Lol you making a "Im scared to get involved post" gets you involved.
Yay for California!
- Thread starter spicypumpkin
- Start date
Lol you making a "Im scared to get involved post" gets you involved.
These are the same people with a son named Zeppelin.
I wonder when roomates will be marrying eachother in order to get breaks.
when he walks in the room you can say "enter sandman"
Sorry buddy, but Marriage pre-dates Christianity so it's origins have nothing to do with the church, it's just that the Church took ownership of it in the middle ages
way, way, way too liberal. Lets all go hug a friggin tree while we are at it.
The issue will be put on the ballot and presented to the voters. I'm sure the conservative voters of California will do the right thing in November. We somehow failed to mention that part of the story. This celebration may be very short lived and rightly so. As far as I'm concerned that court basically circumvented the democratic process.
The issue will be put on the ballot and presented to the voters. I'm sure the conservative voters of California will do the right thing in November. We somehow failed to mention that part of the story. This celebration may be very short lived and rightly so. As far as I'm concerned that court basically circumvented the democratic process.
Last edited:
You already can in India, it's happened
Why? Marriage has nothing to do with religeon, it even pre-date pagans, so why should it be governed by the rules of the Church?
Wait another 5 years Im' sure Cali will pass that next.
The church is responsible for the rules that govern marriages including it being man and woman. If you took out the churches influence and rule making over the years then there would be no real reason why same sex couples couldn't marry
Yeah, I don't think you're expected to unless you like shagging men
Our constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. We live in a Constitutional Republic; the will of the people isn't supposed to supersede individual rights. It shouldn't be up to voters. That would be like taking a vote in Georgia the late 1800s whether slavery should be re-instituted and allowing it to continue because the voters wanted it.
Sometimes the minority has to be protected from the tyranny of the majority
Last edited:
You can't compare slavery to gays. Something that was imposed on people by force vs something that is a choice. Lets compare apples to apples.
My thoughts exactly.
Those who religiously attack marriage fails a key part in the Bible: do not conform to the ways of this world. What it means is do not try to attack the ways of this world. If the world wants something, so be it; it does not affect you. And another key point in the Bible: Do not judge others; least you be judged. What this means is that you have no right to judge others, and if you do, then prepare to be equally judged and challenged. If someone did something wrong, then God will be the judgment of that, not man.
As for the actual issue. I really don't care. I mean what is marriage anyway? In the US, all it means is that you'll file income taxes jointly. Nothing else, really. I mean in a place where 50% of couples divorce, and not only that, numerous children live in families with siblings from multiple fathers and no fatherly figure, what is marriage now?
Personally, I don't see it as "revolutionary." I see it as, "Okay, what you want me to do? Give you a kiss?"
As for the actual issue. I really don't care. I mean what is marriage anyway? In the US, all it means is that you'll file income taxes jointly. Nothing else, really. I mean in a place where 50% of couples divorce, and not only that, numerous children live in families with siblings from multiple fathers and no fatherly figure, what is marriage now?
Personally, I don't see it as "revolutionary." I see it as, "Okay, what you want me to do? Give you a kiss?"