The Great Debate 2

There has been hate crimes against every race/religion/everything somewhere (yes even white ppl and christians have been subjected). My point is, I was trying to ask him when hate crimes against homosexuals were so special. It's not legal to do it so it's not like they are being hated on as a whole.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making a national religion, or preference of one religion over another. Simply stating "The Bible says so" is fine. Enacting laws because "The Bible says so" is not, because it goes directly against the Establishment Clause.

yeah...I went to a 95% black school and got called cracker all the time and stuff...but you dont see me QQing about it.

Research?! I barely have time to keep up with the posts and take an obvious outdated opinion, never mind the fact I got to make ***up quicker than the people who know what they're talking about!

And don't be connecting my dots! /slap
I only said: People choose to be Muslim. Some muslims choose to be terrorists. No reflective property in effect yet.

Let the gay people have marriage, not really a big deal. It's 2009...

HAhahaha doing your role very well.

just because it's isn't legal to string up gays doesn't mean that gay people aren't gonna get over it so easily. there are many more heterosexual people than there are gays. you can't just tell someone to get over being gay or black or whaatever just because at some point everyone was discriminated against.

what i was trying to convey was that there ARE no hate crimes against heterosexuals (purely for being heterosexual).

Lol so did I.

me too actually. see debate = learning

now moar QQ!

For me its not an Issue at all. Why Because nothing great will actually change. Homosexual couples are already living together, shopping together and having any same problem that a heterosexual couples would have. What would change? Well same-sex couples (SAME SEX, As in two people want to, Can be straight) can share healthcare, taxes and other legals rights. In the long run what would be the difference?

the RIGHT to do so is the difference.

I see your point but I don't agree with it as a whole. There is no law that says you're not allowed to be homosexual or engage in homosexual activities. The only thing you are not allowed is marriage. I don't believe ppl should have to change their views on homosexuality just b/c you are gay. I understand the feeling of not being accepted, but if the majority is against it, I don't see where you can assume others have to change for you.

Again, I'm for legal rights as a homosexual couple, but I am not an advocate for forcing new policies just b/c you feel left out. You shouldn't need marriage to love someone, it should only be a bonus if/when you can be legally recognized.

My thing, is marriage is a religious term, that's incorporated into our law. It should first be seperated from the law, if anything, when you marry, its under a religious agreement.
When its otherwise not religeous, even with heterosexuals, they consider it civil ceremony. I think when people that are homosexual want to "marry" its just an improper use of the word.

I think that for hetero couples, a marriage should be in conjuction with a civil ceremony.

What I do agree is, that if homosexuals want to become "committed" to one another, and have the benefits, they should have a right to do so, and just call it something other than marriage. But make it equally as hard to seperate as a marriage.

When asking to be married, its something that you bring god into,(because thats the origin of "marriage") and when you bring god into it, thats asking god to approve to marry a gay couple, which he/she said is a no-no.

Its the same as playing ffxi, and calling your character a toon. Its basically the same thing, just using the wrong tense of the word.

I'm not very religious btw.

What laws were implemented 'b/c the Bible said so'?

NEVER!
First they took the theater, then the arts, and now the rainbow!

I want my Unicorn under a rainbow back dammit!

My Spagetti monster will eat your unicorn!

and the gym, and the sexy bodies, and the cool clothes. *** holes taking everything.

Can I go from the Anti-Gay Republican Atheist to the hot young asian chick who just had her first lesbian experience and now wants to marry 2 other girls in some crazy cult thinggie?

***! lulz!

you do realize that with that opinion you could say that the majority of people in germany were nazis but why should they change their opinions because you're jewish?

i'm just saying that opinions should be kept to yourself when it comes to laws. by exculding gays it's making a statement that the church and the state are no longer separate. who said god can't love gays? are these the same people that eat crayfish then ask for forgiveness? you really can't pick and choose what you want to follow when it suits you so what gives people the right to say that gays can't be married religiously and legally? super confused about people having such strong feelings about gays but not about crayfish and cursing their parents (which you should be put to death for btw).

Though not against Homosexuality per se, there were and still are in some states Sodomy laws

In the world there are countries that being Homosexual is punishable with death.

First:

You all have spent several pages agreeing with one another do you really think people that care about the opposition point are really that interested in being battered by you folks?

Second: This is all very emotional, frankly some of you may even feel this on a deeply personal level, so don't lash out against people that disagree with you simply because you feel it thusly.

Having said that, the long standing definition of marriage, simplified to its most basic units is the state sanctioned union of a man and woman. It just is, and this to many is like a group of people suddenly come along and want to change the definition of green to include the concept of light-indigo, naturally such a shift is going to cause a stir.

Honestly, I'd say, just from personal experience that most people just want the same rights as a couple that they feel they are denied. I'd say instead of trying to change someones definition why not make a new union and you can call it "Apple cart happy festival squirrel magnet," for all I care or anyone else does. Lump in *** unions, polygamists, or whomever you want and let folks just have their thing. Frankly, those unwilling to accept such a compromise would be simply showing that its not the substance they want, but instead the playground impulse we all have to simply seize what someone else has, "just 'cause..."

I LMAO lol



{Yes, please.}

also....you're in the army. no sodomy for you. MPS ARE WATCHING LOOK OUT!

i.e. The middle east.

/nod

This topic raced this far in a couple of hours. Expect cool down soon.

Everybody should have same rights, we all eat the same food, pee in same toilets, etc. So denying gays to marry is same as saying a white chick cant marry a spanish guy cause he speaks spanish. It is a discrimination and they should be allowed to marry the same sex.

yar.

slow topic is slow.

time for bed. see you again.

Those sodomy laws remind me of a comedy sketch Lewis Black did about why marriage is between a man and a woman is in the bible in the first place. So when Ahmed came back into town after falling in love with a sheep, the elders would say well marry this girl and keep the sheep on the side. Or something along those lines, lol.

Who said you have to be religious to oppose same-sex marriage? You seem to think your view is all high and mighty again. You're not special, your opinion is no better than the religious fanatic (nor is mine). We're a democratic republic not socialist (although Obama seems to be trying to make us socialists), big difference.. the Nazi statement doesn't even apply.

As for the homosexual marriage being religiously accepted, that's unconstitutional to demand. If you are not accepted that is with-in their rights. Legally (perhaps in another term than marriage) you can demand it, not religiously.