MLD Woody Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 Man... That was quite the tantrum... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 Stroke of a pen Chris. I'd wager that given the chance to vote Americans with overwhelmingly support civil unions. Of course hatred of the other side is always going to be a problem whether it's people like bunker or woody. WSS It's a simple matter for each individual company to treat civil unions the same as marriages, but that to happen unilaterally is far from simple. Changing the wording of marriage from 'man and woman' to 'person and person' is much simpler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 You really just compared me to bunker... ... Fuck off Sorry. Bunker would have given a more thoughtful response... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 Sorry. Bunker would have given a more thoughtful response... WSS No... No he wouldn't. When I start talking about killing whatever the opposite of Muslims and Gays would be, we can talk. When I get banned for being a complete, vulgar, inhumane, Retarded asshole, let me know. Until then... I'm no where near bunker. I hope you were just trolling... If not, give me one example of how I'm anywhere near him. I'm sure you'll just stretch and example or put words in my mouth... But go for it. (Also, that "you have no thoughtful response" thing is getting old. The belief I'm the only one that does that is asinine. Of course, its pretty much just some group troll by some on here, and the fact I'm typing this will only increase your willingness to say that. Because some on here can't act above the level of a child sometimes. But it's whatever. Keep doing what you're doing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 Oh I agree bunker is a much much bigger asshole but the point is the same. There are people in group X who live to fuck with people in group Z. And vice versa. Unfortunately they often drown out group Y who could actually envision a compromise. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 And yet you equate me to Bunker... I'm just wondering what you example here is? I mean, we're pretty much in agreement on gay marriage, so I'm wondering where that cane from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 You both seem to come from a point of hatred. Bunker for Muslims gays etcetera and you for Christians and traditionalists. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 I don't hate Christians. My two best friends from college were Christians abs went to church on Sunday (or at least attempted too). I just think that overall, we'd be better off without religion. I have nothing against "tradionalists". I just don't think an accepted reason to do something is "we've always done it that way". I'm not pro gay marriage or pro weed because its different than what exists now. I'm for them because I believe that with the evidence and facts we have, it is objectively the right thing to do. I don't believe your statement was correct at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrownsKidd Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 Oh I agree bunker is a much much bigger asshole but the point is the same. There are people in group X who live to fuck with people in group Z. And vice versa. Unfortunately they often drown out group Y who could actually envision a compromise. WSS Here is the compromise from a "religious" person. First, religious people do not need to get so butt hurt over what a secular society decides it wants to do. Christians, or whatever you might want to call them need to realize that it is not a legal document that binds two people together, neither is a public ceremony, or the exchanging of vows or rings that make legitimizes a "spiritual union". Just because a man wants a legal document declaring him and another man to be "married' does not force God or any god for that matter to recognize it. It does not dilute marriages between a man or a woman in any way. Most marriages in ancient times, including Judaism, was finally recognized after the consummation between the man and the woman. Gay marriage can't be spiritually binding in any way, shape or form because a man is not consummating with a women. The only thing happening is civil recognition and if that is all they want, then so be it. Let them have their "marriage" and then all the crap those goes along with the divorce as well, alimony, child support, legal expenses etc., Christians also embrace national zionism, thinking that God somehow will punish this nation for accepting gay marriage, abortion and all that. But they forget that God severed any national biases when the old testament covenant with Israel was destroyed with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD by the Roman Empire. Christians are now the body of Christ, not a specific nation, Israel or the U.S. The U.S. is no more a Christian Nation than Russia is, or any other nation. The atrocities done under the banner of Christ and a Christian Nation is shameful and hypocritical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 For me it's about having a clear separation between the legal and spiritual definitions of marriage. On the legal side, when Timmy and Sally get married, they get certain benefits (as described above). When Sally and Sally get a civil union, they do not get the same level of benefits. If Timmy and Sally want to, they can declare their love for each other in front of their god of choice. Sally and Sally probably won't want to do that, and no religious institution should be forced to conduct a ceremony they disagree with such as that. It really is simple, for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 Love? Whats love got to do with it? It's a simple matter of perks being given to a couple partly, but not specifically, related to the raising of children and the bloodlines of clans dating back centuries. We, or at least the government, has decided to take the main event covenant away. Ok. That means that perks have nothing to do with children and family anymore. At least in the eyes of government. So why should love matter? It is a cold hard fact that the perks involved are the only consideration. I'm in the small percentage on the left in this particular situation but if I were president or king I might take an approach closer to compromise because I think it would suit more people. But I don't give a rats ass about the Old Testament or squealing about Zionism. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 16, 2014 Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 Steve, what exactly did you mean by "in the small percentage"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.