CA allows g4y marriage

I'm just glad to hear that Ellen DeGeneres and Portia De Rossi will finally be able to make it legal. Those crazy love struck kids.

THUPER, THANKTH FOR ATHKING!!!

T-Roy wrote:

So instead, they lobby, protest and throw millions of dollars at the most corrupt, sickening and shameful court for years

you mean like the church does, every time an abortion issue comes to the table?

Meet me at the CMR, we'll chat. I can't bring myself to talk about this subject at the Heart Of Metal.

rattpoison wrote:

I gotta say this surprised me, California seems to becoming a very progressive state. I hope the rest of the US follows California's lead.

Good on them i say.

i hope not. CA is not known as the land of the fruits and nuts for being progressive.

The good thing is now that the Ca court has ruled on it the case will escalate up the federal ladder and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court will strike it down once and for all.

MoonChild wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

I personally think marriage should only be allowed between a man and a woman. But I do believe that gays should be allowed to join in some sort of union that gives them all the benefits of marriage. Yeah, it's just a word, but it's one that means something to people.

I'm an entirely against this notion that everyone is deserving of everything. Girls cannot join the Boys Scouts. Women cannot join men-only clubs. Simple as that. Make marriage for men and women. Give gays civil unions, or whatever, but give them the same benefits.

Exactly my thoughts, I completely agree. Well put.

I feel the same way and that is all I will say on the matter, as Scott says I just don't want to get into this disscussion here (I prefer to talk music, movies, and other recreation activities).

That's great! No one's right to marry should be restricted.

Some people say that, although they have no problem with same-sex marriage, the term marriage should be replaced with Civil Union, claiming that marriage is traditionally between men and women. Well, while Civil Union does give homosexuals the same legal rights as obtained through marriage, Civil Union is still not marriage, which is much more than a legal arrangement. Too many people see marriage as a business arrangement. Marriage is a testament of two peoples' love for each other. That's why the term is just as important as the legal aspects: it represents a millenia-old symbol of love. Civil Union just doesn't connote the same feelings of connection.

I believe that people trying to restrict homosexuals from marrying and women from having abortions (another issue I feel strongly about) is no different than people of the past (and some of the present) who restricted non-white individuals from political/social/legal activity. The word freedom gets thrown around down there a whole lot. I'd like to see it backed up more.

I hope I didn't offend anyone with my opinions. I'm just very bothered by Republican social policies. We here in Canada (and just about everywhere else in the world, actually) don't think very much of that guy running the US. It's amazing how in less than 8 years he's turned the most powerful state in human history into an absolute laughing stock. He must be ignorant if he doesn't notice what the world thinks about him. My god, I can't go more than one hour without hearing how mind-boggingly stupid he is.

We're not doing much better, though. We have Stephen Harper, also a hardcore Republican. I was dissappointed that he got in. I turned 18 one week before the federal election that he won (January 2006). I, of course, voted for the Liberals. I was so excited. Oh well, next election.....

How about bigamy? If I want to marry two women (or more) should that be legal?

Tall Tyrion wrote:

How about bigamy? If I want to marry two women (or more) should that be legal?

sure... it's your early grave.

Tall Tyrion wrote:

How about bigamy? If I want to marry two women (or more) should that be legal?

I hope this doesn't turn into a gang debate.

That's a tricky one, because it's difficult to know where to draw the line. Some people seem to think that allowing same-sex marriage is going to lead to other bills that make a mockery of marriage: bigomy, bestiality, or people marrying inanimate objects or concepts (like when Dennis Rodman married himself). Here's my compromise (though not what I really want): everyone is permitted to marry, but the union has to be between two people. As for what I really want: what constitutes marriage is up to the individual. If someone else doesn't like that, he/she can join or start a church/group that doesn't permit that type of marriage. If legal troubles arise from that, then I would argue against the law that people are allowed to form private groups with particular beliefs (is that not what religion is?). Some people may think one thing, and others may think another thing; people need to learn to respect others' opinions, and not force their beliefs on the world. This brings me to why religious social views in politics bother/disturb me: it's immoral and nonsensical to rule a state according to religious beliefs. I don't want to get into a whole big thing here, but remember: just like what I believe as an atheist, they are still beliefs. I completely respect religion as a means of guidance/purpose/direction/etc for many people; I think that's great. However, when some people try and force their way on others, a way that restricts their freedoms, I find that to be troubling.

Though atheism is, in a sense, a belief, it, at least, doesn't impede on people's freedom. And, that's what the desired outcome should be.

I am far from one who preaches about goodness and kindness and all that but I think it all boils down to "Love your Neighbor as yourself". I think this overrides any other obscure Bible passages as there is only one way to interpret it.
No matter if you are religious or not, or whether you accept homosexuals equally those words are the path to truth and peace.
Homosexuals are peeps just like us. We shouldn't keep them in social shackles.

Get the firehouse, see how fast you went from no one's right to marry should be restricted, to restrictions? That's sort of the problem with this slope, where does it stop? There are already people trying to marry their kids, dogs etc.
Spec, you sort of left off the first part of that verse and those other verses you mention aren't obscure. I'm with eyesore on this, they can have civil unions let marriage be a man a women.

I personally think that everyone will be surprised in the end that we were all wrong about what we think is right and wrong. No matter what is written.

However, while I'm on this Earth, I plan to treat those I respect with kindness. Those I don't respect know it quickly. Judging an entire group of people and denying an inalienable right to them seems pointless to me.

I hear you. One thing I don't like if someone is against something they are labeled as haters or some such. I know and respect many homosexual people, some in my family. You use a term inalienable right and I would ask, as decided by who? A quick look at the anatomy would tell us the intent here is for a man and women for the endurance of the species. In fact, for males, the danger is rampant and not just with aids so you could say I want to help protect them by avoiding dangerous behavior. It's not if you get sick, but when and how bad, the hepatitis strains are becoming stronger then our ability to deal with them. This may sound like rhetoric but merry groups themselves talk about this issue and how the life span of a male drops by some estimates almost 20 years off the average.
No fight ok? Just expressing some views and information.

No fight at all. I respect your thoughts totally and I see where you are coming from. I would never call you a merry hater.

I am just saying they have a right to happiness. Not legalizing merry marriage isn't going to stop merry sexual activity. So I just don't see the big deal. But then I'm a little morally looser than alot of people.

All right, cool. For the record, I am for civil unions.

mc666 wrote:

Tall Tyrion wrote:

How about bigamy? If I want to marry two women (or more) should that be legal?

sure... it's your early grave.

Touche.

spectrefate wrote:

I am just saying they have a right to
happiness. Not legalizing merry marriage isn't going to stop merry
sexual activity. So I just don't see the big deal. But then I'm a
little morally looser than alot of people.

How does the right to marry equal happiness, or conversely, how does denying the right to marry deny anyone happiness?

Of course Spectrfate is right here. He`s just a little ahead of his time..
This is the same thing as racism, sexism +++. In 30 or 40 years, our grandchildren will learn about this debate in school and think, WOW did that nice old Grandpa of mine really mean that homosexuals should be denied marriage??????
The times they are a changing.
I`m proud to live in a country that soon will allow merry marriage in church.
And Scottm, why not discuss this here? Most of us are able to have a sivilized discussion and still be friends even if we don`t agree.. There will surely be more different opinions here, but that`s a good thing imo..

Quote :

And Scottm, why not discuss this here? Most of
us are able to have a sivilized discussion and still be friends even if
we don`t agree.. There will surely be more different opinions here, but
that`s a good thing imo..

LISTEN OLD FATSO I'VE BEEN SICK OF YOUR ATTITUDE SINCE YOU CAME HERE. I'VE BEEN PRETENDING TO LIKE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!














Well, the conversation so far has been great. Better than any I've seen.

Let me try to summarize. (It's not so simple)

I'm a Christian. I believe the Bible clearly states homosexuality = sin. So, I'm against the ACT, not the people. They are indeed just people. There are two groups of merry folk.

Christians
Non-Christians

The Christians know (or should know) the Truth and are in denial/error if they continue their practices.

The Non-Christians are not bound by Bibilical instruction, so I've not to say to them. They should lead their lives to the best they know how. I can't hold them to my standards because my standards are Bible-based and theirs are not.

It's the act not the person. If a Christian who is struggling with this issue came to me/my Church they would not be shown the door. They should be cared for and worked with like any other. It's a sin like any other. I have weaknesses of my own. Sins are not ranked 1 through 10 on a scale of awfulness with homosexuality being the worst! A sin is a sin. We all struggle.

Those people, "Christians", churches that kick out repentant/struggling homosexuals are wrong and in error themselves. However, a blatant practicing homosexual person who professes to be Christian but who refuses to stop and tries to explain away their practice would have to be dealt with in the Church, but just like any other repeated, open sin(ner).

This place has become all the more awesome to me as I've read this thread and seen how people have handled themselves. The one thing I've noticed in all this is a general lack of hate, but rather concern for people. I think we all have the best interest of our fellow man at heart, we just arrive there from different directions.




Never speak to me again Norwegian.

Harsh

emptytomb1 wrote:

Get the firehouse, see how fast you went from no one's right to marry should be restricted, to restrictions? That's sort of the problem with this slope, where does it stop? There are already people trying to marry their kids, dogs etc.
Spec, you sort of left off the first part of that verse and those other verses you mention aren't obscure. I'm with eyesore on this, they can have civil unions let marriage be a man a women.

You must not of read my whole post. My solution with restrictions was only one suggestion as a compromise, that's all. I said what I wanted as a solution was no restrictions. Marriage should be open to interpretation. Why do homosexual couples' marriages change the meaning of marriage for heterosexuals? The meaning of marriage should be unique to every union. Does everyone have to agree with one person? No.

spectrefate wrote:

But then I'm a little looser than alot of people.

Fixed that for ya.

get_the_firehouse wrote:

You must not of read my whole post. My solution with restrictions was only one suggestion as a compromise, that's all. I said what I wanted as a solution was no restrictions. Marriage should be open to interpretation. Why do homosexual couples' marriages change the meaning of marriage for heterosexuals? The meaning of marriage should be unique to every union. Does everyone have to agree with one person? No.

funny things happen when you leave things open to interpretation. the concept of everything is ok if you let me do my own thing and you do yours isnt feasbile and leads to some very reprehensible things (both done in the name of God and the name of man btw). God has established moral absolutes (even if you dont want to acknowledge them). I am sure most if not all of you here would say the holocaust was a horrible thing but if you ask a lot of those taking part in it back then they really didnt think it was a bad thing. It simply turns into might makes right when you dont acknowledge moral absolutes. when you get into relativism you make bedpartners (no pun intended) of events and people that you may not want to.

Alex

spectrefate wrote:

I am just saying they have a right to
happiness. Not legalizing merry marriage isn't going to stop merry
sexual activity. So I just don't see the big deal. But then I'm a
little morally looser than alot of people.

Actually all you and anyone else is entitled to is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It may seem nitpicky but none of us are guaranteed happiness in this country. What always amazes me though is how people think the goverment owes them happiness and thus all the hugely expensive and wastefull governement programs trying to accomplish that goal.