Should Gay People Be Allowed to Marry?

[Dickface McSlapnuts]

Note.. not a duplicate thread. This isn't just about the San Fransisco weddings.. it's about the right to marry another homo.

Ok Fukkers..
Should fags be allowed to marry?
The way I sees it.. why should we stand in the way of 2 fags that want to pound eachother in the ass?
Why should we stand in the way of one dude fucking another dude in the ass, then getting a shit tastin' blowjob?

Why should we stand in the way of 2 camel toed, mullet wearin' hairy underarmed beasts bumping donuts?

Why should we stand in the way of 2 guys whose favorite pastime is licking ballz and running hamsters up each others asses.

if one dude wants to eat the hairy shit filled anus of another man..

What the fuck do I really care?

If one dude wakes up and there is a set of nutz on his eyes .. how does that shit effect my day?

Not one bit!

Godd Dammit.. Rush the Capital Building..
This is just another act of discrimination.
It's no different than racial discrimination.. except instead of involving wetbacks and nigs it involves alot of anal sex and some teabaggin' to boot.

Letting 2 fags marry doesn't make you gay.
If you are wondering about me and my sexual tendencies..
Well motherfuckers I am very hetrosexual.
There is nothing I enjoy more than some nice clean shaven pussy.

Goodbye you bastards
DickFace McSlapnuts
As a matter of fact.. I wax more ass than a candlemaker with a donkey fetish.

[FORD]

Titney Spears married some old high school friend and annulled it 24 hours later. But for those 24 hours, they had all the same legal rights of a couple that had been married for 50 years and had a mess of kids.

Meanwhile, a gay couple who had been together for 50 years would have none of those rights. That simply is wrong.

It's not about whether you understand, or approve of two people of the same gender in a relationship. The fact is that such people do exist, they always have existed, and they always will exist, and it's damn time they are treated as full citizens like everybody else.

Individual churches and/or denominational hierarchies have every right to determine their own religious ceremonies. They have absolutely NO right to dictate legal government policies, especially those based on bigotry. If they were, we would still have legalized racism in some states. Hell, interracial dating is STILL "illegal" at Bob Jones University, for fucks sake!

It's time to end all fucking bigotry and get out of the goddamned 12 century mentality.

[Bonzo]

Originally posted by FORD
Titney Spears married some old high school friend and annulled it 24 hours later. But for those 24 hours, they had all the same legal rights of a couple that had been married for 50 years and had a mess of kids.

Meanwhile, a gay couple who had been together for 50 years would have none of those rights. That simply is wrong.

It's not about whether you understand, or approve of two people of the same gender in a relationship. The fact is that such people do exist, they always have existed, and they always will exist, and it's damn time they are treated as full citizens like everybody else.

Individual churches and/or denominational hierarchies have every right to determine their own religious ceremonies. They have absolutely NO right to dictate legal government policies, especially those based on bigotry. If they were, we would still have legalized racism in some states. Hell, interracial dating is STILL "illegal" at Bob Jones University, for fucks sake!

It's time to end all fucking bigotry and get out of the goddamned 12 century mentality.

Well, good luck to you and the Mr!

[SilvioDante]

I personally do not care what gays do as long as I don't have to watch (Unless it's like two real hot chicks going at it).

I don't undestand what all the fuss is. You want gays to stop wanting to get married, let them GET married. Then, they get all the baggage that comes along with it: divorce, alimony, child support (They CAN adopt you know, ask Rosie) in-laws.. the whole ball of wax!!!

They'll rue the day they opened THIS Pandora's box. Then again if they opened Pandora's box, they wouldn't be gay right.

BTW FORD - Where I work, a "same sex live-in copmanion" is covered under our insurance but if a person had a live-in boyfriend or girlfriend, whichever the case may be, they aren't covered. THAT is bullshit.

[Dr. Love]

I don't care, give them the same legal rights. That's all it amounts to anyway.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by SilvioDante
Where I work, a "same sex live-in copmanion" is covered under our insurance but if a person had a live-in boyfriend or girlfriend, whichever the case may be, they aren't covered. THAT is bullshit.

agreed. but that's the problem when they can't have a legal civil union or legal marriage. private companies, like health insurance, are free to have their own rules. but if they could just say, "any spouse, or partner in a civil union is covered, but no one else," they would.



(P.S.: i don't think i get as much ass as either the candlemaker or dickface. )

[FORD]

Originally posted by SilvioDante

BTW FORD - Where I work, a "same sex live-in copmanion" is covered under our insurance but if a person had a live-in boyfriend or girlfriend, whichever the case may be, they aren't covered. THAT is bullshit.

True enough. But your employer and/or insurance company can justify that by claiming that the heterosexual couple always has the option of getting legally married, where as the gay couple does not, under the current laws. And while I'm not a big fan of the insurance industry, I could understand their hesitancy in signing up unmarried heterosexuals under the assumption that the relationship might not be permanent, resulting in extra paperwork hassles, etc.

Lame excuse, yes. But we are talking about an industry that deliberately stereotypes as a rule when determining the "risk factor" of those they insure.

The only fair solution is to have one legal standard license for ALL committed couples and let the churches argue amongst themselves about the ceremonial part of it.

[SilvioDante]

Holy shit FORD, I agree with you.....

I need to get off this board!!!!

[BigBadBrian]

No, they should not be allowed to marry. What defines marriage? Allowing this will change the definition of marriage forever, and not for the good. Call it civil unions if you must.

Congrats to you and your man, FORD. We all always knew you were a homo. :D

[Switch84]

No

Hey, let's just make every behavior known to man legal! Let's make pedophilia legal...there's folks that have "loved" kids for years. Let's make marrying your sister legal...I hear it's already done in Alabama and Mississippi! Let's make homicide legal...I have a couple of people on a list already! Most importantly, let's make getting high legal!!! 'Scuse me while I kiss the SKY!!!



:D LMMFAOBT!!!!!!

[EAST COAST]

every different religion bans this act homosexuality, the thought of same sex marriages makes most of the population queasy. my oppinion is really irrelevent just like everybodies, but if this kind of sexual behavior is excused then every other form of sexual desires has its day in court.. we will just be opening cans after cans of worms. we will have legalized cousin marriages then brother and sister marriages, where will it stop. the answer is stop it before it gets a head of steam, preemptive strike... i really hate to beat a dead donkey but this is liberalism at its ugliest. i really dont have a problem with any of it, it aint my problem. but if you allow this it just doesnt stop, every crooked lawyer and crazy with half a brain will try to fill any loop hole possible. civilization works with rules, not excuses excuses.

[Lqskydiver]

Originally posted by FORD


It's not about whether you understand, or approve of two people of the same gender in a relationship. The fact is that such people do exist, they always have existed, and they always will exist, and it's damn time they are treated as full citizens like everybody else.

This one is directed at FORD. Aetheist need not reply.

What about adherent Christian values. Does it say anywhere that homosexuality is accepted as part of Christ's teachings?

The real issue here is that same sex marriage is still a fundamental part of the pulpit preaching. These issues reside in religion and it's basic function. Of course, now with all that is going on with the Church and it's problems with peds and homo priests, that barrier was bound to be broken.

So fags can now marry and hold a priesthood.
Yup...we all going to hell.

Excuse my deragatory language...just trying to prove a point.

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
No, they should not be allowed to marry. What defines marriage? Allowing this will change the definition of marriage forever, and not for the good. Call it civil unions if you must.

Congrats to you and your man, FORD. We all always knew you were a homo. :D

Well, if defending gay civil rights makes me a "homo" then I guess you might as well consider me Jim Hendrix because I support civil rights for blacks and native peoples as well. (Can't play shit on guitar though)

However, the question of what defines marriage is a very valid one. Adam & Eve were considered married, but who signed the license, and where was the paperwork filed. We can assume that God himself performed the ceremony, which is better than any of His earthly subordinates, but that doesn't make it "legal" by current standards.

So what is marraige? Is it a piece of paper? Or a ceremony? Or is it the genuine commitment between two people?

Hint: Titney Spears and her so called husband had the first two.

[FORD]

Re: No

Originally posted by Switch84
Most importantly, let's make getting high legal!!! 'Scuse me while I kiss the SKY!!!

I'm all for that one. Prohibition of marijuana is even more ridiculous than prohibition of gay marriage. And I'm neither a stoner or a homosexual.

[Dr. Love]

There's a difference between religious and legal marriages... I think most people have a moral objection to the former and I don't see a problem with the latter (other than the common word 'marriage')