You know what, #%@! Chick-Fil-A!

[tr1ll]

What is this really about, doe? Is there something about be married I don't know about(tax cut)?

From my understanding marriage is two people coming together under god in matrimony. Whats stopping gay people from, buying rings, finding a priest thats for it, having a small ceremony and just be happy being together? If you really love someone, why do you need the approval of the state and/or your neighbor to be together?

 

[iblink]

I'm not going to stop eating at Chick-Fil-A.
Chick-Fil-A > Gay Marriage

Son compared the institution of marriage to a fast food chain.

 

[timcity2000]

Difference is there is NO choice in being born black.

while i agree that there are many differences between the black civil rights movement and the gay civil rights movement... this is not one of them.

if anything, this is one of the strongest similarities: in each case, a group of people is or was being denied certain basic rights based on something beyond their control (i.e. being born black or gay).

 

[futuremd]

What is this really about, doe? Is there something about be married I don't know about(tax cut)?

From my understanding marriage is two people coming together under god in matrimony. Whats stopping gay people from, buying rings, finding a priest thats for it, having a small ceremony and just be happy being together? If you really love someone, why do you need the approval of the state and/or your neighbor to be together?

First of all, "married" is NOT a religious institution, its a government defined one. You're married when you sign that legal document, not when you jump over a broom or step on some glass or whatever outdated ritual you choose to partake in. And yes, the government can be wrong. Look no further than Jim Crow.

Second of all, separate is INHERENTLY unequal. See Brown v. Board. So calling one thing a marriage and the other a civil union is not ok.

Third of all marriage DOES grant legal protections that "single" people don't get. If the state doesn't recognize gay marriage, then gay couples can't get those rights. Tax breaks, consolidation of wealth, emergency "right of life" decision making, inheritances, etc. 

Ultimately, this is why I don't understand the concept of marriage in the first place. I feel that we as a society need to move towards a structure that allows consulting adults to consolidate however they please to do so. 

Marriage, even heterosexual unions, is an outdated concept.

 

[sreggie101]

You're not hitting anybody.
Civil rights are civil rights. Discriminating against someone because of how they were born is no different wether it be race or sexual orientation.

all of this. dude going mad hard for no reason at all. blacks can't marry whites vs dude can't marry a dude? its the same battle legally speaking. settle down...

EDIT:

and i agree with dude above me. the whole gay marriage thing is being blurred by religious motives. ive said this in another thread, we don't have a theocratic gov't. there's no married in spirit option on your tax return is there? you are married when you pay the city, not because a priest says so. if gays want to marry its more than just for sentimental/spiritual reasons...they want to be able to legally see their significant other in the hospital, or receive other legal benefits outlined by my dude above. that is all. i got no hate towards gays....i admit gay dudes who are flamboyant about it weird me out a little, but i won't have any ill will towards that person because of it. if it doesn't affect your life why care so much about it? i say keep it moving...but thats just me.



btw, nyc made over $250 milli in gay marriage licenses so far and i aint eem mad at that (http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/24/pf/gay-marriage-economic-impact/index.htm)

 

[wavy bone]

all of this. dude going mad hard for no reason at all. blacks can't marry whites vs dude can't marry a dude? its the same battle legally speaking. settle down...

Yes...the civil rights movement was ALL about blacks not being able to marry whites.

 

[patrick bateman]

^ (futuremd) Even still you haven't provided a sound meaning of "marriage."

What marriage truly is, is the intimate personal union to which a man and woman* consent. Consummated and continuously nourished by sexual intercourse [and perfected in a lifelong partnership of mutual love and commitment.]

If people understood the importance of intercourse and the responsibility behind it, things would be a lot different today. A 50-60% divorce rate? LOL.. Fail much? A ceremony and signing some business documents marriage papers really has no value (my opinion). The intercourse (taking on a persons spirit) is where the bond is made. But when you construct an overly sexualized society and then place the value on superficial practices ($$$), things start to go down hill. *Todays concept of marriage has also been watered down (probably on purpose) to the point where *****exuals are even accepted as a "married" couple... What a society.

 

[patrick bateman]

And Chik-Fil-A has my support

 

[futuremd]

^ (futuremd) Even still you haven't provided a sound meaning of "marriage."

What marriage truly is, is the intimate personal union to which a man and woman* consent. Consummated and continuously nourished by sexual intercourse [and perfected in a lifelong partnership of mutual love and commitment.]

If people understood the importance of intercourse and the responsibility behind it, things would be a lot different today. A 50-60% divorce rate? LOL.. Fail much? A ceremony and signing some business documents marriage papers really has no value (my opinion). The intercourse (taking on a persons spirit) is where the bond is made. But when you construct an overly sexualized society and then place the value on superficial practices ($$$), things start to go down hill. *Todays concept of marriage has also been watered down (probably on purpose) to the point where *****exuals are even accepted as a "married" couple... What a society.

No. Its not.

The concept of marriage of ONLY between man and woman is fairly new. There are instances of churches marrying two men together recorded in church history. http://boingboing.net/2012/05/11/when-same-sex-marriage-was-a-c.html

Taking on spirit? What the hell are you talking about? 

There are LEGAL advantages that married people get that gays don't.

Marriage is nothing more than a business contract.Thats all it ever was. 

That love and whatever ritualistic indoctrination you adopt is a result of whatever you've been fooled into believing. 

And for you to say something completely ridiculous like: 

What marriage truly  is, is the intimate personal union to which a man and woman*  consent. Consummated and continuously nourished by sexual intercourse [and perfected in a lifelong partnership of mutual love and commitment.]

You sound foolish.

In fact, this is precisely why you sound foolish. You use vague, empty words. Essentially poetic nonsense loaded with emotional bias. What does "mutual love and commitment" even mean? That belongs on a hallmark card, not a legal document.

Why just have sex if its not to reproduce then? Clearly that didn't enter your equation. You make it sound like only married people can engage in casual sexual encounters.

Plus, you're thinking too much about sex in the first place. 

Nothing is stopping "married" people from screwing other people. In fact, nothing ever has. The only reason that people feel bad about it is because of religious frame works that tell you that someone is watching over you or a "moral" one that makes you feel guilty for "cheating." 

You're not obligated to anyone beyond whats stated in that contract. So if you want to smash other women, you're legally allowed to do so as long as you uphold the business terms in the document.

Granted, most people don't step outside of their marriage because they supposedly "like/love" each other, it doesn't change the fact that a marriage isn't even defined  as well as you think it is. 

On top of all of that, what do YOU get out of preventing two people from entering a business contract?

 

[tr1ll]

So, at the end of the day, it all comes back to money...

 

[deuce king]

I dont support gay marraige....I do however support Chick-fil-a..its delicous

Agreed.

 

[futuremd]

I wish people would just admit that they think gay's are icky because the way they have sex freaks them out.

The religious arguments will lose, EVERY time.

Just admit it. Gay/Lesbian sex kills your boner. 

Thats it.

Because if you were really straight, you wouldn't be worried that you might "turn gay"

Is that what you're afraid of?

Waking up in the middle of the night, unable to go back to sleep because of dreams of the same sexual organ?

Just fess up and say that you don't like the thought of two penises doing things or two vaginas rubbing up on each other and the thought of it upsets you.

Well thats good for you because fortunately, YOU don't have to do it. 

No one is making you do anything with someone of the same gender, nor are you even impacted by what you don't see behind closed doors. 

It reeks of insecurity to be completely concerned with how people choose to have sex with other consenting adults. 

How are you absolutely sure your best friend doesn't let his lady use a "device" on him? Are you sure of everything in THEIR relationship too?

Its so easy for you all to get caught up on the mechanics of sex and not what brings those people together in the first place. 

EVEN IF being gay was a choice (studies show its not in many cases) it still wouldn't matter because in as much as we all have our fetishes, no one has the ability to legislate how we get our rocks off in private. No matter what the circumstances.

 

[tr1ll]

FutureMD now you're sound over logical, like an emotionless robot. Folks don't feel bad about cheating because of religious reason, they betrayed a person that they hold close to them. Marraige isn't just a bussiness agreement, there was a point in time when women could not work, had not right, but men and women still married. What was the business agreement in that.

 

[patrick bateman]

No. Its not.

The concept of marriage of ONLY between man and woman is fairly new. There are instances of churches marrying two men together recorded in church history. http://boingboing.net/2012/05/11/when-same-sex-marriage-was-a-c.html

If we're going by the concept of what marriage is (intercourse) as I have provided, then that predates your instances of churches marrying two men (C'mon seriously? lol). Anything concerning the "church" after 325 AD is null and void, considering Constantine and the Roman Catholics took control of Christianity from that point on.

Taking on spirit? What the hell are you talking about? 

There are LEGAL advantages that married people get that gays don't.

Marriage is nothing more than a business contract.Thats all it ever was. 

That love and whatever ritualistic indoctrination you adopt is a result of whatever you've been fooled into believing. 

When I say taking on a spirit (as if that's hard to understand) when you have intercourse with someone, you create a spiritual bond with that person, see the meaning of marriage as I have provided.

And what's "ritualistic" about my definition of marriage (intercourse)? I fail to see what you're trying to say there. If anything, picking out a tux/dress, walking down an aisle, putting on a ring before some "priest" or whomever seems more ritualistic than having intercourse with your partner and taking it seriously...hmm, I could be wrong though.

 

[blackmagnus514]

I'm gonna go to the one at NYU today.

 

[futuremd]

FutureMD now you're sound over logical, like an emotionless robot. Folks don't feel bad about cheating because of religious reason, they betrayed a person that they hold close to them. Marraige isn't just a bussiness agreement, there was a point in time when women could not work, had not right, but men and women still married. What was the business agreement in that.

Marriage is a business agreement in the eyes of the law, i.e. the only one who grants them.

Its not about women not working, its that they weren't encouraged to work. Women always have worked.

Its about the consolidation of wealth and resources between two entities.

Thats a business deal. Period. "Love" or anything like that isn't included. 

 

[futuremd]

No. Its not.

The concept of marriage of ONLY between man and woman is fairly new. There are instances of churches marrying two men together recorded in church history. http://boingboing.net/2012/05/11/when-same-sex-marriage-was-a-c.html

If we're going by the concept of what marriage is (intercourse) as I have provided, then that predates your instances of churches marrying two men (C'mon seriously? lol). .

Marriage isn't about intercourse. Its a business deal. If thats the case then I've been "married" a bunch of times.

Marriage has always been a business deal. It was seen as solidifying family ties AND resources so long as the government in place at the time recognizes that "contract" in times of dispute over the allocation of those resources.

Marriage has nothing to do with "love" or "sex"

Anything concerning the "church" after 325 AD is null and void, considering Constantine and the Roman Catholics took control of Christianity from that point on

Aren't you the cutest hipster-christian?

Let me guess, you have the keys to the original form of christianity?

Before the Nicene Council/Creed believing in anything commonly believed to be the foundation of christian belief wasn't even defined; that includes the resurrection, the trinity, or virgin birth.

Your entire notion of christianity in the modern sense depends on everything after 325 AD. I suggest you orient your bias towards a more factual and realistic stance.

If you want to go there, we can, just know that history, nor facts, are on your side.

Taking on spirit? What the hell are you talking about? 

There are LEGAL advantages that married people get that gays don't.

Marriage is nothing more than a business contract.Thats all it ever was. 

That love and whatever ritualistic indoctrination you adopt is a result of whatever you've been fooled into believing. 

When I say taking on a spirit (as if that's hard to understand) when you have intercourse with someone, you create a spiritual bond with that person, see the meaning of marriage as I have provided.

Spiritual bond? Thats not even a "thing."

There is no such thing as a spirit. Neuroscience killed that years ago. Thats what makes your argument nothing more than religious lipservice. It doesn't define anything. Vast emptiness on top of bloviating concepts.

And what's "ritualistic" about my definition of marriage (intercourse)? I fail to see what you're trying to say there. If anything, picking out a tux/dress, walking down an aisle, putting on a ring before some "priest" or whomever seems more ritualistic than having intercourse with your partner and taking it seriously...hmm, I could be wrong though.

If you've had sex before marriage then you don't get to proclaim how serious you think sex in a marriage is.

On top of that, I think in and of themselves, marriages are still pretty ridiculous. 

I'm not religious  so looking at society doing certain rituals like placing a hand on a bible in court or even rampant nationalism/patriotism is something I just have to shake my head at from time to time. 

Its all a facade.

 

[va757va]

someone sounds reeeaaallly putty like in this thread....

i sure hope this isnt the second coming...please no

 

[patrick bateman]

Spiritual bond? Thats not even a "thing."

There is no such thing as a spirit. Neuroscience killed that years ago. Thats what makes your argument nothing more than religious lipservice.

Ahh, here's where the problem lies for you and I. If we can't even agree on that, then you'll never be able to understand the true meaning of marriage, as opposed to Western Mans definition of it. And tell me what "religion" I belong to, if you please.

And yes, to some extent the tying of the flesh did come with financial agreements, but still doesn't take away from the meaning I have provided.

And yes again FutureMD, you have been married a bunch of times, maybe your next mate will be chosen more wisely.

 

[club-27]

dead *** will hit someone if they come at me comparing the civil rights movement w/ the current issue gays go through....i want gays to have their rights but that comparison is so god damn dumb
anyway chik fil a aint even open on sundays so obviously they're on their religious **** but i dont give a damn.....just keep making them crack sandwiches and good *** lemonade

i swear to christ i would look you in the eye and tell you that they are the same exact thing.

because they are.

period.

"we just want to be treated like everyone else, we cant help who we are!" - black people

"we just want to be treated like everyone else, we cant help who we are!" - gay people

 

[mp3911]

This is so !#$%ing stupid. Marriage should be a contract signed by two individuals that grant them legal rights. That's it. Doesn't matter who the individuals are; as long as they both sign the contract, they should be legally married. Believe all the religious/spiritual stuff you want, but keep it OUT of the government.

 

[club-27]

dead *** will hit someone if they come at me comparing the civil rights movement w/ the current issue gays go through....i want gays to have their rights but that comparison is so god damn dumb
anyway chik fil a aint even open on sundays so obviously they're on their religious **** but i dont give a damn.....just keep making them crack sandwiches and good *** lemonade

i swear to christ almighty i would tell you the exact same thing right to your face 

"we cant help who we are, we just want to be treated like everyone else!" -black people

"we cant help who we are, we just want to be treated like everyone else!" - gay people

and STOP SAYING BEING GAY IS A CHOICE, STOP HANGING YOUR ARGUMENTS ON THAT, BECAUSE ITS NOT TRUE! JUST LIKE YOU DONT CHOOSE TO BE BORN BLACK STOP BEING SO IGNORANT!

 

[club-27]

You sound really dumb yourself. You cannot compare what blacks went through to what gay and lesbians are going through. Difference is there is NO choice in being born black. 

this right here shows how massively ignorant you  are if you STILL believe being gay is a choice. seriously.

 

[bigsupa]

WE NEED A MORE ACCESSIBLE ONE IN NYC...HATE GOING OUT OF TOWN TO EAT THIS GOOD FOOD!


IMG_8163.jpg by bigsupa507, on Flickr

 

[futuremd]

Spiritual bond? Thats not even a "thing."

There is no such thing as a spirit. Neuroscience killed that years ago. Thats what makes your argument nothing more than religious lipservice.

Ahh, here's where the problem lies for you and I. If we can't even agree on that, then you'll never be able to understand the true meaning of marriage, as opposed to Western Mans definition of it. And tell me what "religion" I belong to, if you please.
 

See this is why i'm seeing that nihilism just kinda shuts down most of these arguments.

YOU DONT EVEN KNOW WHY YOURE DEFENDING WHAT YOURE DEFENDING.

You're just parroting arguments you've been exposed to without getting to the root of what it is you're presenting. 

What is marriage? Its always been society-dependent.

Its not an "inherent" or "self evident" thing.

Its not like gravity or math in that if its true here, it'll be true elsewhere.

its a concept.

An idea.

A notion.

Marriage is nothing more than a business contract we've derived to benefit people who choose to consolidate resources.

You might as well deny gay people the right to exist and kill them off because we've already shown that people can actually be BORN with *****exual attraction, on top of just general bisexual curiosity. Its the desire to define "sex" that leads us to have this problem. Sometimes people just like poking stuff. End of story. Doesn't HAVE to be a vagina. Me personally, I prefer women exclusively but I don't see why I have to hate on the next man who decides otherwise.

And yes, to some extent the tying of the flesh did come with financial agreements, but still doesn't take away from the meaning I have provided.

And yes again FutureMD, you have been married a bunch of times, maybe your next mate will be chosen more wisely.

Your meaning doesn't even MEAN anything. Understand that before we go any further.

Your concept of marriage has no actual meaning.

You can't use words that aren't even defined to then go further and use that to define something else. That invokes all sorts of degrees of logical fallacies. 

Plus, why do you swap definitions of marriage then? On one hand you say about the union, then you say its sex. Which is it? Then why do you overlook the rules and benefits that governments grant some citizens but not others?