CDIH

Is it a bad thing that they are gay?

Quote:duhr, cause they are gay!!!!

damn, i knew there was a simple answer for that...

The Jays Wrote:Can you humor me for a moment and just answer the question I am about to pose.


Hypothetically...

The state of New York puts this into law:

All civil unions are recognized by the state of New York as a union between two people, and receive all the right, privileges, benefits. The term "marriage" will simply be defined as a civil union between a man and a woman.

In those two sentences, where does it say that a marriage is better than a civil union?

Can civil unions be preformed i church?

Skitchr4u Wrote:

Quote:In those two sentences, where does it say that a marriage is better than a civil union?

Jays, it doesn't...but why should there be distinctions at all? Why have 2 words or phrases for the same thing?

Quote:There's no value gained from changing the definition, and no value gained from leaving it the way it is. The only reason to leave marriage as being defined by a man and a woman is because it is the definition we have agreed upon for the last couple thousand years.

Black Lazerus Wrote:

The Jays Wrote:Can you humor me for a moment and just answer the question I am about to pose.


Hypothetically...

The state of New York puts this into law:

All civil unions are recognized by the state of New York as a union between two people, and receive all the right, privileges, benefits. The term "marriage" will simply be defined as a civil union between a man and a woman.

In those two sentences, where does it say that a marriage is better than a civil union?

Can civil unions be preformed i church?

That's up to the church to decide.

when you create the distinction of marriage and civil union, all you are doing is feeding into the whole ridiculous premise that marriage is a sacred union between man and woman that Bush and other ultra conservatives want to make. If you believe that gays are equal to straights, there is no reason to make them go through a seperate procedure to get the exact same result

Quote:Besides, being a member of a political party does not automatically force a member of a Congress to vote a certain way. A member of Congress votes in a manner that he feels represents the will of the people.

:rofl:
if you honestly believe that then you are naive.

sleeper hit the nail right on the head.

The Jays Wrote:

Black Lazerus Wrote:

The Jays Wrote:Can you humor me for a moment and just answer the question I am about to pose.


Hypothetically...

The state of New York puts this into law:

All civil unions are recognized by the state of New York as a union between two people, and receive all the right, privileges, benefits. The term "marriage" will simply be defined as a civil union between a man and a woman.

In those two sentences, where does it say that a marriage is better than a civil union?

Can civil unions be preformed i church?

That's up to the church to decide.

thats like saying it was up to the schools to decide if it was ok to let blacks in, or it was up to business owners to let women work. Yet you still don't see how its discrimination.

The Jays Wrote:

GonzoStyle Wrote:I just don't understand how hard it is to see the distinction and similarity.

gays can not get married anywhere but in vermont

straights can

gays cant get married in a church

starights can

If that doesn't mean they arent viewed as inferior than I dunno what it is. The fags wanna march in a parade and they get crucified, so yeah they are viewed as equals.

women were always equal tho, as were blacks in jays opinion tho. The goverment never infringed on their rights....

Someone shoulda told the women sufferage people, aboloishonists, marcus garvey, and dr. king that the goverment couldnt make laws to infringe on peoples rights, saved them some time and their lives.

The government is not suppose to make those laws, and the Constitution say that. But they do make those laws, and those laws are unconstitutional. Bad laws get made.
The courts are intended to make sure that laws are constitutional.


Are you now saying that the Constitution doesn't protect anyone's rights?

Let me head on down to Washington and tell em to burn that piece of paper, since it obviously holds no meaning.

the continuance of slavery was clearly sanctioned in the U.S. Constitution, although the words slave and slavery are not found anywhere in the document. Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit". And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

The Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791, says nothing about slavery. But the Fifth Amendment guaranteed that no person could "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Slaves were property, and slaveholders had an absolute right to take their property with them, even into free states or territories.

wow Josh is a racist and dosen't even know it.

The Jays Wrote:Is it a bad thing that they are gay?

No but according to you it is ok to seperate marriage and civil union because one is a straight marriage and the other is a gay union. You said the distinction rectifies this since people will always make the distinction and say thats a normal marriage and thats a gay marriage, so its ok by you.

Lets make a seperate category for inter racial marriage too, since there is a distinction there as well.

GonzoStyle Wrote:

The Jays Wrote:Is it a bad thing that they are gay?

No but according to you it is ok to seperate marriage and civil union because one is a straight marriage and the other is a gay union. You said the distinction rectifies this since people will always make the distinction and say thats a normal marriage and thats a gay marriage, so its ok by you.

Lets make a seperate category for inter racial marriage too, since there is a distinction there as well.

yeah because by law a 3/4 person is marrying a whole person.

Black Lazerus Wrote:

Quote:Besides, being a member of a political party does not automatically force a member of a Congress to vote a certain way. A member of Congress votes in a manner that he feels represents the will of the people.

:rofl:
if you honestly believe that then you are naive.

wow, just.... wow!!!

i think we should be less concerned about gays breeding and more concerned about the people on Ricki Lake breeding.

I'd be more concerned as to why the fuck you are watching ricki lake.

GonzoStyle Wrote:

The Jays Wrote:

Black Lazerus Wrote:

The Jays Wrote:Can you humor me for a moment and just answer the question I am about to pose.


Hypothetically...

The state of New York puts this into law:

All civil unions are recognized by the state of New York as a union between two people, and receive all the right, privileges, benefits. The term "marriage" will simply be defined as a civil union between a man and a woman.

In those two sentences, where does it say that a marriage is better than a civil union?

Can civil unions be preformed i church?

That's up to the church to decide.

thats like saying it was up to the schools to decide if it was ok to let blacks in, or it was up to business owners to let women work. Yet you still don't see how its discrimination.

if you were legally allowed to perform marriages you should be forced to do it to anyone that comes to you?

GonzoStyle Wrote:

Quote:How can the government do it? The Constitution says you can make laws that infrige upon the rights of others.

and those idiots fought a civil war all for nothin, stoops.

the civil war was about federal taxation. it had very little to do with slaves.

i havent seen it in years, but you know what im talking about. those people.

josh really does have an unrealistic view of our government.

GonzoStyle Wrote:

The Jays Wrote:

Black Lazerus Wrote:

The Jays Wrote:Can you humor me for a moment and just answer the question I am about to pose.


Hypothetically...

The state of New York puts this into law:

All civil unions are recognized by the state of New York as a union between two people, and receive all the right, privileges, benefits. The term "marriage" will simply be defined as a civil union between a man and a woman.

In those two sentences, where does it say that a marriage is better than a civil union?

Can civil unions be preformed i church?

That's up to the church to decide.

thats like saying it was up to the schools to decide if it was ok to let blacks in, or it was up to business owners to let women work. Yet you still don't see how its discrimination.

One, The schools were public.

There are private schools that I can't go to because I'm not Jewish. There are private schools that Jews can't go to because the schools only want Catholics.


ANd it's not like saying that at all. Can the federal government force the Catholic Church to recognize gay marrriage?

BTW, Gonzo, Can you answer the first question I asked?

The Jays Wrote:Can you humor me for a moment and just answer the question I am about to pose.


Hypothetically...

The state of New York puts this into law:

All civil unions are recognized by the state of New York as a union between two people, and receive all the right, privileges, benefits. The term "marriage" will simply be defined as a civil union between a man and a woman.

In those two sentences, where does it say that a marriage is better than a civil union?