BF2S Forums Gay Marriage in CA? OK!

nukchebi0 wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

You believe in the bible, so I think it's safe to assume that you would very much idolize Christ, your prophet.  Like just about every other prophet out there, Jesus preached about loving thy neighbor, tolerance and acceptance, 'do onto others as you would want done onto you.' (Most commonly known version in North America as the Golden Rule of Christianity). Funny how dissimilar Christians and Christ can be, and don't try to use any "Jesus would have been against gays" bullshit, because according to your book, Jesus loved all of his brothers, or children or whatever.

Tolerating them and bending backwards to accommodate them are entirely different.

Them being married doesn't destroy the sanctity of marriage, and quite frankly, it doesn't hurt you one bit -- so you really have no business sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.  But I suppose there always has to be a group that's discriminated upon.

But what is the definition of marriage?

Bending over backwards?  How, specifically, does anyone have to bend over backwards?  Marco really nailed it, marriage shouldn't really be a state determined thing.  If your church decides that they don't want to marry homosexuals in their place of worship, then good for them.  But that doesn't mean that simply because you don't believe it's "right" you get to hinder people's rights...

What is the definition of marriage?

wikipedia wrote:

Marriage is a personal union between individuals. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is called a wedding and the status created is sometimes called wedlock. The act of marriage changes the personal status of the individuals in the eyes of the law and society.

Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are sanctioned with governmental, social, or religious recognition. It is often created by a contract or through civil processes. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the land.

Personally, I think marriage is the union of two individuals who love each other.  Nothing else should really matter.

Saying "Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman" is a bad argument if those who wrote said definition were bigotted.  If it is a desire of society to remove bigotry, then bigotted definitions need to change.

To say you do not approve of another's lifestyle is one thing, but to enforce your lifestyle on others by way of denying their rightful freedoms is another.  Those of you who oppose gay marriage, tell me this, what gives you the right to deny others freedoms which, if granted, will not negatively impact upon your life at all?  Did god not give you the gift of free will?  Is it your right to deny another human being that which god gave them?

And besides, gay people pay the same tax as straight people, and have the same civic obligations as straight people, so they should have the same entitlements as straight people.  Perhaps a small tax cut for gays, in lieu of some basic human rights, would be more appropriate?

And finally, +1 karma to CA!

Marconius wrote:

It's about time.  It's a great step for Civil Rights, but again I think this is a step in the wrong direction.  The government needs to stop recognizing a difference between Civil Unions and Marriage.  The government should not be even legislating on what defines "marriage" as marriage is a religious institution.  Ruling on it breaches the Establishment Clause and is unconstitutional.

The State should only recognize Civil Unions, no matter the sex of the couple.  The issue of Gay Marriage is really up to the churches that give out the sacrament of marriage.  It's up to the parishioners to decide if they want to extend that blessing to homosexual couples. 

Due to the state of things, allowing Gay Marriage via the government is good, but ultimately the Government needs to drop the entire issue of marriage altogether.

I am with Marco on this. Marriage is a religious ceremony, and since there is separation of church and state in the US ( well, at least in theory.. ), the feds should have no say in how marriage is defined, or who is allowed to marry in the first place.

The religious part should be up to the churches, and it should be up to them to decide wether they'll allow gays to have a religious ceremony or not.

The state should only grant civil unions, with equal rights for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.

From my point of view, DOMA was a mistake because what it essentially said was "well, in theory we have separation of church and state, and no state religion, but we'll still give privileges to one specific religion and its marriage ceremony".

The problem is that the traditionally religious term "marriage" has found its way into secular legislation, and that should never have happened in the first place.

I realize that, at the time when these laws were created, same-sex marriages weren't really an issue, and so it was only natural to call that civil union "marriage", because no one could have imagined that one day, maybe two men would want to get married, too.

But now they do, and the government should ask itself if the terminology is still feasible.
The whole debate could have been avoided if the governmnet had kept the two terms strictly separated from the beginning. Then the only question today would be which, if any religion allowed gay marriages.

If anything, this debate shows that there is really no separation of church and state in the US today, at least not in the hearts and minds of americans.

LividBovine wrote:

But I believe in the bible and I am against Gay marriages.

LividBovine wrote:

I have my beliefs and you have yours, I have a vote and will use it.  I would hope you would use yours.  I am not well versed on the bible and would fail at any attempt to quote from it.  I will leave it at my beliefs and my vote.

wow. so you're not well versed on the bible, but you still believe in what it says ? Way to go. If I based so much of my life decisions and opinions on a book, I'd at least read it...

You know, although I was raised in a catholic household, I'd consider myself an agnostic. But still, from everything I have grasped about Jesus, I am pretty sure that he'd have nothing against gays, as he was rumored as having been a friendly, tolerant, forgiving chap.

if he ever existed, that is...

B.Schuss wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

But I believe in the bible and I am against Gay marriages.

LividBovine wrote:

I have my beliefs and you have yours, I have a vote and will use it.  I would hope you would use yours.  I am not well versed on the bible and would fail at any attempt to quote from it.  I will leave it at my beliefs and my vote.

wow. so you're not well versed on the bible, but you still believe in what it says ? Way to go. If I based so much of my life decisions and opinions on a book, I'd at least read it...

You know, although I was raised in a catholic household, I'd consider myself an agnostic. But still, from everything I have grasped about Jesus, I am pretty sure that he'd have nothing against gays, as he was rumored as having been a friendly, tolerant, forgiving chap.

if he ever existed, that is...

I expected you to be above attacking ones faith based on a few words over the internet.  I choose not to go through my entire religous background here.

I am working on it.  Big book you know.  Because I say not well versed, it does not mean I am unfamiliar.  I am very poor at remembering verbatim and specific chapters/versus.  There are several stories relating to homosexuality, but alas the only one that comes to mind is Sodom and Gomorrah. 

If you look into Catholicism and how they view homosexuality, you would find them rather intolerant. 

My point remains, based on what I know and believe, homosexuality is wrong and therefore I do not condone Homosexual marriages.

Marconius wrote:

The US shouldn't be recognizing marriage at all in the first place.  I didn't strictly say christian marriages, but all marriage.  Again, marriage is a religious ideal...a blessing to a Civil Union.

The laws themselves were based on a mixture of Christian principles, though a vast majority of them came from the common sense laws from Greece and Rome; they were pulling away from the idea of a theocracy, and no matter where they came from, the laws remained absolutely Secular.  Deciding to recognize marriage and delineate tax differentiations between a Marriage and a Civil Union, not to mention defining exactly what a Marriage is in and of itself is Unconstitutional.

The problem is a lot of christians happened to gain power in the State legislatures, and created unconstitutional laws during a time when they had a moral vice-grip on the nation.  This is now finally being called into question in order to expand our Civil Liberty and truly live by what our Constitution stands for.

I actually agree with there being no government involved with marriages, apart from the taxes and other benefits.  The church should decide who they are willing to marry.  I would not be a member of Church that condoned homosexuality much less gay marriages.

As the law stands, I will vote against anything that gives an equal marriage "title" to a gay couple.  They can have the same benefits if the government so chooses. 

Forgive any gramatical errors.  10 hours into a 12 hour shift, and really sick.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Anyway, I actually agree that it is discriminatory...just wish they'd be happy with their already EQUAL rights as domestic couples.  I have no problem with them being together, even considered legally bound.  I'd just like it if they'd call it something else and if they'd do a separate type of civil document (not marriage).  Marriage is actually a traditional, religious based ordinance..it's not a definition.  Oh well.

So...........you want them to be happy about their right to do something different to everyone else?

And call that equal?

If marriage is a religious institution, it should not be legally recognised (not necessarily saying it is or isn't, though).

meh..indifferent

LividBovine wrote:

I expected you to be above attacking ones faith based on a few words over the internet.  I choose not to go through my entire religous background here.

I am working on it.  Big book you know.  Because I say not well versed, it does not mean I am unfamiliar.  I am very poor at remembering verbatim and specific chapters/versus.  There are several stories relating to homosexuality, but alas the only one that comes to mind is Sodom and Gomorrah. 

If you look into Catholicism and how they view homosexuality, you would find them rather intolerant. 

My point remains, based on what I know and believe, homosexuality is wrong and therefore I do not condone Homosexual marriages.

it surely was not an attack on your faith. I was merely pointing out the irony in your two statements. Hence the

I realize that the catholic church has a strong stand against homosexuality. But the catholic church is an organization created by mankind, and administrated by humans. They can fail, and make mistakes in interpreting the Bible.

As I said, looking at the history around Jesus ( if we assume for a moment that he existed ) it is pretty obvious that he was a man of great love, understanding, and tolerance. He was not someone who would have excluded social outcasts from the church ( prostitutes, for example ).
From my point of view, a case could be made that Jesus would have welcomed gays in the community.

Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing that, and must rely on the verdict of grumpy old men ( aka those who run the catholic church ) to tell us what they think the catholic church deems acceptable.

The way I see it, the catholic church has in many cases lost touch with the ordinary people of today's world. I mean look at Celibacy, for example. Or the fact that women still cannot be ordained ministers.

I'd like to know on what grounds you consider gay marriages wrong. Just because the church says so, or because you think gays cannot be good christians ? Do you actually know any gays ? If you do, what do you think of them as people ?

I don't have a problem with this gay marriage stuff. I'm just sick of judges making law.

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

it took 100 years after the end of slavery for blacks to have the same rights as whites in society.

Ok., Way off topic.  It is really not very clever of you to start comparing gay marriage to Black civil rights.  The government does not discriminate against gays at all.  They are treated equally, like everyone else.  The government simply does not call same sex civil unions as "marriages".  It doesn't matter if you are gay or not.  You can be strait as hell and the government still won't call your civil union to someone of the same sex a "marriage".

Black Civil Rights??!?!?!~?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?#@!#@?$#@$!~?


since when did the idea of Civil Rights lie solely on Black people in society.


Honestly,  if you dont get the message I tried to convey with my first post in this thread, you honestly dont have enough intellectual depth to continue this debate.

Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-05-16 09:26:19)

"I'd just like it if they'd call it something else and if they'd do a separate type of civil document (not marriage)."

I just don't understand people who feel this way...

Lotta_Drool wrote:

I am going to buy stock in K Y jelly to celebrate the fact that no matter how fucked up a person or action is the liberals will always find a way to make it mainstream.

Ok, now we have:

People living in the US illegally mainstreamed
Gay marriage mainstreamed

Next on the list

Drugs legalised
Guns outlawed
Religion outlawed

Then liberalism will succeed in its ultimate goal of creating a society filled with

MARRIED GAY MEXICAN ATHEISTS

lol or you could have Married Gay Mexican Muslims

oh dont forget it will look alot like russia around here too them libs love communisim pretty much the same thing ..

Schittloaf wrote:

Gawwad wrote:

"I'd just like it if they'd call it something else and if they'd do a separate type of civil document (not marriage)."

I just don't understand people who feel this way...

why are you gay ? 

what is not to understand . only people who want them to get married are homosexuals themselves .  do we see animals being "Gay" ?  so its not natural  so to make them selves feel good about their gayness they try to twist their ideas into traditional marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals