Gay Marriage Ban

Jason P

catefrances wrote:

but.. but chad... what if someone loves ice cream.. should they be allowed to marry that ice cream?? i heard some numbskull ask that question on jon stewart last night..

As crazy as that sounds ..... what if you fall in love with a pillow?



http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/816601-man-marries-pillow

catefrances

pandora wrote:

..
I am also for equal rights for all and am very fine with marriage remaining as it was intended to be between a man and a woman ...
I would cast for my vote for that today if it meant equal rights for gay unions
right now and stop the marriage battle. I have a feeling others would do the same.

The light is not what you think

and there we have it folks.... finally. pandora isnt a marriage preserver but she thinks marriage should remain the dominion of man-woman couples.

thanx for the clarity.

NewJPage

Jason P wrote:

catefrances wrote:

but.. but chad... what if someone loves ice cream.. should they be allowed to marry that ice cream?? i heard some numbskull ask that question on jon stewart last night..

As crazy as that sounds ..... what if you fall in love with a pillow?



http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/816601-man-marries-pillow

my knowledge of someone marrying a pillow is destroying my marriage

catefrances

Jason P wrote:

catefrances wrote:

but.. but chad... what if someone loves ice cream.. should they be allowed to marry that ice cream?? i heard some numbskull ask that question on jon stewart last night..

As crazy as that sounds ..... what if you fall in love with a pillow?



http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/816601-man-marries-pillow

so long as its not a gay pillow you should be right.

JonnyPistachio

pandora wrote:

I am also for equal rights for all and am very fine with marriage remaining as it was intended
to be between a man and a woman ...

There are actually hundreds of ways marriage was intended throughout history...if you're going to continue to bring up thousands/hundreds of years...some were forced to marry when they were 12 years old, men having multiple wives, in some instances wives were considered property once they were married, etc...

pandora

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i am demanding nothing less than gay marriage. if you don't like it, that is your problem. the movement is now. the time is now.

it is nobody's place to segregate or subjugate anyone because of how they were born.

equality is equality. this legislation and your justification of it is clearly in support of inequality.

well thats fine lets take 20 years maybe more and battle,
me...
I would like to see some resolution, rights granted today.
My friends have been without the same rights as JB and I a lifetime,
they want the legal rights and equality we enjoy everyday.

There is nothing unequal about this proposal, it just a different term for the union.
As gay people distinguish their sexuality as different, as a term defined as a group,
so goes the union under a different name with all the same rights, amendment granting
that of the traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

gimmesometruth27

pandora wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i am demanding nothing less than gay marriage. if you don't like it, that is your problem. the movement is now. the time is now.

it is nobody's place to segregate or subjugate anyone because of how they were born.

equality is equality. this legislation and your justification of it is clearly in support of inequality.

well thats fine lets take 20 years maybe more and battle,
me...
I would like to see some resolution, rights granted today.
My friends have been without the same rights as JB and I a lifetime,
they want the legal rights and equality we enjoy everyday.

There is nothing unequal about this proposal, it just a different term for the union.
As gay people distinguish their sexuality as different, as a term defined as a group,
so goes the union under a different name with all the same rights, amendment granting
that of the traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

how can you have the same thing under different names?

man + woman = marriage

man + man

---

> same thing but different name??

i'm sorry, but it should be be called marriage if it is marriage.

Prince Of Dorkness

pandora wrote:

MayDay10 wrote:

This vote in North Carolina is most disappointing.

It is far more that, it is a message, a firm one that marriage is between a man and a woman.

It has nothing to do with prejudices, equal rights, gay unions or desegregation.

People will not allow and will fight to have marriage remain as it was created
and intended. This is a set back as the marriage preservers solidify their cause.

The gay rights people should jump on this and demand a gay union amendment,
without the term marriage, demanding equal rights. There is no opposition
that could oppose that.

Oh please. You're not that dense. It has EVERYTHING to do with prejudice. Marriage was not "created and intended" by Christians and they're not preserving anything.

And I am not a "gay rights person," I am a person who wants "marriage equality."

And finally, showing just how ignorant you are on this subject, you end with Saying that we should come up with a new word with all the same rights as marriage and that "There is no opposition
that could oppose that."

News flash, Einstein, the bill passed in North Carolina was very clear that NO other union can have the same rights as a marriage between a man and a woman. None. So what you just said... That there would be no opposition to it shows that you don't understand the bill that just passed.

Stop defending bigots. They are not preserving anything but thier own place at the top of the hill. Because they're assholes.

pandora

JonnyPistachio wrote:

pandora wrote:

I am also for equal rights for all and am very fine with marriage remaining as it was intended
to be between a man and a woman ...

There are actually hundreds of ways marriage was intended throughout history...if you're going to continue to bring up thousands/hundreds of years...some were forced to marry when they were 12 years old, men having multiple wives, in some instances wives were considered property once they were married, etc...

:? These examples are of marriage between a man and a woman.

We are not discussing other types or reasons for marriage, they are all marriages that
are the definition of the word,
the intended use and creation of the word marriage that is...
the union between a man and a woman.

This is the stance of the marriage preservers as I have heard it.
Has nothing to do with bigotry or prejudice equality or rights
the definition will remain between a man and a woman,
this they will fight to preserve for tradition and intention, for those before and those after.

whygohome

But wait! If Levites and Paul (in Romans) said it 2,000 years ago, it must be true!!

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." (Leviticus 20:13).

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you." (Leviticus 18:22-24).

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-27).

Cliffy6745

Godfather. wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

untell God is blammed anyway or someone like Cliffy and a few others comes on here calling people names in support of gay rights and feelings he couldn't possibly understand unless they are gay themselfs...so that's it in a nutshell understanding is a two way street.


Godfather.

I'm gay now? Or am I just not reading this correctly?

nooooo "feelings he couldn't possibly understand unless they are gay themselfs"
you I believe come on this thread calling people bigots and assholes I think ? whats up with that ? is that how you see the world..people that don't support gay rights are bigots and assholes ? judging by your comments you lack the understanding you seem to demand for yourself and others..do two wrongs make a right ?

Godfather.

Didn't call anyone an asshole, just a bigot. I'm fine with lacking the understanding as to why some people consider others second class citizens. That's perfectly fine with me.

MayDay10

It isnt going to take 20 years. I would say definitely less than 10, possibly within 5. Gay people will be allowed to MARRY, and that is that. Why hastily 'vote' now with discriminatory concessions?

About 10-12 years ago, Howard Dean was blasted for signing Civil Unions for Vermont. Now we have a sitting president supporting gay marriage. Things like this (Civil Rights) progress quicker and quicker, and the closed-minded are left on the wrong side of history. The majority of Americans are for it. That will grow. Republicans and Democrats will have no choice but to support it before long.

Prince Of Dorkness

pandora wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

There are actually hundreds of ways marriage was intended throughout history...if you're going to continue to bring up thousands/hundreds of years...some were forced to marry when they were 12 years old, men having multiple wives, in some instances wives were considered property once they were married, etc...

:? These examples are of marriage between a man and a woman.

1) no, they're not. That is the union between an adult and a child or the union between a man and a bunch of women or a man and his slaves.

2) how come "marriage preservers" aren't fighting for the right to marry little girls and a bunch of women?

ComeToTX

usamamasan1 wrote:

ComeToTX wrote:

I'm constantly amazed that some of the things written here are on a PJ board.

Some of you must be hearing different things in the songs. Or you just hate everything they are about, stand for and sing about.

This is a forum for non-pj related discussion.

You didn't know that? I'm amazed.
That's why I'm here. To help.

Otherwise it's a circle jerk vacuum of thought.

Woot

Thanks for the education :roll: It's still a PJ site and I'm amazed some on here are a fan of a band that feels the opposite as they do and say it in almost EVERY song.

ComeToTX

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

pandora wrote:

I am speaking of the preservers of marriage

Well, but no, you're not. And you know it. So drop that crap.

You're speaking of a bunch of prejudiced people who claimed ownership of both the word and concept of marriage with no historical facts to back that up. They claim to be "preservers of marriage" when they're really just a bunch of hateful assholes who get a kick out of putting themselves atop a mountain of their own creation.

They're not "preserving" anything. Marriage has been used for many things, including giving your daughter as breeding stock to old men in exchange for money or goats.

If they really wanted to "preserve" marriage they would be more interested in making divorce illegal, closing down the wedding chapels where drunk vacationers stagger in to get married in Vegas. They would have lost their minds over the "marriage as publicity stunt" by Kim Kardashian and most of all, they would be carrying burning torches through the streets upon finding out that Maggie Gallagher, the leader of NOM, is in one of those "money for green card" marriages with a man from India that she's only met a few times (and although her Wikipedia page tries to suggest they have a child together, she had that kid out of wedlock before she met her "husband").

So nobody is "preserving marriage," they're just doing their best to stay legally better than the gays. Because they're assholes. And no other reason.

By the way... tell your "preserver of marriage" friends that gay marriages have a MUCH lower divorce rate. Much. That always blows their tops. And I love seeing those people burst into fits of tears. Warms my heart.

For the win!

JonnyPistachio

pandora wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

pandora wrote:

I am also for equal rights for all and am very fine with marriage remaining as it was intended
to be between a man and a woman ...

There are actually hundreds of ways marriage was intended throughout history...if you're going to continue to bring up thousands/hundreds of years...some were forced to marry when they were 12 years old, men having multiple wives, in some instances wives were considered property once they were married, etc...

:? These examples are of marriage between a man and a woman.

We are not discussing other types or reasons for marriage, they are all marriages that
are the definition of the word,
the intended use and creation of the word marriage that is...
the union between a man and a woman.

This is the stance of the marriage preservers as I have heard it.
Has nothing to do with bigotry or prejudice equality or rights
the definition will remain between a man and a woman,
this they will fight to preserve for tradition and intention, for those before and those after.

Of course they are examples of men and women (or KIDS as PoD pointed out), you missed the point though. they are also examples of the way marriage was in history, many of which are illegal now. My point is that when you keep brining up history from thousands of years ago, you are only using that one single solitary fact to help reinforce your argument while ignoring the many other instances that obviously show that marriage TODAY does NOT reflect marriage of thousands of years ago. It simply doesnt. Bad argument by the 'marriage preservers.'

You made my point... "the intended use of marriage" is NOT exactly what you are outlining. and to say that it has nothing to do with bigotry or prejudice is really close-minded. I agree it may not always be the case, but you cannot say that ALL "marriage preservers" simply want it because of tradition. Some have ulterior motives, for sure.

Cliffy6745

MayDay10 wrote:

It isnt going to take 20 years. I would say definitely less than 10, possibly within 5. Gay people will be allowed to MARRY, and that is that. Why hastily 'vote' now with discriminatory concessions?

About 10-12 years ago, Howard Dean was blasted for signing Civil Unions for Vermont. Now we have a sitting president supporting gay marriage. Things like this (Civil Rights) progress quicker and quicker, and the closed-minded are left on the wrong side of history. The majority of Americans are for it. That will grow. Republicans and Democrats will have no choice but to support it before long.

Exactly, end of discussion.

pandora

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Oh please. You're not that dense. It has EVERYTHING to do with prejudice. Marriage was not "created and intended" by Christians and they're not preserving anything.

And I am not a "gay rights person," I am a person who wants "marriage equality."

And finally, showing just how ignorant you are on this subject, you end with Saying that we should come up with a new word with all the same rights as marriage and that "There is no opposition
that could oppose that."

News flash, Einstein, the bill passed in North Carolina was very clear that NO other union can have the same rights as a marriage between a man and a woman. None. So what you just said... That there would be no opposition to it shows that you don't understand the bill that just passed.

Stop defending bigots. They are not preserving anything but thier own place at the top of the hill. Because they're assholes.

Posting guidelines state to remain respectful :?

The common law aspect was added for extra protection for the union of marriage.
We will see what this will bring to the law. May actually work in favor of gay marriage.

Well perhaps you'll be waiting for marriage equality then
while I know many who would like equal rights given today.

Again read my posts I am not defending I am trying to find resolution today.
Perservers of marriage will remain united
and may grow as the issue of prejudice is obviously removed now.

Please don't put me down that is less than respectful and shows your true nature.

redrock

pandora wrote:

As gay people distinguish their sexuality as different, as a term defined as a group.

As heterosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, little people, big people, caucasian, oriental, etc. I could go on for ever.... Labels. We have always put ourselves in 'groups', a belonging of some kind. These groups are all fundamentally the same - people. One word for one 'concept'. Just like marriage - one word for one concept (if we were to choose this word).

whygohome

Cliffy6745 wrote:

MayDay10 wrote:

It isnt going to take 20 years. I would say definitely less than 10, possibly within 5. Gay people will be allowed to MARRY, and that is that. Why hastily 'vote' now with discriminatory concessions?

About 10-12 years ago, Howard Dean was blasted for signing Civil Unions for Vermont. Now we have a sitting president supporting gay marriage. Things like this (Civil Rights) progress quicker and quicker, and the closed-minded are left on the wrong side of history. The majority of Americans are for it. That will grow. Republicans and Democrats will have no choice but to support it before long.

Exactly, end of discussion.

Women weren't allowed to vote until 1913. African Americans were still being hung in the 1960s. Massachusetts was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in 2004.
2012: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg calls President Barack Obama's stand on gay marriage "a major turning point in the history of American civil rights."

Progress is a bitch.