Gays and marriage

[frpeter]

Actually, this is not true. I think most protestants would argue
strongly against this idea, because it implies that marriage
was created by the Church, mediated by the Church, and therefore
could be tied to one denomination. "Only a marriage performed
by our church is valid"

The context of this is when marriage required licenses, which didn't occur until the Roman empire. Before that, no license was needed and "marriage" was religious in nature by historical evidence. To the Roman Empire, no marriage was valid, only "civil unions". The historical context shows that a marriage was more like a contract then anything else.

Modern day church ideaology really has no bearing on the fundamental flaws that were created by the Roman Empire that modern day marriages have inheirited.

[SirDice]

It won't remain that way after the Muslims take over.

As long as I'm alive that'll never happen. If it does I'll probably end up being called a terrorist.
I like my country the way it is and I'll defend it to keep it that way.

[MrLinus]

You have to take the word "marriage" out of the question to remove all religious contexts. Until that happens, some groups (Blacks, Christians, Jewish, Muslim, et al) will never except it and will always shoot it down. Prop 8 was pass by 77% of the black populas. This is far higher then any other populas involved.

The comment about the African American population is irrelevant. They represent less than 7% of the population (see here). If you look at what happened, you will see that the Mormon Church did a big push in the last week of the "election". They flipped the undecided just based on volume and funds. But I do agree: remove the church requirement from marriage and this will solve it. Marriage defined depends on the culture and background. European may view it as a financial contract whereas hindu arrange marriages may be viewed as a method of social status. More modern Western society views it as a romantic notion and coupling of individuals.

For the purposes of state it is a recognition of two individuals under one "roof" for purposes of taxes, deaths, retirement funds, etc. It is, as far as the US and Canada are concerned (and I only mention them because they are the only two countries I can speak of from *MY* point of view), a joint financial venture.

Think about it. Does Canada or the US ask which denomination you were married under when you file taxes? Does it really matter?

Canada went through this and they removed the requirement that ALL churches had to provide for the ceremony. They made it clear-cut that marriage, regardless of who it was between, was nothing more than just a financial concept. And to prove it, two straight guys got married because it was cheaper on living costs. The sky still hasn't fallen in Canada.

[frpeter]

The comment about the African American population is irrelevant. They represent less than 7% of the population (see here). If you look at what happened, you will see that the Mormon Church did a big push in the last week of the "election". They flipped the undecided just based on volume and funds.

The exit poll data seems to suggest different: CNN Exit Poll - Prop 8

[MrLinus]

Not really. It was 70% of 10%. The white vote accounted for 49%. It's not a white vs POC issue.

The reality is the LGBt community didn't get the vote out. They didn't convince the undecided to vote how they wanted. Blaming others for one's own faults doesn't solve it.

[Slartarama]

Okay, I'm hitting this issue without really reading any previous posts, just because this is a hot issue in the USa, and I live in CA.

First this is an unconstitutional law, all citizens are allowed Life , Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

Next, if you really want to get into to it, thinking that your religion is what sways you, well, there are a lot of non christians in the USA, and we are not a theocracy, we are a republic. Plus there's that thing that guarantees freedom of religion, oh yeah the First Amendment!

Why do people need to interfere with people that are happy?

I've heard so many arguments on this and they are all medieval. These are people that are in love. They are not worrying about destroying someone's marriage. They don't care about your marriage, they care about their own. Why are they being singled out and told that they are not allowed to marry?

In 1967 there were laws on the books in 16 states disallowing marriages between blacks and whites.


I wish someone could give me ONE good reason to disallow gay marriage, but there aren't any.

I hear this lame excuse that "it's in the Bible", well so is stoning to death anyone that sows two different crops side by side or stoning to death someone who wears garments of two different threads. Guess what, that is bronze age philosophy and doesn't belong in the modern world. I am not anti-religious, but I challenge anyone to live their life COMPLETELY from what the bible dictates.

I've heard the argument of "It's just a piece of paper" from people that are against gay marriage, that are married themselves, they don't take kindly to the question of , "Is your marriage a piece of paper?" No, neither is mine. It is a very important union. It is the most important oath I have ever sworn, and I cannot even imagine what it would be like if someone told me I couldn't have taken that oath.


But for crying out loud, does two gay people getting married hurt anyone else's marriage or heaven forbid, the "sanctity of marriage". No.

How many "good christians" have performed adultery in the last few thousand years?There have been hundreds of thousands. Did it destroy marriage. No, it doesn't hurt anyone for gay folks to marry. It's a basic HUMAN RIGHTS issue. As a member of the ACLU, you will never sway me from thinking that.

All people deserve the right to Life, Liberty, and Happiness, but that's just the American in me. I guess there are those of us that live in this country that don't really believe in the ideals of the Founding Fathers, That all PEOPLE are allowed the rights guaranteed in the Constitution and allowed to all americans, but that's always been true. McCarthiesm rings a bell.

It is entirely unpatriotic and unamerican to go against the ideals of the nation and deny BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS to people based on some characteristic, but that is in our history.

All religion and government aside, it's two people that love each other that deserve equal rights.

Just because you find someone's lifestyle repugnant doesn't mean that you have the right to prohibit it, they are consenting, loving adults. There are many people that find christianity repugnant, but you are allowed to practice your beliefs. I don't think that christians, muslims, or hindus or whoever should have their rights curtailed.

Imagine what it would be like if you had your right to marriage taken away. Just because someone didn't approve. This isn't someone "marrying their dog" this is a couple who loves each other searching for the basic rights that are afforded other people, how is that repugnant?

[fourdc]

Though I agree with the content of your message, I have to point out the Declaration of Independence, though a very sacred document to the USA has no legal bearing. You might as well quote the failed Articles of Confederation that predate our Constitution.

The Declaration affirms Jefferson's belief that those are "God given rights", hardly a constitutional argument. Unfortunately Jefferson didn't feel that way about the slaves he owned, that he appears to have personally bred, at the time he wrote the Declaration.

Let the government sanction gay and straight "unions.". If someone wants more than that they can take it up with their church.

[Slartarama]

The Declaration affirms Jefferson's belief that those are "God given rights", hardly a constitutional argument.

Point taken and conceded. I was in quite a rant last night,

Sorry about the rant everyone, this has been a big issue here and I think we've beaten it to death.

Basically, you can read all of that above as being, Why can't we just leave each other alone be happy? There.

[MrLinus]

Point taken and conceded. I was in quite a rant last night,

Sorry about the rant everyone, this has been a big issue here and I think we've beaten it to death.

Basically, you can read all of that above as being, Why can't we just leave each other alone be happy? There.

Because then we couldn't be busy-bodies and tell other people what they are doing wrong in life.

[11001001]

First this is an unconstitutional law, all citizens are allowed Life , Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

As an aside, just understand that the Declaration of Independence is not a "Legal Document" in the sense of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any other laws. It was a letter sent to King George telling him what "we" believed in 1776 as cause for secession from England.