• (6 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Really sick of these people that want to protect the "institution of marriage" Rate Topic: -----

#21 User is offline   tim_d7 Icon

  • Junior Falcon
  • PipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Pure Football
  • Posts: 322
  • Joined: --

Posted 04 November 2009 - 09:59 PM

View PostEnlightened29, on 04 November 2009 - 08:29 PM, said:

Wow, you really dont get Christianity at all. If you want to see true Christianity you need to hed to Carrollton, Georgia and check out Mt. Holly on Hwy 27. Thats a church that is what every church should be. Dedicated, loving people that truly love Christ.

How do you get that Christians worship a homeless guy? Then you say that 20,000 people come to hear about the camel going through the eye of a needle. I guess that means that preacher cant get enough of that one scripture. Either that, or you dont know any more. The message from the pulpit is about Jesus Christ and how he died for our sins. The only way to heaven is accepting him as savior of your life. The camel going through the eye of a needle represents how hard it is to get to heaven.



You're from Carrollton too? :)
0

#22 User is offline   BTL FED Icon

  • Thread Killer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 4,058
  • Joined: 24-February 09

Posted 04 November 2009 - 10:03 PM

View PostStatick, on 04 November 2009 - 03:20 PM, said:

I see this as a clash of the usage of terminology.

Gay relationships should be allowed to have the same legal benefits as a regular married couple. If gays would just be content with calling their relationships "civil unions" instead of marriages then straight opponents wouldn't be so opposed to them.

Gay relationships should be abolished IMO...Sorry if I offended you in any way.. -_-
0

#23 User is offline   ATL Bear Icon

  • Falcon
  • PipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 1,675
  • Joined: --

Posted 04 November 2009 - 10:29 PM

I posted a longer secular reasoning why same sex marriage is unnecessary in a thread some time ago, but the bottom line is that the institution of marriage is the state having a vested interest in the stable environment for the creation and rearing of children. All other relational aspects between the individuals can be supported by contract law and don't require state subsidy. If necessary, I'll go dig it up and repost.
0

#24 User is offline   JDaveG Icon

  • I Heart Matt Ryan, and not just on Thursdays
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Pure Football
  • Posts: 13,061
  • Joined: --

Posted 05 November 2009 - 12:42 AM

View Posteatcorn, on 04 November 2009 - 03:21 PM, said:

I think they would be willing. No one is offering that.


Uh, yeah they are, and no, at least some would not:

Quote

Civil Unions in the United States


Civil unions by state
[edit] Vermont
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Vermont

Civil unions have been legal in Vermont since a 2000 State Supreme Court ruling requiring that the state recognize same-sex couples on par with heterosexual couples however leaving to the legislature the choice of whether to legalize same-sex marriage or some other form of relationship recognition.

The legislature, under pressure from then Governor Howard Dean, opted for civil unions over marriage as a compromise measure. The act took effect on July 1, 2000. Recently, however, a same-sex marriage bill was passed by the legislature with a veto override on April 7, 2009.[3] The bill comes into effect on September 1, 2009. After this date, no new civil unions will be created.[4]

[edit] Connecticut
Main article: Same-sex marriage in Connecticut

In 2005, the Connecticut legislature became the first state in the United States to legalize civil unions without a court order. The law took effect on October 1, 2008 and was signed into law by Connecticut governor Jodi Rell. Gay rights groups subsequently sued to legalize same-sex marriage, with the Connecticut Supreme Court deciding in their favor in 2008. Same-sex marriages have been performed since November 12, 2008. On October 1, 2010, all existing civil unions will be automatically transformed into marriages[5].

[edit] New Jersey
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in New Jersey

After a ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court, the state has legalized civil unions. The ruling similar to the ruling in Vermont has required the state grant all the benefits given to heterosexual couples to homosexual couples as well. Prior to the ruling same-sex couples enjoyed a broad-range of benefits under the states domestic partnership law. The Civil Union Act took effect on 19 February 2007. Gay rights groups however have stated their dissatisfaction with the law and have promised to continue pushing for same-sex marriage in 2007 and 2008. The Governor, Jon Corzine, has indicated he would sign a same-sex marriage bill if passed.

[edit] New Hampshire
Main article: Civil unions in New Hampshire

On April 4, 2007, the New Hampshire House passed a civil unions bill, HB437, with a vote of 243 to 129. The bill is designed to imbue partners in same-sex civil unions with the same "rights, responsibilities and obligations" as heterosexual couples in marriages in the state of New Hampshire.[6] On April 26, 2007, the New Hampshire Senate approved the civil unions bill 14-10 along political party lines. Governor Lynch signed the bill into law on May 31, 2007, making New Hampshire "the first state to embrace same-sex unions without a court order or the threat of one".[7] The civil unions law took effect on January 1, 2008.[8]

New Hampshire has since legalized same-sex marriage, which will come into effect on January 1, 2010. At that date, no new civil unions will be established in the state.[9] Furthermore, all existing civil unions will be converted into marriages on January 1, 2011.
[edit] Domestic partnerships similar to civil unions

Main article: Domestic partnership in the United States

[edit] Nevada
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Nevada

In 2009, the Nevada Legislature passed a bill to create legal recognition of same-sex unions in Nevada. This bill would create a domestic partnership registry that enables same-sex couples to enjoy the same rights as married couples. It would also allow different-sex couples to obtain the benefits of marriage without a marriage license. The bill was vetoed, as promised, by the governor, but overridden by the legislature on May 31, 2009. The law took effect 1 October 2009.

[edit] California
Main article: Domestic partnership in California

A California domestic partnership is available to same-sex couples and to certain opposite-sex couples in which at least one party is at least 62 years of age. When it became law on 22 September 1999, the domestic partnership registry entitled partners to very few privileges such as hospital visitation rights. The legislature has since expanded the scope of California domestic partnerships to afford many of the rights and responsibilities common to marriage. As such, it is now difficult to distinguish California domestic partnerships from civil unions offered in a handful of other states.

[edit] Washington
Main article: Domestic partnership in Washington

After a 2006 court ruling rejecting same-sex marriage, gay rights groups have vowed to push for same-sex marriage in the long-term and domestic partnerships in the short-term.

In March 2007, the bill passed the senate, and on April 10, 2007 the bill passed the state House of Representatives. The bill became law on April 21, 2007 when Governor Christine Gregoire signed it. The law took effect on July 22, 2007. The law conferred eleven of the rights of marriage to same–sex couples, as well as opposite–sex couples when at least one of the individuals is over the age of 62.[10]

In 2008, the Legislature greatly expanded the scope of the law, adding over 160 of the state rights and responsibilities of marriage to domestic partnerships. The bill was passed on March 4, 2008, signed by Governor Gregoire on March 12, 2008, and took effect on June 12, 2008.[11]

In 2009, the Legislature fully expanded the scope of the law in a bill bringing domestic partnerships equal under state law to marriages in the state. The bill passed the legislature on April 15, 2009 and is awaiting Governor Gregoire's signature expected to occur on May 18, 1009.[12] and http://heraldnet.com...EWS01/705059848

On May 4, 2009 Referendum 71 was filed in the Washington Secretary of State's Office to attempt to prevent the 2009 Domestic Partnership Legislation from becoming Law. Opponents have until July 25, 2009 to gather 120,577 signatures to force a November 2009 ballot vote. http://heraldnet.com...EWS01/705059848

[edit] Oregon
Main article: Domestic partnership in Oregon

In 2004, voters approved a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Despite this defeat, gay rights groups have continued to push for civil unions in the state legislature. In trying to garner support for a civil unions bill, it was changed to a domestic partnership registry, although it still gave virtually all of the state level benefits as a marriage or civil union does.[13] In April 2007 the Oregon House passed the domestic partnership bill.

The bill passed the House in April 2007 and the House on May 2. It was signed by the Governor on May 9. The bill made Oregon the 9th state in the United States to give some level of recognition to same-sex couples. Although the law was to take effect on 1 January 2008, it was delayed by court action. It took effect on 4 February 2008.

[edit] District of Columbia
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in the District of Columbia

The Washington, DC domestic partnership law took effect on 11 June 1992, but was not funded by Congress until 2002. Both heterosexual and homosexual couples may register, and while benefits have increase over time, the benefits are specifically enumerated and are as extensive as those of marriage. There has been discussion about legalizing same sex marriage; however, Congress could prevent such a measure.

[edit] Maine
Main article: Domestic partnership in Maine

In April, 2004 the legislature passed a domestic partnership bill. The law, which provides same-sex individuals with inheritance rights over their partners' property and guardianship over their deceased partner, went into effect on July 30, 2004[14].
[edit] Other types of recognition

[edit] Hawaii
Main article: Reciprocal beneficiary relationships in Hawaii

Since 1997, the U.S. state of Hawaii has offered reciprocal beneficiary registration for any adults who are prohibited by state law from marrying, including both same-sex and different-sex couples. Reciprocal beneficiaries have access to a limited number of rights and benefits on the state level, including inheritance rights, workers compensation, the right to sue for wrongful death, health insurance and pension benefits for state employees, hospital visitation, and healthcare decisionmaking. Hawaii's RBR status also offers partners the option to jointly own property as "Tenants by the Entirety."

[edit] Colorado
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Colorado

Since midnight July 1, 2009 unmarried couples have been able to enter a designated beneficiary agreement - similar to reciprocal beneficiary relationships in Hawaii - which will grant them limited rights, including making funeral arrangements for each other, receiving death benefits, and inheriting property without a will.[15] The law, House Bill 1260, will be valid for estate planning, property purchases, medical decisions and certain benefits such as life-insurance and retirement-plan disbursements and was signed by Governor Bill Ritter on April 9, 2009.[16]

[edit] Maryland
Main article: Recognition of same-sex unions in Maryland

The Maryland General Assemby passed a domestic partnership law in 2008. It was signed into law by Governor Martin O'Malley on May 22, and came into effect on July 1, 2008.[17] It provides domestic partners with 11 rights of marriage, including hospital visitation and the making of funeral arrangements for each other. The law does not establish a domestic partnership registry, so couples may be required by officials or facilities to prove that their partnership exists by providing a sworn affidavit along with two other documents enumerated in the law, such as evidence of a joint mortgage, checking account, or insurance coverage, among others.


Quote

Definition of Civil Unions from "LesbianLife.com"

As you can see, marriage and civil unions are not the same. Creating equal access to marriage is the only fair way to ensure equality for gay and straight couples alike.


Now, I know "LesbianLife.com" does not speak for all homosexuals, and I am aware that there are a significant number of homosexuals who not only believe civil unions are the way to go, but in fact think that politically speaking they are the smarter way to go, but the push right now is for marriage, not an equal institution to marriage that is called by another name (since marriage by definition IS between a man and woman).

And if you deny that, perhaps you can explain why Proposition 8 was pushed in California nearly 10 years after their domestic partnership law was enacted?
0

#25 User is offline   Falcons Ace Icon

  • Ace of the Falcons
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Pure Football
  • Posts: 8,940
  • Joined: --

Posted 05 November 2009 - 01:14 AM

View PostEnlightened29, on 04 November 2009 - 09:30 PM, said:

Two Hindu people getting married isnt an abomination against God. God doesnt account how many sins you commit into one huge one. The only problem he would have in the case of the two Hindu people is that they would go to **** when they died for not accepting his son's sacrifice. Their marriage wouldnt be a sin in itself.


Ugh. So many things wrong with your way of thinking, and I speak as a follower of Christ myself.

1. It is ignorant to say that simply every person who doesn't follow the Bible is going to ****. It's inaccurate to begin with, but it's illogical to say the least. Do you honestly think God would **** an entire group of people, or even one single innocent individual who hadn't ever heard of God or was raised a certain way to begin with?

2. No one is trying to force churches to marry homosexuals. They are simply trying to fight for the same rights for their unions as straight people have. You don't have to call it marriage and have a priest to grant any kind of couple a civil union that allows equal rights as those with marriage would have. Marriage isn't exclusive to Christianity. IMO, they(government) should change married simply to Civil Union and leave the name marriage to religious foundations.

3. Just because we follow the Bible does not give us the right to force our views and beliefs upon others in this country. Just because what someone does isn't in line with your beliefs, religious or not, does not mean it's okay to enact legislation denying them equal rights. Our government by way of the Constitution does not officially enforce, recognize, or represent any single religion, nationality, or race. Our government is meant to uphold equality and justice amongst it's citizens by ensuring the ideals of our Founding Fathers were carried out. No one has any morale right to deny them the same rights as a straight couple. As Christians, not a single one of us can honestly sit on their little throne and judge and persecute from their house of glass. EVERYONE is a sinner, and no one is better than another in God's eyes, or in America.
0

#26 User is offline   poutlipper Icon

  • Supreme Falcon
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Pure Football
  • Posts: 10,455
  • Joined: --

Posted 05 November 2009 - 01:45 AM

View PostLord Dark Helmet, on 04 November 2009 - 03:06 PM, said:

Are they mental? If the "institution of marriage" is 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, I don't see what they want protected.

Let the gays marry. Straight people sure have not done anything with it except divorce and hate.

haha, everyone loves a popular vote until they find out the majority don't want what they want.
0

#27 User is offline   sudo rm -rf / Icon

  • sudo rm -rf /
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Pure Football
  • Posts: 7,114
  • Joined: --

Posted 05 November 2009 - 01:48 AM

As long as government is in involved in marriage, there can be absolutely no other alternative than to let marriage be equal for all.
0

#28 User is offline   Statick Icon

  • Falcon Lord
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Pure Football
  • Posts: 14,452
  • Joined: --

Posted 05 November 2009 - 08:17 AM

View PostBTL FED, on 05 November 2009 - 12:03 AM, said:

Gay relationships should be abolished IMO...Sorry if I offended you in any way.. -_-


Now, why would I be offended?

As Christians, we shouldn't judge people. We don't have the right. Leave those people alone and let them live their lives in peace and happiness without judgmental persecution.
0

#29 User is offline   Enlightened29 Icon

  • Junior Falcon
  • PipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 611
  • Joined: 25-June 09

Posted 05 November 2009 - 08:26 AM

View PostFalcons Ace, on 05 November 2009 - 01:14 AM, said:

Ugh. So many things wrong with your way of thinking, and I speak as a follower of Christ myself.

1. It is ignorant to say that simply every person who doesn't follow the Bible is going to ****. It's inaccurate to begin with, but it's illogical to say the least. Do you honestly think God would **** an entire group of people, or even one single innocent individual who hadn't ever heard of God or was raised a certain way to begin with?

2. No one is trying to force churches to marry homosexuals. They are simply trying to fight for the same rights for their unions as straight people have. You don't have to call it marriage and have a priest to grant any kind of couple a civil union that allows equal rights as those with marriage would have. Marriage isn't exclusive to Christianity. IMO, they(government) should change married simply to Civil Union and leave the name marriage to religious foundations.

3. Just because we follow the Bible does not give us the right to force our views and beliefs upon others in this country. Just because what someone does isn't in line with your beliefs, religious or not, does not mean it's okay to enact legislation denying them equal rights. Our government by way of the Constitution does not officially enforce, recognize, or represent any single religion, nationality, or race. Our government is meant to uphold equality and justice amongst it's citizens by ensuring the ideals of our Founding Fathers were carried out. No one has any morale right to deny them the same rights as a straight couple. As Christians, not a single one of us can honestly sit on their little throne and judge and persecute from their house of glass. EVERYONE is a sinner, and no one is better than another in God's eyes, or in America.

This can all be answered very easily.

Quote

John 14:6 (New International Version)

6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. NO ONE comes to the Father except through ME.

This post has been edited by Enlightened29: 05 November 2009 - 08:28 AM

0

#30 User is offline   hammerhead Icon

  • GO FALCONS
  • PipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 2,044
  • Joined: 27-November 08

Posted 05 November 2009 - 08:27 AM

"And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,'"
—Matthew 19:4

If God had intended the human race to be fulfilled through both heterosexual and homosexual marriage, He would have designed our bodies to allow reproduction through both means and made both means of sexual intercourse healthy and natural. Homosexual anal intercourse carries a high risk of disease, this is recognized in Scripture where gay men are said to receive in their bodies the due penalty for their error (Romans 1:27).

The image of God is both male and female and is reflected in a godly union between male and female where the creative power of God, His life-giving, His self-giving and His moral nature are perfectly expressed. This is only possible in a heterosexual union.

When God created a partner for Adam He created Eve - not another Adam. This means that perfect partnership requires some level of difference as well as a level of similarity so great that Adam could cry out loudly, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh". Sexual intimacy between a man and a woman is the normal method of male/female bonding (emotionally and physically) because it corresponds to the design of our bodies and because it is the normal means by which offspring are created.
2

#31 User is offline   Statick Icon

  • Falcon Lord
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Pure Football
  • Posts: 14,452
  • Joined: --

Posted 05 November 2009 - 08:32 AM

View Posthammerhead, on 05 November 2009 - 10:27 AM, said:

"And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,'"
—Matthew 19:4

If God had intended the human race to be fulfilled through both heterosexual and homosexual marriage, He would have designed our bodies to allow reproduction through both means and made both means of sexual intercourse healthy and natural. Homosexual anal intercourse carries a high risk of disease, this is recognized in Scripture where gay men are said to receive in their bodies the due penalty for their error (Romans 1:27).

The image of God is both male and female and is reflected in a godly union between male and female where the creative power of God, His life-giving, His self-giving and His moral nature are perfectly expressed. This is only possible in a heterosexual union.

When God created a partner for Adam He created Eve - not another Adam. This means that perfect partnership requires some level of difference as well as a level of similarity so great that Adam could cry out loudly, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh". Sexual intimacy between a man and a woman is the normal method of male/female bonding (emotionally and physically) because it corresponds to the design of our bodies and because it is the normal means by which offspring are created.



In the End, only God has the right to judge, not Man.

Leave those people alone in peace.
0

#32 User is offline   RockPaperScissors Icon

  • Junior Falcon
  • PipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 881
  • Joined: 12-August 09

Posted 05 November 2009 - 08:34 AM

View Postsudo rm -rf /, on 05 November 2009 - 01:48 AM, said:

As long as government is in involved in marriage, there can be absolutely no other alternative than to let marriage be equal for all.

Bingo, which makes it a civil rights issue.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay dude. It is DESPICABLE to use the power of government to enforce your personal/religious beliefs on others.
0

#33 User is offline   RockPaperScissors Icon

  • Junior Falcon
  • PipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 881
  • Joined: 12-August 09

Posted 05 November 2009 - 08:36 AM

I think they should ban football because the body wasn't naturally designed to take tackles or throw a football 40 yards.
0

#34 User is offline   ATL Bear Icon

  • Falcon
  • PipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 1,675
  • Joined: --

Posted 05 November 2009 - 08:40 AM

View Postsudo rm -rf /, on 05 November 2009 - 01:48 AM, said:

As long as government is in involved in marriage, there can be absolutely no other alternative than to let marriage be equal for all.

It's involved in a dissimilar relationship, at least for the purpose of state subsidy. If you choose to make the argument that there is no longer a reason to support or advocate the relationship of procreation and child rearing, then so be it. But let's not pretend there isn't an apple vs orange element here.
0

#35 User is offline   RockPaperScissors Icon

  • Junior Falcon
  • PipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 881
  • Joined: 12-August 09

Posted 05 November 2009 - 08:42 AM

I think it's to prevent revenues dropping due to all the smart-azzes who'd "marry" their room-mates for a tax break.

It's ALWAYS about money.
0

#36 User is offline   Steve_Bartkowski Icon

  • Supreme Falcon
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Pure Football
  • Posts: 17,459
  • Joined: --

Posted 05 November 2009 - 08:59 AM

I'm sick of people that try to prevent someone from marrying their dog or their horse or something... :angry: Those bigots... :lol:
0

#37 User is offline   rvrndzombii Icon

  • Group: Super Pure Football
  • PipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 2,660
  • Joined: --

Posted 05 November 2009 - 09:11 AM

i just got married on saturday..

my marriage doesn't mean any less if people who are gay are allowed to marry..


i enjoy making things about me.. sometimes i like to pee on my dogs when they aren't looking..
0

#38 User is offline   RockPaperScissors Icon

  • Junior Falcon
  • PipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Forum Members
  • Posts: 881
  • Joined: 12-August 09

Posted 05 November 2009 - 09:15 AM

View Postrvrndzombii, on 05 November 2009 - 09:11 AM, said:

i just got married on saturday..

my marriage doesn't mean any less if people who are gay are allowed to marry..


i enjoy making things about me.. sometimes i like to pee on my dogs when they aren't looking..

when my dog was a puppy he was very curious about the toilet and would follow me into the bathroom and stand with his front paws on the toilet while I peed. I would always push him off and kick him out of the bathroom, but one morning I was pretty hung-over and ended up peeing on his head when he got up on the toilet.

He learned that lesson pretty quick.

oh, and congrats on the marriage.
0

#39 User is offline   Summerbunny Icon

  • I'M THAT!
  • PipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Pure Football
  • Posts: 1,646
  • Joined: --

Posted 05 November 2009 - 09:17 AM

View PostRyan too White, on 04 November 2009 - 08:21 PM, said:

Thats modern Christianity for you, though. Worship a homeless guy on Sunday, spend the rest of the week ignoring them. Build a megachurch with a food court, ATMs, and stadium seating, so that 20,000 people can hear about a camel going through the eye of a needle.


OMG, that is too funny!

I don't understand how it has gotten this far to begin with. IMO, it is quite simple, Marriage is a religious belief, so not allowing gays to marry is imposing YOUR religion on them. And I could have swore there was a seperation of church and state, the government has no right to define marriage to me! I will never be for the gov't defining marriage as between a man and woman! And just like someone already said, what exactly are you protecting!

-1

#40 User is offline   Statick Icon

  • Falcon Lord
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • PM this member
  • Group: Pure Football
  • Posts: 14,452
  • Joined: --

Posted 05 November 2009 - 09:39 AM

View PostSummerbunny, on 05 November 2009 - 11:17 AM, said:

OMG, that is too funny!

And just like someone already said, what exactly are you protecting!


Their homophobia.
-2

  • (6 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic


Copyright © 2008 Atlanta Falcons. All Rights Reserved. Do not duplicate in any form without permission of the Atlanta Falcons.