Gay Marriage/Proposition 8

OldManSinclair · **Posted:** Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:40 am

Marriage became secular when the gov applied marriage licenses. The entire argument, from speaking to people who are rationally against the idea of same sex marriage, is simply in the terminology. Marriage is technically a religious term and their issue is that something that is against their religion is entering into their society which is based upon their religion. Most of the people against same sex marriage, that I've talked to, are all for giving same sex couples equal rights, they just don't want it to be called "marriage".

Mongo · **Posted:** Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:43 am

I think that same sex marriage not being in law is very dissappointing. Regardless of what religion you follow, there are rights, privileages, and differences in way you file your taxes if you are married or not.

To not let some couples have the same rights in the eye of the gov is a real shame. I could not care about what religion thinks about same sex marriage. Our gov is supposed to give equal rights to all parties and this isn't equal. The gov shouldn't be making this decision based on religion at all.

Mashere · **Posted:** Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:30 am

OldManSinclair wrote:

Marriage became secular when the gov applied marriage licenses. The entire argument, from speaking to people who are rationally against the idea of same sex marriage, is simply in the terminology. Marriage is technically a religious term and their issue is that something that is against their religion is entering into their society which is based upon their religion. Most of the people against same sex marriage, that I've talked to, are all for giving same sex couples equal rights, they just don't want it to be called "marriage".

This is how I feel.They can get together all they want.Just do not call it marriage because it is not.

JasperValentine91 · **Posted:** Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:45 pm

Apparently, this is a big issue for all the gay couples in West Hollywood, because I saw on the news that they were having a giant march and complaining and they fought the police, wow. It was amazing.

Not that I support them, but I like the effort they put in the march.

nerdlinger · **Posted:** Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:55 pm

why?
Is Marriage only a christian/jew/muslim idea?
Is there no other religion that has its own say in what marriage entails?

I am sure shintoists, buddhists, pagans, and various other religions that Do allow gay marriages to have a word with you.

Superman64 · **Posted:** Thu Nov 06, 2008 2:02 pm

I'd love to know why it's ok for the concept of marriage to have changed from what it started from to what it is now. But when it is requested that marriage changes a little again...people go apeshit.

Some of the earliest recordings of marriage weren't about religion, but about family advancement or a business deal.

So bad news, the concept of marriage doesn't belong to a religion. Gays should be able to get married if they want to. If you don't want it to be a Christian marriage...then fine, but they should still be able to get married, regardless.

nosebleed · **Posted:** Thu Nov 06, 2008 2:21 pm

0Mrk0 wrote:

Just a note on your first line. Our nation has worked long and hard to allow our people to keep our religions the way we practice them. When I read your first line, I see that you would rather have a nation of no religion, and that dose sadden me. I deeply hope that was not your intention. (But this ties into my point why dose the government do anything for married couples, but that almost another debate in its self.)

That's not my intention at all. I completely support the constitution in everything it says and I am all for letting everyone practice their religion how they see fit but when personal beliefs of an individual politician come into play of my beliefs I find that to be unfair.

There's a Christian church down the street from me who openly allows gays, lesbians, and transgender to practice Christianity, I wonder how the feel about gay marriage?

nerdlinger · **Posted:** Thu Nov 06, 2008 2:44 pm

There is also a christian sect that believes jesus was gay and infact had laid with several of the Apostles that he "loved" (I am not making this up, I am recalling this from memory)

Superman64 · **Posted:** Thu Nov 06, 2008 2:52 pm

nosebleed wrote:

There's a Christian church down the street from me who openly allows gays, lesbians, and transgender to practice Christianity, I wonder how the feel about gay marriage?

I feel THAT is really the best solution to this issue in the end to try to compromise with both sides. Individual churches should decide on who they do or do not want to marry. The government should never be making that decision. Our government should legally honor both straight and gay marriages and should never be passing any laws against it. It goes against the separation of church and state.

So in other words...government shouldn't be forcing churches to marry gays, but at the same time they shouldn't be making it impossible for gays to get married either.

There should also be a non-religious form of marriage available to gays.

Mashere · **Posted:** Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:25 pm

Superman64 wrote:

nosebleed wrote:

There's a Christian church down the street from me who openly allows gays, lesbians, and transgender to practice Christianity, I wonder how the feel about gay marriage?

I feel THAT is really the best solution to this issue in the end to try to compromise with both sides. Individual churches should decide on who they do or do not want to marry. The government should never be making that decision. Our government should legally honor both straight and gay marriages and should never be passing any laws against it. It goes against the separation of church and state.

So in other words...government shouldn't be forcing churches to marry gays, but at the same time they shouldn't be making it impossible for gays to get married either.

There should also be a non-religious form of marriage available to gays.

There is.It is called a civil union.

nerdlinger · **Posted:** Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:29 pm

Mashere wrote:

Superman64 wrote:

nosebleed wrote:

There's a Christian church down the street from me who openly allows gays, lesbians, and transgender to practice Christianity, I wonder how the feel about gay marriage?

I feel THAT is really the best solution to this issue in the end to try to compromise with both sides. Individual churches should decide on who they do or do not want to marry. The government should never be making that decision. Our government should legally honor both straight and gay marriages and should never be passing any laws against it. It goes against the separation of church and state.

So in other words...government shouldn't be forcing churches to marry gays, but at the same time they shouldn't be making it impossible for gays to get married either.

There should also be a non-religious form of marriage available to gays.

There is.It is called a civil union.

But civil union isn't nationally recognized as an alternative to marriage

nosebleed · **Posted:** Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:56 pm

Spoiler

Mashere · **Posted:** Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:18 pm

HunterxRose wrote:

But civil union isn't nationally recognized as an alternative to marriage.

You're right.The Defense of Marriage act,that passed in 1996,means that federally marriage is legally recognized as between a man and a woman therefore even if the prop didn't pass,their "marriage" still wouldn't be recognized on a federal level.Only two states recognize gay marriage.At least twenty-nine do not.That is roughly a 1:15 ratio.

nerdlinger · **Posted:** Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:23 pm

but they deserve equal rights as you even agreed upon
Then either make Civil Union a alternative to Marriage WITH THE SAME RIGHTS
or make marriage for everyone (technically this one is right, because marriage wasn't always religious in nature and NOT ALL RELIGIONS THINK MARRIAGE IS JUST BETWEEN MEN/WOMEN SO STOP SAYING THAT)

RobbieSDA · **Joined:** Sat Sep 20, 2008 10:21 pm **Posts:** 2

HunterxRose wrote:

0Mrk0 wrote:

nosebleed wrote:

If we're supposed to be a secular nation why do we allow religious beliefs to interfere with people's lives? It's unconstitutional and un-American.

You don't have to get married through a church, synagogue, or any other religious institution, hell if I live with my girlfriend for another 6 years I can be married to her through common law! So why does this anti-gay marriage agenda exist? Politicians need to set aside their religious beliefs and do what's best for the party in question.

That is very true, and part of the point. Why dose the nation do anything when we get married? (also common law isn't viewed by all states). My point of view, and the view of 52% of Cal is that Marriage is definded as just the union of a man and woman.

Just a note on your first line. Our nation has worked long and hard to allow our people to keep our religions the way we practice them. When I read your first line, I see that you would rather have a nation of no religion, and that dose sadden me. I deeply hope that was not your intention. (But this ties into my point why dose the government do anything for married couples, but that almost another debate in its self.)

Edit: the constitution does say is that congress may not pass laws that prohibit or enable any religion.

as supporting a man/woman as being what is a married couple, and congress supporting it, they are enabling a religion and hence going against the constitution, which is why marriage should be for any human couple or grouping (within limits of course). This is just christians getting their way, because in reality, congress shoulda not passed any law condemning homosexuality on this religious view point, because well it is a religious viewpoint.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". These are the establishment and free exercise clauses of the first amendment.

America was founded on Judeo-Christian values and principles, and contrary to what you state, our country was not meant to be secular, but free. There is a difference.

With regard to religion, no one religion was to be propped up as "the" true religion, and at the same time no one religion was to be prohibited from existing either. What is un-constitutional and un-American is to deny religious people their freedom to have their views, even when they disagree with yours. The 'tolerance' crowd, often fails to be tolerant as soon as they are not getting their way. In a constitutionally based democratic republic such as that in which we live, the people choose what direction the country will go in, and they have every right to base their opinions and decisions on their religious beliefs as well as anything else. To think that religious beliefs (pro or con) are realisitically able to be removed from the equation is naieve and impossible, and was never the intention of the founding fathers anyway.

Any particular point of discussion that happens to also agree with one or more religions can't just be dismissed as religious on that basis. I hope the silliness of such an idea can easily be seen. As many common sense principles that are used every day to decide issues are in agreement with many religions.

If you see marriage as a religious institution (I do), and if you really feel that government is enabling a religion by limiting marriage to a man and woman (I don't, as no ONE religion strictly has that as a tenant, but many different religions), why are you not pushing for the removal of marriage from the civil arena and have all government based 'marriages' be civil unions and equal, and then Marriage certificates could be a special document given by churches as acknowledging a given union before God. Then those who oppose the re-definition of marriage would be happy, and on a civil basis, in the states that allow it, anyone could be acknowledged by the government and given the same priviledges and protections that were given to those who were married.

Lastly, you stated, "...marriage should be for any human couple or grouping (within limits of course)". You made me laugh! The limitations that we want are not acceptable, based on religious belief or not, but you have some other set of limits that you not only feel would be right, but add "of course", acknowledging the need for limits. A litte inconsistant I would say.

This is my first post in the forums, and I hope I made some valid points that are appreciated if not necessarily agreed with.

nerdlinger · **Posted:** Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:25 pm

However I did say a limit because, mainly pedophilia, which isn't really about two adults, but an adult and child(ren), whatever I feel about two adults doing what they want is different than a man getting a little girl into his bedroom.

also, yes the US was funded by Judeo-christians, but things have changed, and you go on about how "religion" has the right of marriage.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights wrote:

Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Being a GLBT falls under other opinion/other status

Universal Declaration of Human Rights wrote:

Article 16
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Following Article 2 of the UDHR, gay men fall under the Rights set out,falling under other status, and therefore the article 16 is connected to them, and since the US is not just a single nation, and is connected to NATO, the UN and various international organizations, it has accepted the UDHR in the UN, meaning that anywhere GLBT people have the rights to marry, according to the UDHR

Mashere · **Posted:** Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:42 pm

HunterxRose wrote:

Then either make Civil Union a alternative to Marriage WITH THE SAME RIGHTS

There's the solution.Something that is like marriage complete with all the rights but is not called that.
This is the compromise everybody needs.

nerdlinger · **Posted:** Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:46 pm

Mashere wrote:

HunterxRose wrote:

Then either make Civil Union a alternative to Marriage WITH THE SAME RIGHTS

There's the solution.Something that is like marriage complete with all the rights but is not called that.
This is the compromise everybody needs.

but no one will ever follow through with it

I could live with civil union as long as it has all the same rights as marriage.
but so far that looks like its not gonna happen

nosebleed · **Posted:** Fri Nov 07, 2008 5:15 am

RobbieSDA wrote:

America was founded on Judeo-Christian values and principles, and contrary to what you state, our country was not meant to be secular, but free.

To claim our forefathers weren't secular is quite honestly absurd. Most of them weren't Christian they were either deist, agnostic, or atheist. To say our country was not meant to be secular but free is an oxymoron. How can we be free if we are not secular? You have to be completely free of religious views in order to have a free nation otherwise your defying the 1st amendment.

RobbieSDA wrote:

With regard to religion, no one religion was to be propped up as "the" true religion, and at the same time no one religion was to be prohibited from existing either. What is un-constitutional and un-American is to deny religious people their freedom to have their views, even when they disagree with yours. The 'tolerance' crowd, often fails to be tolerant as soon as they are not getting their way. In a constitutionally based democratic republic such as that in which we live, the people choose what direction the country will go in, and they have every right to base their opinions and decisions on their religious beliefs as well as anything else. To think that religious beliefs (pro or con) are realisitically able to be removed from the equation is naieve and impossible, and was never the intention of the founding fathers anyway.

Any particular point of discussion that happens to also agree with one or more religions can't just be dismissed as religious on that basis. I hope the silliness of such an idea can easily be seen. As many common sense principles that are used every day to decide issues are in agreement with many religions.

I'm not trying to deny anyone their religious freedom, do as you please you have the right. But your religious beliefs shouldn't interfere with other people's lives which makes it un-constitutional, un-American, and illegal.

RobbieSDA wrote:

If you see marriage as a religious institution (I do), and if you really feel that government is enabling a religion by limiting marriage to a man and woman (I don't, as no ONE religion strictly has that as a tenant, but many different religions), why are you not pushing for the removal of marriage from the civil arena and have all government based 'marriages' be civil unions and equal, and then Marriage certificates could be a special document given by churches as acknowledging a given union before God. Then those who oppose the re-definition of marriage would be happy, and on a civil basis, in the states that allow it, anyone could be acknowledged by the government and given the same priviledges and protections that were given to those who were married.

Marriage is not a religious institution, plain and simple.

RobbieSDA wrote:

Lastly, you stated, "...marriage should be for any human couple or grouping (within limits of course)". You made me laugh! The limitations that we want are not acceptable, based on religious belief or not, but you have some other set of limits that you not only feel would be right, but add "of course", acknowledging the need for limits. A litte inconsistant I would say.

I didn't say this but I say fuck it. Marry whatever you want whether it be male, female, animal, plant, or an inanimate object. I honestly could give a rat's ass who gets married but I do care that people have the freedom to do so.

RobbieSDA wrote:

This is my first post in the forums, and I hope I made some valid points that are appreciated if not necessarily agreed with.

Good first post. You brought a lot to the table whether or not it was wrong. :-D

Iceland · **Posted:** Fri Nov 07, 2008 5:33 am

I think gays should get together and create their own church. You know, there are many different churches, Church of England, Protestant church, catholic church. Why don't they create their own where they can get married in?

Henry VII did it... why don't the gays?

Forum rules

Gay Marriage/Proposition 8

Who is online