Yay for the gays in New York!

#176
#176
sjt18 said:
One of the communist revolutionaries said that all you need for a successful revolution was 2% of the population willing to fight to the death.
Click to expand...

Communism got a little more help than that to take hold in any of the countries in which it did...
 
#178
#178
KiffinKiller said:
A communist revolutionary once said the moon was made of cheese.
Click to expand...

A capitalist revolutionary once said that the moon's cheese is open market, so he bought it, and now he can harvest that cheese and sell it to the moon people.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#192
#192
06282011sean.jpg
 
#194
#194
I am one of those who often debate whether the government actually should have a role in recognizing marriage, gay or straight. To me the act of marriage is largely a religious/spiritual matter. To some it's a symbolic, earthly representation of the Union between God and Man. To others it's just a deep showing of their commitment to one another, with many degrees in between. And honestly that can be what the heart of this issue entails. Why should Government be involved in something that is clearly a spiritual matter? On the flip side, I always realize that if there is no kind of observation, how can anyone mediate in the event of a divorce/breakup, and the subsequent division of common assets? However, I would like to see a way to figure out the whole contract part of it on assets, but yet getting government as far away from this mine field as possible.

To Christians they feel that this is a collective endorsement of the Gay Lifestyle, and feel this has negative impact on society as a whole. On the other hand, there are people out there who feel the same way about driving an SUV (having a negative impact on our society) and thinks that should be banned. Now, the interesting thing to me about the above statements, is the fact they come from the two opposite factions of this country, who both seem to feel they need to interject their morals onto society as whole. I used to identify more with the social conservative side of things, but honestly in the end we can't legislate morality nor should we even try. My only hope as I eye this (as this is the first real truly passed gay marriage bill, versus being rammed through the courts), is how protected are the Religious Entities who refuse to marry them based on their moral code opposing the act? Would they be sued (and win?) for discrimination? I'm not saying they will, I just have thought this is a serious question that needs to be posed as this debate starts picking up steam across the country.
 
Last edited:
#195
#195
I can't wait until the gay marriage debate is gone forever. Or at least until people stop talking about it so much.
 
Last edited:
#196
#196
OrangeYankee said:
I am one of those who often debate whether the government actually should have a role in recognizing marriage, gay or straight. To me the act of marriage is largely a religious/spiritual matter. To some it's a symbolic, earthly representation of the Union between God and Man. To others it's just a deep showing of their commitment to one another, with many degrees in between. And honestly that can be what the heart of this issue entails. Why should Government be involved in something that is clearly a spiritual matter? On the flip side, I always realize that if there is no kind of observation, how can anyone mediate in the event of a divorce/breakup, and the subsequent division of common assets? However, I would like to see a way to figure out the whole contract part of it on assets, but yet getting government as far away from this mine field as possible.

To Christians they feel that this is a collective endorsement of the Gay Lifestyle, and feel this has negative impact on society as a whole. On the other hand, there are people out there who feel the same way about driving an SUV (having a negative impact on our society) and thinks that should be banned. Now, the interesting thing to me about the above statements, is the fact they come from the two opposite factions of this country, who both seem to feel they need to interject their morals onto society as whole. I used to identify more with the social conservative side of things, but honestly in the end we can't legislate morality nor should we even try. My only hope as I eye this (as this is the first real truly passed gay marriage bill, versus being rammed through the courts), is how protected are the Religious Entities who refuse to marry them based on their moral code opposing the act? Would they be sued (and win?) for discrimination? I'm not saying they will, I just have thought this is a serious question that needs to be posed as this debate starts picking up steam across the country.
Click to expand...

The church should in no way be obligated or legally forced to marry a homosexual couple. Their church is theirs, not everybody's (or the government's!).

With that logic, people wouldn't be obligated to go out of their way to shoot the propositions down whenever they present themselves strictly because of their creed.
 
#197
#197
I just now how litigious our society has become, and frankly it takes just one militant couple trying to prove a point to ruin a church.
 
#198
#198
OrangeYankee said:
I just now how litigious our society has become, and frankly it takes just one militant couple trying to prove a point to ruin a church.
Click to expand...

Another thing to consider is that there are many churches throughout the country (mostly non-denominational or episcopalian) who are willing to marry a homosexual couple. That makes a huge difference in how much validity a militant couple could carry... especially in NY.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top