Printable View
We're a republic and have an electoral college because we don't want the vast majority of the people to have a say. If the people are too dumb to be allowed direct elections, then they're too dumb to have their oppinions taken seriously. We elect leaders because they're better than us at making decisions, and not to simply rubber-stamp any decision we desire. Bush shouldn't act in our will. He should act above it.
Ahh, it's not that we should pull the wool over our eyes; I'm all for civil unions, but I'm not too hot on the marriage thing, for reasons I've already stated.
Arguing IS nice... I appreciate this forum because it's a good environment for intelligent debate, unlike other places where people like to insult each other with low shots and stereotypes. So my side is outnumbered... I'll try to hold it up. In the meantime, I'm pretty sure I can refrain from damning people to hell or grumbling about those crazy liberals... :rolleyes:
Give it about a year. If Bush doesn't win the election, most people here will be complaining about the new president. I can almost guarantee it.
I still don't understand. Like I said, if you already know you're going to be together forever, why is the ceremony so important. And if you're a government and you're allowing homosexuals to be together in the first place, why not let them get married. Both sides of the argument are nonsensical to me.
I don't think marriage is supposed to be a right we are guaranteed by a government, it's just something we do because. If it's a statement of love and of a bond we're seeing it as, why does it matter if you make it all pretty by shelling out tons of cash? Then again, why should a ruling body have the authority to take that away? Both sides make a valid point in context with the other side, but on their own neither point makes much sense I don't think. Like I've said, this is very confusing. Maybe I'll understand when I'm married.
In my opinion, the bottom line is:
If a government decides that married couples should have advantages in any possible way, they should not restrict who is able to be married based on their sexual preference.
That's on par with saying "We will be be giving lower taxes to people who cuddles dogs. If you are allergic to dogs, that's your own bloody tough luck" or possibly even "We will be enslaving all black people" or maybe "If you are not Christian, you can't go on the unemployment benefit."
Just because he disapproves of gay marriages makes him a racist?
I think it sort of does makes him a racist. And using a bible as an excuse to hide it is ridiculous. I'm religious person, but I don't agree in everything that bible says.
Marriage is a thing of Christianity. And homosexuality is a sin according to Christianity. Therefore... it doesn't go together. :tongue:
Quote:
Originally posted by Lamia
Marriage is a thing of Christianity. And homosexuality is a sin according to Christianity. Therefore... it doesn't go together. :tongue:
Funerals are a thing of Christianity. Therefore, no one except devout non-homosexual etc. etc. Christians should die. :D
I am surprised that this has gone on for 3 whole pages. Now I am getting preped to hopefully just shut you all down...but first a couple of questions for ye!
Why is marriage so sacred? What is it refered to as the Sactatiy of Marriage?
We can't have polygamy...its just a tax loop hole.
Bulls***. Marriage is not about Christianity. Did you not read this thread? Did you not read the part were I stated that Christianity was not the first culture to have a union between two partners?Quote:
Originally posted by Lamia
Marriage is a thing of Christianity. And homosexuality is a sin according to Christianity. Therefore... it doesn't go together. :tongue:
You read the title of the thread and perhaps my post. You then posted a stupid, hypocritical and shallow argument that showed no reason or logic.
Marriage is a legal document joining two people together. Almost every culture has some form of civil union, and that is the only thing that doesn't change.
You can go on ignoring the issue with blind trust, or you can look at the real issues and debate them with us. No one cares what you post, as long as it has a valid point, and you post doesn't.
Whoop, this person's right. Everyone who isn't a Christian, please leave America. Actually, if you ARE a Christian, you should really be in the Middle East, right? Or possibly the Vatican. Everyone who isn't Chinese, please refrain from using paper. Not Roman? I sure hope you don't have a calendar (which would have to be stone, let's not forget) featuring the words 'July' and 'August' - and god dammit, if you aren't from England, don't speak the bloody language. >=/Quote:
Originally posted by Lamia
Marriage is a thing of Christianity. And homosexuality is a sin according to Christianity. Therefore... it doesn't go together. :tongue:
I saw logic and reason in that post. It might not be what you agree with, but it certainly is logic.Quote:
Originally posted by Harmless Pigeon
You read the title of the thread and perhaps my post. You then posted a stupid, hypocritical and shallow argument that showed no reason or logic.
So... you want to debate with people, but only those you agree with? Is that right?Quote:
Originally posted by Harmless Pigeon You can go on ignoring the issue with blind trust, or you can look at the real issues and debate them with us. No one cares what you post, as long as it has a valid point, and you post doesn't.
That person basically said that marriage is Christian, and that therefore only Christian people should get married. Not only is that blind discrimination, but it also is racist. What kind of logic is that?Quote:
Originally posted by DocFrance
I saw logic and reason in that post. It might not be what you agree with, but it certainly is logic.
So... you want to debate with people, but only those you agree with? Is that right?
Gays aren't a separate race. Christians aren't a separate race. It's not racism. "Race"-ism. Discrimination, perhaps, but not racism. Thus, noone here is racist on account of their posts in this thread.
"Racist" is generally the most convenient term to use, considering that "sexual orientationist" sounds like crap.