Proposition 8

sugarpie, I cant really get into it cause it is religious, but the point is that it can never happen, that is not natural, it is not acceptable. Like I said, what if the govt said all citizens have to eat pork?

Quote:

Originally posted by thegame14

sugarpie, I cant really get into it cause it is religious, but the point is that it can never happen, that is not natural, it is not acceptable. Like I said, what if the govt said all citizens have to eat pork?

Hey I can agree to disagree with you...clearly neither of us is going to change each others minds, and that is ok, its what makes democracy work. My point is that the government would not be telling all its citizens to do anything. Nothing would change with 90% of the populations day to days lives. I'm not trying to be pushy, I respect your religion, but can you tell me how your life would be different if gay marriage were legal? Personally I have issues with the idea of Church and State being tied together, and that is about all I can say, because of the forum rules.

I feel that it would cheapen the institution of marriage, and I am getting married, and I presonally think that a man and a woman getting married is a beautiful thing, and should remain that way.

Just a hypothetical question:

Which cheapens marriage more:

- Heterosexual couples with a divorce rate approaching 60%, cheating spouses and abusive relationships?

or

- Homosexual couples with a much lower divorce rate, rate of cheating, and abusive relationships?

?

I dont support peaople cheating, abusing their spouse or getting divorced either

Quote:

Originally posted by thegame14

I feel that it would cheapen the institution of marriage, and I am getting married, and I presonally think that a man and a woman getting married is a beautiful thing, and should remain that way.

Alright...I'm done with the argument. I'm not pissed off or anything, its just a never ending circle.

Congratulations on your wedding, I hope you have a wonderful marriage. I just hope one day that I can feel the same pride that you will feel when introducing your new wife to someone.

Quote:

Originally posted by thegame14

I dont support peaople cheating, abusing their spouse or getting divorced either

That's not what I asked.

I asked, of those two choices, which cheapens the 'institution' of marriage more. The obvious answer is the heterosexual example I used. The point is, marriage isn't exactly a pristine institution as it stands, so you're defending a bridge that's already been crossed.

Further, marriage is a quasi-legal/quasi-religious construct. There is nothing 'natural' about it. To take that further, homosexuals are naturally homosexual and as such a union between them is just as natural as a union between two (or more) people of the opposite sex.

We all have the very same laws and rights, whether they be God-given or thru the US Constitution. It's those people who want exceptions to those standards -or "special rights" that are a pain to every proper entity in this world - and they challenge and rebel against the integrity, morallty and holiness of what is right. In the end God is always right. Sooner or later we all figure that out -willingly or kicking and screaming on the way to that divine realization. Meanwhile I wish them luck -and pray for their true hapiness and fulfillment.

Quote:

Originally posted by robodick

***We all have the very same laws and rights, whether they be God-given or thru the US Constitution.***

It's those people who want exceptions to those standards -or "special rights" that are a pain to every proper entity in this world - and they challenge and rebel against the integrity, morallty and holiness of what is right. In the end God is always right. Sooner or later we all figure that out -willingly or kicking and screaming on the way to that divine realization. Meanwhile I wish them luck -and pray for their true hapiness and fulfillment.

But that's just it...we don't

Quote:

Originally posted by thegame14

sugarpie, I cant really get into it cause it is religious, but the point is that it can never happen, that is not natural, it is not acceptable. Like I said, what if the govt said all citizens have to eat pork?

I respect your opinion, but your reasoning is absolutely absurd. You're also using the crutch of "it is religious" to avoid actually answering the questions directed at you. You say you don't blindly believe things, like others tend to, and yet you tout this line of being unable to discuss it because it's religious. Since when were religious matters restricted talking points?

As far as your example goes, the reasoning is terribly flawed. The government isn't TELLING anyone what to do (except now, when the vote decided that gays couldn't marry). The prop was asking whether two people should be allowed to marry, not whether all men and women HAD to marry members of the same sex. Grow up. The prop was a vote for giving rights, not forcing anything on anyone that was an unwilling recipient, unlike your laughable pork example.

You also realize, by the way, that there are TWO separate forms of marriage, yes? There are state marriages and church-sanctioned marriages. Sometimes they are one in the same, but other times there are people who marry through the state and have no affiliation to a church. The church has every right, no matter what the government says, to decide who they will marry. A law passed to permit gay marriages or civil unions will have no impact on your church as they will still have the right to deny any religious marriage they see fit. You have the right to be against gay marriage and vote against a proposition supporting it, but please realize that two women marrying in California will have no impact on your admittance into any afterlife you believe in. God, no matter which you believe in, doesn't penalize YOU for what OTHER PEOPLE do (unless, of course, you may have ordered them to...then you're screwed lol).

Oh and before I forget...your argument on how 'natural' homosexuality is would also be wrong. This may make you happy, seeing as how you have a thing for animals - there are many animal species that also engage in homosexuality. Seems pretty natural to me (and don't give me that crap about how people are a tier above animals and they don't know any better...if that were the case, you think we'd already have this issue figured out, no?).

As far as the issue at hand is concerned...I don't agree with homosexuality but I also don't agree with restricting basic rights from people. Two men/women getting married isn't going to spread some evil gay virus, nor will it have any impact on your religiously-sanctioned marriage (and it won't cheapen it either). Religious marriage is sanctioned before and by God Himself. Obviously if He has an issue with homosexual relationships, theirs won't be. As you like to say - end of story.

Just food for thought, what you do feel about Common Law marriage where there are two members of the same sex? Here, neither is marrying out of love, but rather necessity. Two people who live together and depend on one another but have no legal rights towards each other or their possessions. This is a REAL issue impacted by these types of decisions, unlike your fallacies of bestiality.

Quote:

Originally posted by sugarpie26

...
I know what you mean about just because you don't agree with some doesn't give you the right not to pay taxes, but look at it this way. I believe that marrage is a basic human right, just as shelter is. If they passed a law tomorrow saying that you could only own a home if you were left handed; how would you feel? Yes, she would still be breaking the law...but she feels that the laws of the state no longer concider her an equel.

Nobody cares if you live together or who you sleep with, But it's purpose is to protect marriage between man & woman. I don't want my kids to be confused with that bullshit!! It's not fair to have to explain to young kids what they are doing!!

Coincidentally, I just went on a tirade about the passing of Proposition 8 on my blog. Oddly appropriate, I guess, so here's what I had to say:

How could, in the optimistic atmosphere of equality that Barack Obama's nomination (and subsequent win) engendered, a proposition stripping human beings of previously-amended fundamental rights have passed? To quote the ballot itself, the proposition "Eliminates [the] Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry."

It seems to me that the most logical argument (which is likely the least correct one, since we're talking about religion here) in favor of the proposition is as follows: Marriage is a function of the Judeo-Christian Church; the Bible defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman; and the Bible, allegedly, prohibits homosexual relationships.

Now, I've got a couple of problems with this:

First of all, I'm pretty sure that marriage was not born of religion. In fact, (even according to the Christian Courier) marriage pre-dates recorded human history and is thought, amongst anthropologists, to be an evolved human tendency, evidenced by the informal unions of certain animals found within nature (parrots, for instance -- watch The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill). However, the Courier paradoxically refutes this claim, stating that the habitual promiscuity of primates proves that monogamous unions could not have developed via evolution. Well, if you've ever studied evolution, or at least have a very loose grasp on the nature of reality, you'll understand that lots of things change over time, including the mind. Were we to believe in this religious doctrine of permeating, historical stasis, it would follow, then, that we are not of the same species as the alarmingly-racist society that preceded us, since those beliefs have since been progressively shed. Well, that's something I'm almost inclined to agree with...

Secondly, in an article written by the American Anthropological Association, marriage is essentially described as a universal, societal characteristic that differs from region to region and defies any strict definition. It therefore seems unreasonable to assume that it is solely the product of any one belief system. The Bible, then, does not define marriage, but rather defines a Judeo-Christian ceremony in which marriage is an essential component. So, in accordance with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, requiring citizens, who simply seek the legal rights afforded to them by marriage, to comply with and meet the prerequisites of a religious ceremony defined by the Bible, is unconstitutional.

So, if you claim to be a patriot, regardless of intensity -- if you desire to uphold the Constitution and its Amendments -- then you have an ethical and legal obligation to reverse this ruling and prevent it from further perverting that which our Founding Fathers held most dear. "All men are created equal" wasn't just a passing fancy or an ambiguously-idealized dream, it was a clearly defined, humanitarian realization of freedom. But it seems that, in the midst of Christianity's overarching and overbearing presence, we have simply taken religion and it's place in legislature for granted, much like we fail to recognize the sensation of clothing on skin; we have become so comfortably accustomed to it that it takes some deal of intention to understand a separation even exists. The separation of church and state. Love, our inherent desire to express it, and its legal ramifications are to be governed not by the church, but by our country and its deliberately-expressed ideology of fundamental rights and freedoms.

/rant off

Quote:

Originally posted by moss

...Nobody cares if you live together or who you sleep with, But it's purpose is to protect marriage between man & woman. I don't want my kids to be confused with that bullshit!! It's not fair to have to explain to young kids what they are doing!!

It's unfair? You're right, it is unfair. It's unfair that these people live together for all their lives and have no legal rights to property or money when their loved one dies. It's unfair that they don't get medical, tax or other rights either (among others, I'm sure). For you, it's an inconvenience to cover up what they're doing, similar to keeping a facade about the Easter Bunny/Tooth Fairy/Santa going for 10-12 years. For them, it's actual pain.

As far as protection of marriage, read my post above.

And, coincidentally, you do care who they live or sleep with. It's pretty easy to read between the lines.

Quote:

Originally posted by moss

...Nobody cares if you live together or who you sleep with, But it's purpose is to protect marriage between man & woman. I don't want my kids to be confused with that bullshit!! It's not fair to have to explain to young kids what they are doing!!

Oh, so you would rather have your kids grow up totally oblivious to homosexuality? Perhaps we should also not teach them about the holocaust, the Vietnamese war, 9-11, and a bunch of other things that could be difficult to explain. They are going to hear about it one day whether you support it or not.


And blazingglory....great post!

If homosexuals marry it certain takes nothing away from my marriage. So, as far as I am concerned, people are just doing this to keep homosexuals unhappy, which is a shame.

Married couples get tax breaks, so for that reason alone I think it's bullshit that homosexuals cannot marry. I believe in everyone doing whatever makes them happy so long as you don't impead on the rights of someone or something else. If you have two consensual adults who want to date, make love and marry, why the fuck shouldn't they get to do that? How does that affect YOU anyway?

Quote:

Originally posted by sugarpie26

...
And blazingglory....great post!

Which? And thank you.

Quote:

Originally posted by thegame14

I dont mind if they have civil unions or commitment ceremonies, but I draw the line where they want to call it marriage and get the same rights as a man and a woman being married. They should be able to share medical care, and property and stuff like that, but they cannot get financial benefits for it. For example they can never file a joint tax return or get any govt benefits for being married, that would be like saying our government endorses or supports it, which it should not.

It's the Church that says marriage is between a man and woman.

That's like saying that our government endorses or supports it. Which it can't. So, if anything, the government needs to allow gay marriage.

Its amazing to me that people seem to have such fear in talking to their children.
I don't want to have to explain to my children this or that. Why? I'd rather them
ask me questions than either not know or ask someone else. It might be uncomfortable
but I think you and your child will be better off in the long run.

@ blazingglory

This One!

I appreciate how you can't support homosexuality, but are open minded enough to realize that it doesn't affect you.

Quote:

Originally posted by blazingglory

...

I respect your opinion, but your reasoning is absolutely absurd. You're also using the crutch of "it is religious" to avoid actually answering the questions directed at you. You say you don't blindly believe things, like others tend to, and yet you tout this line of being unable to discuss it because it's religious. Since when were religious matters restricted talking points?

As far as your example goes, the reasoning is terribly flawed. The government isn't TELLING anyone what to do (except now, when the vote decided that gays couldn't marry). The prop was asking whether two people should be allowed to marry, not whether all men and women HAD to marry members of the same sex. Grow up. The prop was a vote for giving rights, not forcing anything on anyone that was an unwilling recipient, unlike your laughable pork example.

You also realize, by the way, that there are TWO separate forms of marriage, yes? There are state marriages and church-sanctioned marriages. Sometimes they are one in the same, but other times there are people who marry through the state and have no affiliation to a church. The church has every right, no matter what the government says, to decide who they will marry. A law passed to permit gay marriages or civil unions will have no impact on your church as they will still have the right to deny any religious marriage they see fit. You have the right to be against gay marriage and vote against a proposition supporting it, but please realize that two women marrying in California will have no impact on your admittance into any afterlife you believe in. God, no matter which you believe in, doesn't penalize YOU for what OTHER PEOPLE do (unless, of course, you may have ordered them to...then you're screwed lol).

Oh and before I forget...your argument on how 'natural' homosexuality is would also be wrong. This may make you happy, seeing as how you have a thing for animals - there are many animal species that also engage in homosexuality. Seems pretty natural to me (and don't give me that crap about how people are a tier above animals and they don't know any better...if that were the case, you think we'd already have this issue figured out, no?).

As far as the issue at hand is concerned...I don't agree with homosexuality but I also don't agree with restricting basic rights from people. Two men/women getting married isn't going to spread some evil gay virus, nor will it have any impact on your religiously-sanctioned marriage (and it won't cheapen it either). Religious marriage is sanctioned before and by God Himself. Obviously if He has an issue with homosexual relationships, theirs won't be. As you like to say - end of story.

Just food for thought, what you do feel about Common Law marriage where there are two members of the same sex? Here, neither is marrying out of love, but rather necessity. Two people who live together and depend on one another but have no legal rights towards each other or their possessions. This is a REAL issue impacted by these types of decisions, unlike your fallacies of bestiality.

Quote:

Originally posted by thegame14

not allowed to get into the religious part of this, but it can never be allowed, woman was made to be man's only companion, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

If that tale is true, 'God' also created a talking snake and that seems to have changed without any adverse side affects.