Unless they take up arms and say "Let's kill all straight men and women" it's ok with me. Holy thing... If some of you think that God is going to come down one day and smite the gays, you're sadly mistaken. God didn't come down for WW1, WW2, the Jews, 'Nam, Rwanda and who knows what not, but he'll come to smite the gays... Yeah, right! Get over yourselves.
lol +9999999999
certainly no.
there is no love , and just lust decide for 2 same sex.
Coming from the guy who initiated conversation with me and wanted to be friends with me, I find this an epic backstab.
I'm gay, and I LOVE my boyfriend to death. If ever I lost him, I don't know how I'd go on.
You are sadly mistaken about it being pure lust with no love. We seek companionship, caring, and support from each other first and foremost, like any loving couple. We would let our love culminate in sex, but there's no lust involved. We make love, we don't just **** like animals.
And of course, Marriage in itself may be a religious institution, but that's merely for a ceremony, normally performed in a church. However, atheists, agnostics, polytheists, pastafarians, Buddhists, Hindus, and virtually everyone in America be they spiritual/religious or not in any form get "Married" in the eyes of the law of their state and can file for joint taxes, are listed as primary next-of-kin in hospital situations, etc., and yet gays of the same religious/spiritual creeds, even non-religious, do not get the same rights just because they love someone of the same gender? And here I thought America was based on "All men are created equal".
The government should NOT dictate whether a catholic same-sex couple can or cannot have their pastor or priest actively choose to marry them. It should be up to the particular church or pastor to deny them the ceremony they deserve, not the government. I find that leaving the ultimate ability to allow or deny with the church itself in a case-by-case basis would solve every issue. If you don't like that your church gave a same-sex couple a union, then find a new church that hasn't and/or won't.
"Marriage" as it is, is a word first and foremost. I could care less about the word. We could still ask our partner "Will you marry me?". The only difference is that we'll have someone other than a pastor preside over our union and pronounce us spouses, and we'll have the same rights as every heterosexual "Married" couple, but without taking away their precious word.
I'm fine with "Civil Union", or "Partnership" or any other decent term being on the books, but to me I'll always tell people I'm "Married" to my partner.
Words themselves are made for language, and they have no real immediate value on their own. Certainly some words arranged correctly have a great value, such as our constitution, or poetry, or books that teach us about the past and present, but a single word by itself is useless without proper context and usage.
All we want are the rights associated with marriage, we don't particularly care how, and we'll always say we're "Married" no matter what's on the books and records, but right now we're being shafted in many aspects of these rights in current legislation.
Christianity wants to keep the word "Marriage" kept for one-man-one-woman (Dang, that sounds like it could be a particularly nasty shock site ), and we only want the rights given by the state for "Marriage". Hmmm, time to compromise?
Christianity gets to keep "Marriage", we get our rights but a different linguistic term, and everyone's happy, at least until people become ill-content with this obvious segregation between a minority and a majority.
Important Board Topics
Trending Topics