Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because the extreme gay rights movement, do not want Marriage to remain what it is. You are right it is not about these 1000 + benefits, it's not about being with the person that they love, it's about destroying someone's belief to make them feel better. I agree they should be able to have the same benefits. But a marriage is between a man and a woman. Even if they were able to have ALL of the benefits, it would still be a fight because they would want it to be called Marriage.
That's just silly.
And who are you to state what they want because it makes you uncomfortable with your bigotry? They've said what they want, and it's not for you to put words in their mouths.
Though I understand that you're running out of excuses now that I've repeatedly schooled you on the discrimination surrounding those federal benefits. It's a problem, huh?
Because the extreme gay rights movement, do not want Marriage to remain what it is. You are right it is not about these 1000 + benefits, it's not about being with the person that they love, it's about destroying someone's belief to make them feel better. I agree they should be able to have the same benefits. But a marriage is between a man and a woman. Even if they were able to have ALL of the benefits, it would still be a fight because they would want it to be called Marriage.
The bigot's beliefs are being destroyed? That's fantastic, really. I hope the Supreme Court's inevitable ruling in favor of same-marriage burns at them the rest of their days.
As for this ridiculous thread--the 1st amendment does not protect you from the court of public opinion. Freedom of speech was not curtailed. Sorry.
And who are you to state what they want because it makes you uncomfortable with your bigotry? They've said what they want, and it's not for you to put words in their mouths.
Though I understand that you're running out of excuses now that I've repeatedly schooled you on the discrimination surrounding those federal benefits. It's a problem, huh?
No, it's a problem for you. I did not get married for any benefit, except for my religious benefit.
If it makes you feel better to call me a bigot, go right ahead. I am standing up for what I believe, the definition of Marriage.
And as I have stated more then once to you.....I am all for them having their 1000 + benefits. Just don't call it Marriage. So it you want to start a prop for you to have your benefits under a civil union, I will be the first one to sign that prop.
If it makes me a bigot, because of my religious faith for the definition of Marriage, then so be it. Does it make me a bigot for being for same sex couples to have the 1000+ benefits in a civil union. Then I guess it does.
No, it isn't. The bible has much more to say about marriage than just that one short phrase. Perhaps you should read it sometime.
You and I are solidly on the same side on this issue.
But OICU812 is right....and it is a mistaken strategy to base objection to "gay" marriage solely on the Bible or religion in general. There is sound reason far outside any religious notion to object to this ludicrous re-definition of marriage and to object to society-wide acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle choice as normal.
I am probably the least religious member here and the strength of my opposition to what we're seeing here from the "gay" Gestapo is exceeded by no one.
Because the extreme gay rights movement, do not want Marriage to remain what it is. You are right it is not about these 1000 + benefits, it's not about being with the person that they love, it's about destroying someone's belief to make them feel better. I agree they should be able to have the same benefits. But a marriage is between a man and a woman. Even if they were able to have ALL of the benefits, it would still be a fight because they would want it to be called Marriage.
Nonsense, complete nonsense. It always amazes me that people actually believe this sort of thing.
No, it's a problem for you. I did not get married for any benefit, except for my religious benefit.
If it makes you feel better to call me a bigot, go right ahead. I am standing up for what I believe, the definition of Marriage.
And as I have stated more then once to you.....I am all for them having their 1000 + benefits. Just don't call it Marriage. So it you want to start a prop for you to have your benefits under a civil union, I will be the first one to sign that prop.
If it makes me a bigot, because of my religious faith for the definition of Marriage, then so be it. Does it make me a bigot for being for same sex couples to have the 1000+ benefits in a civil union. Then I guess it does.
Keep moving those goalposts. NOW you support them having those rights? Even though you think it makes them "greedy" for wanting them?
Now you'll tell me how calling it gay "marriage" destroys your marriage.
I have such a hard time getting the anti-gay crowd to answer when I ask for specific examples of the terrible effects that will have on their marriages. Perhaps you can elucidate.
You and I are solidly on the same side on this issue.
But OICU812 is right....and it is a mistaken strategy to base objection to "gay" marriage solely on the Bible or religion in general. There is sound reason far outside any religious notion to object to this ludicrous re-definition of marriage and to object to society-wide acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle choice as normal.
I am probably the least religious member here and the strength of my opposition to what we're seeing here from the "gay" Gestapo is exceeded by no one.
No, it's a problem for you. I did not get married for any benefit, except for my religious benefit.
If it makes you feel better to call me a bigot, go right ahead. I am standing up for what I believe, the definition of Marriage.
And as I have stated more then once to you.....I am all for them having their 1000 + benefits. Just don't call it Marriage. So it you want to start a prop for you to have your benefits under a civil union, I will be the first one to sign that prop.
If it makes me a bigot, because of my religious faith for the definition of Marriage, then so be it. Does it make me a bigot for being for same sex couples to have the 1000+ benefits in a civil union. Then I guess it does.
You don't own the English word "marriage" and thus have absolutely no authority to demand others not use it. Better deal with that reality, because you lost this fight.
For the record, not a single person in the Bible called it "marriage".
The IRS isn't the only way to silence the opposition, they've just found another way. People will be afraid to take a stance for fear it will come back to haunt them in the future. That is the intended effect.
Mozilla has created a new glass ceiling.
Starting this week, we have a disturbing new reality. Your private actions outside your job now matter in your job. Mozilla started it. Other organizations will certainly follow. Eich was a model employee, kept his politics at home, and followed company protocol. Mozilla’s protocol even lays it out, giving rules (a) and (b) on what should be done while an employee, and then “(c) when if (a) and (b) are met, other Mozillians should treat this as a private matter, not a Mozilla issue.” He followed the rules. He kept his politics at home and supported equality at the job. This was not enough. He was pressured out. Mozilla didn’t disown and apologize for this, but instead just stated that Eich left for the good of the organization.
Now, thanks to Mozilla, tens of millions of us face a new glass ceiling. We’re being told “You can work at Mozilla. You can follow our company protocol. But you can never be a CEO. Because you don’t *think* correctly in your free time.” I’m worried how many other organizations will copy Mozilla, and just how large this new glass ceiling will become.
Keep moving those goalposts. NOW you support them having those rights? Even though you think it makes them "greedy" for wanting them?
Now you'll tell me how calling it gay "marriage" destroys your marriage.
I have such a hard time getting the anti-gay crowd to answer when I ask for specific examples of the terrible effects that will have on their marriages. Perhaps you can elucidate.
This is the definition of Marriage in my religious belief's.
Marriage is the intimate union and equal partnership of a man and a woman. It comes to us from the hand of God, who created male and female in his image, so that they might become one body and might be fertile and multiply (See Genesis chapters 1 and 2). Though man and woman are equal as God’s children, they are created with important differences that allow them to give themselves and to receive the other as a gift.
There is nothing in there about Man and Man or Woman and Woman. So yes, it destroys my religious belief's.
To me it is greed to want the 1000 + benefits. There is some greed in all of us. But, I am not going to stop a same sex couple for getting those benefits. And like I have already said, I would sign a prop supporting that.
You want to legally be with someone and have those federal benefits - fine. I support that. But, I do not support calling it marriage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
