Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Nein !Neinc/jzY6 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later[^][v]#320,557
Of course the churches would still have the right to refuse marriage if it is against their beliefs. The courts is (hopefully) the only place marriage would take place. It is safe to say that if that were to happen I would be on the other side of the world kissing ass for citizenship into Australia.
Falco !PZmcClOUDk joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^][v]#320,558
> It is safe to say that if that were to happen I would be on the other side of the world kissing ass for citizenship into Australia.
por que
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^][v]#320,559
Yes, the government cannot force churches to marry people. That's one reason why I don't get the gay marriage debate. No one is making their church marry two gays. No one is forcing them into gay marriage. If the church thinks it's immoral, they do not have to participate. It would just mean that the state recognizes gay marriage, so that those who do believe in it can practice it.
It just goes to show that the people who are against it just want to force their religion down other people's throats. They can't mind their own business. The fact that they banned civil unions in North Carolina proves this. The fact that gay marriage is not recognized by the state actually violates the first amendment twice. Once for not recognizing gay marriage out of respect for some people's religious beliefs, and a second time for violating the religious freedom of those who support gay marriage.
Since marriage is technically a religious institution and existed long before the government started getting involved, the ideal solution, in my opinion, is to get the government out of "marriage" altogether. The government shouldn't recognize marriage at all, and everyone should simply have civil unions. That way everyone is equal under the law and Christians can't complain the government is recognizing "gay marriage." If you want to have a wedding ceremony in a church and call it a marriage, fine.
Catherine !TGirlYJKXM (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 17 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^][v]#320,560
But what if there are some churches that actually WANT to participate in gay marriage?
Falco !PZmcClOUDk replied with this 14 years ago, 15 minutes later, 49 minutes after the original post[^][v]#320,562
> But what if there are some churches that actually WANT to participate in gay marriage?
There are plenty. They just can't right now.
kook !nH6RAuX8mo joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 23 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#320,563
@previous (Falco !PZmcClOUDk)
You're right. There are a good number of religious people who love their gays and want them to be happy too.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 7 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#320,576
The gay marriage debate is simple.
Straight people are inferior assholes. They know it, and they know they need exclusive access to compete.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#320,577
@320,562 (Falco !PZmcClOUDk)
Sure they can. The state can't stop a church from marrying 2 people. But just because you're married in a church doesn't mean the state has to recognize it.
Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 49 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#320,579
> Since marriage is technically a religious institution and existed long before the government started getting involved, the ideal solution, in my opinion, is to get the government out of "marriage" altogether. The government shouldn't recognize marriage at all, and everyone should simply have civil unions. That way everyone is equal under the law and Christians can't complain the government is recognizing "gay marriage." If you want to have a wedding ceremony in a church and call it a marriage, fine.
This has been my position as well. Maybe you've gotten smarter since I've been gone.
Handel !khEOdtKF56 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 17 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#320,580
@320,559 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4) @previous (Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA)
> Maybe you've gotten smarter since I've been gone.
I'm shocked that he actually put that paragraph together, do you copy-paste it?
Either way he's 100% correct.
I can see all the zealots now throwing an eppy once they realise they have to get a civil union too.
"You have to recognise our marriage! HURR DURR"
Catherine !TGirlYJKXM (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#320,603
@previous (Handel !khEOdtKF56)
Then why even bother removing all marriage from government? Why not just legalize gay marriage and be done with it? Let them whine about how gays are ruining the sanity of marriage despite them having the freedom to deny it.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 10 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#320,714
@320,579 (Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA)
It has always been my position as well.
Handel !khEOdtKF56 replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#320,730
Both ways would simplify things.
One way making marriage meaningless, the other official.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#320,789
@previous (Handel !khEOdtKF56)
Either way, there should be no double standards. The seperate but equal thing does not work. Marriage is either a government institution where everyone is equally protected under the law, or a religious institution that the government should not recognize. Anything else is a violation of the First Amendment, which the religious fucktards can't seem to understand. They like to completely ignore the clause about religion unless it's to their advantage.
The Incredible Idiot !QxGa.Glm6w joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 day later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#321,026
Why does the state recognize marriage at all?
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#321,049
@320,579 (Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA)
Religion is subordinate to the government. Such is a necessary prerequisite for freedom of religion. Were any religion permitted to truly dominate, this religion would quickly move to destroy all others. Intolerance is the very purpose of religion.
The government needs to recognize gay marriage for this very reason. To assert it's dominance and bitchslap those delusional hatemongers.