|
Post by hoobsmom on Oct 17, 2008 21:18:12 GMT -11
This might be a touchey subject. So please every one respect peoplees opinions. Cal has Prop 8 on the ballot that will take away the rights they just gave same se couples. These are my feeelings: If 2 people find true love and want to committ to them they should be married. Most of the couples wh have already married have been together years. We have alot more to world in the government now than to beat this prop 8 to death. I have some gay friends and lost one to aids. I wish he would have had that choice to choose a life parner. OK you can all argue with me. I,m tough, heck I am part bionic.
|
|
|
Post by ♥~KarinaKay~♥ on Oct 18, 2008 2:11:20 GMT -11
As long as two people are consenting adults and not closely related, I see no problem why they should not be allowed to marry. There is NOTHING in the Constitution giving Washington the right to regulate marriage.
|
|
|
Post by hoobsmom on Oct 18, 2008 4:55:32 GMT -11
Exactly Miss thing. I think everyone deverse the chance to be truely in love and happy. Damn I am in a good mood today.
|
|
|
Post by xXSpookyXx on Oct 18, 2008 6:36:04 GMT -11
Here is my two cents on it...
I have listened to and considered both sides of the fence. But I have yet to see an argument opposing gay marriage that makes sense and is a viable reason to ban it.
The big argument is that it is not on accordance to the religious sanction of one man with one woman. This may be true BUT the tremendous problem with this argument is that the United States has secularized marriage and did not keep marriage separate from state like it did with other religious beliefs and literature. Marriage is a privilege enjoyed by every free man and woman of any background, including atheists. The government even makes it a benefit and tax break just to be married. Now if the doctrine of marriage had just been kept exclusively in churches and was not integrated in the government and secularized, perhaps this argument would hold more water, but it doesn't. So in summary, the homosexual community are entitled to the same secular rights and priviledges that any other tax paying american is.
|
|
Pinkberry
Artemis
I've looked into the eye of this island, and what I saw was beautiful
Posts: 312
|
Post by Pinkberry on Oct 20, 2008 9:11:10 GMT -11
I don't like the idea of my religious beliefs being violated by something that is stated as being wrong within the confines of my religion, just because the state thinks its more politically correct to allow it. Give them the same rights, call it a 'union', make everything else legal, but from a religious perspective don't call it marriage.
|
|
nowhammies
Artemis
Big bucks, No Whammies, STOP!
Posts: 392
|
Post by nowhammies on Oct 20, 2008 10:06:53 GMT -11
No argument from me. I have long believed that same sex couples should have the same rights as a man and a woman.
I have noticed that many politicians are offering the solution of allowing civil ceremonies without calling it marriage. Separate but equal. Sounds familiar. I think maybe separate but equal is a phase we go through in justifying prejudice - or attempting to rectify it.
I do understand the religious argument - that marriages are sanctioned by God. But who are we, as human beings, to determine what God would or wouldn't sanction? It seems arrogant, I guess, to say "God likes this, but not this."
|
|
|
Post by JoeGeist on Oct 20, 2008 11:31:34 GMT -11
I don't like the idea of my religious beliefs being violated by something that is stated as being wrong within the confines of my religion, just because the state thinks its more politically correct to allow it. Give them the same rights, call it a 'union', make everything else legal, but from a religious perspective don't call it marriage. Fornication is a sin but the government has made no laws against it. Can't the reverse be said that since the government has made no laws governing fornication that the government condones it and in turn would also be a undermining ones religious practices? If anything is done I would say make all unions no matter who gets"married" a union unless they were joined by a religious institution then leave it up to a the church involved to call it what they want. The church itself would still have the right to deny people whether or not they can get "married".
|
|
|
Post by frznentreeoh on Oct 20, 2008 13:38:31 GMT -11
I'll break it down for everyone. First off, let me start by saying that I am completely for Gay Couples having all the rights of non-Gay couples. Please read through EVERYTHING before typing up a flaming reply.
Q. Why do we go through the Government to get a marriage license? A. Back when our country was still young, the white folks didn't want the women marrying black men. Or Vice Versa. So they made a marriage license, which had rules in order to qualify.
Q. Isn't marriage is a thing of the church, not of the state? A. Yes. Marriage is an institution originating in church (organized religion).
Q. Should gay people be able to get married? A. No. Because MOST religions (which is where marriage originated) don't believe in such an act. Only recently are churches beginning to accept it, which is mostly due to 3rd Party pressures.
Q. Frzn, are you saying that Gay people shouldn't be able to visit each other in the Hospital? That they shouldn't be able to enjoy tax benefits? A. No. That is something that SHOULD be allowed AND encouraged.
Q. Frzn, what then is the answer to this HUGE item that is such a HOT topic? A. Simple. Get the Government OUT of marriage. I'll explain further below.
What we NEED in order to solve ALLLLLL of these issues regarding Gay Marriage is to get rid of the Marriage License (I mean seriously, the main reason behind the things is no longer an issue). In its place, lets make a new thing called a "Civil Union". A Civil Union can be the joining of two people, gay or straight, in such a manner that would give all of the same benefits of our current Marriage License.
Marriage, being an item of church, should STAY an item of church. If two people want to profess their joining to God/Allah/Buddah or whomever, then GREAT, let them do it. If a church decides that they want to allow a gay marriage, then let them create their own denomination and live accordingly.
The main people AGAINST Gay Marriage are Right Wing Christian Fundamentalists. A Civil Union allows gays to be together (and straights to be together) without breaking any Sacred Mumbo-Jumbo. Want to get married? Go see a preacher. Want Government benefits for joining your life with someone else? Get a Civil Union.
Problem Solved!
|
|
|
Post by xXSpookyXx on Oct 20, 2008 14:55:15 GMT -11
I really do understand what you are saying and *if* marriage was kept within the confines of churches and no one outside of these churches enjoyed a more secularized version of marriage then I would totally agree that no one outside of these churches religious beliefs should be entitled to come into the churches to alter them. But fact is, Marriage was taking out of the churches and put into state and are no longer separate matters. Thus Marriage has been secularized to the degree that it is no longer recognizable as the religious version, much less just one religions version. Marriage has turned into a mockery of what the Bible or christian marriage is all about, and yet I see no one complaining about this with the same tenacity that is done towards whether or not Gay people should be allowed to marry. I think what it boils down to is, if the Christian groups want and expect the Biblical marriage to be the way it is, then they really need to start fighting to get marriage out of the state (no more tax breaks or governmental privileges for it, no more atheist marriages, etc) and keep it within the confines of their own church. Outside of their own churches I don't see how they can use their own religion as an argument, especially in a country that has freedom of religion and not one religious views is to dictate out laws.
|
|
|
Post by LCellini on Oct 20, 2008 15:22:15 GMT -11
I don't believe in gay marriage and since I don't want my reasons scrutinized that's all I'm going to say.
|
|
|
Post by xXSpookyXx on Oct 20, 2008 16:33:29 GMT -11
No problem and understandable! We all have different reasons for what we feel and believe as well as opinions.
|
|
|
Post by ♥~KarinaKay~♥ on Oct 21, 2008 0:54:50 GMT -11
I think what it boils down to is, if the Christian groups want and expect the Biblical marriage to be the way it is, then they really need to start fighting to get marriage out of the state (no more tax breaks or governmental privileges for it, no more atheist marriages, etc) and keep it within the confines of their own church. Outside of their own churches I don't see how they can use their own religion as an argument, especially in a country that has freedom of religion and not one religious views is to dictate out laws. I agree with this 100%. Our Constitution provides for the separation of church and state, and it has no right sanctioning marriage or giving tax breaks.
|
|
|
Post by ♥~KarinaKay~♥ on Oct 21, 2008 0:57:39 GMT -11
Want to get married? Go see a preacher. Want Government benefits for joining your life with someone else? Get a Civil Union. Problem Solved! Precisely!!! Here here!! Our Constitution calls for separation of Church and State. I don't push my religion on anyone else (I'm a Buddhist, BTW) and I expect the same freedom of religion. Churches have the right to go against gay marriage. The government does not.
|
|
|
Post by blondeness on Oct 21, 2008 5:02:12 GMT -11
As a Californian, I have tangible reasons to vote against this proposition. They are as follows: - Children in public schools will be taught that same sex marriage is equal to traditional marriage. Once this is established, parents will be unable to challenge it.
- Regular citizens may sued for discrimination: photographers cannot legally refuse to photograph gay wedding ceremonies, doctors cannot refuse to perform artificial insemination, et al.
- Churches may be sued over their tax-exempt status if they refuse same-sex marriage ceremonies from being performed in their buildings open to the public.
- Ministers who preach against same-sex marriage may be sued for "hate speech".
I have quietly held my opinions on people's sexual orientation all of my life, and it has stayed within my home and family- no public judgment on someone who is gay or bisexual. It is private and personal. This is no longer an option- this proposition basically forces my hand to take a positive stance on something I don't personally believe in- with consequences if I don't play along.
|
|
|
Post by blondeness on Oct 21, 2008 6:59:17 GMT -11
These are my feeelings: If 2 people find true love and want to committ to them they should be married. Your post really demonstrates how this is an emotionally charged issue; however, the ominous nature of the proposition is steeped in the legalities. I noted above what will become litigious events should the proposition be passed. The proposition goes far beyond the emotional knee-jerk reaction of "Oh, but they love each other" to the full ramifications of granting legal equality- that is, that regular citizens can be sued for their personal beliefs. It is important to point out that Proposition 8 is not against homosexuality- it is about striving for a less litigious society.
|
|