Kansas bans gay marriages - Page 3

Johnj · 04-07-2005, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chango

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnj

They are married, and have no plans of having children. Ahhhhh right. Which one are you talking to?

I've talked to them both. You're saying that the only reason anyone gets married is to have children?

No I said marriage is and has been defined as a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. Only your co-worker and the co-workers spouse know why they got married, but I bet it ends up with a baby in somebody's arms, as long as one is a male and the other female.

I also didn't say two people who don't currently plan to have children can't or shouldn't get married.

TiberiusAD · 04-07-2005, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madmartagen

what does religion have anything to do with marriage?

Marriage is an ancient concept. One could say the idea is as old as religion. There is no set people, religion, or place that came up with the idea, it roots go from ancient Asia, to Native Americans and Ancient Egyptians/Romans.

It is a Cultural establishment, and every culture in the world...past and present views the tradition in a different way. Our culture says it is a religious ceremony of union legal to government and legal to god.

So, many Americans believe that to violate the tradition of Marriage is to violate the laws of god. This of course is not the case in some other cultures.

Sgt>Stackem · 04-07-2005, 07:22 AM

[quote="Short Hand":56df9]Colemon, stackum,johnj, you are homophobes.[/quote:56df9]

hey ShitHand, I am as far from a homophobe as one can get. I dont care if you are gay just stay in your own lane (which means dont hit on me) I think gays should have rights, they should not be demonized. I know why you post crap like this, you try to get a rise out of the people you bash. I hate to resort to your level but you are an ass

Short Hand · 04-07-2005, 08:18 AM

There is a difference between tolerating gays, and accepting them. You gotta learn the 2nd one. Accepting gay marriage is a part of that. (A Crucial part at that).

Pyro · 04-07-2005, 08:22 AM

I just don't understand why people get so fucking defensive about a word...definitions of words can change over time...why should marriage be any different.

Union beitween one human being and another human being.....and this will make it so gays are talked about less and all your homophobes won't have to deal with all this coverage about it.

This is like saying Blacks should still be slaves because that is the way it was and is supposed to be.

Chango · 04-07-2005, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnj

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chango

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnj

They are married, and have no plans of having children. Ahhhhh right. Which one are you talking to?

I've talked to them both. You're saying that the only reason anyone gets married is to have children?

No I said marriage is and has been defined as a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. Only your co-worker and the co-workers spouse know why they got married, but I bet it ends up with a baby in somebody's arms, as long as one is a male and the other female.

I also didn't say two people who don't currently plan to have children can't or shouldn't get married.

And whos been defining this? The definitions i've heard throughout my life have been that "marriage is a union between two that love each other" (this is from family, school and church). Procreation has never been said until you stated it in that post. Perhaps thats the way its been defined in your particular culture, which would explain the differences in our opinions.

But if thats the case, why should one particular culture's definition be the definition for other cultures?

Trunks · 04-07-2005, 12:42 PM

[quote:d3acc]So, many Americans believe that to violate the tradition of Marriage is to violate the laws of god.[/quote:d3acc] That is the root of the problem. People dont want to stop and think for a second. Let me list off some facts.

1) People arent gay because they want to be sinners, and go to hell, people are gay because they just are, they cant halp it, they are attracted to people of the same sex. Punishing and/or restricting the rights of gays is like restricting our rights/punishing us, for being attracted to women. It is completely absurd.
2) We live in a country where all people are equal and are presented with equal right, therefore since marriage is a right, it cannot be denied to anyone.
3) I am not a religious person, but think about this, for those who are. If god is the wisest, most all knowing being ever, etc etc, y would he send gays to hell? Thats like sending mentally retarded people to hell. Its not their fault that they are gay, they just are.

Coleman · 04-07-2005, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trunks

3) I am not a religious person, but think about this, for those who are. If god is the wisest, most all knowing being ever, etc etc, y would he send gays to hell? Thats like sending mentally retarded people to hell. Its not their fault that they are gay, they just are.

You have such a myopic view when it comes to religion. God does not say, "OMG You had sex with a man. You are DOOMED to hell FOREVER!". He does have compassion. That is why there is a thing called purgatory and "limbo". Limbo is for the unbaptized children and/or people that don't have access to Christianity. As for purgatory, that's where you wait out time for your sins to be forgiven or until you are sorry for the wrongs you've committed. Hell is a place for sinners that do not wish to accept the laws of God and are never sorry for the wrongs they've committed throughout their mortal life. Then some of you will say, "Who is God to say that being gay is wrong?" Well, when you're waiting to be admitted to heaven, I'll be $10 you'll second guess your sins so you can get into a wonderful place. Don't say I'm an idiot for talking about all of this religion, because that is a big portion of this whole debate.

Trunks · 04-07-2005, 01:49 PM

well, if there was an factual evidence of gods exhistance then maybe my view would be different. On the other hand, again, how can somebody be sorry for acting naturally/on his sexual attractions. As I said before, that would be like making us be sorry for being attracted to women. It doesnt make sense. And one last thing. Even if there is a god, religion, and state should never mix. Ever. It doesnt work out well.

Coleman · 04-07-2005, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trunks

well, if there was an factual evidence of gods exhistance then maybe my view would be different. On the other hand, again, how can somebody be sorry for acting naturally/on his sexual attractions. As I said before, that would be like making us be sorry for being attracted to women. It doesnt make sense. And one last thing. Even if there is a god, religion, and state should never mix. Ever. It doesnt work out well.

You don't want it to mix eh? Then give them the civil union. Problem solved.

1080jibber · 04-07-2005, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyro

This is like saying Blacks should still be slaves because that is the way it was and is supposed to be.

+1

Chango · 04-07-2005, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coleman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trunks

well, if there was an factual evidence of gods exhistance then maybe my view would be different. On the other hand, again, how can somebody be sorry for acting naturally/on his sexual attractions. As I said before, that would be like making us be sorry for being attracted to women. It doesnt make sense. And one last thing. Even if there is a god, religion, and state should never mix. Ever. It doesnt work out well.

You don't want it to mix eh? Then give them the civil union. Problem solved.

Then the term marriage would have to be changed to civil union as well.

Marriage should be something thats recognized by the state and the religion. If gays want to be married then the state should allow the marriage. But if they want to be recognized by the religion, then it should be decided by the religion whether to recognize it or not.

In the eyes of the state, marriage should just be a term. Banning something because someone disagrees with the morals of it shouldn't happen, since morals are an opinion.

However, a states official stance on this should be left up to a vote within that state, as Kansas has done, and the national government shouldn't be allowed to change that stance.

But of course, this is just my opinion

Madmartagen · 04-07-2005, 02:35 PM

marriage predates christianity. just because Saint Paul made marriage a part of christianity doesnt mean that christians 'own' (for lack of better word). with that said, i dont see how christians decide what marriage is and what it ought to be.

Johnj · 04-07-2005, 03:40 PM

It wasn't Christians that decided, it was the people of the State of Kansas.

Madmartagen · 04-07-2005, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnj

It wasn't Christians that decided, it was the people of the State of Kansas.

the people of kansas or any state shouldnt have the right to decide what civil liberties they can and wont enforce.

also, what happens when some states decide to allow gay marriages? its going to happen, no doubt about that. then we're going to be in a situation where a marriage license is valid in one state but not another. its ridiculous, just more bullshit we have to deal with when you go out of town or go look for a new job and you have to worry about your marriage being valid in the next state. it makes our country look so stupid.