|
On November 05 2008 06:21 CharlieMurphy wrote:
The problem is that Marriage isn't just some bullshit religious pursuit of happiness. People use it for tax breaks, to keep people in USA and become US citizens etc.
Does anyone have a copy of the actual proposition I've heard so much bullshit regarding this proposition that I disregard anything that is said.
I do know one thing though, I was never taught about marriage in any school (straight or gay) and I even went to catholic school up until 3rd grade and have been to more schools than there are grades in 2 different states.
PS- semi off topic but last week I was driving to work down PCH and on either side of the street there were tens of tens of people in Seal Beach holding 'Yes On Prop 8' signs and on the other side was 'No on prop 8', It was hilarious.
regarding your first point, just cuz taxes are involved doesn't mean the religious aspect of it is discredited. no matter how you may feel about religion, the fact is that in many areas there is a gray area between religious and legal jurisdiction, like churches having tax exempt status.
as for the actual proposition, it's actually very clear:
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm
or if you want the .pdf
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf#prop8
|
On November 05 2008 06:21 CharlieMurphy wrote:
The problem is that Marriage isn't just some bullshit religious pursuit of happiness. People use it for tax breaks, to keep people in USA and become US citizens etc.
Does anyone have a copy of the actual proposition I've heard so much bullshit regarding this proposition that I disregard anything that is said.
I do know one thing though, I was never taught about marriage in any school (straight or gay) and I even went to catholic school up until 3rd grade and have been to more schools than there are grades in 2 different states.
PS- semi off topic but last week I was driving to work down PCH and on either side of the street there were tens of tens of people in Seal Beach holding 'Yes On Prop 8' signs and on the other side was 'No on prop 8', It was hilarious.
If you had read my post, you would have seen the copy of the proposition:
+ Show Spoiler [Text of Proposition 8] +This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by
adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are
printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage
Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.
Text taken from this source (PDF): Text of California ballot propositions
|
United States17042 Posts
On November 05 2008 06:21 CharlieMurphy wrote:
The problem is that Marriage isn't just some bullshit religious pursuit of happiness. People use it for tax breaks, to keep people in USA and become US citizens etc.
Does anyone have a copy of the actual proposition I've heard so much bullshit regarding this proposition that I disregard anything that is said.
I do know one thing though, I was never taught about marriage in any school (straight or gay) and I even went to catholic school up until 3rd grade and have been to more schools than there are grades in 2 different states.
PS- semi off topic but last week I was driving to work down PCH and on either side of the street there were tens of tens of people in Seal Beach holding 'Yes On Prop 8' signs and on the other side was 'No on prop 8', It was hilarious.
The text is actually one of the shortest, as it would be a new law, and not an amended one (prop 6 is really really long).
the text of prop 8 states:
[Beginning of file]
PROPOSITION 8
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by
adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are
printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage
Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.
[EOF]
found here: (WARNING PDF LINK), page 49:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=5&url=http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf&ei=Fb4QSavJOpmMsQPzw_CYCQ&usg=AFQjCNFVejmFWtNle9HhYMuMUgm2kRtbJw&sig2=bDohK0SyJgzSbm6ofsaO6A
through searching google using this link:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=proposition 8 california text&btnG=Google Search&aq=f&oq=
(It was the number 2 link on that list, the PDF File).
|
On November 05 2008 06:20 d_so wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2008 06:13 Nytefish wrote:
What do you mean by "marriage is a religious institution"? yeah i should make that more clear. I added a bit into the OP but i'll copy and paste it here: - The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible. - Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit. - Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights.
1: The bible is not documentation.
2: Christian marriage isn't the only form of marriage.
3: I can go get married without a church right now legally.
There are many types of marriage, and most of them aren't religious, most people get married in a church for tradition. Gays marriage affects you in no way whatsoever.
|
On November 05 2008 06:30 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2008 06:29 oneofthem wrote:
lol wow. i've never seen the universal declaration of human rights raised outside of the academic setting I am the master of bringing up things outside of an academic setting that nobody really wants to see. Btw note my edit above OP.
i see your edit, but it doesnt change your fundamental point.
within a church, you can espouse/deny marriage as it fits your religious beliefs.
but you can't tell other people whether or not they can get married.
|
On November 05 2008 06:20 d_so wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2008 06:13 Nytefish wrote:
What do you mean by "marriage is a religious institution"? yeah i should make that more clear. I added a bit into the OP but i'll copy and paste it here: - The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible. - Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit. - Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights.
Sorry if I sound stupid for saying this but could you please clarify exactly what religion has to do with marriage. I understand that you stress there is a link between marriage and both religion and the law, but I'm missing exactly what they have to do with each other. I don't want to start a fight or anything but really, what exactly the church has to do with marriage.
Keep in mind all I have really learned about marriage in school is man marries woman, makes babies, pays taxes, loves america and lives happily ever after.
|
United States24724 Posts
On November 05 2008 06:37 Valentine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2008 06:20 d_so wrote:On November 05 2008 06:13 Nytefish wrote:
What do you mean by "marriage is a religious institution"? yeah i should make that more clear. I added a bit into the OP but i'll copy and paste it here: - The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible. - Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit. - Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights. Sorry if I sound stupid for saying this but could you please clarify exactly what religion has to do with marriage. I understand that you stress there is a link between marriage and both religion and the law, but I'm missing exactly what they have to do with each other. I don't want to start a fight or anything but really, what exactly the church has to do with marriage. Keep in mind all I have really learned about marriage in school is man marries woman, makes babies, pays taxes, loves america and lives happily ever after.
As far as I know, most religions have rules/customs/traditions about who can marry, how they should marry, etc. There is no legal rule that marriage is linked to religion... only culturally?
|
You talk a lot about being married within a church, but isn't that totally irrelevant to something like 'gay marriage' because you don't have to be married in a church?
What I mean is that a church has all the right to make rules for its own marriages, but civil marriages have nothing to do with religion.
|
On November 05 2008 06:35 DM20 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2008 06:20 d_so wrote:On November 05 2008 06:13 Nytefish wrote:
What do you mean by "marriage is a religious institution"? yeah i should make that more clear. I added a bit into the OP but i'll copy and paste it here: - The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible. - Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit. - Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights. 1: The bible is not documentation. 2: Christian marriage isn't the only form of marriage. 3: I can go get married without a church right now legally. There are many types of marriage, and most of them aren't religious, most people get married in a church for tradition. Gays marriage affects you in no way whatsoever.
1. the bible is documentation that a religion has incorporated religious principles into the idea of marriage. i'm not saying bible is fact.
2. i agree
3. good.
read the OP
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
religion has had involvement in the shaping of marriage rituals and ideology, but this does not make marriage a religious institution. just as religious tradition could be seen as contributing to the development of say, yiddish food. causation is not identity.
|
On November 05 2008 06:39 Nytefish wrote:
You talk a lot about being married within a church, but isn't that totally irrelevant to something like 'gay marriage' because you don't have to be married in a church?
right. if you can find another avenue to get married, go for it.
i'm saying the church has a right to deny gay marriage within itself. it does not have the right to tell other institutions to deny marriage.
|
I hate churches. Do I have the right to get married?
|
Lmao, Thats all the prop says???! So much fucking propaganda on TV/Radio commercials. Fucking shitty country.
|
On November 05 2008 06:39 Nytefish wrote:
You talk a lot about being married within a church, but isn't that totally irrelevant to something like 'gay marriage' because you don't have to be married in a church?
What I mean is that a church has all the right to make rules for its own marriages, but civil marriages have nothing to do with religion.
i dont think anyone has issues with "civil marriages" or civil unions. Everyone agrees that they are legit. If legal rights are the only thing people want, we could always expand the rights of legal unions to be make the equal to marriage.
no, the issue is that people want the feeling of moral equivalence of marriage.
|
Honestly I think all marriage is wrong. Ban it all.
|
On November 05 2008 06:45 Meta wrote:
I hate churches. Do I have the right to get married?
yes
|
On November 05 2008 06:38 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2008 06:37 Valentine wrote:On November 05 2008 06:20 d_so wrote:On November 05 2008 06:13 Nytefish wrote:
What do you mean by "marriage is a religious institution"? yeah i should make that more clear. I added a bit into the OP but i'll copy and paste it here: - The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible. - Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit. - Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights. Sorry if I sound stupid for saying this but could you please clarify exactly what religion has to do with marriage. I understand that you stress there is a link between marriage and both religion and the law, but I'm missing exactly what they have to do with each other. I don't want to start a fight or anything but really, what exactly the church has to do with marriage. Keep in mind all I have really learned about marriage in school is man marries woman, makes babies, pays taxes, loves america and lives happily ever after. As far as I know, most religions have rules/customs/traditions about who can marry, how they should marry, etc. There is no legal rule that marriage is linked to religion... only culturally?
This is what I assumed. Of course one can't say religion didn't have a hand in creating the traditions of marriage etc, but to say you can't have marriage without religion I think is kind of "eh".
- Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other
This is what I'm referring to. Could you clarify what you mean that you cannot have one without the other, please?
|
United States24724 Posts
I think the burden shouldn't be on gay people and their advocates to come up with constructs that allow them to share the benefits of legal pairing... the burden should be on religions to identify and coin names for the types of marriages that they endorse. Marriage would mean a legal union between two people, whereas heterosexual marriage is the legal union of two people of opposite sex, and is endorsed by X church or Y religion.
|
On November 05 2008 06:47 Valentine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2008 06:38 micronesia wrote:On November 05 2008 06:37 Valentine wrote:On November 05 2008 06:20 d_so wrote:On November 05 2008 06:13 Nytefish wrote:
What do you mean by "marriage is a religious institution"? yeah i should make that more clear. I added a bit into the OP but i'll copy and paste it here: - The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible. - Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit. - Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights. Sorry if I sound stupid for saying this but could you please clarify exactly what religion has to do with marriage. I understand that you stress there is a link between marriage and both religion and the law, but I'm missing exactly what they have to do with each other. I don't want to start a fight or anything but really, what exactly the church has to do with marriage. Keep in mind all I have really learned about marriage in school is man marries woman, makes babies, pays taxes, loves america and lives happily ever after. As far as I know, most religions have rules/customs/traditions about who can marry, how they should marry, etc. There is no legal rule that marriage is linked to religion... only culturally? This is what I assumed. Of course one can't say religion didn't have a hand in creating the traditions of marriage etc, but to say you can't have marriage without religion I think is kind of "eh". Show nested quote +- Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other This is what I'm referring to. Could you clarify what you mean that you cannot have one without the other, please?
if we make marriage a nonreligious institution, an amendment will have to be passed that separates religion from marriage. this will occur by stripping the power of churches to oversee marriages and to create a new form of marriage that does not require a religious oversight.
now, the latter already exists. but if you're going to completely strip the right of churches to oversee marriage, then what you're doing is attacking that church's ability to worship, since lifestyle practices fall within a church's freedom of religion. thus, any amendment stripping a church of its rights to conduct marriages is unconstitutional.
so that is why it's difficult to remove the religious aspect of it. as for the legal aspect of it, as many have said before, marriage has had a long history of granting special legal rights.
|
On November 05 2008 06:52 d_so wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2008 06:47 Valentine wrote:On November 05 2008 06:38 micronesia wrote:On November 05 2008 06:37 Valentine wrote:On November 05 2008 06:20 d_so wrote:On November 05 2008 06:13 Nytefish wrote:
What do you mean by "marriage is a religious institution"? yeah i should make that more clear. I added a bit into the OP but i'll copy and paste it here: - The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible. - Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit. - Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights. Sorry if I sound stupid for saying this but could you please clarify exactly what religion has to do with marriage. I understand that you stress there is a link between marriage and both religion and the law, but I'm missing exactly what they have to do with each other. I don't want to start a fight or anything but really, what exactly the church has to do with marriage. Keep in mind all I have really learned about marriage in school is man marries woman, makes babies, pays taxes, loves america and lives happily ever after. As far as I know, most religions have rules/customs/traditions about who can marry, how they should marry, etc. There is no legal rule that marriage is linked to religion... only culturally? This is what I assumed. Of course one can't say religion didn't have a hand in creating the traditions of marriage etc, but to say you can't have marriage without religion I think is kind of "eh". - Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other This is what I'm referring to. Could you clarify what you mean that you cannot have one without the other, please? if we make marriage a nonreligious institution, an amendment will have to be passed that separates religion from marriage. this will occur either by stripping the power of churches to oversee marriages or to create a new form of marriage that does not require a religious oversight. now, the latter already exists. but if you're going to completely strip the right of churches to oversee marriage, then what you're doing is attacking that church's ability to worship, since lifestyle practices fall within a church's freedom of religion. thus, any amendment stripping a church of its rights to conduct marriages is unconstitutional. so that is why it's difficult to remove the religious aspect of it. as for the legal aspect of it, as many have said before, marriage has had a long history of granting special legal rights.
Ok, I think this makes more sense to me. Personally, I don't want to be married in a church or have religion to have its hands in my marriage at all, but what your saying is that some people do, which means that religion does contribute to some marriages, and since all marriages are legally equal, theres no way to deny the church's influence in marriage, correct?
By the way, I am certainly in favor of gay marriage, if anyone didn't know that already ; ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
