California Supreme Court struck down the state's gay marriage ban
- Thread starter Oversoul
- Start date
D
DarthFerret
Guest
And thus the world ends!
Sorry...I have no problem with people wanting to do what they want to do, however, asking the government to sanction something that will ultimately raise healthcare costs, and waste a lot of money on debate (I think enough has been wasted already) is different.
Why do they feel that they need a piece of paper to say that what they are doing is ok. Are they trying to ask me to accept it?
Let's look at marriage. It was originally an aspect of the church (you decide on which one), to signify the joining together of a man and a woman, and a promise to stay true. Then comes the government. First, they should have stayed out of it. But nope, here is something we can issue lisences for and make money that way too! So, whether or not you agree with any religion, ask any protestant religious leader if a gay marriage is sanctioned by the church, and you will get the answer: No. Thus since the origins are from a church, the idea is from a church, shouldn't the church define what is and is not a marriage, not the government?
Ok rant over.
Sorry...I have no problem with people wanting to do what they want to do, however, asking the government to sanction something that will ultimately raise healthcare costs, and waste a lot of money on debate (I think enough has been wasted already) is different.
Why do they feel that they need a piece of paper to say that what they are doing is ok. Are they trying to ask me to accept it?
Let's look at marriage. It was originally an aspect of the church (you decide on which one), to signify the joining together of a man and a woman, and a promise to stay true. Then comes the government. First, they should have stayed out of it. But nope, here is something we can issue lisences for and make money that way too! So, whether or not you agree with any religion, ask any protestant religious leader if a gay marriage is sanctioned by the church, and you will get the answer: No. Thus since the origins are from a church, the idea is from a church, shouldn't the church define what is and is not a marriage, not the government?
Ok rant over.
Oversoul
The Tentacled One
I think I actually agree with most of what you're saying, but I'm confused as to what your actual stance is.
Fair enough, but how would the government waste money on "debate"?DarthFerret said:
My understanding is that it's about equal rights (uh, from the perspective of the people who want legalized gay marriage--obviously the people who are against it aren't against it because they hate the idea of equal rights).
Preach, brotha!
Well, if the government has commandeered marriage, then legally, the churches shouldn't get any say at all. The whole first amendment thing. But if you want to make marriage no longer a legal institution (I'm all for it), then it seems like a non-issue. The churches that refuse to sanction gay marriage will be free to do so, and the ones that don't won't. The government couldn't interfere either way, again because of that whole first amendment thing.
B
Budget Player Cadet
Guest
Gays should have the same rights as anyone else.
D
DarthFerret
Guest
So you are saying that gays should be allowed to be pastors in the church?Budget Player Cadet said:
Is it ok for the High School Boys Coach to be gay and in the lockeroom with them?
As to my stance....personally I think it is immoral and wrong. However, I also do not plan on telling people what they can or cannot do. So, while I may believe that they are wrongheaded, and not going to acheive salvation, I believe the have the right to exist.
And BPC, I agree with you partially when it comes to marriage. Marriage should not be a government controlled right. The government should keep thier nose out of it. It started as a religious institution, and that is the way it should have stayed.
D
DarthFerret
Guest
I am not saying that being gay can affect the way you pastor. I am saying that a church that has at its core belief, that being gay is wrong, should not be forced to have a gay pastor.
As for the locker room, I used the male example, because it is more prevelant in our media. Of course, the female version is also similarly disturbing to me, being as I have 2 daughters.
As for the locker room, I used the male example, because it is more prevelant in our media. Of course, the female version is also similarly disturbing to me, being as I have 2 daughters.
M
Modus Pwnens
Guest
It surprises me more that you think they shouldn't DF..
I understand that most Americans are conservative christian rednecks, but I expected something better.
What makes you say that it started as a religious institution? I can assure you that people have been marrying for a lot longer than certain religions have been around, what did they do before then?
The thing that disgusts me most of all is your suggestion that gay people are pedophiles. You are entitled to your own believes, and I won't hide that I do not believe in any god, but please don't bother other people with it (which seems to be the American way of life, not just limited to marriage).
I have a very good friend who's gay, he always shows up at the weekly draft, and although he's not the best magic-player around, he's still a great laugh.
PS: I really don't mean to offend anyone on this forum
I understand that most Americans are conservative christian rednecks, but I expected something better.
What makes you say that it started as a religious institution? I can assure you that people have been marrying for a lot longer than certain religions have been around, what did they do before then?
The thing that disgusts me most of all is your suggestion that gay people are pedophiles. You are entitled to your own believes, and I won't hide that I do not believe in any god, but please don't bother other people with it (which seems to be the American way of life, not just limited to marriage).
I have a very good friend who's gay, he always shows up at the weekly draft, and although he's not the best magic-player around, he's still a great laugh.
PS: I really don't mean to offend anyone on this forum
DF: If the "church" always believed in its core beliefs, then there wouldn't be a splintering of various "flavors" of that same belief. Different people have different ideas what "religion" is or how it is carried out, hence, I don't see a contradiction.
I don't think your view disgusts me, but it is a valid point. Your locker room example is more pedophilic than "gayish"? "Gay-ic?" Whatever the similiar term is. A Health Club locker room would probably be a better example.
D
DarthFerret
Guest
I did not say that gay people are pedophiles. It is the same thing as saying, not all men will rape a woman, but do you really want a guy in the girls locker room? (or vice versa?) Yes, I am a Christian, and will never hide that fact. My point, however, dealing with a preacher, is how could any organization that holds at it's core belief that being gay is wrong, be led by someone who is gay?
The Bible is what causes me to say that marriage is religious in origin. Even if you do not believe in God, or in other doctrines, there are several proofs that the Bible is a good historical guide. (ask most historians, whether Christian or not).
As for naturality (since I understand freedom of religion), how does a gay person repopulate? Yes, I know that the animal kingdom does have places where is shows gay behavior (monkeys and other mamals are the most prevalent), however, the animal kingdom also shows other deviant behavior that I am quite certain we all can agree are wrong. Recently I read a weird news article about a Sea Lion raping a King Penguin. Apparently it is not all that uncommon. Does that mean that rape is ok cause it is in nature?...I assume that all of us here agree that it is not.
I actually have friends that are admittedly gay. They know my Christian beliefs. They know that I think what they are doing is wrong. However, despite this, we all get along pretty well.
One of the things that does bother me is when someone says "I think that gays are fine as long as they do not hit on me." I think it is rather arrogant of anyone to automatically assume that they are irresitable to someone of that persuasion. Trust me, most gays I know would not hit on me, and it is NOT because I am straight.
I believe they have equal rights. I just dont think they have equal rights in a religious organization. Of course I also do not believe that women have any place in Boy Scouts, or that men have any place in Girl Scouts. It is in the name....
Everyone is entitled to thier beliefs, and I will stick to my guns on mine. I also do not expect to change anyones mind or beliefs on here. I was merely stating my opinion, and have found many times that wording on here can be misconstrued, so I welcome any questions that anyone has, as I have been misunderstood a number of times.
The Bible is what causes me to say that marriage is religious in origin. Even if you do not believe in God, or in other doctrines, there are several proofs that the Bible is a good historical guide. (ask most historians, whether Christian or not).
As for naturality (since I understand freedom of religion), how does a gay person repopulate? Yes, I know that the animal kingdom does have places where is shows gay behavior (monkeys and other mamals are the most prevalent), however, the animal kingdom also shows other deviant behavior that I am quite certain we all can agree are wrong. Recently I read a weird news article about a Sea Lion raping a King Penguin. Apparently it is not all that uncommon. Does that mean that rape is ok cause it is in nature?...I assume that all of us here agree that it is not.
I actually have friends that are admittedly gay. They know my Christian beliefs. They know that I think what they are doing is wrong. However, despite this, we all get along pretty well.
One of the things that does bother me is when someone says "I think that gays are fine as long as they do not hit on me." I think it is rather arrogant of anyone to automatically assume that they are irresitable to someone of that persuasion. Trust me, most gays I know would not hit on me, and it is NOT because I am straight.
I believe they have equal rights. I just dont think they have equal rights in a religious organization. Of course I also do not believe that women have any place in Boy Scouts, or that men have any place in Girl Scouts. It is in the name....
Everyone is entitled to thier beliefs, and I will stick to my guns on mine. I also do not expect to change anyones mind or beliefs on here. I was merely stating my opinion, and have found many times that wording on here can be misconstrued, so I welcome any questions that anyone has, as I have been misunderstood a number of times.
You didn't say it and I do believe you, it's just that you used the wrong example. Like I said, you should have used the Health Club locker room as the example to show the "adult vs adult", not high school and "adult vs underage".
So from what I'm reading so far, you seem to have two stances: one: gays should not be allowed in churches and two: marriage should not be from the government. It's highly doubtful that #2 will ever be separate from the government, so given that reality, there shouldn't be any real objection to gays being married.
Easy, they find a willing donor of either sperm or egg. Your implicit statement seems to say "sex should only be within the marriage", but that's obviously not true. And even if you believe it should be, there's options like artificial insemination (not sure if that applies to both egg and sperm), so no sex has to occur anyway. Which may beg the question of whether you believe such ways are "viable" ways to reproduce, but they're out there.
So from what I'm reading so far, you seem to have two stances: one: gays should not be allowed in churches and two: marriage should not be from the government. It's highly doubtful that #2 will ever be separate from the government, so given that reality, there shouldn't be any real objection to gays being married.
R
rokapoke
Guest
My (admittedly limited) understanding of the whole "gay marriage" debate is this:
Heterosexual people get the privilege of sharing their health benefits and similar perks of marriage. These perks are related to law.
Homosexual people do not get this privilege. Civil union or otherwise. Because the law forbids it, or at least does not guarantee it.
So my understanding is that gay people, for the most part, could care less if a church recognizes them as "married" or, for that matter, accepts what they are. My personal belief is that if the church wants "marriage" to be for a man and a woman, that's fine by me... as long as gay people can have the same legal rights from a legal equivalent to marriage, such as a civil union.
After all, a ship captain or a mayor or a justice of the peace or whatever can preside over a marriage that is completely separate from the church.
Heterosexual people get the privilege of sharing their health benefits and similar perks of marriage. These perks are related to law.
Homosexual people do not get this privilege. Civil union or otherwise. Because the law forbids it, or at least does not guarantee it.
So my understanding is that gay people, for the most part, could care less if a church recognizes them as "married" or, for that matter, accepts what they are. My personal belief is that if the church wants "marriage" to be for a man and a woman, that's fine by me... as long as gay people can have the same legal rights from a legal equivalent to marriage, such as a civil union.
After all, a ship captain or a mayor or a justice of the peace or whatever can preside over a marriage that is completely separate from the church.
M
Modus Pwnens
Guest
I'm always up for a nice discussion, and having people that have views I don't agree with is something I can often enjoy, so before I start, please don't feel offended that I have some outspoken views on religion (all of 'm, not just yours).
There we go, I know you didn't say gays are pedophiles, but when you introduced children into your example, that would be the reason that people agree with you, not the fact that they are gay. It is unacceptable for any adult to be in a lockerroom with children. Do you really think it's morally acceptable for a gay man to be in a lockerroom with girls?
The bible itself is not a good historical guide, it is full of errors, contradictions and wrong "facts".
I'll give you some examples:
"Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother..." -- Deuteronomy 27:22
"And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter...it is a wicked thing...." -- Leviticus 20:17
[But what was god's reaction to Abraham, who married his sister -- his father's daughter?] See Genesis 20:11-12
"And God said unto Abraham, As for Sara thy wife...I bless her, and give thee a son also of her..." -- Genesis 17:15-16
How about this one:
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." -- Exodus 20:8
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." -- Romans 14:5
Want something more obvious?
"God is tired and rests" -Ex 31:17
"God is never tired and never rests" -Is 40:28
Does that mean rape is ok cause it's in nature? Well, it's ok in the bible, so I guess so:
(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
I doubt many gay couples would be interested in having a church wedding, simply because they do not share your beliefs (again, this is just my assumption, given the views of the church on homosexuality), why would you denie them a civil wedding?
Edit: on a less serious note:
There we go, I know you didn't say gays are pedophiles, but when you introduced children into your example, that would be the reason that people agree with you, not the fact that they are gay. It is unacceptable for any adult to be in a lockerroom with children. Do you really think it's morally acceptable for a gay man to be in a lockerroom with girls?
The bible itself is not a good historical guide, it is full of errors, contradictions and wrong "facts".
I'll give you some examples:
"Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother..." -- Deuteronomy 27:22
"And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter...it is a wicked thing...." -- Leviticus 20:17
[But what was god's reaction to Abraham, who married his sister -- his father's daughter?] See Genesis 20:11-12
"And God said unto Abraham, As for Sara thy wife...I bless her, and give thee a son also of her..." -- Genesis 17:15-16
How about this one:
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." -- Exodus 20:8
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." -- Romans 14:5
Want something more obvious?
"God is tired and rests" -Ex 31:17
"God is never tired and never rests" -Is 40:28
Does that mean rape is ok cause it's in nature? Well, it's ok in the bible, so I guess so:
(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
I doubt many gay couples would be interested in having a church wedding, simply because they do not share your beliefs (again, this is just my assumption, given the views of the church on homosexuality), why would you denie them a civil wedding?
Edit: on a less serious note:
Killer Joe
New member
I could care less about gay marraiges, I want to know what is the government going to do about these so called "Left-Handed" people getting married. We all know it's a right-handed world!!!!!
turgy22
Nothing Special
A few points:
1) Marriage does not originate from religion. It actually originates from the idea that women are property. A man would buy a woman from her family (hence, a dowry) to guarantee that no one slept with her but him. This tradition morphed into what we now call marriage. FWIW, marriage actually predates the bible (unless you believe in creationism.)
2) There's a difference between religious marriage and legal marriage. Religious marriage is between two people and their god(s). Legal marriage is simply a contract guaranteeing one's partner a set of additional legal rights with respect to inheritence, visitation rights, etc. The government has the right to enforce the laws of marriage in the legal sense, but not the religious. Hence, if a religion allows gay marriage (such as Episcopal) the government can not stop that religious union from taking place.
So basically, I don't understand why the government shouldn't sanction any marriage between adults. Whether it's a man and woman, two men or two women, what difference does it make to the government? All you're doing is granting people the same rights as everyone else, regardless of sexual preference.
1) Marriage does not originate from religion. It actually originates from the idea that women are property. A man would buy a woman from her family (hence, a dowry) to guarantee that no one slept with her but him. This tradition morphed into what we now call marriage. FWIW, marriage actually predates the bible (unless you believe in creationism.)
2) There's a difference between religious marriage and legal marriage. Religious marriage is between two people and their god(s). Legal marriage is simply a contract guaranteeing one's partner a set of additional legal rights with respect to inheritence, visitation rights, etc. The government has the right to enforce the laws of marriage in the legal sense, but not the religious. Hence, if a religion allows gay marriage (such as Episcopal) the government can not stop that religious union from taking place.
So basically, I don't understand why the government shouldn't sanction any marriage between adults. Whether it's a man and woman, two men or two women, what difference does it make to the government? All you're doing is granting people the same rights as everyone else, regardless of sexual preference.
