Originally Posted by Bloob
This is exactly how i feel. Instead of making all Christians angry, just make up some sort of thing that gives them the same exact benefits and feelings. Its not that hard.
"It makes people angry" is not a valid reason.
Christians do not have any sort of copyright or trademark on marriage, as I've said in this thread only 15 times or so.
Also, to quote the supreme court for the fifteenth time as well in this thread (Brown v Board) segregation is discrimination.
Last edited by Boredpayne; Apr 20, 2011 at 02:54 AM.
Reason: The fuck? Posts are glitching.
Buy TC for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=240345
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249
Hey look more than two lines.
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249
Hey look more than two lines.
Originally Posted by EpicFailDude
Boredpayne, love you bro.
Holy fucking shit.
You do realise that marriage isn't only a christian thing, right?
Nearly every religion has a form of marriage
And you do know that some christian churches accept gay people, right?
And you do know that there are christian gays, yes?
And you do know that there is atheist marriage where no preacher or church is even involved, right?
I think you're just talking to someone with a closed mind. Half the people on this thread are approaching gay marriage from a Christian view, which is wrong.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
"It makes people angry" is not a valid reason.
Christians do not have any sort of copyright or trademark on marriage, as I've said in this thread only 15 times or so.
Also, to quote the supreme court for the fifteenth time as well in this thread (Brown v Board) segregation is discrimination.
Boredpayne basically summed up what I was going to say. Like I said, if you only think of Christianity when discussing homosexual marriage then you're just being naive.
Last edited by zejbz; Apr 20, 2011 at 07:01 AM.
Reason: Double quote, wtf?
@Redundant and @Boredpayne; Hyde was right, ya know. The fucking dictionary isn't the authority on what the law says marriage is. The law is.
Australian Commonwealth Law, Marriage Amendment Act 2004;
American Federal Law, Defense of Marriage Act 1996;
It doesn't matter what the dictionary says marriage is, it matters what the law says. @Redundant. Marriage isn't just a legal contract between two parties. It's a legal contract authorised by the government. I believe though, that marriage should have nothing to do with the government and should just be between two parties and upheld by the courts as simply a contract. Unfortunately, for now, that's just wishful thinking.
Australian Commonwealth Law, Marriage Amendment Act 2004;
Marriage, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life
American Federal Law, Defense of Marriage Act 1996;
the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife
It doesn't matter what the dictionary says marriage is, it matters what the law says. @Redundant. Marriage isn't just a legal contract between two parties. It's a legal contract authorised by the government. I believe though, that marriage should have nothing to do with the government and should just be between two parties and upheld by the courts as simply a contract. Unfortunately, for now, that's just wishful thinking.
Jim: certain individual state laws hold that marriage can be between homosexuals, hence why it is included as a valid definition in the dictionary.
But I digress, the debate is more over what the definition should be than what it is.
@your most recent post, I am a full supporter of right to be legally married regardless of sexuality. My wall of text was essentially smashing through a couple of the common misconceptions in this thread, e.g. marriage is a christian invention, gay people spread AIDs, marriage is a religious process and thus should be dictated by religion, etc etc.
But I digress, the debate is more over what the definition should be than what it is.
@your most recent post, I am a full supporter of right to be legally married regardless of sexuality. My wall of text was essentially smashing through a couple of the common misconceptions in this thread, e.g. marriage is a christian invention, gay people spread AIDs, marriage is a religious process and thus should be dictated by religion, etc etc.
Last edited by Boredpayne; Apr 20, 2011 at 11:18 AM.
Buy TC for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=240345
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249
Hey look more than two lines.
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249
Hey look more than two lines.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
Jim: certain individual state laws hold that marriage can be between homosexuals, hence why it is included as a valid definition in the dictionary.
But I digress, the debate is more over what the definition should be than what it is.
Federal law overrules state laws where the two are in conflict (Prigg v Pennsylvania).
As for the topic, agreed, but the way you handled arguing with Hyde like that was objectively, factually, incorrect, thus why I intervened.
Anyways, I cbf'ed gathering from your wall of texts what you believe should happen to the law. So what's your opinion?
