|
On November 06 2008 07:21 mahnini wrote:
wtf cali always passes the most hippie shit and yet when it actually matters we fail.
we failed twice. lolol.
why did 2 pass? fucking animal rights hippies.
|
If you dwell too far into idealism of the definition of marriage, often you will get lost in your argument, as the OP post kind of did. The argument goes as far to say that marriage should not be defined by the state, but rather by the religion; since United States has the freedom of religion, then we should have the freedom to marry cuz we can jus make a religion where gay ppl can marry. Of course the counter arguments to this also come from the institution side, where taxes and liabilities rule the argument.
Honestly, I really could not give less of a fuck whether or not homosexuals are entering the marriage institution, or that the definition of marriage is ruining by them doing so. But rather, it is the practical matter of the institution that affects my life and that is the position that I must judge on a modern basis. The key thing here is the gays can force those around them to accept their institution, whether or not that those around them agree or disagree with it, with a certification or recognition of marriage from the government. The government's recognition of the matter is key in deciding whether or not the marriage is institutionally valid and will therefore determine what the people can and cannot accept.
Therefore, to say that the government has no role recognize and define marriage is wrong. If the government recognizes gay marriage, whether or not the people recognize it is ineffective as far as policy goes. To change that recognition of gay marriage, the people who oppose it must once again go through the government and form a law to repeal the law before. Marriage is not only a instititutional definition, but also a social definition. If you say that the government has no right to ban gay marriage, then they also have no right to recognize it.
Oh, and I do think its funny that people care more about chickens in cages than homosexuals. haha
|
The only reason you would voted for Prop 8 was if you didn't like homosexuals, end of story. There's no other reason that people would vote for it. If you were fine with homosexuals you would have voted no, because you wouldn't care. It's bad enough people voted for discrimination, but they can at least have the balls to admit to it, instead of hiding behind some religion BS or whatever.
|
Ok, ill admit it! i cant stand homosexuals they disgust me !!! happy?!?!!?!? 
|
On November 06 2008 09:50 Murk wrote:Ok, ill admit it! i cant stand homosexuals they disgust me !!! happy?!?!!?!?
You're probably joking but.. just replace "homosexuals" with "black people" and see how it goes from completely acceptable to omgban racistZ!!
|
On November 06 2008 09:38 Creationism wrote:
If you dwell too far into idealism of the definition of marriage, often you will get lost in your argument, as the OP post kind of did. The argument goes as far to say that marriage should not be defined by the state, but rather by the religion; since United States has the freedom of religion, then we should have the freedom to marry cuz we can jus make a religion where gay ppl can marry. Of course the counter arguments to this also come from the institution side, where taxes and liabilities rule the argument.
Honestly, I really could not give less of a fuck whether or not homosexuals are entering the marriage institution, or that the definition of marriage is ruining by them doing so. But rather, it is the practical matter of the institution that affects my life and that is the position that I must judge on a modern basis. The key thing here is the gays can force those around them to accept their institution, whether or not that those around them agree or disagree with it, with a certification or recognition of marriage from the government. The government's recognition of the matter is key in deciding whether or not the marriage is institutionally valid and will therefore determine what the people can and cannot accept.
Therefore, to say that the government has no role recognize and define marriage is wrong. If the government recognizes gay marriage, whether or not the people recognize it is ineffective as far as policy goes. To change that recognition of gay marriage, the people who oppose it must once again go through the government and form a law to repeal the law before. Marriage is not only a instititutional definition, but also a social definition. If you say that the government has no right to ban gay marriage, then they also have no right to recognize it.
Oh, and I do think its funny that people care more about chickens in cages than homosexuals. haha
you need to understand something. church and state is not always separate. they are not mutually exclusive. marriage is a legal AND religious institution, and you can't separate it as either/or.
if you want an example of another religious institution that gets tax relief, see churches.
|
On November 06 2008 08:26 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 08:05 MetalMarine wrote:On November 06 2008 05:41 Kennigit wrote:On November 06 2008 05:22 MYM.Testie wrote:
jkilla is religious. Many christians support gay marriage. Lame excuse. Maybe he just straight up hate homosexuals? Apparently a lot of people do, the results showed it. I personally don't care if they get married or not, but serious question to some people on here, Do you guys really care that homosexuals can't get married? Like deeply care, just wondering. I don't deeply care about anything we'd discuss here so no I guess
maybe you should tho, it might have useful feedback?
|
On November 06 2008 10:20 d_so wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 09:38 Creationism wrote:
If you dwell too far into idealism of the definition of marriage, often you will get lost in your argument, as the OP post kind of did. The argument goes as far to say that marriage should not be defined by the state, but rather by the religion; since United States has the freedom of religion, then we should have the freedom to marry cuz we can jus make a religion where gay ppl can marry. Of course the counter arguments to this also come from the institution side, where taxes and liabilities rule the argument.
Honestly, I really could not give less of a fuck whether or not homosexuals are entering the marriage institution, or that the definition of marriage is ruining by them doing so. But rather, it is the practical matter of the institution that affects my life and that is the position that I must judge on a modern basis. The key thing here is the gays can force those around them to accept their institution, whether or not that those around them agree or disagree with it, with a certification or recognition of marriage from the government. The government's recognition of the matter is key in deciding whether or not the marriage is institutionally valid and will therefore determine what the people can and cannot accept.
Therefore, to say that the government has no role recognize and define marriage is wrong. If the government recognizes gay marriage, whether or not the people recognize it is ineffective as far as policy goes. To change that recognition of gay marriage, the people who oppose it must once again go through the government and form a law to repeal the law before. Marriage is not only a instititutional definition, but also a social definition. If you say that the government has no right to ban gay marriage, then they also have no right to recognize it.
Oh, and I do think its funny that people care more about chickens in cages than homosexuals. haha you need to understand something. church and state is not always separate. they are not mutually exclusive. marriage is a legal AND religious institution, and you can't separate it as either/or. if you want an example of another religious institution that gets tax relief, see churches.
As I've said twice before, and yet have seen a rebuttal for, marriage can be legal but NOT religious. When religious people get married, it's both, and when non-religious people get married, it's entirely a legal situation. The church should have no say in the conduct of non-religious marriages.
|
I just posted this in suggestion box's blog, but decided to paste here as well:
A lot of people don't realize that the church and state have been hand-in-hand for a very long time in regards to marriage, mainly because there wasn't much of a problem with it until now. I find it unfair how some people boil this down into a deceptively simple "accept gay marriage or reject it" approach. The problem runs deeper than that.
On November 06 2008 09:43 vsrooks wrote:
The only reason you would voted for Prop 8 was if you didn't like homosexuals, end of story. There's no other reason that people would vote for it. If you were fine with homosexuals you would have voted no, because you wouldn't care. It's bad enough people voted for discrimination, but they can at least have the balls to admit to it, instead of hiding behind some religion BS or whatever.
This is a very ignorant statement. The vast majority of christians do not have any problem with gay rights. I, for one, hope that gay rights activists push to expand the power of civil unions and to try to establish them on an equal standing with marriage in all states.
The word "marriage" is what is hotly contested here. Like the op said (see suggestion box blog), marriage has been deeply rooted in christianity in our country, and many regard marriage as a religious institution. I believe the solution lies with the government and their recognition of the different kinds of relationship status, as well as normalizing the benefits among them (or ridding of them entirely).
I also understand that gay rights activists wish to avoid discrimination based on the distinction between civil unions and marriages. I think this requires, as mentioned above, a major change in the way the government recognizes relationship status and their allocation of resources and benefits. I know the answer is not a simple or easy one, but neither is the problem that is associated with it.
|
On November 06 2008 10:38 Meta wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 10:20 d_so wrote:On November 06 2008 09:38 Creationism wrote:
If you dwell too far into idealism of the definition of marriage, often you will get lost in your argument, as the OP post kind of did. The argument goes as far to say that marriage should not be defined by the state, but rather by the religion; since United States has the freedom of religion, then we should have the freedom to marry cuz we can jus make a religion where gay ppl can marry. Of course the counter arguments to this also come from the institution side, where taxes and liabilities rule the argument.
Honestly, I really could not give less of a fuck whether or not homosexuals are entering the marriage institution, or that the definition of marriage is ruining by them doing so. But rather, it is the practical matter of the institution that affects my life and that is the position that I must judge on a modern basis. The key thing here is the gays can force those around them to accept their institution, whether or not that those around them agree or disagree with it, with a certification or recognition of marriage from the government. The government's recognition of the matter is key in deciding whether or not the marriage is institutionally valid and will therefore determine what the people can and cannot accept.
Therefore, to say that the government has no role recognize and define marriage is wrong. If the government recognizes gay marriage, whether or not the people recognize it is ineffective as far as policy goes. To change that recognition of gay marriage, the people who oppose it must once again go through the government and form a law to repeal the law before. Marriage is not only a instititutional definition, but also a social definition. If you say that the government has no right to ban gay marriage, then they also have no right to recognize it.
Oh, and I do think its funny that people care more about chickens in cages than homosexuals. haha you need to understand something. church and state is not always separate. they are not mutually exclusive. marriage is a legal AND religious institution, and you can't separate it as either/or. if you want an example of another religious institution that gets tax relief, see churches. As I've said twice before, and yet have seen a rebuttal for, marriage can be legal but NOT religious. When religious people get married, it's both, and when non-religious people get married, it's entirely a legal situation. The church should have no say in the conduct of non-religious marriages.
-_- you keep thinking of individual scenarios. no shit. there are marriages that don't have church backing right now.
i'm talking about marriage in the aggregate sense.
|
On November 06 2008 10:40 strongwind wrote:I just posted this in suggestion box's blog, but decided to paste here as well: A lot of people don't realize that the church and state have been hand-in-hand for a very long time in regards to marriage, mainly because there wasn't much of a problem with it until now. I find it unfair how some people boil this down into a deceptively simple "accept gay marriage or reject it" approach. The problem runs deeper than that. Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 09:43 vsrooks wrote:
The only reason you would voted for Prop 8 was if you didn't like homosexuals, end of story. There's no other reason that people would vote for it. If you were fine with homosexuals you would have voted no, because you wouldn't care. It's bad enough people voted for discrimination, but they can at least have the balls to admit to it, instead of hiding behind some religion BS or whatever. This is a very ignorant statement. The vast majority of christians do not have any problem with gay rights. I, for one, hope that gay rights activists push to expand the power of civil unions and to try to establish them on an equal standing with marriage in all states. The word "marriage" is what is hotly contested here. Like the op said (see suggestion box blog), marriage has been deeply rooted in christianity in our country, and many regard marriage as a religious institution. I believe the solution lies with the government and their recognition of the different kinds of relationship status, as well as normalizing the benefits among them (or ridding of them entirely). I also understand that gay rights activists wish to avoid discrimination based on the distinction between civil unions and marriages. I think this requires, as mentioned above, a major change in the way the government recognizes relationship status and their allocation of resources and benefits. I know the answer is not a simple or easy one, but neither is the problem that is associated with it.
Okay 'marriage' is a religious word, why do homosexuals using the word ruin that word for you? Simple answer, you don't think their way of life is the right way.
Also I'm glad that your belief in a WORD is allowing you to ruin peoples' lives.
|
well if you wont let homosexuals use the marriage, why let muslims or atheists or buddhists or anyone else?
|
On November 06 2008 11:35 vsrooks wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 10:40 strongwind wrote:I just posted this in suggestion box's blog, but decided to paste here as well: A lot of people don't realize that the church and state have been hand-in-hand for a very long time in regards to marriage, mainly because there wasn't much of a problem with it until now. I find it unfair how some people boil this down into a deceptively simple "accept gay marriage or reject it" approach. The problem runs deeper than that. On November 06 2008 09:43 vsrooks wrote:
The only reason you would voted for Prop 8 was if you didn't like homosexuals, end of story. There's no other reason that people would vote for it. If you were fine with homosexuals you would have voted no, because you wouldn't care. It's bad enough people voted for discrimination, but they can at least have the balls to admit to it, instead of hiding behind some religion BS or whatever. This is a very ignorant statement. The vast majority of christians do not have any problem with gay rights. I, for one, hope that gay rights activists push to expand the power of civil unions and to try to establish them on an equal standing with marriage in all states. The word "marriage" is what is hotly contested here. Like the op said (see suggestion box blog), marriage has been deeply rooted in christianity in our country, and many regard marriage as a religious institution. I believe the solution lies with the government and their recognition of the different kinds of relationship status, as well as normalizing the benefits among them (or ridding of them entirely). I also understand that gay rights activists wish to avoid discrimination based on the distinction between civil unions and marriages. I think this requires, as mentioned above, a major change in the way the government recognizes relationship status and their allocation of resources and benefits. I know the answer is not a simple or easy one, but neither is the problem that is associated with it. Okay 'marriage' is a religious word, why do homosexuals using the word ruin that word for you? Simple answer, you don't think their way of life is the right way. Also I'm glad that your belief in a WORD is allowing you to ruin peoples' lives.
I'm not married... is my life RUINED?? BY A WORD!?
|
On November 06 2008 11:38 -_- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 11:35 vsrooks wrote:On November 06 2008 10:40 strongwind wrote:I just posted this in suggestion box's blog, but decided to paste here as well: A lot of people don't realize that the church and state have been hand-in-hand for a very long time in regards to marriage, mainly because there wasn't much of a problem with it until now. I find it unfair how some people boil this down into a deceptively simple "accept gay marriage or reject it" approach. The problem runs deeper than that. On November 06 2008 09:43 vsrooks wrote:
The only reason you would voted for Prop 8 was if you didn't like homosexuals, end of story. There's no other reason that people would vote for it. If you were fine with homosexuals you would have voted no, because you wouldn't care. It's bad enough people voted for discrimination, but they can at least have the balls to admit to it, instead of hiding behind some religion BS or whatever. This is a very ignorant statement. The vast majority of christians do not have any problem with gay rights. I, for one, hope that gay rights activists push to expand the power of civil unions and to try to establish them on an equal standing with marriage in all states. The word "marriage" is what is hotly contested here. Like the op said (see suggestion box blog), marriage has been deeply rooted in christianity in our country, and many regard marriage as a religious institution. I believe the solution lies with the government and their recognition of the different kinds of relationship status, as well as normalizing the benefits among them (or ridding of them entirely). I also understand that gay rights activists wish to avoid discrimination based on the distinction between civil unions and marriages. I think this requires, as mentioned above, a major change in the way the government recognizes relationship status and their allocation of resources and benefits. I know the answer is not a simple or easy one, but neither is the problem that is associated with it. Okay 'marriage' is a religious word, why do homosexuals using the word ruin that word for you? Simple answer, you don't think their way of life is the right way. Also I'm glad that your belief in a WORD is allowing you to ruin peoples' lives. I'm not married... is my life RUINED?? BY A WORD!?
Protecting marriage as a religious idea is letting a WORD run things. Treating people differently under the law has nothing to do with a WORD and yes treating people differently under the law does greatly affect lives.
|
Homosexuality is a sin, and marriage is a holy thing, it shouldnt of never been allowed in the first place. a Preist that host gay marriages is making a mockery of everything hes supposed to stand for, and im not talking out of my ass homosexuality IS A SIN read the bible
|
On November 06 2008 11:40 vsrooks wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 11:38 -_- wrote:On November 06 2008 11:35 vsrooks wrote:On November 06 2008 10:40 strongwind wrote:I just posted this in suggestion box's blog, but decided to paste here as well: A lot of people don't realize that the church and state have been hand-in-hand for a very long time in regards to marriage, mainly because there wasn't much of a problem with it until now. I find it unfair how some people boil this down into a deceptively simple "accept gay marriage or reject it" approach. The problem runs deeper than that. On November 06 2008 09:43 vsrooks wrote:
The only reason you would voted for Prop 8 was if you didn't like homosexuals, end of story. There's no other reason that people would vote for it. If you were fine with homosexuals you would have voted no, because you wouldn't care. It's bad enough people voted for discrimination, but they can at least have the balls to admit to it, instead of hiding behind some religion BS or whatever. This is a very ignorant statement. The vast majority of christians do not have any problem with gay rights. I, for one, hope that gay rights activists push to expand the power of civil unions and to try to establish them on an equal standing with marriage in all states. The word "marriage" is what is hotly contested here. Like the op said (see suggestion box blog), marriage has been deeply rooted in christianity in our country, and many regard marriage as a religious institution. I believe the solution lies with the government and their recognition of the different kinds of relationship status, as well as normalizing the benefits among them (or ridding of them entirely). I also understand that gay rights activists wish to avoid discrimination based on the distinction between civil unions and marriages. I think this requires, as mentioned above, a major change in the way the government recognizes relationship status and their allocation of resources and benefits. I know the answer is not a simple or easy one, but neither is the problem that is associated with it. Okay 'marriage' is a religious word, why do homosexuals using the word ruin that word for you? Simple answer, you don't think their way of life is the right way. Also I'm glad that your belief in a WORD is allowing you to ruin peoples' lives. I'm not married... is my life RUINED?? BY A WORD!? Protecting marriage as a religious idea is letting a WORD run things. Treating people differently under the law has nothing to do with a WORD and yes treating people differently under the law does greatly affect lives.
Totally agree about the WORD thing. I got an idea: let's take all the WORDS out of the law. Because having WORDS run things is bad. And lets not treat anyone different under the law either. That's what the equal protection clause means, RIGHT?
But back to WORDS, if I'm unhappy w/ how WORDS are running my country, what can I do? How do I know that everyone I know isn't a WORD?? Scary stuff...
|
I hope you guys realize that the main point of prop 8 was to ban the "teaching" of homosexuality in schools, and the banning of gay marriage was snuck in.
It was a dirty trick and it worked.
|
On November 06 2008 11:44 Murk wrote:
Homosexuality is a sin, and marriage is a holy thing, it shouldnt of never been allowed in the first place. a Preist that host gay marriages is making a mockery of everything hes supposed to stand for, and im not talking out of my ass homosexuality IS A SIN read the bible
When does God say that homosexuality is a sin? Feel free to point that out to me, BTW God didn't write the bible.
|
United States24613 Posts
On November 06 2008 11:45 -_- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 11:40 vsrooks wrote:On November 06 2008 11:38 -_- wrote:On November 06 2008 11:35 vsrooks wrote:On November 06 2008 10:40 strongwind wrote:I just posted this in suggestion box's blog, but decided to paste here as well: A lot of people don't realize that the church and state have been hand-in-hand for a very long time in regards to marriage, mainly because there wasn't much of a problem with it until now. I find it unfair how some people boil this down into a deceptively simple "accept gay marriage or reject it" approach. The problem runs deeper than that. On November 06 2008 09:43 vsrooks wrote:
The only reason you would voted for Prop 8 was if you didn't like homosexuals, end of story. There's no other reason that people would vote for it. If you were fine with homosexuals you would have voted no, because you wouldn't care. It's bad enough people voted for discrimination, but they can at least have the balls to admit to it, instead of hiding behind some religion BS or whatever. This is a very ignorant statement. The vast majority of christians do not have any problem with gay rights. I, for one, hope that gay rights activists push to expand the power of civil unions and to try to establish them on an equal standing with marriage in all states. The word "marriage" is what is hotly contested here. Like the op said (see suggestion box blog), marriage has been deeply rooted in christianity in our country, and many regard marriage as a religious institution. I believe the solution lies with the government and their recognition of the different kinds of relationship status, as well as normalizing the benefits among them (or ridding of them entirely). I also understand that gay rights activists wish to avoid discrimination based on the distinction between civil unions and marriages. I think this requires, as mentioned above, a major change in the way the government recognizes relationship status and their allocation of resources and benefits. I know the answer is not a simple or easy one, but neither is the problem that is associated with it. Okay 'marriage' is a religious word, why do homosexuals using the word ruin that word for you? Simple answer, you don't think their way of life is the right way. Also I'm glad that your belief in a WORD is allowing you to ruin peoples' lives. I'm not married... is my life RUINED?? BY A WORD!? Protecting marriage as a religious idea is letting a WORD run things. Treating people differently under the law has nothing to do with a WORD and yes treating people differently under the law does greatly affect lives. Totally agree about the WORD thing. I got an idea: let's take all the WORDS out of the law. Because having WORDS run things is bad. And lets not treat anyone different under the law either. That's what the equal protection clause means, RIGHT? But back to WORDS, if I'm unhappy w/ how WORDS are running my country, what can I do? How do I know that everyone I know isn't a WORD?? Scary stuff...
You are missing his point, whether if it is intentional or not...
|
On November 06 2008 11:47 DM20 wrote:
I hope you guys realize that the main point of prop 8 was to ban the "teaching" of homosexuality in schools,
could you explain what this even means
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
