CA allows g4y marriage

exact33 wrote:

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

Okay, but you see, right there you're making the key mistake: you're claiming that a belief is a fact so that you're justified in your argument. I'm not debating here whether God exists, but, whether you believe it or not, you have to acknowledge that it's a belief. And so, it's not fair to rule others on the basis of that belief. It works the same both ways: the law permits those who don't believe in evolution to be excused from class. Why? Because it's not fair to force views on others.

I realize that marriage is a sacred religious union, and that many believe that lifting restrictions will turn it into a mockery. But, that's human nature; everyone perceives and interprets things differently. Think of how many pieces of high culture have been assimilated into popular/low/mainstream culture. If an emo punk happens to enjoy Cuban cigarres, a typically high-class luxury, should he/she be restricted from enjoying them?

Economically, it's a great idea. Think of all the catering halls, cake bakeries, photographers/videographers, limo drivers, and purveyors of other wedding related crap that will benefit now that there are twice as many couples getting married!!

Wedding singers, too!

"And I'm reaping all the benefits"

get_the_firehouse wrote:

exact33 wrote:

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

Okay, but you see, right there you're making the key mistake: you're claiming that a belief is a fact so that you're justified in your argument. I'm not debating here whether God exists, but, whether you believe it or not, you have to acknowledge that it's a belief. And so, it's not fair to rule others on the basis of that belief. It works the same both ways: the law permits those who don't believe in evolution to be excused from class. Why? Because it's not fair to force views on others.

I realize that marriage is a sacred religious union, and that many believe that lifting restrictions will turn it into a mockery. But, that's human nature; everyone perceives and interprets things differently. Think of how many pieces of high culture have been assimilated into popular/low/mainstream culture. If an emo punk happens to enjoy Cuban cigarres, a typically high-class luxury, should he/she be restricted from enjoying them?

What are you left then without absolute truth? How does one judge right from wrong? how do you determine what is fair and what is not?

Alex

Fat Freddy wrote:

Economically, it's a great idea. Think of all the catering halls, cake bakeries, photographers/videographers, limo drivers, and purveyors of other wedding related crap that will benefit now that there are twice as many couples getting married!!

I just bought a lot of stock in glitter-making companies. I'm gonna be rich, b*tches!

exact33 wrote:

get_the_firehouse wrote:

exact33 wrote:

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

Okay, but you see, right there you're making the key mistake: you're claiming that a belief is a fact so that you're justified in your argument. I'm not debating here whether God exists, but, whether you believe it or not, you have to acknowledge that it's a belief. And so, it's not fair to rule others on the basis of that belief. It works the same both ways: the law permits those who don't believe in evolution to be excused from class. Why? Because it's not fair to force views on others.

I realize that marriage is a sacred religious union, and that many believe that lifting restrictions will turn it into a mockery. But, that's human nature; everyone perceives and interprets things differently. Think of how many pieces of high culture have been assimilated into popular/low/mainstream culture. If an emo punk happens to enjoy Cuban cigarres, a typically high-class luxury, should he/she be restricted from enjoying them?

What are you left then without absolute truth? How does one judge right from wrong? how do you determine what is fair and what is not?

Alex

Whatever doesn't impede on anyone's freedoms. Don't, however, misconstrue that: we can't have laws that permit people to harm others. A balance needs to be reached. And, no, same-sex marriage isn't harmful to anyone, nor is bigamy or bestiality. Though I find the latter to be disgusting, and can't, in any frame of mind, imagine why someone would partake in such an act, I would, nevertheless, defend someone's right to practice it. If, for some reason, it harmed others, then I would oppose it.

Quote :

nor is bigamy

Not harmful? There are some kids being raised in abject poverty and abuse that would beg to differ. Not that those things can't happen elsewhere, but that set up is begging for trouble.

scottmitchell74 wrote:

Quote :

nor is bigamy

Not harmful? There are some kids being raised in abject poverty and abuse that would beg to differ. Not that those things can't happen elsewhere, but that set up is begging for trouble.

Abuse happens with multiple parents, conventionally-paired parents, single parents, no parents, etc. Explain why bigomy, any more than any other setup, would lead to abuse.

it would not bother me, if my marriage, wasn't called a marriage, but a "civil union". there is no "god" in our arrangement, even though we are a male/female union. we were not even married in a church, nor do we believe in any god. so as long as the legal protections & benefits still applied, you can call it whatever you wish. that is really all homosexuals want, i think. the same benefits. that is how i came to my opinion. any two individuals, who are committed to a loyal, faithful (in each other), relationship, should be granted the same rights & dignities. allowing otherwise, brings the church into the state, & that's never a good thing.

mc666 wrote:

it would not bother me, if my marriage, wasn't called a marriage, but a "civil union". there is no "god" in our arrangement, even though we are a male/female union. we were not even married in a church, nor do we believe in any god. so as long as the legal protections & benefits still applied, you can call it whatever you wish. that is really all homosexuals want, i think. the same benefits. that is how i came to my opinion. any two individuals, who are committed to a loyal, faithful (in each other), relationship, should be granted the same rights & dignities. allowing otherwise, brings the church into the state, & that's never a good thing.

Thank you! Church and state do not mix. I agree with you almost entirely, but I still think the term marriage should be universal. Personally, marriage doesn't mean anything; at my age and living arrangement (under my Mom's financial jurisdiction), I have no plans on marrying or having kids. Also, I've never been in a serious relationship, so I don't feel any connection to the concept of marriage. However, I know that to many people it means something significant. Yes, many homosexuals (and heterosexuals, of course) don't care what the term is, so long as the outcome is the same. On the other hand, many homosexuals want their union to reflect the historical symbol of love. Words are just words, but they're also not just words. Otherwise, why would be stubborn metalheads get all bent out of shape over Iron Maiden continuing with its name when Dickinson was out? Names, words, and titles are very important.

Marriage is an institution. You cannot say that marriage means nothing. That's ridiculous. It means something to a hell of a lot of people! And I personally don't think you can take that away from all those people. There are some things in life that people simply cannot have.

If merry people want marriage—too bad! You can't have it. And that's what it comes down to with most of this nonsense; people want something simply because it is said that they cannot have it. This is why women have sued to join the Boys Scouts and men-only country clubs. It's nonsense.

Marriage is between a man and a woman, and you simply cannot take that away from all those men and women out there that believe in that. It might simply be a title in the most basic term, but it's much more than that. I am all for equal rights. But I am firmly against equal everything. Some things you just can't have. And I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to have "marriage." Give them civil unions with equal rights, for sure, but not marriage.

EDIT: I misread your post. =)

scottmitchell74 wrote:

Quote :

nor is bigamy

Not harmful? There are some kids being raised in abject poverty and abuse that would beg to differ. Not that those things can't happen elsewhere, but that set up is begging for trouble.

Also, I assume that what comes to mind when we discuss bigamy is the recent scandle involving the Mormons in the southwest. The point I want to make is that these particular bigamists practice rationalized pedophilia and massive multi-million dollar welfare fraud routinely. They aren't even ashamed of it. They call the welfare fraud "bleeding the system" and feel that they are right to steal tax money from the rest of us because we are "evil". REF: Under the Banner of Heaven, by Jon Krakauer.
While I admit that this isn't an indictment of Bigamy per se, it does give some insight into the nuts and bolts of a real world scenario. And there are many people interviewed in that book that make a case from their experience that bigamy is an intrinsically flawed or demeaning institution given the realities of human nature. I don't know, but it's clear that jealousy, lust, greed, and rationalization are rampant in that particular culture.

However I need to add that I know of a real world scenario involving two lesbian women who adopted a baby that may have been otherwise aborted (they knew the parents, a teenage couple who had an "accident"). These women seem quite sane, and I'm pretty sure that they are being deprived of certain legal rights that Married couples have relating to each other and the child as well. I'm not sure about the particulars though, but knowing these people makes me sympathetic to their situation. It's just interesting to look at some real world scenarios sometimes.

your complaining about it in california. its allowed in the entire united kingdom which i personally feel undermines the holy union of marriage and all that

scottmitchell74 wrote:

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.

Ok ok. Bye bye then you HOSEPLAYINGTEXANCHRISTIANFUNDAMENTALIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Even if I don`t agree, your views makes totally sense and of course I understand that this is a controversial matter. I know that you have the deepest respect and consern for your fellow man Scott.

As I see it there are a lot of "sins" and rules in the bible that no one follows anymore, given time I believe this will be one of them.

I know I`m VERY liberal, but that`s how i am, sorry .

In the end we`ll know who was closest to the truth. And I know for certain that no man knows it all, and no man shall judge any of us on the final day...

Eyesore wrote:

Marriage is an institution. You cannot say that marriage means nothing. That's ridiculous. It means something to a hell of a lot of people! And I personally don't think you can take that away from all those people. There are some things in life that people simply cannot have.

If merry people want marriage—too bad! You can't have it. And that's what it comes down to with most of this nonsense; people want something simply because it is said that they cannot have it. This is why women have sued to join the Boys Scouts and men-only country clubs. It's nonsense.

Marriage is between a man and a woman, and you simply cannot take that away from all those men and women out there that believe in that. It might simply be a title in the most basic term, but it's much more than that. I am all for equal rights. But I am firmly against equal everything. Some things you just can't have. And I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to have "marriage." Give them civil unions with equal rights, for sure, but not marriage.

EDIT: I misread your post. =)

Geez, you guys. How does allowing homosexuals to marry take that away from heterosexuals? If two homosexuals marry each other on the other side of the world, is your marriage suddenly negated? You can continue to practice marriage in the manner you find appropriate; that's okay. But, why, WHY, does everyone have to believe and do what you say?!

I believe that would be a totalitarian state. Is that what the US has succumbed to? I'm glad I'm up here.

Olafsto wrote:

scottmitchell74 wrote:

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.

Ok ok. Bye bye then you HOSEPLAYINGTEXANCHRISTIANFUNDAMENTALIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Even if I don`t agree, your views makes totally sense and of course I understand that this is a controversial matter. I know that you have the deepest respect and consern for your fellow man Scott.

As I see it there are a lot of "sins" and rules in the bible that no one follows anymore, given time I believe this will be one of them.

I know I`m VERY liberal, but that`s how i am, sorry .

In the end we`ll know who was closest to the truth. And I know for certain that no man knows it all, and no man shall judge any of us on the final day...

You're on to something there. What are considered sins are being increasingly ignored, even by those who advocate them the most. How many reports of child molestation at the hands of Priests have been reported? How many anti-homosexual legislation Republicans have been revealed as in-the-closet homosexuals? How many of you listen to Black Metal? I've never read the Bible, but I bet, somehow, that's a sin.

The Bible surprisingly, says nothing about Black Metal. I've looked.

You cannot say homosexuals aren't harming anyone, they are harming themselves. There's a reason they are told to get medical check-ups every 6 months, because the diseases they are getting kill and it's not just aids. As for bigamy and bestiality check you facts. Sure, you can find a few bigamist couples who look ok but that is not the norm. And bestiality, enjoy all those animal diseases you'll get. Amazingly, the people who on average do the best are those who are from two parent families: less abuse, less welfare, better grades and better health.
You also cannot say that everything that doesn't harm should be allowed, for who decides what harms and what doesn't. As the example stated earlier, Hitler thought he was doing the world a service based on the teaching of Nietzsche. There have to be some universals or else there is anarchy.

Ummm, emptytomb, I don't mean to interrupt, but are there anymore of those delicious cucumber sandwiches in the back?

Funny guy. I think this subject is personal to me as my sister went this road and two of my good friends also. As for if it makes them happy, if you can get past the surface they weren't. My sis got beat by what are called the masculines pretty badly in a couple relationships and the guys both told me the push to legitimize it was mostly about politics.

Quote :

How many of you listen to Black Metal? I've never read the Bible, but I bet, somehow, that's a sin.

Oh, my!











*rushes off to destroy evil music collection*















Well, GTF, you were teetering on the edge of credibility as it was. Now it's gone.

emptytomb1 wrote:

You cannot say homosexuals aren't harming anyone,
they are harming themselves. There's a reason they are told to get
medical check-ups every 6 months, because the diseases they are getting
kill and it's not just aids. As for bigamy and bestiality check you
facts. Sure, you can find a few bigamist couples who look ok but that
is not the norm. And bestiality, enjoy all those animal diseases you'll
get. Amazingly, the people who on average do the best are those who are
from two parent families: less abuse, less welfare, better grades and
better health.

+27

I know and interact with homosexuals on a daily basis. I'm no hater,
and would never say that homosexuals are any worse or better people
than anyone else. Many times they are better people.

But the fact is that homosexuality is often physically harmful, as is
heterosexual promiscuity. It affects not only the individuals involved,
but all of society. We all get to pick up the tab for diseases that are
100% preventable.

I'm not trying to say that anyone here should accept or reject the
Bible. You make up your own mind about religious matters. But if the
Biblical definition of marriage (one man and one woman, monogamous for
life), were adhered to, sexually transmitted diseases would be
virtually eliminated in a generation.

But TT, you can't expect people to be monogamous. That's just not reasonable!!!!

scottmitchell74 wrote:

Quote :

How many of you listen to Black Metal? I've never read the Bible, but I bet, somehow, that's a sin.

Oh, my!












*rushes off to destroy evil music collection*















Well, GTF, you were teetering on the edge of credibility as it was. Now it's gone.

Oh, because I think that the Bible mentions Black Metal?

My point was/is that SO many things are considered sins. I'm going to assume that most of you have committed some of them at some point or another.

Tall Tyrion wrote:

emptytomb1 wrote:

You cannot say homosexuals aren't harming anyone,
they are harming themselves. There's a reason they are told to get
medical check-ups every 6 months, because the diseases they are getting
kill and it's not just aids. As for bigamy and bestiality check you
facts. Sure, you can find a few bigamist couples who look ok but that
is not the norm. And bestiality, enjoy all those animal diseases you'll
get. Amazingly, the people who on average do the best are those who are
from two parent families: less abuse, less welfare, better grades and
better health.

+27

I know and interact with homosexuals on a daily basis. I'm no hater,
and would never say that homosexuals are any worse or better people
than anyone else. Many times they are better people.

But the fact is that homosexuality is often physically harmful, as is
heterosexual promiscuity. It affects not only the individuals involved,
but all of society. We all get to pick up the tab for diseases that are
100% preventable.

I'm not trying to say that anyone here should accept or reject the
Bible. You make up your own mind about religious matters. But if the
Biblical definition of marriage (one man and one woman, monogamous for
life), were adhered to, sexually transmitted diseases would be
virtually eliminated in a generation.

Oh, so heterosexuals don't pass STDs? You guys are pinning down homosexuals as the cause of all this crap that they're not.

Heterosexual parents can be neglectful and abusive; heterosexuals can spread diseases (BTW, heterosexuals are also advised to get regular checkups); and heterosexuals can make a mockery of the sanctity of marriage. If you guys are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage, why aren't you advocating for laws that restrict the conditions in which a marriage ceremony is conducted? What about all those people who have their ceremonies on beaches, at cabins, or in Las Vegas? How holy of an official is an Elvis Presley impersonator, whose idea of a blessing is a $20 certificate for the buffet? What about those online services that certify you to facilitate a legitimate wedding and marriage?

Also, I was told to check my facts. Well, where are all your guys' facts coming from? If you guys are going to gang up on, who seems to be, the lone liberal remaining, at least argue fairly; don't preach to me.