rbz123 wrote...
Ok let's fucking define that shit shall we:
wikipedia wrote...
Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual and/
or legal union of individuals that creates kinship.
But I bet that's not good enough so here's another.
Merriam-Webster wrote...
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union <the>
People think they've got a good argument because they skipped over some minute details that's already been posted... I'm pretty sure you conveniently skipped over what I said about the origins of marriage which makes it pretty much a religious rite from the beginning.
rbz123 wrote...
Does it fucking say anywhere that religion has to be a part of it? So what if their religion says marriage is holy. All that everyone else did, was take this idea and made it into a
legal social contract. The marriage itself isn't necessarily religious even though it was formed by the religious. It's only "holy" to the religious. People can get married without a bible involved. All that the gays want is to change that "man and a woman" shit. Are they forcing religious people to have gay holy weddings?
Again, skipping over details that I've already posted:
I wrote...
I'm fine with gays getting benefits. But for them to intrude on a ceremony that these church goers hold sacred is kind of a bitch move.
If you're not smart enough to pick up my message from this, then I have nothing further to argue, cause it might get too complicated...
rbz123 wrote...
For you to imply that the idea of marriage belongs to the religious is a douche move. The religious also think that statues of jesus are sacred but if I break one am I taking away their religious freedom? It's simply a big fuck you to religion and that's all. I'm not stopping them from crying to jesus when they find out he was broken.
How is it a douche idea? The ceremony of marriage was created by religion. If you think about it, that's all I said. I never said the
union between a couple belonged to religion.
When the fuck did we bring statues in? This is a completely different situation. What you're talking about is also known as defacement of public/private property. Relevant? No.
rbz123 wrote...
Not through motherfucking law it isn't. When religious assholes tell us what to do because it's part of their "belief" because it's part of the fucking law, then that goes against religious freedom(which includes the freedom to not be religious)
Again, seeing as how it's a religious matter how is it the states problem?
It's like Waar's waifu game (Sorry Waar). Even if the scale is different, it's the same basic idea. He said, "If anyone has less than 50 posts, they can't pick waifus." In normal circumstances that would be considered discrimination. But why can't the state put a ban on it (besides the fact that it's such a small matter)? Because it's Waar's idea and Waar's game.
Now if Waar said, you can't choose waifus outside of our game, THEN we've got an issue.
Just like the church, though they are against homo-sexuality, all they're saying is don't use their religious ceremony to bond against their laws. But do they try and forcefully stop gays from having sex? No, I think not. (Though, there are fanatics out there who might)
rbz123 wrote...
Everybody argues based on opinion, but the fact is the gays want to be equal, yet the religious say, "god says no so the law should too."
Gays can be equal outside of religion. Since, when do gays care about a religious bonding anyway? Just get a social bonding, the end.
rbz123 wrote...
No one is taking away their right to believe that fags are nasty and they shouldn't get married. They could cry about gay marriage all they want to their sky daddy, but we sure as fuck should not let them have their stupid beliefs in law.
Fair enough. As I said, make sure they aren't intruding on religious ceremonial laws and by legal law, all that's required legally is a marriage license. Nothing more, nothing less.
rbz123 wrote...
Yes we fucking do. That's like saying, did the people of america as "spectators" have the right to even complain or stick up for one side or another during the holocaust? Different situations, yet a pretty similar idea.
I don't see a mass slaughter or an intrusion upon human rights. Union between gays are okay. Just make sure they aren't doing a ceremony.
I'm pretty sure if you read my posts correctly you might have picked these up yourself. Try arguing my points after your done with a PMS storm with God, and you might find it in your decency to actually comprehend my posts.