PDA

View Full Version : I now pronounce you man and man.....


DRAGON
05-28-2008, 06:19 PM
:pop: heh heh.......you fellas know where to put the rings - :eek:

SAN FRANCISCO (May 28) - Barring a stay of a historic California Supreme Court ruling, same-sex couples will be able to wed in the state beginning June 17, according to a state directive issued Wednesday.

The state said it chose June 17 because the state Supreme Court has until the day before to decide whether to grant a stay of its May 15 ruling legalizing gay marriage.

Gay-rights advocates and some clerks initially thought couples would be able to wed as early as Saturday, June 14. The court's decisions typically take effect 30 days after they are made.

The guidelines from Mark Horton, director of the California Department of Public Health, to the state's 58 county clerks also contained copies of new marriage forms that include lines for "Party A" and "Party B" instead of bride and groom. The gender-neutral nomenclature was developed in consultation with county clerks, according to the letter.

"Effective June 17, 2008, only the enclosed new forms may be issued for the issuance of marriage licenses in California," the directive reads.

A group opposed to gay marriage has asked the court to stay its decision until after the November election, when voters are likely to face a ballot initiative that would once again define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Passage of the initiative would overrule the Supreme Court.

The Field Poll found that 51 percent of respondents backed legalizing same-sex marriage and 42 percent opposed it. A 2006 poll found that 44 percent supported same-sex marriage and 50 percent objected; in 1977, the first year Field posted the question to California voters, only 28 percent were in favor.

"I would say this is a historic turning point or milestone," poll director Mark DiCamillo said. "We have speculated in the past there would be some time in the future when a majority would support same-sex marriage. Well, the lines have crossed."

The survey of 1,052 registered voters was conducted over the phone from May 17 to May 26 and had a sampling error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

The poll's findings conflict with a Los Angeles Times/KTLA poll of 705 voters released last week that found 54 percent backed the proposed gay marriage ban and 35 percent opposed it.

Andrew Pugno, legal adviser for the coalition of religious and social conservative groups sponsoring the measure, said the Times poll is more consistent with his group's internal polling.

"We could acknowledge there has been increasing acceptance of the idea of gay relationships over the last 10 or 20 years, but we think when it comes to marriage there is still a solid majority who want to see it reserved for a man and a woman, and that is all this initiative is about," Pugno said.

what teh?....... :shrug:

TheDarkShadow
05-28-2008, 06:43 PM
I'm against it...

badlandsrox
05-28-2008, 07:25 PM
The Field Poll found that 51 percent of respondents backed legalizing same-sex marriage and 42 percent opposed it. A 2006 poll found that 44 percent supported same-sex marriage and 50 percent objected; in 1977, the first year Field posted the question to California voters, only 28 percent were in favor.[/I]

Another recent study has shown that somebody is a failure at math :p

battlechaser
05-28-2008, 07:28 PM
We've had same-sex marriage in Ontario (Canada) since 2003, with no real problems. Personally I'm all for it, as it really doesn't effect how I live my day to day life, and allows people to be with those they want to. Win/win in my books.

pbgrandpa
05-28-2008, 07:58 PM
If GOD wanted man to be with man he wouldn't have created woman. So I guess you know how I feel about it.

Critical
05-28-2008, 08:15 PM
I've got mixed feelings about it, and this is really a touchy subject for any internet forum, not just here, so I'll try to keep it even tempered.

I believe that same-sex couples do not have the right to marriage. The reason is that marriage is a religious ceremony/sacrament, and all the major religions have specific things to say against same-sex activities.

With that being said, I do believe that same-sex couples should have all the civil benefits and rights that a different-sex couple have. i.e. insurance, inheritance, etc. I think that this should be covered by the "civil union," where the couple would go before the judge to have their "union" certified. However, I propose one change that has not been talked about. I would make a "civil union" apply to anyone who goes that route. whether it's a same-sex couple, a hetero couple or whatever you can find in between. Because same-sex couples have the right to equality just as any hetero couple does we need to modify the laws to apply equally to all, but keep marriage out of it. I think this would satisfy 99% of same-sex couples who really just want the same security and rights as others, it would only not satisfy the loonies and the whatever-ists who are trying to take on religion.

DRAGON
05-28-2008, 08:54 PM
I :loveeyes: my pig Porkey. Up until now marriage seemed out of the question. Once they add "Party A" and "Party B" instead of bride and groom to the marriage forms, there's no stoppin us WOOT! :D I jus :love: that lil Zoinky Piggly Wiggly! **tear falls from DRAGON's eye** - :cry:

If you think that's far fetched, you might think same sex marriages are as well. Technically, we are both males and a "Party A" and "Party B" so what's to stop us? .......and I really really wuv him......really, I do I do I do I do I do I do - :cool:

badlandsrox
05-28-2008, 09:44 PM
;) If you think that's far fetched, you might think same sex marriages are as well. Technically, we are both males and a "Party A" and "Party B" so what's to stop us? .......and I really really wuv him......really, I do I do I do I do I do I do - :cool:


Not entirely true, being that there is laws against human-animal relationships (must be why Tommy Lee and Pamela Anderson broke up :p lol), whereas there is no laws against same sex relationships. Personally, my view, is sorta a comprimise, between marriage and not, sorta like the civil union brought up earlier. I do beleive that they should have the same rights as a married couple, although marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and has been for what, 200,000 some odd years? I hate to bring it up, but not really, cause its the most awesome thing ever, but its Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Now they should be able to get everything normal couples do for the most part, like different rights and laws and everything, but I do not beleive that the traditional definition of marriage should be changed.

colonel_moo
05-28-2008, 10:22 PM
If GOD wanted man to be with man he wouldn't have created woman. So I guess you know how I feel about it.


Ok, but do you also believe in freedom of religion? Not everybody is Christian, and therefore not everybody is bounded by christian morals. Different religions have different definitions of marriage. Marriage isn't even necessarily a religious term anymore. If your argument is to keep marriage religious, why not ban the marriage of atheists as well?

Marriage isn't just a sacrament, it also has legal benefits and for me there is no justification to deny gay people those benefits.

HelpDeskHustler
05-29-2008, 02:36 AM
Ok, but do you also believe in freedom of religion? Not everybody is Christian, and therefore not everybody is bounded by christian morals. Different religions have different definitions of marriage. Marriage isn't even necessarily a religious term anymore. If your argument is to keep marriage religious, why not ban the marriage of atheists as well?

Marriage isn't just a sacrament, it also has legal benefits and for me there is no justification to deny gay people those benefits.

Exactly. This isn't like the Church granting them marriage, it's the state and legally it grants them freedoms they can't have as just a "couple". Not to mention, the Bible does say:

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

He also told them this parable: Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." -Luke 6:37-42

Now mind you, I've gone to Christian schools all my life, and I'll tell you that anything in there that's even remotely "anti-gay" in people's minds can be fought by 10 times as many passages telling you not to fight against them. I think the Bible is a great book, and offers a lot of good advice but because of the ignorance that church members carry, I refuse to call myself Christian.

Drefish99
05-29-2008, 07:11 AM
Does this look right to you?

http://blog.thirdhour.com/wp-photos/20060924-204957-1.jpg

:D IKeed IKeed

calebh
05-29-2008, 07:32 AM
it looks pretty tasty. :P

i agree with critical and others who have said that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but homosexual couples should be allowed civil unions that give them the same rights as married couples.

but in the ruling, churches are exempted from marrying same-sex couples if they are against it. imo, it's good enough.

bamf-hacker
05-29-2008, 08:00 AM
Why should the bible dictate marriage. Should it not be love???

Who cares if the two are the same sex. What if you get married to a woman and then ten years later she gets a sex change to become a man, does that mean you need to get divorced?

Sorry, I am biased I have a very good friend who is gay and he and his partner have been together for more than 17 years. Some of the coolest guys I know.

VS3 Sniper
05-29-2008, 08:09 AM
I'm for same sex couples having some rights(like stated before). But I don't think same sex couples should have the right to marry. I understand not everyone is a Christian but this nation was built as "One Nation Under God".

With that being said, several ppl I know are gay and they are great people.

bigred76
05-29-2008, 08:50 AM
:yeahthat: Except the ****heads that came into work on Gay Day... my God, living an hour from San Francisco SUCKS!

IMO, marriage is between an man and a woman. Don't believe me, read the ****in' dictionary:
(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

Don't like it, I take the Australians' point of view... get the **** out!

deano 177
05-29-2008, 09:07 AM
Why do guys like to see two chicks go at it but when two dudes like each other most classify it a "wrong"? I've been raised as a southern baptist with all of the fire and brimstone teachings but at some point I learned to think for my self. I have some friends that live this lifestyle and it is pretty tough. The fact that alot of homosexual people live in hiding and can not be open about their relationships is terrible enough. It's almost like every other type of segregation that different races have experinced here in america. It's just a little tougher to hide the fact that your skin color is not the same. Try to put your self in a situation that these people experince. Some of you old school PBers have. Remember back in the day, before pb went mainstream, and you told some one that you played? Remember the looks of horror and confusion that you used to get? Remember the "Oh that is so barbaric and militant" crap that people used to portray pb as?

I'm not trying to tell anyone how to feel. Just use your brain. If you don't like homosexuals and you don't want same sex marriages then that is fine. I wouldn't want my kid to be gay but if he/she (we're 12 weeks along and should find out the sex today!:D ) is I'm still going to love and support them to the best of my ablility. They are still people with equal rights in this country. If they want to marry then they should be able to. I wonder if their divorce rates will be better than opposite sex marriages?

HelpDeskHustler
05-29-2008, 09:26 AM
IMO, marriage is between an man and a woman. Don't believe me, read the ****in' dictionary

bamf's response; substitute "bible" for "dictionary"

VS3 Sniper
05-29-2008, 09:36 AM
Why do guys like to see two chicks go at it but when two dudes like each other most classify it a "wrong"?

Honestly I don't like to see 2 chicks go at it.

I've been raised as a southern baptist with all of the fire and brimstone teachings but at some point I learned to think for my self. I have some friends that live this lifestyle and it is pretty tough. The fact that alot of homosexual people live in hiding and can not be open about their relationships is terrible enough. It's almost like every other type of segregation that different races have experinced here in america. It's just a little tougher to hide the fact that your skin color is not the same. Try to put your self in a situation that these people experince. Some of you old school PBers have. Remember back in the day, before pb went mainstream, and you told some one that you played? Remember the looks of horror and confusion that you used to get? Remember the "Oh that is so barbaric and militant" crap that people used to portray pb as?

I'm not trying to tell anyone how to feel. Just use your brain. If you don't like homosexuals and you don't want same sex marriages then that is fine. I wouldn't want my kid to be gay but if he/she (we're 12 weeks along and should find out the sex today!:D ) is I'm still going to love and support them to the best of my ablility. They are still people with equal rights in this country. If they want to marry then they should be able to. I wonder if their divorce rates will be better than opposite sex marriages?

^ I'm not saying they don't deserve to have rights like insurance, inheritance, etc. But I don't think gay marriage is right.

If God would have wanted same sex relationships he would have made it where 2 men or 2 women could procreate. Since that is not the case I see same sex relationships as wrong. But everyone is intitled to there own opinion aswell as making there own choices.

shunut
05-29-2008, 09:48 AM
I have people very close to me who are gay. Both are amazing people and I love them to death. If marriage was solely based on religion, why do you have to go to a court house and get a marriage license? Even for a man and woman to be married, all they have to do is go to the court house and get the license, technically from that point on they are married. They don't have to have a ceremony.

We all need to remember we do live in America, land of the FREE and home of the brave. Its not the home of the Christians, Catholics, Mormons or Baptists, just the land of the free. Meaning EVERY person should have equal rights, no matter what.

Honestly, how many of you will this really affect. I'd be will to guess not many. Those of you that this does affect are people like me and bamf. Now our loved ones can legally be married.

deano 177
05-29-2008, 10:07 AM
But everyone is intitled to there own opinion aswell as making there own choices.
I think that is what most of us are saying but as far as the courts are concerned people who lived this lifestyle didn't have an option in this area. They had to go to canada or someplace to get hitched.

I also subscribe to the thoughts that homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes. But having said that it is not for me judge them. They will have to stand before God one day and answer for it all. In the end all that matters is if says "I never knew you: depart from me" or " welcome my good and faithful servant".

HelpDeskHustler
05-29-2008, 10:28 AM
I have people very close to me who are gay. Both are amazing people and I love them to death. If marriage was solely based on religion, why do you have to go to a court house and get a marriage license? Even for a man and woman to be married, all they have to do is go to the court house and get the license, technically from that point on they are married. They don't have to have a ceremony.

We all need to remember we do live in America, land of the FREE and home of the brave. Its not the home of the Christians, Catholics, Mormons or Baptists, just the land of the free. Meaning EVERY person should have equal rights, no matter what.

Honestly, how many of you will this really affect. I'd be will to guess not many. Those of you that this does affect are people like me and bamf. Now our loved ones can legally be married.

I agree, something this country really needs to learn is to stop imposing personal beliefs and moralities onto other people. I'm tired of the government telling us what we can and can't do outside of laws which are put up to protect other people. End censorship, end seatbelt laws and end the ban on gay marriage. Everyone should be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't impose on the rights of others.

calebh
05-29-2008, 10:36 AM
I understand not everyone is a Cristian but this nation was built as "One Nation Under God".
actually, it wasn't... "under god" was added to the pledge in 1954, if i remember right. The founding fathers were deists, not necessarily christians. the same founding fathers who wrote the first amendment, giving equal protection to all religions, not just christianity. and you'll notice the pledge doesn't specify which god the nation is under.

bigred76
05-29-2008, 10:39 AM
I'm just going to say this:
All this DIRECTLY affects me as I am closest on these boards to the epicenter, San Francisco. Speaking as such, the culture I observe within the gay community is NOT what I want to see, nor what I will see if I have any say about it (ask the dude I had pepper sprayed for ****ing in the bushes Friday night and not obeying commands to stop and pull up his pants, he'll agree!). I am free to do that as I am given jurisdiction at work, just as he was free to get pepper sprayed for being an asswad. Sounds perfectly fair to me! :rolleyes:

Critical
05-29-2008, 10:48 AM
First off, and not to take this completely off topic, but that's baloney calebh. Re-read the constitution, read the Federalist Papers, the founding fathers were quite clearly Christian, and founded this country on those beliefs.

Now, back to the subject. Bamf, Shu, you're not the only one's who have friends/family, loved one's who are gay, don't try that argument with me, it won't work. I've had this exact discussion with those I know who are gay, and they have agreed with the basic tenants of my argument. What I was saying is that when you go to the courthouse to get the license, it should not say "marriage license" it should read "civil union" or something similar, and it should be applied equally to all who walk in the door. The term marriage should be reserved for the religious ceremony, as it is applied to the religion of your choice. If you belong to one of the 2500 or so religions out there, and yours allows same-sex wedding ceremonies, have fun, get married, be as miserable as all the rest of the guys out there. But stop trying to re-write the Bible, and stay the **** out of my religion.

bamf-hacker
05-29-2008, 11:02 AM
First off, and not to take this completely off topic, but that's baloney calebh. Re-read the constitution, read the Federalist Papers, the founding fathers were quite clearly Christian, and founded this country on those beliefs.

Now, back to the subject. Bamf, Shu, you're not the only one's who have friends/family, loved one's who are gay, don't try that argument with me, it won't work. I've had this exact discussion with those I know who are gay, and they have agreed with the basic tenants of my argument. What I was saying is that when you go to the courthouse to get the license, it should not say "marriage license" it should read "civil union" or something similar, and it should be applied equally to all who walk in the door. The term marriage should be reserved for the religious ceremony, as it is applied to the religion of your choice. If you belong to one of the 2500 or so religions out there, and yours allows same-sex wedding ceremonies, have fun, get married, be as miserable as all the rest of the guys out there. But stop trying to re-write the Bible, and stay the **** out of my religion.

QFT

/THREAD!!!

HelpDeskHustler
05-29-2008, 11:18 AM
But marriage doesn't have to have anything to do with religion. You're arguing about what a piece of paper should say.

Critical
05-29-2008, 11:31 AM
When that piece of paper, written by a human, is being used to change my religion, written by God, you're damn right I'm going to argue about it. Besides, saying that marriage has nothing to do with religion is like saying sex has nothing to do with having children.

shunut
05-29-2008, 11:32 AM
Now, back to the subject. Bamf, Shu, you're not the only one's who have friends/family, loved one's who are gay, don't try that argument with me, it won't work.

It wasn't an argument, I was stating a fact. I have people close to me that are gay, I think it gives me a different perspective on things, thats all I was stating.


As for the piece of paper. If we change it from marriage to civil union, we need to do that for all, not just same sex marriage, otherwise we are discriminating, which goes against much of what America means. This new law doesn't really say anything about legality of gay couples getting married in a church, it states that gay couples can go to the court house and get a legally binding certificate of marriage. What you do after you have that certificate is totally up to you, that goes for homo and heterosexual couples.

Critical
05-29-2008, 11:34 AM
Agreed.

And, no offense intended, I was using the term "argument" in, perhaps, not the best context.

shunut
05-29-2008, 11:39 AM
When that piece of paper, written by a human, is being used to change my religion, written by God, you're damn right I'm going to argue about it. Besides, saying that marriage has nothing to do with religion is like saying sex has nothing to do with having children.

How does it change your religion?

Now that gay people have the same LEGAL rights as straight people, the Bible has changed? Has the Federal Government declared that everyone change their beliefs due to this new law? Did your church leader call you and condemn you since you think its wrong?

Everyone can have their own beliefs but this law did in noway change your religion. It allows gay couples to LEGAL get married, meaning they can go to a court house, which is an establishment of the government, not religion, and obtain a certificate of marriage. Every single church in the US can continue to not allow ceremonies between same sex couples, thats the wonderful thing about the first Amendment.

HelpDeskHustler
05-29-2008, 11:54 AM
Read the Bible. Find the part where it tells us that we should discriminate on any basis. I'll give you that single advantage, you don't need to find it telling us to discriminate against homosexuals just find anybody. You won't find it.

Critical
05-29-2008, 11:57 AM
It changes religion because there are activists out there who try to use the rights given them by the government, to attack the establishment of the church, because doctrine states that homosexuality is a sin, and they don't like that.

You're totally missing my point, while I'm trying, really trying, to agree with you. I'm trying to say that same-sex couples SHOULD have all of the same LEGAL rights as straight people. I'm not arguing that, since it looks like it has now become exactly that. I'm saying that we need to take the WORD marriage out of the governments language, AS IT RELATES TO CIVIL UNIONS. Marriage, in my opinion, should be reserved strictly for the religious ceremony involved when 2 people are united. As I said before, if your religion allows same-sex marriage, go to it, no problem from me. Your statement about churches being allowed to continue to not allow same sex couples is exactly my point, churches are under attack from activists to FORCE THE RELIGION TO CHANGE! I'm not saying the average, everyday same-sex couple is doing it, but there are those who are.

HDH:
I said NOTHING about discrimination. I am somewhat offended that you would bring that word into this discussion, however, since you insist on proof that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, here you go:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22).

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13)

HelpDeskHustler
05-29-2008, 12:01 PM
There are plenty of things that are legal that the church doesn't approve of, but that hasn't changed their policies, why should this?

Critical
05-29-2008, 12:04 PM
:smash: :headbrick:

I'm not saying that the religions should change anything. What exactly made you think I was?

HelpDeskHustler
05-29-2008, 12:50 PM
It changes religion because

Those 4 words did. And Critical, your Biblical quote says nothing about discriminating against gays. I'm quite aware that the Bible treats homosexuality as a sin, but I'm not sure where you are finding the part where we're supposed to persecute gays.

calebh
05-29-2008, 01:59 PM
First off, and not to take this completely off topic, but that's baloney calebh. Re-read the constitution, read the Federalist Papers, the founding fathers were quite clearly Christian, and founded this country on those beliefs.
then why do we not have a state religion? more specifically, why is christianity not the state religion? like you said, it's off topic, so that's all i'm going to say.

otherwise, i agree with you and others (though my reasons don't stem solely from the fact that i am a christian), as i stated in my first post in this thread.

this thread is getting heated... i'm removing myself from it...

DRAGON
05-29-2008, 02:04 PM
.............And Critical, your Biblical quote says nothing about discriminating against gays. I'm quite aware that the Bible treats homosexuality as a sin, but I'm not sure where you are finding the part where we're supposed to persecute gays.

..........they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13)

You may have missed that part huh? - :smirk:

STRIKEFIRST
05-29-2008, 02:41 PM
Wow wow wow. I don't believe in gay "marriage" in a religous sense. But my wife and I do have gay friends...if they want a civil union more power to them. I personally don't agree with that life style but this is America, all I can do is pray for them...But that doesn't stop me for carring about them. There are other things in this country I don't personally agree with but this is why we live in America...freedom. (to a certain extent but thats another ugly topic ;) )

As far as the smart remark about guys liking to watch 2 woman go at it...I can't believe I have to explain this...Straight guys like 2 woman going at it for the chance they could join in...Like wrigleys spearmint gum...double the pleasure double the fun! Now if your straight there is no way on earth you want to see two guys playing "doctor"!

battlechaser
05-29-2008, 05:56 PM
I seem to be in a different situation than most, and I do find it kind of surprizing. My parent's never raised myself or my brother under any denomination (My mother is Anglican and my father is Roman Catholic), nor have either of us read the Bible. This affects my point of view as my beliefs on religion and politics are separate from one another. That said, I think Critical is right, they should be allowed to be joined in a legal sense, giving them all the rights and freedoms of a heterosexual couple. Their lifestyle is their choice. But changing an entire belief structure is hard, and in most cases impossible. If they want to be joined in Holy Matrimony, it might be in their best interests to form their own denomination, because acceptance in one that's docterine has been forged over the years towards those acts being a sin, isn't something that will likely be changed.

vikingshadow
05-29-2008, 07:10 PM
I hate government vs Christianity discussions. It's interesting that, at least in America - I'm not sure everywhere else - that it's the "in" thing to put ANYTHING down because of Christianity. If anyone disagrees with a particular idea, it's because of a certain religion and "Christianity" is twisted around to be the bad guy. Yet, those same people use this excuse every time: "Christianity isn't the only religion in the world, so why bow down to it?" In a sense, they're saying that ANY religion's practice is ok, just so long as it's not Christianity. It's a double edged sword, but no one admits it. Allow everyone else to do what they want, UNLESS it's the Christian thing to do.

I'd like to think that my "Marriage" is a special thing between a man and a woman, and not something so easily entered into by any Tom and Harry just because the government says we HAVE to allow equal rights. You know, in my mind, the world doesn't care about equal rights, and not EVERYTHING has to be equal. Maybe I'm old and crotchedy, but that's how I feel. If it's segregation, so be it. I can't get into school because I'm white (too many white people already, we need other races now!), I can't get a job because, even though I'm higher qualified, a female of a different race also applied and there aren't any of those people working there yet, I can't join women-only gyms but to have a man-only gym is considered sex discrimination and thus against the law, I get discriminated against constantly because I'm older, the list goes on and on (petty things that I personally really don't care about, but in the light of this discussion they do fit.) So what if gays can't get "Married"? They've been doing almost the same thing by living together all these years anyways and all that changed is the title. Big whup.

I personally have friends that are gay, though I disapprove of their lifestyle. Do I want them to be "married"? No. Because I feel it takes a little away from what I feel is a special bond between man and woman. Plus it's a part of my religious beliefs and who is anyone to tell me that I'M wrong? They're just being hypocritical when they tell me that I can't believe the way I want, but they are right. Now, "Civil Unions" with rights and priviledges as according to law? Sure, why not? I don't care about the government crap, though I feel they put their hands into too many things.

Ok, here's the nitty-gritty, IMO. I always come back to two arguments on this issue. #1. Marriage BEGAN as a religious ceremony, yet everyone wants to make turn it into a government thing. In history, you were married in the eyes of the Lord (or whatever religion/iconic figure you believed in at the time) but it was ALWAYS a religious ceremony, whether it be for political gain or not (see kings marrying foriegn princesses for the sake of the kingdom.) It was still overseen by the Church and done with that religion's guidelines. Now because a few people who feel like they're political/oonstitutional analysts want to turn it into an equal rights thing are actually stealing a religious ceremony and cry foul when "Christians" or any other "ians" complain. Hogwash. BTW - can anyone actually tell me of a religion that actualy agrees with homosexuality? Because I can't think of any...

2nd - Marriage, besides love, is an act of mixing genetic material multiple times, then passing it along to your offspring, continuing your genetic code with what is hopefully "better" genetics and eventually keeping the human race going. Tell me how gay marriage benefits them or the human race scientifically and I'll say it's not an aberation - a genetic mutation that is bent on destroying itself for lack of being able to reproduce. You can't. To me, this is a selfish act and one that ONLY benefits the two entering into it. That's not so different from those men and women who get together purely for lust and such, but the difference is that genetic reproduction is happening.

HelpDeskHustler
05-29-2008, 07:17 PM
You may have missed that part huh? - :smirk:
No, I didn't. Read it again. From the tense and implied subject of the sentence "They shall be put to death" it cannot be concluded that the Bible is telling you to persecute gays. It's quite clearly saying that they will receive their justice and its also quite clearly not saying that you should be the one to give this justice. Whether or not you believe it, surely you CAN READ.

I'm slowly getting the other posts, I read some of Vike's (specifically because he often has the best things to say) and the bottom paragraph specifically resonates with me at this time. How can you possibly make the argument about what's good for human race when day in and day out we live and work in a capitalist society which inherently built on a basis of self preservation and greed at some of the most self centered levels, where at the very most 10-20 people are being considered in each individual's effort. I just can't buy into the whole "benefit the human race" argument with the slue of **** that people do. The world is ****ed up and I honestly don't think gay marriage is the greatest of our problems. Maybe when 90% of the population isn't as messed up as they are now we'll get to some stance on gay issues, but I can honestly think of better things to use our time for rather than saying that two guys or two girls can't have access to each others medical files in emergencies, or automatically inherit the estate of their partner without a will, or get insurance discounts, etc.

vikingshadow
05-29-2008, 07:48 PM
Gay marriage is NOT the worst problem we face, I'll give you that. Not even close. However, the "benefiting the world" that I talked about is not one of those voluntary things we do. It physically and literally benefits the world when married couples procreate (or I guess even unmarried people.) Their particular genetic code is passed on, and gets mixed into the global genetic code which in turns contiunes to allow us to exist.

What you're talking about is semantics - what we DO on purpose that affect either ourselves or each other. Yes, the lot of us are selfish, boring and so into our own little pleasures it's a wonder we haven't just off'd each other just by accident. We are that way, and there's not much we, nor the government can do about it, though I do blame the generic priviledges that people seem to mistake for rights all the time and the assumption that no matter what, we get those "rights" which is utter BS.

However, we can't afford to confuse what I meant by passing genetics on to what you and I are saying in this part. One actually does benefit the human race even though we don't mean it to, and the other is strictly for ourselves.

Again, I'm all for them having the rights you mentioned. As humans, they have those rights and that's great. However, it's not marriage that you're talking about. It's basic rights given to ALL people in this case, or should be, and marriage should not even enter into this part of the discussion. In that case I do agree.

HelpDeskHustler
05-30-2008, 07:01 AM
Also, It might be worthy to mention the fact that plenty of people have already had kids, and they don't want them. With a larger demographic of people who can't have kids who wants them (I'm not saying all gay couples want kids, or that all are responsible, but surely there is a larger number because of this demographic). I think that making gay marriage illegal will not stop some people from being gay. We will probably have a gay community for a long time, and I think it's wise for us as a society to take advantage of the situation and "get the best" out of it. I won't argue whether a gay couple is fit to raise a kid or if it makes the kid gay, etc. One thing is for sure, that kid has a much better chance to be great in life than he/she did in a foster home or in an orphanage/ adoption home. Not to mention, it's hard to ignore the loving couples who you know deserve the benefits the government offers. I'll agree that there are gay couples who don't deserve it for whatever reasons, but I'd say the same for straight couples.

shunut
05-30-2008, 08:15 AM
This is what I'm getting from what some of you are saying. Marriage is a completely religious event. So since I don't believe in God, I can't get married?

I always thought of marriage as an expression more than anything else. You are proclaiming to someone that you love them and want to spend the rest of your life with them. Can gay people not do that? Do you not think that gay people have the same feelings for their partner as a heterosexual couple have for their partner? Why shouldn't they be allowed to have a ceremony to express that love to their friends and family? I keep hearing people say they hate when people bring "their" religion into governmental issues, then in the next sentence say that a new law challenges their beliefs. If you don't want religion and governmental issues to be part of the same argument, don't use them. Once again, there is nothing in this law that states that this is a religious union, its a legal union. Lets keep that the topic being discussed here.

What if there was a law that said, red heads or bald people or people over the age of 40 or people under 5'2", couldn't get married? Would that be right?

STRIKEFIRST
05-30-2008, 09:11 AM
I seriously doubt that anyones religon is going to change because of a law. If it does then I'd be looking for a different religon.

Most of if not all religons who don't believe and or allow same sex marriages will continue to and still won't perform the ceremony or allow there religous building to be used for a ceremony of that kind.

SO if Homosexual people start or already attend a church that allows and will perform the ceremony...that is their religon...not yours. They could call it whatever...baptist, catholic, lutheran, black eyed peas...it doesn't matter because it's not what YOU and YOUR Church practices.

Whether you want to see it hear it or your kin to hear it see it is a different subject all together.

As of now I am choosing to believe what I believe, teach my daughter what I believe, pray for those that i don't agree with and let God do the judging.

TheDarkShadow
05-30-2008, 11:17 AM
as far as Catholicism goes, being homosexual is not a sin, but following the feelings of homosexuallity through being in a homosexual relationship of any kind is a sin.

DRAGON
05-30-2008, 01:40 PM
.........I always thought of marriage as an expression more than anything else. You are proclaiming to someone that you love them and want to spend the rest of your life with them. Can gay people not do that? Do you not think that gay people have the same feelings for their partner as a heterosexual couple have for their partner? Why shouldn't they be allowed to have a ceremony to express that love to their friends and family?.............

Hate to bring this word up but do you know the meaning of "bastard"? A bastard is an illegitimate child born out of wedlock. I would suspect this was one of the main reasons of getting married. To validate the commitment made by the couple bearing children. The child then(if a male.....sometimes even females lately.....two last names) takes the last name of the father to carry on the blood line. As Vik mentioned, can gays bear children? They can have fake tata's, look very much like the opposite secks, but when it comes to bearing children.....no cookie -

This marriage thing is just a plight to make homosexuality normal. Look at nature; everything that is anything that carries on through reproduction does not reproduce through the same gender outside of a hermaphrodite and that is through self-reproduction. Anything beyond that is unnatural or not normal. Therefore homosexuality is not normal nor will ever be no matter how these homo sapiens(and I use that term loosely) try to prove it is. You can call foul by religion but look beyond and you'll find nature does not approve as well since homosexuality is abnormal -

Cut and dry, all this marriage thing is, is a stepping stone to take more in the future -

STRIKEFIRST
05-30-2008, 02:50 PM
Hate to bring this word up but do you know the meaning of "bastard"? A bastard is an illegitimate child born out of wedlock. I would suspect this was one of the main reasons of getting married. To validate the commitment made by the couple bearing children. The child then(if a male.....sometimes even females lately.....two last names) takes the last name of the father to carry on the blood line. As Vik mentioned, can gays bear children? They can have fake tata's, look very much like the opposite secks, but when it comes to bearing children.....no cookie -

This marriage thing is just a plight to make homosexuality normal. Look at nature; everything that is anything that carries on through reproduction does not reproduce through the same gender outside of a hermaphrodite and that is through self-reproduction. Anything beyond that is unnatural or not normal. Therefore homosexuality is not normal nor will ever be no matter how these homo sapiens(and I use that term loosely) try to prove it is. You can call foul by religion but look beyond and you'll find nature does not approve as well since homosexuality is abnormal -

Cut and dry, all this marriage thing is, is a stepping stone to take more in the future -

Good Points

HelpDeskHustler
05-30-2008, 04:23 PM
Sorry dragon, but you're wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

Many cases of homosexuality are due to a mother's immune system fighting the testosterone after it became immune from the first offspring. This can cause the baby to develop male genitalia but still have some of the instincts of a female animal. I would argue that no homosexuality is choice simply because I'm a determinist and I don't believe in free will, but if you care to call complex causality related to the brain choice then only a portion of homosexual tendencies are due to "choice" whereas many are due to natural causes.

bigred76
05-30-2008, 10:43 PM
Claus, shove it. We're talking about humans, not animals. :rolleyes:

I have to agree, Drago. Someone once told me that the gays have an agenda and are pushing it very slowly, starting with San Francisco. That was about 5 years ago, look where we are now! :eek: That man was very smart, and now that he's proven his point (I told him it wasn't possible, there was no way the gay community would be such ****ing ****s as to have an agenda), I wonder if what he said would happen next will occur.... :questionicon:

HelpDeskHustler
05-31-2008, 06:16 AM
Claus, shove it. We're talking about humans, not animals. :rolleyes:Dragon said homosexuality was unnatural and not normal and I'm proving to him that it is in fact normal in nature for homosexual behavior to occur, then stating that if you consider it a defect of human behavior, often it's an onset birth defect and could be paralleled with autism. The autistic community has their share of support and special accommodations within the law, why shouldn't homosexuals?

The fact is that if you're claiming your lifestyle to be superior to theirs, I don't believe that's right. The Native Americans were persecuted, moved and purged because their lifestyle was viewed as inferior. Africans were enslaved because their lifestyle was viewed as inferior. Jews, gypsies and others were killed because their lifestyle was viewed as inferior. Thousands were killed in a day on 9/11 because a group viewed our ideas as inferior. Hundreds of thousands are dying in Darfur because their nomadic and tribal lifestyle is viewed as inferior.

STOP JUDGING PEOPLE AND COEXIST

TheDarkShadow
06-01-2008, 03:52 PM
homosexuality isn't natural, if it was, homosexuals could make babies. It isn't the homosexual's fault at all, but it just isn't meant to be like that.

HelpDeskHustler
06-01-2008, 04:25 PM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural
natural
-adjective
1. Occurring in nature.

I don't think it's any argument that it occurs in nature. 94% of male giraffes are considered to engage in homosexual, non-dominance related relations.

extrabonez
06-01-2008, 05:43 PM
at the giraffe thing i lol'd but i dont mind either way. some of my friends are yea...but as long as they dont get touchy feely around me im pretty cool and dont mind because they still people and shouldnt be punished for something they beleive in. thats kinda saying that religeous people should be prosecuted if u beleive that homosexuals should be prosecuted.

i am atheist so if i offended anyone im sorry but those are my views on this subject

HelpDeskHustler
06-01-2008, 07:26 PM
Two things. One, I completely agree with you, and the giraffe thing is no BS, look at the wiki if you (any person reading this) don't believe me.

Two, this is just a pet peeve that I felt had to be said, atheism is a religion, since it is a belief system that revolves around a superior power (in it's case, the lack of one specifically) which makes no attempt to prove it's theoretically unprovable claim. It's just a technicality but the only set of beliefs which isn't a religion is no set of beliefs. I don't mean to rustle feathers, and I mean no offense by it, but if you'd like clarification feel free to PM me rather than clutter the thread more than I already have.

TheDarkShadow
06-01-2008, 08:29 PM
wiki= not reliable

HelpDeskHustler
06-02-2008, 06:06 AM
Link (http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/*****creatures/)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/

The next person who says Wikipedia isn't reliable better have proof. If you just accuse the wiki's that I use as supports as being unreliable, then you have just called me an ass, and questioned my ability to discern from BS and real articles. So you had better back up an accusation such as that, since I've been kind enough to back up all of my arguments while everyone else is making shots in the dark and blind assumptions.

edit: first link is broken because of swear filter. replace stars with a 5 letter word beginning with q and ending with er.

VS3 Sniper
06-03-2008, 06:59 AM
Is Pedophilia, Bestiality, or Necrophilia wrong??? IMO Homosexuality is just as wrong/bad as they are.

HelpDeskHustler
06-03-2008, 07:19 AM
Except for the difference with consent. In homosexuality there is consent by both parties (otherwise it's sodomy or just rape). Since legally dead people, minors and animals cannot consent it's entirely different in the eyes of the law. Those three are closer to rape than they are homosexuality.

VS3 Sniper
06-03-2008, 07:37 AM
I was really more saying in the eyes of Man or God.

But lets say a 16(If i'm not mistaken thats the legal age of consent in TX) year old girl slept with a 50 year old guy. Do u guys see anything wrong with that? Cuz I do.

HelpDeskHustler
06-03-2008, 08:09 AM
Age of consent is overridden by the statutory rape law (2 year law) which disallows adults to have sex with minors unless their age difference is less than 2 years, meaning the oldest age to be allowed to have sex with a 16 year-old would be an 18 year-old. But here's the real questions:

Same situation as you mentioned, but the girl is 18 and the guy is 50?
Same situation as above, but the girl is 50 and the guy is 18?

I'll respond after you answer. Also it should be made known here that man is not God. "In the eyes of God" only goes so far since that's a subjective interpretation of a book claimed to be written by man who was inspired by God. You aren't God, and therefore should not judge, see the first biblical quote I posted. Page 1.