- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: is anybody on this board actually against gay marriage?
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:10 pm to Artie Rome
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:10 pm to Artie Rome
I hate that the term is gay marriage. Gay marriage is not illegal. Same sex marriage is illegal (in some places). Two straight men or women cant get married. A gay man can marry a lesbian.
Also equal rights is thrown around a lot. Everybody has the exact same rights. I, as a straight man, am not allowed to marry a dude just like a gay guy is not.
Also equal rights is thrown around a lot. Everybody has the exact same rights. I, as a straight man, am not allowed to marry a dude just like a gay guy is not.
0
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:10 pm to texashorn
quote:That will be the civil war of 2050 -- the Muslims against the liberals who brought them here
unless liberals completely capitulate to radical Muslims
Fortunately I'll be dead by then. But some of you college students will live to see it.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:10 pm to WalkingTurtles
Saying something that offends someone is not slander. In your scenario there is no slander.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:13 pm to SanFranTiger
quote:
I also have lived in Ruston, Dallas, Baton Rouge, Sacramento and I was gay in all those cities too
Ewe.
I'm kidding man. Most of my friends are gay. The rest are black. I'm cool. I love San Fran.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:13 pm to Artie Rome
In my interpretation I felt like there was.
In regards to the scenario, the comment implied that lifestyle choices made by the gay couple would lead to in the religious persons mind some form of eternal damnation. That can be pretty disturbing to hear, so while maybe no criminal issues could be pressed, I am damned to think some type of civil issue couldn't be wrangled up.
Most important point is why would you want to say it?
In regards to the scenario, the comment implied that lifestyle choices made by the gay couple would lead to in the religious persons mind some form of eternal damnation. That can be pretty disturbing to hear, so while maybe no criminal issues could be pressed, I am damned to think some type of civil issue couldn't be wrangled up.
Most important point is why would you want to say it?
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:14 pm to WalkingTurtles
I am not against gay marriage per say, I am against the gay agenda.
The media and the movement trying to normalize the gay lifestyle to the mainstream. You can't watch TV without a gay character on a show. The fact that they try to make the population believe that gays are everywhere when in fact they are a much smaller percentage of the population than they are letting on.
The media and the movement trying to normalize the gay lifestyle to the mainstream. You can't watch TV without a gay character on a show. The fact that they try to make the population believe that gays are everywhere when in fact they are a much smaller percentage of the population than they are letting on.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:15 pm to Artie Rome
quote:soon you'll be able to marry one
Ewe
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:16 pm to SanFranTiger
quote:
I know it's grown cliche, but if people were seriously worried about protecting marriage, they would make getting married and getting divorced more difficult for all people.
Don't know about the getting married part, but modern divorce law is just as much of a problem (probably more of a problem) for families and society as gay "marriage." Gay marriage is more a symptom of the damage already done by the sexual revolution, which was terrible for our country.
This post was edited on 9/8/14 at 10:21 pm
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:17 pm to WalkingTurtles
quote:
In my interpretation I felt like there was
Are you a Supreme Court Justice? You don't get to "interpret" slander because you "feel" a certain way. Nothing in your scenario is slanderous. Period.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:17 pm to texashorn
Yes these people are trying to save lost souls. Forget it man, its not your place or anyone else to save someone from their sexuality choices.
Drugs or addiction sure, step in and save a life, but to project your religious views on someone should not be acceptable behavior.
And yes I believe in free speech. If a religious man wants to have an honest conversation about beliefs with a homosexual then by all means. Both should have tolerance.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:19 pm to Artie Rome
Well Artie get your lawyers and Ill get mine and we will let the judge decided where the pieces fall.
I have a feeling whatever the case may be we could get some money out of the religious zealot praying for losts souls and spend it on the homosexual couple's wedding cake
I have a feeling whatever the case may be we could get some money out of the religious zealot praying for losts souls and spend it on the homosexual couple's wedding cake
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:19 pm to wal marks
I think Capital "M" Marriage is solely the province of a person's faith / spirituality. If a group of Methodists wants to keep itself separate from the Pentecostals, they should be allowed to do so. If they only want to marry male / female couples or white / white couples, that should be their decision. BUT--and this is where I part ways with just about every so-called Christian I know--the government should only license / sponsor what I call lowercase "m" marriage--not the "spiritual" relationship but a basic contract or civil union available to any two people regardless of race, gender, creed, etc. The government should basically just do civil unions for everyone. If the super-spiritual religious types also want / need a sacred ceremony, they should get it from their own spiritual leaders.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:20 pm to SanFranTiger
quote:
SanFranTiger
So here we go on this, mano e mano. To set the stage, I am a Southern Baptist and ultra conservative. That being said, your chosen life is your own and guaranteed in the constitution to the best of my knowledge. Personally, I can't support a religious ceremony but I do support a government recognized ceremony that gives you all the legal rights of "marriage". I bear no grudge and would (already have) treat(ed) you just like any other in public.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:21 pm to FCP
quote:
FCP
Yes, no official government should be assigning value to "marriage". Its a civil union for tax, estate, and insurance purposes. Let those involved assign spiritual, romantic and commitment to them on their own private terms.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:22 pm to WalkingTurtles
quote:
its not your place or anyone else to save someone from their sexuality choices. Drugs or addiction sure, step in and save a life.
Why do you get to decide who I can save?
quote:
And yes I believe in free speech
With qualifiers.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:23 pm to WalkingTurtles
quote:
From there any criminal or civil liabilities could and should be addressed.
I don't think this is a description of a situation where it would apply .... although you could file charges against a ham sandwich in civil court.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:24 pm to wal marks
Don't call it marriage...
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:25 pm to SanFranTiger
quote:
I also have lived in Ruston, Dallas, Baton Rouge, Sacramento and I was gay in all those cities too
Cool comeback. Lotsa gay folks around here. I've worked with many. I even grew up near one.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:26 pm to Artie Rome
Would running into a crowd theatre scream "fire" or "I have a bomb" be a qualifier?
Do you also want to protest gay marriage with Westboro?
If two men want to get married, I think free speech goes out the windon when you are condemning or damning them. A polite I don't agree with your lifestyle choices for religious reasons may be more appropriate. Or better yet saying nothing at all may be the best. And please don't bring up Aids, but two responsible adults want to be homosexuals and create a life is not risking their life in any capacity. From a religious viewpoint it is eternal damnation, but to confront them with that is forcing your religious views on them, and we shouldn't do that.
Do you also want to protest gay marriage with Westboro?
If two men want to get married, I think free speech goes out the windon when you are condemning or damning them. A polite I don't agree with your lifestyle choices for religious reasons may be more appropriate. Or better yet saying nothing at all may be the best. And please don't bring up Aids, but two responsible adults want to be homosexuals and create a life is not risking their life in any capacity. From a religious viewpoint it is eternal damnation, but to confront them with that is forcing your religious views on them, and we shouldn't do that.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:26 pm to Redbone
quote:
I don't think this is a description of a situation where it would apply .... although you could file charges against a ham sandwich in civil court.
A ham sandwich lacks legal capacity. And how would you get personal jurisdiction over said ham sandwich?
Page 7 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News