The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Orange Mane Discussion > Orange Mane Central Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-26-2009, 11:07 AM   #1
BroncoBuff
***************
 
BroncoBuff's Avatar
 
Playing for January

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 26,127

Adopt-a-Bronco:
MALIK+QUANTERUS
Default California Supreme Court affirms Prop 8

Too bad for gays ...
BroncoBuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 05-26-2009, 11:10 AM   #2
SonOfLe-loLang
Young Buck
 
SonOfLe-loLang's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 21,215

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Thunder (RIP)
Default

yeah, pretty absurd. Still a lot of prejudice and hate in this country, though it is getting better i suppose. Hopefully more dominos will fall soon
SonOfLe-loLang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 11:15 AM   #3
Dagmar
...there ain't no devil
 
Dagmar's Avatar
 
..there's just God when he's drunk.

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Morrison
Posts: 16,755

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tim Tebow
Default

Quote:
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave
Sure.
Dagmar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 11:18 AM   #4
Jesterhole
Ring of Famer
 
Jesterhole's Avatar
 
Ridin' the McFailboat...

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,622
Default

Odd for this to happen in California, yet a state like Iowa allows it.

How some people can be happy about preventing other people from having basic rights is beyond me.
Jesterhole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 11:19 AM   #5
mr007
I'm not your buddy, guy
 
mr007's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,099

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Eddie Royal
Default

Honestly, this is more of a problem with Prop 8 in general and how the Federal Gov. observes benefits to partners.

What ever happened to separation of church and state?

I can see both sides of the marriage argument, but I think this is more about rights than anything else. A gay couple should be able to enjoy the exact same benefits that a straight couple should. Marriage should not be the binding agreement that the Government observes for benefits granted to couples.

Civil unions should be the binding between 2 individuals that the Government recognizes for all benefits and marriage should be a sub-category that falls underneath. This would pretty much solve these problems without causing the closed minded overly-religious to lose their minds..
mr007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 11:20 AM   #6
Rock Chalk
Cheeky Bastards
 
Rock Chalk's Avatar
 
Laus Deo

Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Backside of the Internet
Posts: 29,750

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chris Harris
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBuff View Post
Too bad for gays ...
No.

Look, marriage is the religious part of a civil union. Civil unions are required for two people to share their lives together and receive the tax breaks. Marriage is the religious union of a man and a woman by ALL religions.

Gays may have civil unions. They are not being discriminated against by the governmental law. Governement however, has no right to force religion to change thousands of years of their doctrine. Whether you agree with it or not. This is the backside of separation of church and state. No government should be able to dictate what religions do with their rituals. Marriage is a religious ritual that harms no one so falls under the freedom of religion act.

If the CHURCH decides that they want to allow marriage, then gays can, and will get married. Until that day, they can have a civil union and receive all the legal benefits that a hetero sexual couple receives, they just do not get the blessing of God.

How can the government LEGALLY force churches to marry gays?
Rock Chalk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 11:22 AM   #7
mr007
I'm not your buddy, guy
 
mr007's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,099

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Eddie Royal
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock Chalk View Post
No.

Look, marriage is the religious part of a civil union. Civil unions are required for two people to share their lives together and receive the tax breaks. Marriage is the religious union of a man and a woman by ALL religions.

Gays may have civil unions. They are not being discriminated against by the governmental law. Governement however, has no right to force religion to change thousands of years of their doctrine. Whether you agree with it or not. This is the backside of separation of church and state. No government should be able to dictate what religions do with their rituals. Marriage is a religious ritual that harms no one so falls under the freedom of religion act.

If the CHURCH decides that they want to allow marriage, then gays can, and will get married. Until that day, they can have a civil union and receive all the legal benefits that a hetero sexual couple receives, they just do not get the blessing of God.

How can the government LEGALLY force churches to marry gays?
Umm, civil unions do not hold the same rights as marriage when it comes to benefits, sorry man. This was actually the driving force for Prop 8.
mr007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 11:25 AM   #8
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 47,079

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Shackleford View Post
Sure.
You can always head back to where you came from Scotsmen.
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 11:26 AM   #9
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 47,079

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesterhole View Post
How some people can be happy about preventing other people from having basic rights is beyond me.
What basic right would that be?
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 11:28 AM   #10
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 47,079

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr007 View Post

Civil unions should be the binding between 2 individuals that the Government recognizes for all benefits and marriage should be a sub-category that falls underneath. This would pretty much solve these problems without causing the closed minded overly-religious to lose their minds..
I agree. Or we could do even another thing. Remove any and all references, benefits, and any other involvement by the Federal Governemnt to marriage or unions. They shouldn't be in this "business" at all except to enforce the contract or disolve the contract.
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 11:39 AM   #11
Smiling Assassin27
Helmet Tester
 
Smiling Assassin27's Avatar
 
Hurry Hurry

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 12,568

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Von Miller
Default

How many churches do we see burned in the aftermath of this tantrum? Hell hath no fury...
Smiling Assassin27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 11:42 AM   #12
TailgateNut
Bleedin' orange!
 
TailgateNut's Avatar
 
.......as much as tebonites

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mile High
Posts: 20,309

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Howard Griffith
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock Chalk View Post
No.

Look, marriage is the religious part of a civil union. Civil unions are required for two people to share their lives together and receive the tax breaks. Marriage is the religious union of a man and a woman by ALL religions.

Gays may have civil unions. They are not being discriminated against by the governmental law. Governement however, has no right to force religion to change thousands of years of their doctrine. Whether you agree with it or not. This is the backside of separation of church and state. No government should be able to dictate what religions do with their rituals. Marriage is a religious ritual that harms no one so falls under the freedom of religion act.

If the CHURCH decides that they want to allow marriage, then gays can, and will get married. Until that day, they can have a civil union and receive all the legal benefits that a hetero sexual couple receives, they just do not get the blessing of God.

How can the government LEGALLY force churches to marry gays?



Marriage is NOT A RELIGIOUS UNION. It's a legal union, !
TailgateNut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 11:44 AM   #13
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 37,084
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
What basic right would that be?
Pursuit of happiness I guess.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 11:49 AM   #14
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,290

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBuff View Post
Too bad for gays ...
Well, the people did vote for it... the people of an extremely diverse state. A state where there are millions of minorities (Blacks overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage).

But that's ok right? So what if millions of people from all different backgrounds voted against gay marriage. They must all be wrong, right?
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 11:52 AM   #15
watermock
"Hoodie Jr"
 
watermock's Avatar
 
"Hug me!"

Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hot Springs, Ouachitah
Posts: 76,813
Default

watermock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 11:52 AM   #16
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,290

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesterhole View Post
Odd for this to happen in California, yet a state like Iowa allows it.

How some people can be happy about preventing other people from having basic rights is beyond me.
I say let the state's decide! If some states want to recognize gay marriage, then so be it. If some state's don't want to recognize gay marriage, then so be it.

But let the states decide!!
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 11:54 AM   #17
OBF1
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 15,742

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Marvin Austin
Default

Let everyone get married.... why shouldn't they be just as happy as the rest of us that have/had been married

The state can use the money from marriage and the divorce that follows in over 50% of the marriages that happen.
OBF1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 11:54 AM   #18
rugbythug
Church Eyes.
 
rugbythug's Avatar
 
Salty Dog

Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,074

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Mr. Miller
Default

Why does the whole world need to change for the Minority? Marriage has meant the same thing for thousands of years and needs to be updated for what reason? Because a vocal few want it so? And what are these fabulous tax rates Married People are raking in?
rugbythug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 11:57 AM   #19
Spider
Mr Diplomacy
 
Spider's Avatar
 
I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane

Join Date: May 2001
Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder
Posts: 84,163

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Von Miller
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rugbythug View Post
Why does the whole world need to change for the Minority? Marriage has meant the same thing for thousands of years and needs to be updated for what reason? Because a vocal few want it so? And what are these fabulous tax rates Married People are raking in?
why did we change from having more then 1 wife ? why did we change from arranged Marriages ?
Spider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 11:59 AM   #20
SonOfLe-loLang
Young Buck
 
SonOfLe-loLang's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 21,215

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Thunder (RIP)
Default

I cant believe that anyone would be so bigoted to stand in the way of gay marriage. The idea that this threatens the sanctity of anything is complete and utter bull****. We should always promote a society of togetherness, not exclusion and alienation. Humans are pretty disgusting sometimes.
SonOfLe-loLang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 12:02 PM   #21
dbfan21
Floridian living in KS
 
dbfan21's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Wichita
Posts: 2,179

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Pat Bowlen
Default

Name:  AwJeez,NotThis****Again!.jpg
Views: 322
Size:  28.0 KB


.
dbfan21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 12:03 PM   #22
Dagmar
...there ain't no devil
 
Dagmar's Avatar
 
..there's just God when he's drunk.

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Morrison
Posts: 16,755

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tim Tebow
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
You can always head back to where you came from Scotsmen.
Americans are so clever.

Scotsmen? Am I more than one person?

Dagmar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 12:07 PM   #23
Cosmo
Perennial Pro-bowler
 
Cosmo's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Greeley Colorado!!!
Posts: 980
Default

Most people, as well as most of you it seems, misunderstand the desire to disallow gay marriage.

If I have a bachelors degree which took me X amount of work, money and time and you arbitrarily change the requirements to such an amount that my bachelors degree no longer has the same value or meaning I would protest against those wanting to create the change.

The same applies to marriage, it isn't about not letting gays obtain rights or benefits. By changing the definition of marriage rather than creating a different type of union for gays, you are making my marriage different....as I want my bachelors degree to retain its original value, so do I want my marriage to be (whether that be spiritual or not).

So, again, not about hate or prejudice. It is simply about protecting what you have.

On a side note, Polygomy has the longest history with marriage yet is illegal and shunned in this country. How long before you see this legalized and what argument could you have against it if the terms of marriage are changed now?
Cosmo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 12:08 PM   #24
rugbythug
Church Eyes.
 
rugbythug's Avatar
 
Salty Dog

Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,074

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Mr. Miller
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider View Post
why did we change from having more then 1 wife ? why did we change from arranged Marriages ?
Less men were Dying. If some y based Disease Killed 80% of men you would see multiple wives with in 5 years. It would be a Bio Priority.

Arranged Marriages have gone the way side because the youth are free to decide for themselves.
rugbythug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 12:12 PM   #25
Spider
Mr Diplomacy
 
Spider's Avatar
 
I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane

Join Date: May 2001
Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder
Posts: 84,163

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Von Miller
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmo View Post
Most people, as well as most of you it seems, misunderstand the desire to disallow gay marriage.

If I have a bachelors degree which took me X amount of work, money and time and you arbitrarily change the requirements to such an amount that my bachelors degree no longer has the same value or meaning I would protest against those wanting to create the change.

The same applies to marriage, it isn't about not letting gays obtain rights or benefits. By changing the definition of marriage rather than creating a different type of union for gays, you are making my marriage different....as I want my bachelors degree to retain its original value, so do I want my marriage to be (whether that be spiritual or not).

So, again, not about hate or prejudice. It is simply about protecting what you have.

On a side note, Polygomy has the longest history with marriage yet is illegal and shunned in this country. How long before you see this legalized and what argument could you have against it if the terms of marriage are changed now?
Bull****
Spider is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:15 AM.


Denver Broncos