UN-FREAKIN-CONSTITUTIONAL! If civil unions are a strictly government thing and marriage is religious, then civil unions must be available equally, and marriage should be up to religious institutions. Considering that there are such institutions that do support gay marriage, the government would be violating the first amendment (which they're already doing by regulating marriage) by disallowing their benefits while giving benefits strictly to straight couples for marriages. ------------- 
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 12:23am
|
Nevertheless, if marraige were to become a strictly religious controlled thing and civil unions a government, if the church were to disallow marraige to homosexual people, wouldn't the government have to step in on this anyways?
------------- <just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs> |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 12:26am
| No, because religion is not a corporation, or a business. |
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 12:34am
|
Ahh I see Maybe far reaching but does an all-male soccer team count as a coproration/business? ------------- <just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs> |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 1:12am
Wait wait, so athiests, jews, muslims, agnostics can't get married now? |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 1:13am
No, religion isn't but you're kidding yourself if you don't think that churches and such are. |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 1:32am
| Maybe in the 1500's? Unless you are talking about mega churches or something then yes. But traditional regular churches are for fellowship and worshiping. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 2:21am
Is it a civil right for individuals to limit the rights of others, though? |
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 3:58am
Then why was the Justice of the Peace not an ordained minister when he officiated at my buddy's wedding?
Religion is not an institution. It is a set of beliefs.
Don't you mean Civil Unions should be more equal to marriage? Aren't we just arguing over what the name of the union is and not what it legally imparts to either partner?
How so? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Monk
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 4:52am
Under one of the laws I read recently involving marriage... Yes to the athiest and agnostic part. As these are "beliefs" not held within a sanctioned church. Kinda creepy huh? |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 7:47am
Herein lies the problem. Do you want to be the one to tell an entire state that their opinion is wrong, will be reversed, and they should all go punt? This is why I'd have been behind the state of California going ahead and taking care of this without having put it to a vote in the first place. If you were dumb enough to ask what the people wanted in the first place, how do you thumb your nose at them afterwards? If they'd have taken care of it on their own, they might have been some pissed off people, but you wouldn't militarize a majority by telling them that their decision didn't count. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 7:52am
And here I thought that the government was in place to protect the rights of ALL people. Silly me. 13-15 and 19 are a good point, and prop 8 is similar in a few respects, but California dropped the ball by asking the majority in the first place. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 8:14am
|
Once again, I never can understand why people drag religion into this one. No one is trying to force churches to marry homosexuals. They shouldn't have to, as they are private institutions. However, there are tons of marriages that don't take place in churches. Why should religious groups feel threatened by gay marriage, when they are not required to perform gay marriages?
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 8:16am
|
It is going to happen. Then the push to allow 3 people to marry will begin... Then it will go to the wierdo's (wait, is that politically correct?) who want to marry their animals will start yelling, and that too will pass.
Then the pedophiles who want to marry elementary students will start spouting off about how their rights are trampled because they can't marry mulitiple children...
------------- They tremble at my name... 
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 8:29am
|
I don't think the slippery slop theory applies here, FE, but nice try. Way to compare gay people to pedophiles, zoophiles, and polygamists.
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 8:36am
actually, all of them are deviant behavior by definition. So it is not a stretch, and will happen.
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Klaus
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 8:43am
|
Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination." Leviticus 11:9-12 (King James Version)
9These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. The KJV spends twice as many passages in Leviticus condemning shrimp as they do condemning homosexuality. It also goes on to justify slavery. What cousin-touching baptists and kid-tickling mormon's don't understand is the context the anti-homosexual stuff in the Bible was written. It wasn't about being with a man so much as it was about being like a woman, i.e. being effeminate. (I've had entire courses on this subject with a brilliant biblical scholar/professor) So to take my Holy Scriptures and to twist it to attack a group of people who live their lives their own way bothers me. Civil union is seperate but equal. We all know how that works out. Marriage should be fully legal for all citizens regardless of gender or orientation. And FreeEnterprise: Same arguements they used against interracial marriage. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 8:44am
|
I sort of want to agree with part of FE's statement here. If gay marriage is universally legalized, then what is stopping someone from fighting for their rights to marry 3 or four people? Don't they 'have their rights' as well? ------------- ? |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 8:48am
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 9:29am
Two points. 1) A majority of people did not support this, in fact, an overwhelming majority disagree with the idea of the unions, what's the difference? 2) What about the economic reasons behind more than two people getting a union? Let's leave "marriage" out of this. Marriage is the religious term, the civil union is the part that affects the government side of things. The government isn't legalizing "marriage," they have no power to regulate what the churches have to do, but they do get to decide who is eligible for the benefits of a civil union. At that point, what is the difference between a civil union, and a contract? Contracts are open to more than two people, so the slippery slope theory does have atleast a little bit of ground to stand on. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 12:06pm
|
First, on point - based on my limited understanding of the wackiness known as California constitutional law, I believe this was the correct decision. Notice that the issue here wasn't whether gay marriage was constitutionally required (the same court already ruled that it was, under the old constitution), but whether the Prop 8 amendment itself was constitutional.
Of course, what California really needs is a whole new constitution, but that is a different subject.
With that out of the way, let's get right to gay marriage:
This is my favorite new argument from the no-gay-marriage crowd. Somehow, allowing gay people to marry is interfering with the religious freedom of straight religious people. Awesome.
Other thoughts:
- Gay marriage is perfectly legal in all 50 states and always has been, but only, ironically, in church. No legal effect most places, but as a matter of religious freedom, churches have always been free to marry (or not marry) whomever they want. That includes multiple marriages, children, and animals. I seem to recall reading about a minister presiding over the marriage between a man and his motorcycle.
- Which brings it back to the meaning of "marriage." I see that there are three components: legal, social, and religious.
- The government has no authority to regulate the religious aspects of marriage. The government cannot prohibit churches from doing gay marriages now, and the government will not be able to require churches to marry homosexuals when it is legal.
- The government does have full control over the legal aspects of marriage. This is the part that makes up the "civil union." In this category there is no real difference between marriage and civil unions. The government has a legitimate interest in managing family structures, but the question is how fine a line it ought to draw. Does the government have a legitimate interest in providing various tax and survivability benefits to some groups but not to others, and if so on what basis?
- The last category, the social aspect of marriage, is to me what this is all about. This is the real battleground. No little girl grows up fantasizing about her civil commitment ceremony day. There are not dozens of magazines called "female civil partner." Invitations to events are not address to so-and-so and partner. We all grow up thinking about marriage, husbands, and wives. These words have powerful social context that goes far beyond religion. In some cases, they even do have quasi-legal implications that "civil union" and "civil partner" do not.
- I do not believe it is the place of government to provide social blessing to legal structures. I would rather the government stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether, and went all civil union - REGARDLESS of whether civil unions are available to same-sex couples. This is doubly true because of the religious connotations. Government should just stay out of it.
- "Traditional marriage" is a crock. A phrase of convenience. Throughout most of human history, in most human societies, marriage was and is quite different from what Prop 8 supporters are now selling as "traditional marriage." They have selected their preferred form of marriage and designated it "traditional," despite that it represents only a small slice of historical and geographic marriage.
- There is no particular slippery slope concern with regard to legally recognized marriage to children and animals, at least not in the US. This is true simply because neither children or animals can enter into contract. But there are exceptions - note that in some states (Kansas?) children as young as 14 can marry with the blessing of their parents. And that, of course, is a far more "traditional" form of marriage than what we currently have.
- Polygamy is a different matter. Assuming everybody involved is an adult, there is no fundamental legal obstacle. As a policy matter, the government may wish to restrict the legal benefits of marriage/civil unions to certain family structures, but that is all. I also do not view this as a slippery slope, but merely as a different -but-related issue. And on a policy level, I do not see any reason why polygamy should be illegal. If anything, I would think that societal shifts over the past 50 years make polygamy an attractive family structure. And polygamy, of course, is also far more "traditional" than what we currently have.
Marriage certainly has a religious component, but not all religions have a problem with homosexuality. Basing laws on the views of one religon over another is blatantly unconstitutional. And, of course, any law that is religiously motivated is also unconstitutional, even if all the religions DO agree.
That is the grand irony of this discussion. Every Bible quote, every reference to Leviticus, every mention of "sinners", "abomination", "Hell", "God's will", and so forth - they are all powerful arguments IN FAVOR OF declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional. Every time you say that you are reinforcing the religious motivation and underpinning of the no-gay-marriage position, thereby rendering that position more and more unconstitutional.
If you plan on keeping gay marriage illegal, you need to work on SECULAR motivation and reasoning. This is of course where "traditional marriage" came from. The term is blatantly wrong, but at least legally sound.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 12:08pm
|
And lastly - why the obsession with homosexuality? The Bible prohibits a whole bunch of things, but the various anti-gay bits get such disproportionate attention. Where's the push for constitutional amendments prohibiting blasphemy or idolatry? ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 12:13pm
I've seriously spent five minutes trying to figure out how to respond to this. I'll settle on "wow" ------------- ? |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 12:16pm
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 12:27pm
Because polygamy has been the standard for most of human history, and is still the norm in much of the world today? ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: God
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 12:30pm
Yes, you are right because there is not difference or distinction between, two legally consenting adult, and a person and an animal, and an adult and a minor child. As for the legal adult and child scenerio, where is your uproar with the at the "sanctity of marriage" with the states that allow children 15-16 years old to marry? And God didnt seem to respect Joseph and Mary's marriage when he knocked up Mary with baby, Jesus. |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 12:32pm
This is a mostly Christian nation. That's why. But here we go again with the "This is isn't a Christian nation!". Clearly. But this brings us back into history when the first people who landed on our shores were Christian, escaping a state-run church. Which is why the founding fathers put in Separation from church and state in the Constitution. It is intended as keeping government out of the church and from interfering with religion. Any religion. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 12:35pm
Obviously, not the majority, so that kinda throws you argument out doesn't it? -------------
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 12:36pm
Actually I strongly agree with FE. A hundred years ago it would be unheard of to see a Black person marry a White person. Our nations morals are decaying slowly over time, and a few years from now who knows what "unheard of" thing will be passing through the courts. There has to be a cutoff point somewhere. |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 12:37pm
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 12:38pm
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That's there to keep religion from interfering with government. The First Amendment works both ways, ensuring that we are NOT a Christian nation. -------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 12:39pm
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 12:41pm
| No, I am using that as an example of what WAS unheard of, back in those times. |
Posted By: God
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 12:42pm
... That is a good thing, just as allowing homosexuals to marry is also a good thing. The same principle applys. 2 consenting adults want to marry, where is there a problem? |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 12:48pm
|
Also, I don't buy into "our morals are decaying". I'm pretty sure people were a lot worse off in our country's past. Besides the example you just provided, I'd argue that people had a weaker grasp of morality than we do today. Just look how widespread racism and exploitation of minorities, women, and the disabled were in the past compared to today. I'd like to think we've advanced morally. Look at your own example- interracial marriage. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 1:00pm
| But what I'm saying is: unheard of now, could be not that unheard of in the future. I am agreeing with FE because it is very possible. |
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 1:29pm
Your point only reinforces PP's. If we truly are a Christian nation, why do we NOT have laws prohibiting blasphemy or idolatry? The bible clearly speaks about those tenfold more than homosexuality. Hell, God told the Isrealites to run swords through the Menanites' pregnant women, dash their little ones on the ground and take the virgins for themselves just because the Menanites taught the Isrealites how to worship false idols. What about eating shrimp as Klaus pointed out? Or the literally hundreds of other archaic laws in the bible? I want to be able to rape a woman and my only punishment be I have to pay her father 50 silver pieces and marry her. That would make finding a wife exponentially easier! |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 1:51pm
That's what I said in the lines you didn't quote!  -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 1:53pm
Except it's the point that I AM arguing. You say gay marriage should be legalized over other forms of disputed relationships because a majority supports it over the others. Apparently, a majority is against gay marriage, but you still think it should happen. Why the double standard? -------------
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 2:00pm
I was going at it from the understanding that most of America is Christian, and many of those people do not approve of homosexuality. Also, the Vatican's stance...(not totally applicable but it is more or less the face of religion, even to non-Catholic folk) Personally, I do not care about this issue. Doesn't affect me. What I'm saying is, people are incapable of accepting the difference between a religious marriage and a marriage sanctioned by the government - they have become the same thing. So, when gay people demand to be 'married', religious people get in an uproar that their religious institution of 'marriage' has been tainted. I'm sure somewhere in history, someone in the church managed to get the government to adopt legal benefits of marriage, and in doing so, set this whole thing up to explode. -------------
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 2:13pm
No it is not very possible. Your example was of 2 adult people, who once were not allowed to marry for absolutely no reason. You then equated that to morals somehow. Gay marriage is also of 2 adult people. Not children, not animals. ------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 2:38pm
See: Slavery Decay of morals, that I laugh at. As far as I'm concerned, the 'morality' of any one country is a laughable subject. Morality is one's own. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 3:49pm
My mistake. I misread the entire thing. -------------
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 3:57pm
So you are saying we draw the line behind gay marriage and stop everything behind that? |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 4:13pm
|
No retard. I am saying we draw the line at 2 consenting adults. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 4:14pm
| Yeah I was JUST going to post, why not make marriage okay for two human people. Who cares if you're black, white, asian, gay, straight, 75 years old, in a wheelchair, etc. It's up to them. |
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 6:55pm
Wait, wait, you still haven't answered reb's initial question (or at least the bit I'm curious about): What about polygamist's rights? Are they not people too? ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: proteus316
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 7:00pm
From a Health Insurance/benefits standpoint, combining gay marriage/polygamy would enable groups of people to all become "married or unionized" and reap the benefits of one. Which would be a HR nightmare. If just asking why not allow polygamy, the gay marriage advocates should be behind polygamy, too. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 7:07pm
No they're soulless scum. Like gingers. |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 7:12pm
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 7:25pm
So... how is being gay an "inherent part of your being" but wanting multiple partners is not? Either you're born with it or you're not---- choose one. -------------
|
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 7:29pm
Sure it is. If you're raised in a culture of polygamy, it very much becomes your culture, the same as if you're raised Catholic or Jewish. I agree its different from homosexuality, in that it isn't genetic, but I don't think that matters. if we had laws banning Buddhists from marriage, we wouldn't say that they should just change their lifestyle.
Very reasonable of you, but specifically you said not to worry about it because "a majority of people would [never] support that". That doesn't seem to resolve the issue, since I am sure in years before the majority of people would never have supported gay marriage. Could you clarify your stance here? ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 7:29pm
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 8:10pm
|
Well, there is a portion that openly admits that they choose to go that way... -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 8:41pm
| And therefor they all do, right? |
Posted By: Klaus
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 8:54pm
|
I'm up for another civil war to settle this, because in sixty years I don't want my grandchildren to remember me as the kinda guy who didn't want black blood at the hospital because it's dirty or didn't want gays to marry because it would corrupt religion and morals. The United States may be statistically Christian, but any true follower of Christ would know he preached love and compassion, not exclusion. And someone said that the pope is the face of religion for most Christians. False. He is a bigot, and wrong often (condoms?). Faith isn't politics, it's knowledge. It corrupts religion to not allow equality and inclusion, aka by rejecting gays as part of the religion. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 9:44pm
-------------
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 28 May 2009 at 10:34pm
|
I remember when I chose to be straight.
*this argument is dumb and an aside to the real debate* ------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Glassjaw
Date Posted: 29 May 2009 at 12:47am
Why is two consenting adults any different from 3 consenting adults? ------------- |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 29 May 2009 at 10:01am
"Then it will go to the wierdo's (wait, is that politically
correct?) who want to marry their animals will start yelling, and that
too will pass.
Then the pedophiles who want to marry elementary students will
start spouting off about how their rights are trampled because they
can't marry mulitiple children..." ------------- Que pasa?
|