HOME | DD
somethingunuasul — Why not
by-nc-nd
Published: 2010-05-09 06:01:00 +0000 UTC; Views: 2347; Favourites: 134; Downloads: 31
Redirect to original
Description
Seriously Americans if it is in the freaking declaration of independence which a lot of the right wing screwballs swear by. Then why do you not pay attention to it. Because "America Jesus" tells you to.Related content
Comments: 98
Gays can get married, just not to each other. What the right-wing doesn't tell us is that marriage isn't really about love, its about casting off your previous identity to become half of a larger organism. When you're married, it doesn't matter what you were before because to everyone else you're just "The Husband" or "The Wife".
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
why are people saying that if it's not illegal were going to start marrying our pets and objects. seriously people, seriously.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
mmm hmm. and uh are you gay? not against anything here but gay marriage and lesbo marriage should be illeigal. I am perfectly straight and so should everyone.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
.............y does this make no sense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm actually really torn on this subject...and thats only because I know the minute the pass the bill, people will want to be marrying their animals and Objects to :/ otherwise i'm fine with it and don't see why it's not aloud. However gays can get married it's just certain genders have to be willing to lose certain parts, like the breast or Penis. which personally (even tho i wouldn't know how it feels for them) i would be more flattered and in love if my mate would be willing to do something like that for me. they do have things that can be strapped on and stuff, although then again as a girl, if we get stuff chopped off we can always have it put back on after the wedding as a breast enlargement surgery.
Also now days a ton of people gay or straight, don't even get married, now the benefits and stuff is worth it. but in that cause i think they should make a bill that says Any Romantic partner can share his or her benefits with their current mate and their Dependants. My aunt and her husband, never married, there even had their own "faux Wedding" everyone dress up, they got a wedding planer, wrote vows, got rings and all that stuff. Also they can always move...america sucks anyway.
so my point is i think their now allowing it because of the fear people will start asking to marry their animals and Objects. Loving a Human no matter what gender should be aloud but the other branches, cannot love you back in that way so there isn't a point.
but i believe this is something thats going to be in confusion and argued about for eternity, because no matter what and no matter what side your on it just goes around in a circle and someones always left unhappy
I don't know what kinda Christan i'd fall under. but i believe that yes back in the bible days, christ/jesus/god frowned on it, there is evidence in the bible that he destroyed 2 cities because of it ( now don't flame me just yet & this doesn't apply to those who don't believe i completely understand you don't). however this is the modern day now and I truly believe all he wants is for his children to love him. we all screw up and have our sins, they say sex before wed lock is a sin, so on the religious half of the spectrum, they should lets gays marry because if being gay is a sin and having sex before marriage is a sin, it would eliminate one sin 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wait.... The minute we pass a bill to legalize gay marriage people will want to marry their animals? That, is a logical fallacy called the slippery slope fallacy but, I digress. Also, they have to lose organs to marry? Your argument is a 5 paragraph rambling mess.
I am a Christian as well and I fear your understanding of the bible. Sodom and Gomorrah where destroyed because they sinned in every way possible. Also later on the list of the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah are listed in the bible and homosexuality is not among them.
Please, for my sake and the sake of your ability to function as a member of society. Clean up your argument and do some research on the subject before annoying someone with a mess of random information. Also, if you want to be a good example of your faith then please read the bible and make sure you know what your talking about.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
XD i got my information from my aunt and uncle his a pastor and she's still in training, but oh well. i didn't insult you (or at least i wasn't trying to) no need to insult me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Retort A: A gay couple is made up of two consenting adults. Animals ( oh, God, Children), and.. Inanimate objects? (that’s a new one for me)… cannot consent and therefore cannot enter into a legitimate, legally binding contract.. Like a marriage.
Retort B: Removing a body part- which is a completely bizarre suggestion- wouldn’t change someone’s chromosomes or sexual/gender identity. Just by removing breasts or a penis doesn’t mean the couple now is not gay. What if I suggested every time a person divorced and remarried they had to lob off a limb to justify it? This argument suggests to me you are not thinking in terms of someone’s mind, heart or spirit- only in terms of physical sex. Sex is one small part of marriage (one that gets smaller every year a couple is married, so I hear. But I wouldn’t know, you know? Because you‘re standing between my husband and I.)
Retort C: Not everyone is Christian, heeeelllloooo!?!?! You don’t “Completely Understand” that someone doesn’t believe, because you’re suggesting that non-believers still live by your religious laws. Marriage is not a Christian institution because it is not unique to Christianity and existed before Christianity. Marriage is a universally human concept that can be found in every faith and culture, with as many interpretations of marriage as those faiths and cultures. In addition, not only does our constitution say life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness- it also dictates freedom of religion and separation of church and state.
…Not to mention the contemporary interpretation of the word “Sodomy” isn’t its historical meaning- which was much more general.
Retort D: Your Aunt and Uncle have a legitimate marriage. It’s called a Common Law Marriage, which, still, is not available to Gays and Lesbians because the govt. wont recognize it for them.
Retort F: “Loving a Human no matter what gender should be aloud but the other branches, cannot love you back in that way so there isn't a point.”
WTF does this mean?
Retort G: Your pastor uncle’s information isn’t information… its opinion. Go to college, learn the difference.
Finally, this isn't a flame. Its a legitimate response that a person gets when they decide to put emotionally and politically charged comments into the world.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well you didn't insult me. But, you really should do your research before hand.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
congrats you fruity little splash of rainbow spunk
you have managed to talk in circles
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
If that was to insinuate I am gay then it really didn't do much.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I believe gays should have the right to a legal joining of property and all that, but what's considered a usual "wedding" is a religious institution. If you don't adhere to the religion then why on earth do you want a wedding in a church? So basically, it should be a seperation of church and state type thing. Let homosexual couples enter into all the legal parts and come up with a ceremony of their own. But, otherwise it would be like forcing Muslims to have to hold Christian based marriage ceremonies in their Mosque if the couple wanted it. Makes no sense and is very uncomfortable/insulting to the Muslims for having to hold a ceremony that goes strongly against their own beliefs.
But again, gays should have the right to enter into a contract/agreement type thing that equals all the legal equivalents of a marriage.
👍: 0 ⏩: 4
Actually, marriage hasn't always been a religious institution. Atheists marry. Cultures that have philosophies in lieu of religion ( Like Confucius-ism and Buddhism) still have marriages. Europe has a strong history of Common Law Marriage, which was not religious, only practical.
As well, if you Are going to recognize other faith's religious marriages, like a Muslim marriage... then you'd have to recognize ALL faith's religious marriages- Many of which historically don't have moral objections to gay marriage because they don't have a moral objection to gays, like Wicca... some of which even have gay marriage in their folklore, like Hinduism or the pre-Christian Egyptian pantheon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I totally agree! You basically just wrote down everyting I've ever thought about the subject. Thank you! ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you for understanding my point.
It's nothing about prejudice, or a lack of rights. Just common sense and fairness to all partie's being comfortable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i totally agree. wow, i've been trying to word my exact feelings on this matter for a long time now, and you just did it. thank you!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're very welcome. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well not all christian churches have a thing against homosexuals. But, you are right they really have the right to marry.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True, some churches do welcome gays. But many others do not. I don't think that gay couples should have the right to way a certificate in a pastor's face and tell him he HAS to marry them, no matter how strongly it goes against his beliefs. Churches are not government institutions and pastors are not government employees. So, they should have the right to refuse service(ceremony in this case) to whomever they please.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Whenever I think of how most states don't allow gay marriage, I think of that line in the Constitution, especially "the Pursuit of Happiness." Gay people would like to pursue happiness, especially with those that they love. And what would make that possible? Marriage. And this makes the fact that it's still considered illegal make no sense to me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Blame the puritans and their blue laws.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, it's silly, because people allowed to believe in different things, and yet huge decisions like this are based on what only some people believe. :[
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah the power of many in the hands of the corrupt few.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
and another thing: whatever happened to CHURCH AND STATE being SEPARATED?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know right? Church and state are not separated which is really stupid and corrupt.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They're all just a bunch of hypocrites.
I don't even see why it's wrong in the first place
(and if anyone here tells me bullshit like, "IT'S AGAINST THE BIBLE!" I WILL ignore you...)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hey I am a Christian and I agree with you.... So High five!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I love people like you
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
hi
your stamp has been featured in my news article
STAMPS TO SUIT EVERYONE, Issue 6
please fave the article and check out the other stamps
and congrats on a great stamp
zara
ps sorry for the delay in this notification
the spam limit stopped me because I was sending so many messages
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're welcome
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Just as the devils advocate (really more of a nuetral position) the pursuit of happiness actually means the pursuit of property, so you can't really use that as an argument
But I support gays marrying all the way.
The reason gays were so pushed against originally had nothing to do with God. It's the fact that gays can't procreate. If you have a bunch of religious gays, if they can't procreate, they can't produce children meaning they can't increase the population meaning that they can't expand the empire of such religion.
Religion is about acceptance and love.
'Hate the sin, love the sinner.'
'God loves everyone' so why are you hating his children in his name? Then, aren't you going against God, therefore sinning?
Seperation of Church and state. You cannot say these people can't do something because this religion doesn't like it. Period. The only time state law should ever cross with church is keeping cults from killing.
I can go on and on.
And how does someones sexual preference hurt you? It's their own goddamn business, not yours. So unconstitutional.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But in a court case it was decided that marriage is essential to happiness. Also thank you for support and I agree with most else you say.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because that's not marriage.
They can find some other way to get together, but just don't call it marriage. They can settle for something else, they just don't want to. They're fighting for something that's not theirs. It's like saying that a golf ball is a football, if you get what I mean.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No I really don't. I mean why does marriage not belong to homosexuals I mean that is discriminatory no matter what way you slice it. Let me guess you love Jesus with all your heart.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's simple.
Marriage does not belong to homosexuals because marriage does not involve them. It involves a man and a woman. That's what the word marriage means, a union between man and woman. Not man and man or woman and woman. It's as simple as that.
Let me give you an example. What if I want to go into the woman's bathroom (I'm a guy) but I'm not allowed to. That's discrimination too. The Reason I can't go into the woman's bathroom is because that's for women only. Same principle with marriage.
I'm not sure there's a clearer way to explain it.
Are you just guessing, or do you have some sort of foundation for that accusation towards me?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Marriage in the state form means that your bank accounts are combined, your last names are changed, ect.
Later on you talk about how it's bonding with God. That should not effect how the state sees it, and how it defines marriage.
Separation of church and state. No law may be passed that prohibits religion, nor should one not be passed because of the fact that another religion doesn't like it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's only one part of marriage. You have to look at marriage as a whole, Not in parts. If they want the legal side only, they need to find another name for their "marriage". Because it's simply not the same thing. And instead of fighting with another group, they can get what they supposedly want.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Government can't create a state religion or stop people from practicing religion. That's all it says. What are you basing your statement on?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The reason I asked if you loved Jesus is because most people so devoted to the hatred of homosexuality are either fundamentalist Christians or homophobes or both.
mar·riage
/ˈmærɪdʒ/ Show Spelled[mar-ij] Show IPA
–noun
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities:
So where in that definition do you see the word man or woman. Listen I think marriage is a corrupt word because there is a legal and religious side to it. Now on the legal side homosexuals should always be allowed marriage. But on the religious side that is up to the religion and their beliefs. Personally I am a liberal christian and my religion says they can be married.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What are you basing that statement on? Your experiences? Hearsay? Either way, it isn't very accurate.
How about we consult Webster's Dictionary for a real American definition?
MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
And if that doesn't convince you, you just need to look at history and you'll see that marriage is traditionally between a man and woman.
If marriage is a corrupt word, homosexuals should search for another word. Why is calling their union something else other than marriage so horrible anyway? Why don't they just change the word and find a way to retain all the same benefits and so on? Do you think maybe it's because they know deep down that what they're doing is wrong, so they're trying to find shelter and acceptance under the word marriage? Yep.
Well your religion is obviously not the religion Christ instituted. By whose power do you say that they have the right to marry, your own? What religion do you practice? If it's not Christ's, you should be careful about calling yourself a Christian. Extremely careful.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
That bothers me. That really, really bothers me.
She believes in Christ and has accepted him. She is in a loving relationship with Christ/God/Holy Spirit. That's all it takes to be a Christian.
The way that she interprets the word of the Bible on the topic of homosexuality has NOTHING to do with it. What right do you have to define Christianity? What right do you have to accuse her of not following Christ?
You should be careful with what you say. You do not have the authority to make that decision.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I would not have said what I said had she not said "my religion" which implies that she created the religion, or parts related to it. Why does she not say according to Christianity, or such?
And because of her profain outburst (her newest reply), it's harder to identify her as a Christian. Christians are supposed to be the salt of the earth, and stand out among other with a good witness.
I never said she was not a Christian, but rather I said that the religion she was speaking of was not Christian. Christians are sometimes led astray, they need to be brought back to the light. As a Christian, it's my job to help other Christians see the truth, as iron sharpening iron.
And I was careful in what I was saying, I made sure to choose the right words, and I believe I accomplished it well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>