.jpg)
september63
Posts: 5,789
Jan 2, 2010 10:07pm
The question focuses on benefits a spouse is usually entitled too.
GoChiefs
Posts: 16,754
Jan 2, 2010 10:10pm
Uh..where's the poll? Do you fail at EVERY thread you make? 
But as I said on the other one..I vote no for this one too.
But as I said on the other one..I vote no for this one too.
2kool4skool
Posts: 1,804
Jan 2, 2010 10:10pm
Sure. It doesn't affect me in the least if gay people can marry , why would I not want them to?
pmoney25
Posts: 1,787
Jan 2, 2010 10:11pm
They should be entitled to the same benefits as any married couple as long as marriages are recognized by the state. If any religious groups or churches refuse to marry gays, I am fine with that.
This is going to be a long thread. Let the war begin.
This is going to be a long thread. Let the war begin.
Ytowngirlinfla
Posts: 2,295
Jan 2, 2010 10:12pm
I don't get why anyone cares if gay people marry. If they are happy why not? Everyone is entitled to be happy.
september63
Posts: 5,789
Jan 2, 2010 10:13pm
Honestly, I dont ever read the poll results. I doubt many do. PPl wanna read the responses. Is why I didnt do a poll. You are a mod, you wanna add a poll, go for it here.GoChiefs wrote: Uh..where's the poll? Do you fail at EVERY thread you make?
David St. Hubbins
Posts: 205
Jan 2, 2010 10:13pm
Don't know that I agree with it personally, but I don't think the government should be able to say that they can't.
GoChiefs
Posts: 16,754
Jan 2, 2010 10:13pm
Because most feel it is 'immoral'.Ytowngirlinfla wrote: I don't get why anyone cares if gay people marry. If they are happy why not? Everyone is entitled to be happy.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jan 2, 2010 10:13pm
Yes.
However "marriage" is almost strictly a religious event, so that would be up to the church, but as far as benefits for being "married', they should get those, and you can take that to the bank.
However "marriage" is almost strictly a religious event, so that would be up to the church, but as far as benefits for being "married', they should get those, and you can take that to the bank.
pmoney25
Posts: 1,787
Jan 2, 2010 10:16pm
Why should they not get benefits? Call it something else if you want and leave the Religious side out of it, why no benefits?GoChiefs wrote:Because most feel it is 'immoral'.Ytowngirlinfla wrote: I don't get why anyone cares if gay people marry. If they are happy why not? Everyone is entitled to be happy.
Hesston
Posts: 516
Jan 2, 2010 10:16pm
No
ernest_t_bass
Posts: 24,984
Jan 2, 2010 10:18pm
I say NO!
darbypitcher22
Posts: 8,000
Jan 2, 2010 10:20pm
If they're happy who gives a shit.
Just as long as the state they live in recognizes the marriage
Just as long as the state they live in recognizes the marriage
U
Upper90
Posts: 1,095
Jan 2, 2010 10:21pm
It doesn't affect me personally strong enough to say no, even if I disagreed with the lifestyle enough to want to say no.
E
eersandbeers
Posts: 1,071
Jan 2, 2010 10:21pm
No, gays should not have government sanctioned marriage. But neither should straight couples.
The government should not be in the marriage business at all.
The government should not be in the marriage business at all.
GoChiefs
Posts: 16,754
Jan 2, 2010 10:24pm
If my religious beliefs tell me it is immoral..then why would I leave the religious side out of it??? If I thought it was immoral..then that's why I say they should have none of the benefits. My religious beliefs are allowed to help me choose what I believe is right or wrong.pmoney25 wrote: Why should they not get benefits? Call it something else if you want and leave the Religious side out of it, why no benefits?
ts1227
Posts: 12,319
Jan 2, 2010 10:25pm
So long as government is in the marriage business, they are in no place to deny it.
Churches can choose to not marry them or recognize it, but for government to deny them the right is garbage.
Churches can choose to not marry them or recognize it, but for government to deny them the right is garbage.
GoPens
Posts: 2,339
Jan 2, 2010 10:27pm
Absolutely. Why not?
Heretic
Posts: 18,820
Jan 2, 2010 10:28pm
It doesn't matter to me, so I don't have a problem with it. I do find it funny that a couple of stupid kids with no concept of marital responsibility can get hitched just because one knocked the other up and they're going to do "the right thing", but a couple of mature adults can't due to sexual preference.
Which is something only lawyers can like, considering what the divorce rate is nowadays.
Which is something only lawyers can like, considering what the divorce rate is nowadays.
september63
Posts: 5,789
Jan 2, 2010 10:31pm
Heretic wrote: It doesn't matter to me, so I don't have a problem with it. I do find it funny that a couple of stupid kids with no concept of marital responsibility can get hitched just because one knocked the other up and they're going to do "the right thing", but a couple of mature adults can't due to sexual preference.
Which is something only lawyers can like, considering what the divorce rate is nowadays.
Once again!! Way too much logiic to keep a good arguement going!! I couldnt agree more with what you said.
E
eersandbeers
Posts: 1,071
Jan 2, 2010 10:32pm
What are you talking about? Gays will ruin the sanctity of the drive-thru marriage.Heretic wrote: It I do find it funny that a couple of stupid kids with no concept of marital responsibility can get hitched just because one knocked the other up and they're going to do "the right thing", but a couple of mature adults can't due to sexual preference.
Heretic
Posts: 18,820
Jan 2, 2010 10:33pm
This is my LOL moment of the day. Kudos to you, sir!eersandbeers wrote:What are you talking about? Gays will ruin the sanctity of the drive-thru marriage.Heretic wrote: It I do find it funny that a couple of stupid kids with no concept of marital responsibility can get hitched just because one knocked the other up and they're going to do "the right thing", but a couple of mature adults can't due to sexual preference.
Z
zhon44622
Posts: 226
Jan 2, 2010 10:33pm
LOL - damn logicseptember63 wrote:Heretic wrote: It doesn't matter to me, so I don't have a problem with it. I do find it funny that a couple of stupid kids with no concept of marital responsibility can get hitched just because one knocked the other up and they're going to do "the right thing", but a couple of mature adults can't due to sexual preference.
Which is something only lawyers can like, considering what the divorce rate is nowadays.
Once again!! Way too much logiic to keep a good arguement going!! I couldnt agree more with what you said.
pmoney25
Posts: 1,787
Jan 2, 2010 10:38pm
Then why does the state deny the benefits? Like someone else said, if the state is in the marriage business, they really have no reason to deny them benefits.GoChiefs wrote:If my religious beliefs tell me it is immoral..then why would I leave the religious side out of it??? If I thought it was immoral..then that's why I say they should have none of the benefits. My religious beliefs are allowed to help me choose what I believe is right or wrong.pmoney25 wrote: Why should they not get benefits? Call it something else if you want and leave the Religious side out of it, why no benefits?
Also unless you waited till marriage to have sex, maybe you shouldn't receive marriage benefits either since you are not doing what is "Moral"
Believe me I am conservative and consider myself a Religious person but I follow the philosophy of keeping the government out of the business of denying people benefits for no reason and also thinking I have the power to judge people and treat them less than equal. At the end of the day, if being Gay is immoral or wrong, I will let God decide that.
2kool4skool
Posts: 1,804
Jan 2, 2010 10:40pm
Does everyone worried about the sanctity of marriage also believe that anyone who's been divorced should be banned from marrying again?