Gay Marriage..Ure thought - Page 7 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 21st, 2008, 10:02 AM   #121
Chiefwoohaw
Pokerob is my B*tch!
 
Chiefwoohaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 11,508
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post


I like it!!
Chiefwoohaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old May 21st, 2008, 05:08 PM   #122
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,440
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
i'm pretty sure it's satire, but ask Kerwin, I'm pretty sure all the bible quotations are correct. Kerwin would probably be ok with this if it were true legislation.
I finally had time to read it. I HOPE it's satire but I'm sure there are some extremists that would agree with it. I think it's all bullshit except for the part where the woman must agree to all of the man's desires and whims. Mmmmm.....good livin'.
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2008, 05:09 PM   #123
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,121
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L4CX View Post
Because some people still hold Marriage as a Sacred union of a Male and a Female. Not of A male and male or Female and Female. I would agree that it's kind of stupid to argue about, but I hold it Sacred.
I don't see how someone else's marriage to anyone of any sex will destroy the sacredness of your marriage, but out of respect and since marriage was a religious term before it was a legal term, I'd say give it back to the church goer's.

So the term marriage can be a religious term and everyone one who isn't married in a church can have a union. Legally it's still the same, at least in the eyes of the state. What about people like me who married someone of the opposite sex but not in a church or by a person of the church? I'd have a union too?

The problem I see with that solution is that it's divisive. This country is divided enough already and having different names for different groups doing the same thing isn't helpful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by L4CX View Post
Why do Gays (sorry if that sounds negitive) want it to be Marriage so much? If they really just want to be with each other and even share in Tax benefits then a "Civil union" should be just fine. But no, They want it to be called a Marriage. If they want to be Marriage, they should have the right components for that. In a Homosexual relationship, there is not the right components.
I'd guess they want it to be called marriage because they don't want to be singled out. You know all men created equal, blind justice, equal treatment under the law and all that.

Call it what you like but the term should apply to everyone equally in the eyes of the law. Your church can call it a marriage but to the state everyone has a civil union (The term is so PC, I hate it). I still think it's better to call it a marriage for everyone.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2008, 06:00 PM   #124
L4CX
Out for the Summer!
 
L4CX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-07
Location: Hillsdale, MI
Posts: 4,990
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
I don't see how someone else's marriage to anyone of any sex will destroy the sacredness of your marriage, but out of respect and since marriage was a religious term before it was a legal term, I'd say give it back to the church goer's.

So the term marriage can be a religious term and everyone one who isn't married in a church can have a union. Legally it's still the same, at least in the eyes of the state. What about people like me who married someone of the opposite sex but not in a church or by a person of the church? I'd have a union too?

The problem I see with that solution is that it's divisive. This country is divided enough already and having different names for different groups doing the same thing isn't helpful.





I'd guess they want it to be called marriage because they don't want to be singled out. You know all men created equal, blind justice, equal treatment under the law and all that.

Call it what you like but the term should apply to everyone equally in the eyes of the law. Your church can call it a marriage but to the state everyone has a civil union (The term is so PC, I hate it). I still think it's better to call it a marriage for everyone.
Maybe they should call it just a Union? Or how bout a "You'll be civil till you do something bad and are mad each other" Union. ? I do'nt really care either way. I mean, I would like it to be the way I said, but we all know eventually that won't be the Reality.
L4CX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2008, 09:40 PM   #125
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,810
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

McCain goes on Ellen:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/0...ifferent-than/
mikesova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2008, 09:39 PM   #126
Cooter21
Im Rick James Bitch
 
Cooter21's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-07-06
Location: Hamilton Michigan
Posts: 1,462
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

revelations called it.
Cooter21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 16th, 2008, 10:02 PM   #127
doomsick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 07-29-07
Location: GR Michigan
Posts: 340
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

No, I don't believe they have the right.
doomsick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17th, 2008, 06:28 AM   #128
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Default

it would seem many of you do not fully understand the legal issues faced by same sex couples when it comes to couples rights, ownerships, visitations, powers of attorney, etc etc etc...

A good portion of the folks fighting so hard for same sex marriages probably do not engage much in sex anymore anyway due to age/health.

Now, in order for same sex partners to get the same benefits alloted to hetero couples, the only thing they can do is legalize same sex MARRIAGE as the way the laws are defined only apply when the license is possessed and everything. Now, I suppose you think we can simply create civil unions and all will be well with the world. The problem with that is you'd have to adjust EVERY law that references "marriage" to account for "civil union" or it will be a wasted effort at equality. Not to mention the taxpayer cost of having all those laws wording changed to reflect the difference.

Now, IMO I think all you "sanctity of marriage" jerks need to just stop the nonsense and let everybody use the word and save us all alot of grief in the end. Because they will get their benefits in the end. It's simply a matter of time and cost to us taxpayers.


and why the fukc is my name a tag on this thread when I only just NOW posted to it?
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17th, 2008, 08:59 AM   #129
GreaseMonkey
Senior Member
 
GreaseMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-04-05
Location: Madison Heights, MI
Posts: 18,006
iTrader: (22)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

If they want to be as miserable as straight couples who get married, fine. It should not be called marriage though. Marriage is between a man and a woman that can reproduce a child in theory (obviously infertility is an issue). I also don't think gay couples should be allowed to adopt but that's a completely separate issue.

LOL at tags.
GreaseMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17th, 2008, 09:22 AM   #130
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,693
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lothos View Post
grief in the end.
benefits in the end.
that sums up the big question well. me thinks it the former.
Dave Kerwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2008, 05:09 AM   #131
clint357
Web Wheeler Extraordinair
 
clint357's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-13-07
Location: grand rapids
Posts: 2,278
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doomsick View Post
No, I don't believe they have the right.
Because? From this, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you probably just don't like gay people, so you don't want them to get married for some unknown reason.
clint357 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2008, 08:00 AM   #132
Skooter_Built
Fuck talk, Duck walk!
 
Skooter_Built's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Whitelake, MI
Posts: 14,546
iTrader: (26)
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Default

If 2 people love each other, the go for it. I dont think these's anything wrong with it. I dont feel that gay marriges destroys the sainctity of normal marriges cause look how many normal marriges end up in divorce or how many people end up cheating. As long as your not hurting anyone or breaking any major laws, then do what makes you happy.
__________________
I'm the man in White.

If you want peace, prepare for war!

Forgiveness is between them and God. It's my job to arrange the meeting.
Skooter_Built is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2008, 09:26 PM   #133
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,512
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lothos View Post
it would seem many of you do not fully understand the legal issues faced by same sex couples when it comes to couples rights, ownerships, visitations, powers of attorney, etc etc etc...

A good portion of the folks fighting so hard for same sex marriages probably do not engage much in sex anymore anyway due to age/health.

Now, in order for same sex partners to get the same benefits alloted to hetero couples, the only thing they can do is legalize same sex MARRIAGE as the way the laws are defined only apply when the license is possessed and everything. Now, I suppose you think we can simply create civil unions and all will be well with the world. The problem with that is you'd have to adjust EVERY law that references "marriage" to account for "civil union" or it will be a wasted effort at equality. Not to mention the taxpayer cost of having all those laws wording changed to reflect the difference.
Isn't that what we already pay our lawmakers and government workers for, to sort out and make sense of our laws? I think your attitude is a big part of why our laws are as screwy as they are. People said "screw it, it takes to much work to try to understand existing laws and change then, we'll just make more laws to go over the top of the existing ones". While I'm not against giving homosexual couples some of the same rights as heterosexual couples, I would not support blindly applying all the same rules, and I think even homosexuals should fear such a move without knowing what unintended consequences may result. I don't think we should let laziness cause us to squander our chance to review our legal code as it deals with marriage to see if our laws still make sense in the 21st century.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lothos View Post

Now, IMO I think all you "sanctity of marriage" jerks need to just stop the nonsense and let everybody use the word and save us all alot of grief in the end. Because they will get their benefits in the end. It's simply a matter of time and cost to us taxpayers.
I don't think that someone who wants to preserve our thousands of years old tradition of marriage is any more a "jerk" than is someone who wants to discard those traditions and force the world to accept their "alternative" arrangement as being the same as the traditional one just because they have decided that the traditional marriage is not right for them.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2008, 09:41 PM   #134
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,512
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skooter_Built View Post
If 2 people love each other, the go for it. I dont think these's anything wrong with it. I dont feel that gay marriges destroys the sainctity of normal marriges cause look how many normal marriges end up in divorce or how many people end up cheating. As long as your not hurting anyone or breaking any major laws, then do what makes you happy.
To quote Tina Turner... Whats love got to do with it?

If any 2 people of the same sex love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives living together packing fudge or munching carpets nobody can stop them. That's not the issue. The issue is should our laws recognize their union as the same as that of a man and a woman who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
Tags
buuuttseeeeeeexxxxxxx, coffee, dave kerwin, do my pooper!, doomsick loves dick., fag lovers, gay jay hall, jelly beans, lothos, punch faygs, sore o-ring, star trek

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:00 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.27888 seconds with 63 queries