WebFire;1572770 wrote:Because the government won't stay out of marriage.

This. People shouldn't have to gain the State's permission to get married.

WebFire;1572856 wrote:Of all the discussion here, and you took away from it that I was complaining about colored people in books. You deserve to be a called a dumbshit.

Ok, fucktard.

Jimmies have been rustled

Ah yes, because I believe "marriage" is between one man and one woman who want to spend the rest of their lives together....I'm stuck in the 17th century. I don't believe its fair that married men and women have tax breaks that allow them an economical advantage over two of the same sex that are also in love. I do have a problem with gays insisting they have the same claim to marriage that one man and one woman have. IF the government wasn't involved providing an advantage to one over the other we wouldn't have this issue. Instead we have the church getting shit on and being called "17th century in their beliefs" when they are just practicing what they believe.

I didn't watch the show because I'm becoming increasingly annoyed by celebrities. My stance on gay marriage remains apathetic. Hope this helps.

Bases... What if a church wants to allow a gay marriage within their confines?

I'm not on either side but when I hear people using your stance I always wondered how they felt about churches that do allow gay marriage. How would it be any different then any other marriage then. I know when my brother in law went to his church to ask to get married and they rejected him because they said he hadn't been in 5 years. His solution was to find another church which he did. Why couldn't someone who is homosexual find a church that allows gay marriage(yes they exist in America). What would be the difference then?

bases_loaded;1572903 wrote:Ah yes, because I believe "marriage" is between one man and one woman who want to spend the rest of their lives together....I'm stuck in the 17th century. I don't believe its fair that married men and women have tax breaks that allow them an economical advantage over two of the same sex that are also in love. I do have a problem with gays insisting they have the same claim to marriage that one man and one woman have. IF the government wasn't involved providing an advantage to one over the other we wouldn't have this issue. Instead we have the church getting shit on and being called "17th century in their beliefs" when they are just practicing what they believe.

I don't believe it's fair that the Christian churches claim "ownership" of the term marriage as marriage predates Christianity.

You're more than free to define marriage in the way you did. That gives you no standing to decide how I define it, or anyone else. It's not for "us" to decide.

I agree with everything QCB wrote as usual...my own spin on the "debate" is likened to one of con_alma's points on the politics thread, the government should be out of the marriage business.

I read something earlier, and I haven't seen strong confirmation so it might not be correct, but that Jason Collins guy might be sitting with the FLOTUS during the SOTU address tomorrow? Really? The guy isn't a hero, he is a louse. The hero or victim is that Carolyn Moos (spelling) woman, she is the one that had to deal with a guy routinely lying and cheating on her. That is not a hero, he hurt that woman and lied to her for years. And can anyone imagine the medical issues she had to deal with knowing her boyfriend was having sex with other men?

If I left my wife after 10 years of marriage because I realized I preferred my Asian secretary GIRL (I'm joking guys, this is an example), I would be hissed at and would be the worst person on this board. Jason Collins does the same thing (he isn't married, but it seemed like they had a committed relationship) with a GUY, and gets on Sports Illustrated's cover and is treated like a hero? Really, America?

edit, that was a missive on my part - State of the Union Address, not the Shut the $&%^ u address....

Manhattan Buckeye;1572947 wrote:I agree with everything QCB wrote as usual...my own spin on the "debate" is likened to one of con_alma's points on the politics thread, the government should be out of the marriage business.

I read something earlier, and I haven't seen strong confirmation so it might not be correct, but that Jason Collins guy might be sitting with the FLOTUS during the SOFU address tomorrow? Really? The guy isn't a hero, he is a louse. The hero or victim is that Carolyn Moos (spelling) woman, she is the one that had to deal with a guy routinely lying and cheating on her. That is not a hero, he hurt that woman and lied to her for years. And can anyone imagine the medical issues she had to deal with knowing her boyfriend was having sex with other men?

If I left my wife after 10 years of marriage because I realized I preferred my Asian secretary GIRL (I'm joking guys, this is an example), I would be hissed at and would be the worst person on this board. Jason Collins does the same thing (he isn't married, but it seemed like they had a committed relationship) with a GUY, and gets on Sports Illustrated's cover and is treated like a hero? Really, America?

But as long as it's still in the marriage business it's not really in the spirit of who we are to keep it only for straight people.

You're right about Collins being held in a little bit too high of esteem. I think if they wanted to invite an athlete they should have invited Robbie Rogers. For one he's still playing and he doesn't have any ethical issues like Collins does.

I Wear Pants;1572950 wrote:But as long as it's still in the marriage business it's not really in the spirit of who we are to keep it only for straight people.
....

...then the fight should be to get them out as opposed to forcing even more people to seek permission.

bases_loaded;1572903 wrote:Ah yes, because I believe "marriage" is between one man and one woman who want to spend the rest of their lives together....I'm stuck in the 17th century. I don't believe its fair that married men and women have tax breaks that allow them an economical advantage over two of the same sex that are also in love. I do have a problem with gays insisting they have the same claim to marriage that one man and one woman have. IF the government wasn't involved providing an advantage to one over the other we wouldn't have this issue. Instead we have the church getting shit on and being called "17th century in their beliefs" when they are just practicing what they believe.

Now that I can agree with, the government has no business being involved in marriage and the advantages given to some and denied others.

I also don't get the Jason Collins thing.

GoPens;1572958 wrote:Now that I can agree with, the government has no business being involved in marriage and the advantages given to some and denied others.

Which is what I've said the whole time.

I don't know if the Collins thing with the SOFU speech is real or not, if it is, the first thing out of his mouth (and the POTUS if he brings it up - again, IF it happens) is an apology to the women they hurt.

My guess is that they won't be mentioned. But it does leave a large scar, and thankfully in our situation HIV wasn't then, but STD's were, and still are. If you cheat with a partner, gay or straight, they have to get physically checked. And if it is a long term affair, the emotional scars are far worse than the physical ones.

Back on topic...

Daft Punk, Pharrell, and Stevie Wonder tore the house down.

I was pretty damn happy RAM won Album of the year.

Con_Alma;1572859 wrote:This. People shouldn't have to gain the State's permission to get married.

A million times this. It is absolutely ridiculous that the State has claimed authority over marriage. We should be fighting to take that authority away from them, not fighting each other to push our own agenda's on each other. Divide and conquer, baby.

ccrunner609;1572997 wrote:reps

$20

ccrunner609;1572994 wrote:agreed.

Me Too.

That performance to me was worth easily $20.