CA. Lawmakers Pass Gay Marriage Bill

[eyez0nme]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5090102086.html

By STEVE LAWRENCE
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - The California Legislature on Tuesday became the first legislative body in the country to approve same-sex marriages, as gay-rights advocates overcame two earlier defeats in the Assembly.

The 41-35 vote sends the bill to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose office had no comment on the bill when it cleared the Senate last week.

The bill's supporters compared the legislation to earlier civil rights campaigns, including efforts to eradicate slavery and give women the right to vote.

``Do what we know is in our hearts,'' said the bill's sponsor, San Francisco Democrat Mark Leno. ``Make sure all California families will have the same protection under the law.''

Leno's bill had failed in the Assembly by four votes in June, but he was confident he could get it through on a second try after the Senate approved a same-sex marriage bill last week.

Democratic Assemblyman Paul Koretz called bans on gay marriage ``the last frontier of bigotry and discrimination, and it's time we put an end to it.''

Assemblyman Tom Umberg, a Democrat who abstained when another gay marriage bill fell four votes short in June, said he was concerned about what his three children would think of him if he didn't join those ``who sought to take a leadership role in terms of tolerance, equality and fairness.''

But opponents repeatedly cited the public's vote five years ago to approve Proposition 22, an initiative put on the ballot by gay marriage opponents to keep California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

``History will record that you betrayed your constituents and their moral and ethical values,'' said Republican Assemblyman Jay La Suer.

California already gives same-sex couples many of the rights and duties of marriage if they register with the state as domestic partners.

Massachusetts' highest court ruled in November 2003 that the state constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. The nation's first state-sanctioned, same-sex weddings began taking place in May 2004.

Vermont began offering civil unions in 2000, after a ruling by the state's Supreme Court. Earlier this year, Connecticut became the first state to approve civil unions without being forced by the courts.

[Anubis Nine]

Come to the dark side with Canada and the Netherlands... Yessss.... *Beckons* I'm very happy to hear this.

[Ahimsa]

I think it is good news, since American citzens ought to have access to equal rights no matter their sexual preference

[Joe]

YEEESSSSSSS WOO HOO! WOO WOO WOO! *breaks out the champaigne* Woo baby!

[MeneerDijk]

This is good news for human rights indeed, but what does this imply? Can gays get married in the state of california now? or can they get married in say, Holland, and their marriage will be recognized in California?

[solteq]

Don't celebrate yet. You-know-who wants the last word. Observe. (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/09/08/SAMESEX.TMP)

[Quartermaster]

*Plays the Drag-Net theme*

[Kaji]

Well, can always pray for a veto...

[Mr.Babalo]

*sigh*

gays will be so mainstream now,

Male youth will have a new metro-gay trend and will "experiment" their homosexuality just as much as females are doing today, because lesbian/bisexual females has already been accept and part of societie's norm. Now the same effect will occur in males and just you watch how many more gays will come out and how many, many throngs of wannabe gays bustin' in town with their metro-gay styles.

lol...LoL... LOOOLLLLLL AHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[ejones28]

I know I'm in the minority here, at least according to poll numbers that came out during the last election, but I don't think I'll ever understand this issue.

A large percentage of people in this country are against gay marriage, but it has no effect whatsoever in their lives. It doesn't de-value their marriage, and it's not like anyone is forced to go to the ceremony.

If two dudes or two women you've never met and never will meet want a legal status (and the benefits) for their union, what do I care? Why does anyone else?

[Kaji]

Gays have the right to marry women same as straights. Lesbians have the right to marry men like real women. Sounds like equal rights to me.

[Arvynia]

*sigh*

gays will be so mainstream now,

Male youth will have a new metro-gay trend and will "experiment" their homosexuality just as much as females are doing today, because lesbian/bisexual females has already been accept and part of societie's norm. Now the same effect will occur in males and just you watch how many more gays will come out and how many, many throngs of wannabe gays bustin' in town with their metro-gay styles.

lol...LoL... LOOOLLLLLL AHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Perhaps, like all "trends," this will die down.
Once we make less of a taboo of it, it'll get boring and people will eventually stop vying for attention through this.

[Expert Insomniac]

What? You mean, we're actually going to let people have a public recognition of their love, and be allowed basic rights like visiting their loved ones in the hospital? How incredibly scandalous! They should know better than to fall in love with someone that society disapproves of!

[deepbluevibes]

Gays have the right to marry women same as straights. Lesbians have the right to marry men like real women. Sounds like equal rights to me.

What an idiot.

[Kaji]

What? You mean, we're actually going to let people have a public recognition of their love, and be allowed basic rights like visiting their loved ones in the hospital? How incredibly scandalous! They should know better than to fall in love with someone that society disapproves of!

All of which can be achieved through a power of attorney, as it should be done either way anyway as opposed to being tied to marriage.

[Praetorian]

Male youth will have a new metro-gay trend and will "experiment" their homosexuality just as much as females are doing today, because lesbian/bisexual females has already been accept and part of societie's norm. Now the same effect will occur in males and just you watch how many more gays will come out and how many, many throngs of wannabe gays bustin' in town with their metro-gay styles.]


Bollocks. It has been legalised in the Netherlands for a while now, and it didn't start a boom in metrosexual guys.

[Trump]

I guess to me, marriage has always had a religious significance. So in that regard, people of the same sex should not be allowed to get 'married' at all. But before you jump on me, I think the best solution to this situation is to create a new union called 'civil union' that has the exact same privelages under law without all the religious implications that upsets a majority of the opposition.

[Kustom]

If two dudes or two women you've never met and never will meet want a legal status (and the benefits) for their union, what do I care? Why does anyone else?

And if they just want to get married it's the same thing. The whole "marriage belongs to christianity" is BS, people have got married in every culture regardless of their religion (or absence thereof). You don't invalidate Japanese marriage in America because it's been celebrated by buddhist priests, now do you?
So Kaji, watcha say about that?

[Joe]

Man, thank god for seperate but equal. I'm sure things would have worked out for black people if they hadn't REALLY been citzens, but something different, like residents. And women, they don't HAVE to vote, they can do something like it, like, suggesting... :rolleyes:

Why don't you all take a quick listen to yonder rant :

http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/Rants/2rant-gay_marriage.mp3

Buuuuuurn for it!!!
XOXO :rolleyes:

[ManiacLove]

Yay! *HappyDanceForGayMarriage*

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

The govonator just vetoed the bill.

[Jay]

YES! YES! YES!

I'm sorry. I'm all for gay marriage, and I personally think it's disgusting how some governments don't allow gay marriage.

This is the first step.

[Expert Insomniac]

I guess to me, marriage has always had a religious significance.

The problem with that is that atheists get married all the time. Not to mention that not all homosexuals aren't religious... now, I can understand if a gay couple walked into a Catholic church, wanting to be married, and the priest said no. It's a private institution; that's his choice. If someone wanted to refuse to marry me and my boyfriend because we're an interracial couple, they would have every right. However, even having a different name for the union is implying that they are not good enough to get married. Seperate but equal is not equal, as our history textbooks will show us.

Not to mention if you give me a good stretch of time, and I can explain to you exactly why there's a good chance that the Christian god has nothing against loving homozexual relationships.

[Kaji]

Nice timing on your celebrations, Jay

[ManiacLove]

Not to mention if you give me a good stretch of time, and I can explain to you exactly why there's a good chance that the Christian god has nothing against loving homozexual relationships.

My Coworker is very very religious. She says gay marriage is wrong, because it says so in the Bible. i told her that in the Bible it says I can sell my daughter into slavery, own slaves from neighbouring countries, and that it's wrong to eat fish. She said, "Well the Bible is old, and back then people's beliefs were different. it's outdated." I said she proved my point. I also told her that if the Christian God is all loving, then should anyone, as long as they're a good person, (do unto others & the like) go to heaven no matter what religion or sexual orientation. She said that I was wrong and that accepting Jesus and flowwing his teachings is the only way to get in.

=\

I didn't know heaven was a clique.

[Dresh]

The way I see it, things would be a lot easier if the government started using the term civil union, while the term marriage was reserved exclusively for religious ceremonies (not just limited to Christianity). Because I, as a full on agnostic, couldn't give a shitless whether me and the woman I love get married or have a civil union, we can still have a reception, we can still look our best, we can still have cake, the only difference would be in the word used.

Plus there are some churches that don't mind homosexuality, heck there are some churches that are pretty much owned by homosexuals. And then what about the religions that don't mind it anyway?

The thing is, I've never seen a good argument for not legalizing gay marriage. It's always about "the sanctity of marriage" or people use their religion as reasoning. Fact: There is no sanctity of marriage. We live in a country with drive-thru chapels and an astronomically high divorce rate! We are also not a theocracy, so whatever your religion says has no ground in making a federal decision due to our disestablishmentarian society.

[Joe]

About civil unions, refer to the link I posted ^

Dresh, I agree with you!

[Roxie]

Gays have the right to marry women same as straights. Lesbians have the right to marry men like real women. Sounds like equal rights to me.
so lesbians aren't "real" women?

[hapacheese]

so lesbians aren't "real" women?

Heh... Roxie has a knack for picking up on these sorts of things :D

[Jay]

Nice timing on your celebrations, Jay

...Pardon?

[Soli]

Why don't you all take a quick listen to yonder rant :

http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/Rants/2rant-gay_marriage.mp3

Buuuuuurn for it!!!
XOXO :rolleyes:

That. Is. Awsome. :D

[Kaji]

...Pardon?

Just noting that it came right after the veto post is all.

[Animeband]

There is a threat of polygamists jumping for their case if gay marriage becomes federal law. I'm not making that up either; they actually are watching and waiting for it.

Only in the US do we have die hard polygamists, pretty much confined to one state.

Maybe not a good argument since it sounds like a slippery slope, but....

[Joe]

Just because I love you all so much, heres another rant, on a similar topic.
:rolleyes:
http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/Rants/2rant-parents.mp3

It does bring up a few good points. Enjoy
XOXO :rolleyes:

[Dresh]

http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/Rants/2rant-parents.mp3
This man is my new hero.

[AssButt.]

This thread should be closed. A thoughtful, logical argument against gay marriage does not exist.

[Quartermaster]

In that case, new argument: Should polygamy be outlawed?

[Bob]

Medical marijuana is legal in california. too. You can still get arrested for it...

[deepbluevibes]

I like how Kaji has had about four seperate posts made to destroy his opinions on the subject, but has rebutted none of them.

[Jai]

This thread should be closed. A thoughtful, logical argument against gay marriage does not exist.

Your name is so appropriate to your post assbutt.

Like it or loath it, Arnie did the right thing by democracy. You can call everyone who disagrees with you "ignorant" and "stupid" all you want without changing that fact.

More Californians are against gay marriage than for it. Get over it.

And I dont see any posts that are "destroying" Kaji's opinion on the subject.

[Roxie]

kaji still has yet to answer my question.

I don't live in Cali, but I'm pretty sure you can't know how most of the residents feel without a referendum. Did they have one?

[Unactuality]

Five years ago, Proposition 22 passed in California with 61% voting Yes and 39% voting No.

Proposition 22 states that:

“Only marriage between a man and a woman
is valid or recognized in California.”

If public opinion has changed so greatly in the last five years, the citizens of California can (and will) indicate as much in the new referendum which is likely coming.

[Jai]

If I were Kaji, I wouldnt respond to your nitpick either.

As Unactuality stated (and the artical link posted regarding Arnie's veto stated) the last referendum on the subject was clearly against gay marriage.

Until another such vote is held, its Arnie's civic duty to use the power of veto to restrain the legislature from doing whatever it wants regardless of public opinion, which it has shown no respect for in passing said gay marriage bill.

[hapacheese]

The whole "public opinion" thing does *not* count when dealing with civil rights issues. During the civil rights movements of the last century, the government voted for equal rights *in spite* of the general public's opposition.

It is the duty of the government to protect the rights of all citizens from the tyranny of the majority.

[Roxie]

If I were Kaji, I wouldnt respond to your nitpick either.


I don't know...it seemed pretty glaring to me.

[Jai]

So, you say it is the duty of the democratically elected govornment to ignore democracy?

Doesnt fly for me.

[hapacheese]

1) We're not a democracy, no matter how much people like to say that (we're a republic).

2) The *reason* why we're not a democracy is because of my earlier statement: to protect the people from the tyranny of the majority.

3) Why is it public opinion only comes into play with these hot topics? Did people actually vote on, say, the Patriot Act?

[solteq]

Democratic or not, it is the duty of any government to protect the rights of its citizens. Being able to marry the person you love seems to fall under pursuit of happiness, ne c'est pas?

[Praetorian]

With liberty and justice for all. (Thanks to Hapacheese for pointing this out.)

I think I have said enough. I think a country should be as free as to let two human beings choose whom they want to marry with.

[hapacheese]

Well, Jai has a point. If the government is truly a democratic government, its duty is to follow the word of the majority.

However, being a republic (don't believe me? - just say the Pledge of Allegiance to yourself and let me know how it goes), the government officials are voted in to represent the people, but they are no longer necessarily bound by public interest (if they want to be voted back in, that's another question).

[deepbluevibes]

Five years ago, Proposition 22 passed in California with 61% voting Yes and 39% voting No.

Proposition 22 states that:

“Only marriage between a man and a woman
is valid or recognized in California.”

If public opinion has changed so greatly in the last five years, the citizens of California can (and will) indicate as much in the new referendum which is likely coming.

Hey, ever think that some people were FORCED to vote a certain way?

examples that I personally know;

my friend has three brothers and sisters each. all are within the ages of 18-21, and four of them (including him) live at home. when they all went down to vote, his father and mother threatened them to vote bush when they all wanted to vote kerry in the past election, and so they did.

Think about how much *that* goes on.

also, i personally know people WHO ARE GAY and who WANT GAY MARRIAGE rights to work. But they vote against it. Why? Because people they know might find out and that would be badddd for them.

[Jai]

Unless their parents were able to stand over their shoulders while they voted (illegal in my country, but in the US who really knows) then voting for someone "because my parents made me" is weak as piss.

Forced to vote a certain way. Right, by the evil old parents gestapo of "we will know if you dont and you wont get dessert". What bullshit.

[Mr.Babalo]

My Coworker is very very religious. She says gay marriage is wrong, because it says so in the Bible. i told her that in the Bible it says I can sell my daughter into slavery, own slaves from neighbouring countries, and that it's wrong to eat fish. She said, "Well the Bible is old, and back then people's beliefs were different. it's outdated." I said she proved my point. I also told her that if the Christian God is all loving, then should anyone, as long as they're a good person, (do unto others & the like) go to heaven no matter what religion or sexual orientation. She said that I was wrong and that accepting Jesus and flowwing his teachings is the only way to get in.

=\

I didn't know heaven was a clique.


im sorry, i haven't kept up with this thread, but this post just astounded me.

This is the biggest bullshit train of the day(possibly week). First of all, the Bible NEVER, EVER said anything against fish. It encourages the consumption of fish. Even Jesus created fish to feed the hungry in one occasion. In the book Isaiah AND MARK specifically, tell you that you can INFACT eat fish, however not swine and scavengers. And you're also full of it about the slavery garbage. You go grab a bible and find me that passage, ill bet my life it's not there.There are some crazy laws OF MOSES, like stoning siners and sacraficing sheeps. However, Jesus abolished the laws of moses when he was crucified. Read the Bible before spewing shit about something that means alot to many people. I'm sorry for being so 'mean', but for this occasion i'm gonna have to. The Bible does in fact say "whether an ANGEL or DEMON comes before you and tries to teach the untruth, curse him".

God is a jealous God and a UNCHANGING GOD. He is UNCHANGING, if he say's whoremongers, liars, dogs, gays will be burnt in the lake of brimstone(sulphur). Then that's what is going to happen, unless they repent and accept God's love.

exodus 20:5 "for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me"

[hapacheese]

Unchanging?

Strange, because the Old Testament and the New Testament are vastly different in their approach.

[Mr.Babalo]

different in many ways, but never contradicting.

[hapacheese]

Well, the Bible does have contradictions, but I'm not really talking about the text. The primary change I was pointing out was the change from a vengeful God to a forgiving God.

[Dresh]

This is the biggest bullshit train of the day(possibly week). First of all, the Bible NEVER, EVER said anything against fish. It encourages the consumption of fish. Even Jesus created fish to feed the hungry in one occasion. In the book Isaiah AND MARK specifically, tell you that you can INFACT eat fish, however not swine and scavengers. And you're also full of it about the slavery garbage. You go grab a bible and find me that passage, ill bet my life it's not there.There are some crazy laws OF MOSES, like stoning siners and sacraficing sheeps. However, Jesus abolished the laws of moses when he was crucified. Read the Bible before spewing shit about something that means alot to many people. I'm sorry for being so 'mean', but for this occasion i'm gonna have to. The Bible does in fact say "whether an ANGEL or DEMON comes before you and tries to teach the untruth, curse him".

I believe that ManiacLove was confused as to what seafood the Bible said not to eat. It does encourage fish consumption yes, but it used to greatly discourage the consumption of shellfish. Interestingly, the portion in the Old Testament that discourages shellfish eating was written by the same guy who said homosexuality is a sin.

[ImEllPro]

Dear Mr. Babalo,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

[Mojinr]

I hope this doesn't decline into a religious bullshitting shout fest.

Anyway, the gay marriage thing is stupid. Too many assholes with opinions about things that don't directly affect them. And these are the people in control of the situation. So it's left up to, a fairly religious majority that usually shuns homosexually because it's not a majority favorite issue, decide the fate of homosexual marriage. Then again, throughout history it has been the same. And it's going to continue being this way.

[hapacheese]

ImEllPro: West Wing? :D

[Expert Insomniac]

Actually, ImEllPro's letter comes from a letter sent to Dr. Laura Schesslinger when there was a big scandal about something she said on her show... I can't remember exactly what it was, but one of the usual you can't do this cause the Bible says so arguements, like homosexuality, abortion, or premartial sex.

[ImEllPro]

ImEllPro: West Wing? :D

No wing. I'm acrophobic, so I don't fly at all.

Actually, that's MUCH older than you think. And strangely enough, the few schmucks that do actually answer those questions usually wind up jamming their feet in their mouthes and looking like the religious zealots they are. Religious zealots are a lot like slinkies - not worth much at all, but still fun to laugh at when they get pushed down some stairs.

[ImEllPro]

Good call, IE! It's actually been sent out to a LOT of pusswads - Dr Laura, Falwell, Jessie Jackson, etc.

edit - Letter to Dr Laura (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp)

[hapacheese]

D'oh! Yeah... I got my quotes mixed up. I knew that one, but mixed it up with this:


Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.

President Josiah Bartlet: Yes it does. Leviticus.

Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.

President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.

[ImEllPro]

The key to this essay is its premise, not the pedantic details of it of how it is defended. Simply put, the letter points out a logical flaw in the "homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so" argument: if homosexuality is wrong because it goes against God's law as outlined in the Bible, why aren't any number of activities now viewed as innocuous but once regarded as unacceptable also offenses against God's law? How can one part of Leviticus be deemed as etched in stone when other parts have been discarded as archaic?

The essay completes with the sarcastic rejoinder, "Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging." While this is presented as a rebuke meant for just one, it is a general reminder that many belief systems pick and choose their way through Biblical teachings in determining what is right and what is wrong, with those assessments changing over time even within sects that pride themselves on strict adherence to the Good Book.

You know, I love Snopes.com. :D

[hapacheese]

Actually, though I forget the exact passage, there are comments outside of Leviticus that condemn homosexuality.

But, again, how far do you take the word of the Good Book? Like ImEllPro quoted, can you simply pick and choose the passages you wish to follow? Or are you supposed to follow everything word for word? Or perhaps just follow the lessons taught, and not necessarily the word (which is written by man, anyway)?

[Kaji]

The reason the ban on homosexuality is upheld in the church is not because of Leviticus, but because Paul explicitly addressed the subject in his letter to the Romans, specifically condemning it. If you continue reading in that passage you'll also see stuff dealing with circumcision and other expressions of faith that were required in the days of the Old Testament and points out that the sacrifice of Jesus has paid the debt these were supposed to be used to pay. Morality, however, has not changed. You just don't have to chop off the end of your dick and burn livestock anymore.

[TygressVirgo]

"Owe no man anything except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For 'Thou shalt commit adultery. Thou shall not steal. Thou shall not covet'; and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, 'Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself.' Love does no evil to a neighbor. Love, therefore, is the of the Law"

Said by the same man that said that said homosexuality is evil. Contradictory or not?

[ImEllPro]

So it's ok to pick and choose what you believe in. Very nice.

[hapacheese]

Actually, the passage TygressVirgo posted doesn't contradict the edict against homosexuality. If I'm not mistaken, only men having sex with other men is banned. It says nothing of romantic love (nor lesbian sex, either, for that matter).

[Kustom]

Wow, this is all very entertaining, and I'm always one for watching Christians leap at each other's throat, but last time I checked wasn't California a state that separate religion from politics? I'm not fluent in bible mumbo-jumbo, but surely you can dig up passages that bash the Jews, the Pagans, the non-believers or the greedy, yet all of them are allowed to marry, how come? If a theocracy is what you want, why stop short of banning them from marriage too, since marriage is for the faithful only? Is somewhat homosexuality the biggest sin of all?

[TygressVirgo]

I put that up to state what I believe in.

Love that is pure and unselfish is the ultimate fullfilment of the law.

[Joe]

Man, I do love religious arguements. Well, as long as I have pre-made answers not made by me anyway... So... since we're on the topic...

Enjoy :rolleyes:

http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/Rants/2rant-prayer.mp3
http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/Rants/2rant-holywars.mp3
http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/Rants/2rant-religion.mp3

Now, just so you know, the man who has these opinions, WAS A MINISTER. Who, shall I say, saw a different light, and now he entertains me and millions others.

[TygressVirgo]

He has interesting thoughts, this gryphon. I liked his rant about parents of gay children.

[Joe]

Yes he does. And he rants about TONS of things from babys to movie violence, so those of you pegging him as anti-christian anti-right, don't because he just calls it as it is.

Tygress - I like love too :), it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

[ImEllPro]

I like love also. It gives me that funny tingly feeling in my underwear.

Gays should be allowed to marry. Why should straights be the only ones that are miserable? :D

[TygressVirgo]

lmao, cute.

I believe God made everyone, yes even those who seem to lean more towards the darker ends of humanity. He gave us free will to chose most things. But he made our perfect match for us.

[akitaka]

So. What's more endearing to the gay couple? The fact that they can marry, or the benefits that come with marriage, if any (as I'm too much of a lazy punk to check)?

A little of both?



The silly thing is, I wonder what people see in marriage besides the legal/official conjoining of family. Often I've seen non-christians have a christian wedding, so religion can't possible be the big reason (in this case, my cousin and his wife in Nagano). Other than a grand celebration of two lovers, the costs/troubles/inconsistencies make marraige seem more like a hassle, though there are exceptions. I'm pretty sure it's just me being overly sedate/frugal-minded, but it's almost like marriage is some societical 'love law'; easily silted, and possibly abused.

Well. It looks like I'm going to be single for the rest of my life. (shrugs)

[kensei]

lmao, cute.

I believe God made everyone, yes even those who seem to lean more towards the darker ends of humanity.
God gave the universe existence. He created everything that is and lies between. He created the angels, including the one that many of us refer to as "Lucifer/Satan/Samiel/The Devil". Many Christians proclaim that the root of all evil lies with this demonic being; however "he" is a creation of God. It is said that things exist for God's design. Does this mean the root of all evil truly lies with the creator?

This statement doesn't express my views on religion, mind you, but rather just an idea I thought might make interesting discussion.

[ImEllPro]

Without evil there can be no good, so it must be good to be evil sometimes.

If it wasn't for the "darker ends of humanity" then the bible-thumpers and religious zealots wouldn't have something to bitch about. The dark ones are doing the light ones a favor. In the immortal words of The Bard,

He said, "Luke, stay away from the darker side,
And if you start to go astray, let the Force be your guide."
Oh, my Yoda
Yo Yo Yo Yo Yoda
"I know Darth Vader's really got you annoyed,
But remember if you kill him then you'll be unemployed."
Oh, my Yoda
Yo Yo Yo Yo Yoda

[JudoPorkChop]

The reason the ban on homosexuality is upheld in the church is not because of Leviticus, but because Paul explicitly addressed the subject in his letter to the Romans, specifically condemning it. If you continue reading in that passage you'll also see stuff dealing with circumcision and other expressions of faith that were required in the days of the Old Testament and points out that the sacrifice of Jesus has paid the debt these were supposed to be used to pay. Morality, however, has not changed. You just don't have to chop off the end of your dick and burn livestock anymore.

You are aware that morality has changed? That as few as 40-50 years ago, it was IMMORAL for Black and White people to marry? Yeah. Why wasn't it made illegal, then? Because you'd get hung/shot/dragged/harassed....

Next, how, EXACTLY is it immoral? Explain the immorality of being gay to me. Anyone? Outside of the "The invistable man in da sky says so in dis book!" Using the Bible as a yardstick is faulty, it's been used to state that the Mark of Caine was actually where Black people came from.

And if we're making laws on what is and isn't immoral, based upon religion, why not make this all-inclusive? Why not take Muslim morals and use them to make law? Bikinis to Burkhas! Don't talk back to me woman, I'll have you stoned to death! Yes! Morality! Isn't it great!

Oh, but we're gonna ignore the fact that the act of homosexual sex, though immoral, isn't illegal. Yeah, the sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional. B, B, But, GOD! In the sky! Said teh buttsecks was teh EVAL! Yeah, and he also said to send people who sleep with women on their period into exile as well. Bye, Az. Nice knowing you.

Gays have the right to marry women same as straights. Lesbians have the right to marry men like real women. Sounds like equal rights to me.


Yup, and those niggers over there have their swimming pool, and we have ours. They can ride the bus just like us, and those backseats can be kinda comfy! They can come sit behind the restaurant and eat the same food! Why, I do declare, that's about as equal as equal can be!

What, don't like that one?

Women can get an equal education, same as men! They have Vasser! They have Wellesley! Where they learn these wonderful things, get a degree, marry their scheduled upper-crust husband, and use their knowledge of physics and chemistry to know the right amount of starch to use, and how hard to press on that iron!

[StormShadow]

For me I don't like the religious argument, I like the evolutionary one. My penis was developed by nature to be inserted.... you should knnow that birds and the bees. But this is how nature intended it to be. I had had a gay cat, that could would not breed with the females, would produce no heir, and would therefore according to Darwin be 'fit' to survive, meaning it's bloodline would be lost. I it is all about the same rights as a straight couple who are getting married, get an attorny and some pens and after some paperwork *Poof* you have the same rights basically, with the exception of calling Steve your wife. Don't think that I am some ass-hat who hates gays. I worked for a gay couple, super nice guys, if your in love and all that, cool, more power to you. But I don't think you should be married, as I think that that is an instition that is primary for a family to have, and I don't think gay people should be allowed to adopt either. The reason for that being, once again, Darwins theory of survival of the fittest. I know they didn't choose to be gay, but we cannot deny the deviant behavior from natures grand design.

[Chelsums]

snip
So does that mean couples who are infertile should not be able to marry or adopt either? Since they are not 'fit' to survive since they cannot reproduce together?

[StormShadow]

No, I still think that they should be allowed to adopt, but I think that that is ok because there are traits that you learn from your father, and some that you learn from your mother. If you only have two dads, or two moms, I think that could lead to gender confusion, or simply a limited view of the opposite sex. Some animals, when an adult dies, the child is cared for by the rest of the herd. Adoption by infertile couples is a-ok with me.

[Chelsums]

No, I still think that they should be allowed to adopt, but I think that that is ok because there are traits that you learn from your father, and some that you learn from your mother. If you only have two dads, or two moms, I think that could lead to gender confusion, or simply a limited view of the opposite sex. Some animals, when an adult dies, the child is cared for by the rest of the herd. Adoption by infertile couples is a-ok with me.
Well then your argument that gay people should not be allowed to marry and adopt because they are not 'fit' to survive contradicts itself if you believe infertile couples should be allowed to do. Besides, many kids grow up with one parent. Or some grow up with a parent and a grandparent of the same sex. Or sometimes, like my friend, grow up with a parent and their parent's brother or sister. But these people do not have a 'limited view' of the opposite sex or have gender confusion. In fact, if you actually talk to kids that have grown up with two moms or two dads, they aren't gender confused or have a limited view of the opposite sex. They grew up perfectly fine as if they had a mom and dad or one dad or one mom, etc.

[StormShadow]

Alright. I'll give you one. Free babies for gay people.

[CainEJW]

Isn't it amazing how we speak of homosexuals as if they were objects? I see so many arguments about what is or isn't moral here, but where's the fact that we are still people?

Would you like to be called immoral? Would you like to be told you can't do this or that because someone else doesn't like it? Of course not.

The Bible is the Bible, it is a book celebrated by some, ignored by others. It does not dictate law, but it does not incite disgust. It is personal, and it is private. Yet, somehow, we're arguing the point religiously. You're telling me that God dislikes me because of who I love, yet when did God become the forebearer of our law? Our law is based upon rights, and allowance of rights. Not on who is or isn't more moral.

A murderer is punished because he or she revoked the rights of another person. A thief is reprimanded because they violated the rights of the store to sell the goods. We don't punish them because God says it is wrong, we punish them because man says it is wrong.

When you consider this debate, maybe you should consider you are still speaking about humans. People that feel, and people that think. We believe in God just like you do, and we don't appreciate you telling us God hates us, dislikes us, shuns us, or abhors us. You expect all people to have hearts, please; start with your own instead of debating back and forth about if I am moral, right, and just.

For those making biblical arguments, I invite you to read this page: http://www.religioustolerance.org/homosexu.htm

It gives great information concerning homosexuality and marriage. It gives both sides of the viewpoint, debunks many common ideas, and even manages to try to allow both sides to meet in the middle. Which, in this day and age, seems an impossibility.

[StormShadow]

The Bible is the Bible, it is a book celebrated by some, ignored by others. It does not dictate law, but it does not incite disgust. It is personal, and it is private. Yet, somehow, we're arguing the point religiously. You're telling me that God dislikes me because of who I love, yet when did God become the forebearer of our law? Our law is based upon rights, and allowance of rights. Not on who is or isn't more moral.

A murderer is punished because he or she revoked the rights of another person. A thief is reprimanded because they violated the rights of the store to sell the goods. We don't punish them because God says it is wrong, we punish them because man says it is wrong.

God has been the borebearer of our law since this country came into being. You can be reminded of this when you look at your money, say the pledge of allegiance, get sworn in at a court, or join the military. Al have the word 'God' somewhere associated. Remember the pilgrims mentioned in school? They fleed England seeking religious freedoms. So with that start America has always had religion and God somewhere in the background. We consider it worng to kill a person in this country due to the Judeo/Christian values of early politicians. Same thing with stealing, check out the 10 comm. In Washington, bestiality is a crime. Who's rights am I violating? (I don't do this, and you're a sick fuck if you do it btw, just playing devils advocate) To say that religion shouldn't be involved in the value system of America is to ignore where are country comes from. I agree that it shouldn't play a major role, but the fact still remains that our value and moral compasses in this country were tuned to a magnetic North created by early religous figures in histroy.

[kensei]

snip
CainEJW for the win!

(well said, by the way ^_^)

[Unactuality]

I may be a little late with this reply, but oh well.

The fact that our government is republican and not a pure democracy has little bearing on whether Schwarzennegger should veto the legislature's bill. You can yell all you like about how much homosexuals MUST be able to marry or else our nation is a fraud, but that doesn't make it true to the majority of citizens who disagree with you. That's why we have a political process in the first place - to resolve issues like this. That's what discussions like this are for; convince people you're right so they vote with you. Don't complain that our government should suck policy from your brain with a straw because, goshdarnit, you're just so right!

I suspect that many of those who support gay marriage are also pro-choice. Consider: pro-lifers feel just as strongly, if not more so, about their position as you do about gay marriage. It's not just a civil rights issue to them. It's about something even more fundamental than that. Are you comfortable with pro-lifers using that as a justification to overrule a majority of Americans who are pro-choice and impose pro-life policies? Be honest.

Our government is set up the way it is for a reason. That reason is not to enact whatever change YOU may think is necessary as quickly as possible. We're the United States of America, not the Progressive States of America. Our federal government is specifically designed to move slowly, and the individual states generally share a similar model (some less, some more). If this bothers you, move to a nation with a unitary parliamentary government.

PS - Guys, there are better places to source your arguments than television shows, if you really want to be persuasive.

...and Deepbluevibes... let's not be ridiculous. Have you ever actually voted before? Nobody else knows how you vote unless you tell them.

I'm almost laughing here. "The only reason Republicans win elections is because people coerce one another into voting Republican!!" The vast right-wing conspiracy, ladies and gentlemen. Be afraid.

[LimbyLoo]

Maybe it's because I'm from Connecticut...

I really don't see the big issue with homosexuality. I don't understand why people get so caught up in it or why it's so controversial. There's documented proof that there's homosexuality all over the animal kingdom as well, but nobody seems to care about that. Once it crosses over into humans though...OH GOD! SO IMMORAL!! DISGUSTING!!! WRROOONNNGGG!!

I find it ironic that such a private matter can make such a public outrage.

[hapacheese]

The fact that our government is republican and not a pure democracy has little bearing on whether Schwarzennegger should veto the legislature's bill.

Actually, it has everything to do with it, at least in regards to the arugments that were presented as to why Arnie *must* veto it (supposedly). The governor has no need to go with the public opinion in a case such as this, as it is a civil rights case (regardless of whether or not it is being presented as such). It is then, as I said, the government's responsibility to examine the case and dictate the law as put forth by the Constitution, not by public vote.

You can yell all you like about how much homosexuals MUST be able to marry or else our nation is a fraud, but that doesn't make it true to the majority of citizens who disagree with you. That's why we have a political process in the first place - to resolve issues like this. That's what discussions like this are for; convince people you're right so they vote with you. Don't complain that our government should suck policy from your brain with a straw because, goshdarnit, you're just so right!

Again, this isn't a voting issue. It's about protecting the rights of the minority in a republic.

I suspect that many of those who support gay marriage are also pro-choice. Consider: pro-lifers feel just as strongly, if not more so, about their position as you do about gay marriage. It's not just a civil rights issue to them. It's about something even more fundamental than that. Are you comfortable with pro-lifers using that as a justification to overrule a majority of Americans who are pro-choice and impose pro-life policies? Be honest.

The moment they can prove that a zygote or a fetus is, in fact, alive and viable, *plus* they can find a way to approach this that doesn't infringe on the mother's right to her own body, then I will gladly concede.

That reason is not to enact whatever change YOU may think is necessary as quickly as possible. We're the United States of America, not the Progressive States of America. Our federal government is specifically designed to move slowly, and the individual states generally share a similar model (some less, some more). If this bothers you, move to a nation with a unitary parliamentary government.

Yes, because there are only a handful of people who think gays deserve equal rights. And you know, blacks and other minorities should have simply waited for the people to vote to allow them equal rights, too.

[Roxie]

a republic can come in handy some times, like the civil rights act.

I highly doubt that would've been pushed through by referendum.

[Unactuality]

The governor never has a "need" to go with public opinion. The only people saying that Arnie *must* veto it are saying that because they are opposed to the policy.

Populism has never been the sole guiding force behind executive vetos. It can be one, of course - especially in a state like California which makes use of referendums. (There's a reason they do this.)

Yeah, it's the government's responsibility to examine the case and make law (legislative), which is then subject to the approval of the executive branch (veto power). Guess what? The executive branch doesn't approve. He's a representative of the entire state, just like the legislators are representatives of their own districts. You can like or dislike his reason for not approving, but it's foolish to claim that he *must* sign the bill just because the legislature passed it.

Your second point is even more annoying.

I have no doubt that, should someone convince you that the pro-life position is correct, you would amend your policy preferences accordingly. That's not my point.

To you, this is about protecting the rights of the minority in a republic. To opponents of gay marriage, not only is this NOT about protecting the rights of a minority, it's generally also about protecting a critically important social institution. You believe that homosexuals are unfairly discriminated against in our nation's legal structure. They do not.

To a pro-lifer, it's about protecting the life of a human being. To you, not only is it NOT about protecting the life of a human being, it's generally also about protecting the rights of pregnant females.

See a pattern yet? I'm sure you feel that you are absolutely right. But so do the other guys. That's why we have a political system - to resolve this kind of issue. You can't just slap a "civil rights" label on your policy preference and command everyone to accept it without dispute. That's not government by and for the people. That's government by hapacheese.

Yes, our political system can allow terrible inequality to persist for long periods of time. It has in the past. Those who support gay marriage believe it does so now. That's a bad thing, but our nation's founders believed that it was better to restrict the ability of government to act, in the interest of preventing tyranny and unwise decisions.

[Kaji]

I find it ironic that such a private matter can make such a public outrage.

It's because people insist on making such private matters into public ones. I could care less if you prefer to bed your own sex on your own time in private, but I ain't about to give it my approval if you're going to bring it up in front of me.

[hapacheese]

You can like or dislike his reason for not approving, but it's foolish to claim that he *must* sign the bill just because the legislature passed it.

I never made this claim :confused:
I simply stated that he shouldn't have vetoed it (not in so many words, though) because it enforces an inequality of rights.

Your second point is even more annoying.

I try my best :D

To opponents of gay marriage, not only is this NOT about protecting the rights of a minority, it's generally also about protecting a critically important social institution. You believe that homosexuals are unfairly discriminated against in our nation's legal structure. They do not.

And the people who were against equality of races, interracial marriage, and so on and so forth also felt that those weren't civil rights issues, but protecting "important social institution(s)" (voting, marriage, etc).

Yes, I believe I am right. I undestand that the opposite side feels the same way. Both sides have been argued in the public forum and in the government, and the only arguments the opposition has to offer is a) the "sanctity of marriage," b) tradition, c) personal prejudices, and d) religion. None of these reasons *should* have any standing in a court of law, nor do they stand up to the laws set forth by the Constitution.

It is not a matter of how they *feel*. It is a matter of looking at the current laws and see how the stand up to the nation's Constitution.

I am neither gay, nor Christian, nor anti-religious. I have many religious friends and often attend Church with my grandmother. I am neither Republican nor Democratic; neither left-wing nor right-wing (though I am left-leaning). I have no agenda. However, I see an inequality in the system, one similar to an inequality that would have likely prevented from me being born (being bi-racial), and nobody has really given a reason why it should persist =\



edit: Kaji - I don't think most gays are asking for the general public's approval. Quite the opposite... I don't think they *want* the issue decided by the public for the reasons I've put forth. They simply want to be able to have a legally recognized union equal to those of heterosexuals, and go on their merry way =\

[kensei]

I think that there is one point that no one has really touched base on. That being that people now are just as afraid of change as the same people who would hang a black man for holding a white girl's hand in public. This is not meant to offend by any means. It's a natural reaction in many individuals. Change can be a terrifying thing, and because of that, many resist it. I'm not about to say that this is the soul reason that people are so adamantly against gay marriage, but for some, I'm sure it plays a rather large role in it. I think if we really look at the pros and cons of allowing marriage between same-sex couples, the pros would out-weigh the cons. If this was any other minority in the world, I don't think this would even be subject to debate. It's sad to me that the civil rights of anyone should be trampled on in the name of God. I hear many people saying things akin to Kaji's statement. "It's fine to be a same-sex couple, just so long as it isn't waved in my face." I'm sure their are numerous individuals who would say the same thing about biracial couples. To most people this sounds outragous, but I can't imagine how people can see it in a light that makes it so very different than allowing two peoples of the same gender to wed. We're all humans and we're all entitled to our rights. We're not heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, whites, blacks, etc. We're humans. We should treat each other equally because we are not dealing with simply a minority of individuals, but also are fellow man.

I could go on forever, but to be honest, I don't foresee even the most logical arguments swaying those who have made up their mind (at least not here). I'll spare you all.

[Kustom]

God has been the borebearer of our law since this country came into being. You can be reminded of this when you look at your money, say the pledge of allegiance, get sworn in at a court, or join the military. Al have the word 'God' somewhere associated. Remember the pilgrims mentioned in school? They fleed England seeking religious freedoms. So with that start America has always had religion and God somewhere in the background. We consider it worng to kill a person in this country due to the Judeo/Christian values of early politicians. Same thing with stealing, check out the 10 comm. In Washington, bestiality is a crime. Who's rights am I violating? (I don't do this, and you're a sick fuck if you do it btw, just playing devils advocate) To say that religion shouldn't be involved in the value system of America is to ignore where are country comes from. I agree that it shouldn't play a major role, but the fact still remains that our value and moral compasses in this country were tuned to a magnetic North created by early religous figures in histroy.

I just took out a one dollar bill and all I see are ominous free-mason symbols... What do I do?

Seriously, just because large groups of your forefathers happened to be biggots doesn't make God the main source of their inspiration when they wrote the constitution. If it was, all of the Christian countries in Europe where the church was everywhere would have been democracies and not absolutist dictatorships. The Constitution of the US has much more to do with the 18th century philosophy of Lights, which like Protestantism was born in reaction to the biggotry of the Catholic church. In France, where the republic was born from the anti-religious revolutionaries, murder is also forbidden, thank you very much. Even though the President would get stoned to death by everyone (and rightly so IMO) if he went around saying "God bless this and that", for breaking the separation between state and church.

Japan also has bans on theft and murder, there is nothing particularily Christian about this. Other more specific laws like burning witches, killing people who have sex before marriage or not drinking in public have more relation to religious beliefs, but if you noticed those practices tend to disappear little by little and are usually not considered pillars of the American Republic.

[B RoCkS1010]

like hetrosexual marriage the government shouldnt have to tell u who to marry it should be between the two people who are in love not the government...

[Bob]

1) We're not a democracy, no matter how much people like to say that (we're a republic).

We're a theocracy, not a republic

[Mr.Babalo]

Dear Mr. Babalo,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

aha

lets see... what do the first 4 books after genesis have in common?
OOO they are all books of moses! So that means exodus, leviticus, numbers, and deuteronomy. You see: there are the laws of God (10 commandments) that reach from heaven to earth. And then there are the laws of moses, which was used to govern the people AT THAT TIME. The Hebrews were liberated and were consumed by their freedom, they were basically animals; commiting bestiality, prostitution, stealing, killing. IT was pure chaos, so Moses had to lay down the smack down with some harsh laws. BUT that was abolished long, long time ago, when Jesus H. Christ was crucified. He said it was finished and it was. You don't see anyone in the new testoment STONING people to death, selling daughters or any other crazy shenanigians you spewed up. In fact, im sure you know the story of Mary Magdalene: the prostitute that was about to be punished via stoning to death (A Law of Moses), however Christ would not allow it and he made everyone realize his love: "He who has never sinned, shall throw the first stone." And no one was able to throw the stone.

One of the biggest stereotypical thought about the bible is that it IS OUTDATE and just crazy. It's true if you don't read the bible as well as understand it.

When the bible says God's word is eternal and unchanging, does NOT mean in anyway unforgiving. He loves his creations, and there is ALWAYS an opertunity to repent. You can be gay all you want, and you can still make it to heaven-- you just can't commit gay sexual intercourses. God loves everyone first, and if Gays love Him back, they should reframe from sodomy on males or any other kinds of homosexual intimate intercourse.

[kensei]

I think we should give God a chance to speak for himself instead letting others speak for him.

*waits*

:p

[Unactuality]

You don't seem to grasp that, while your reading of the Constitution may imply that gay marriage is an absolute necessity and crucial civil right, a lot of people don't share that opinion. And it IS an opinion.

[kensei]

It's kinda like having someone tell you that people who engage in sodomy are going to hell while you think that's BS.

[Kustom]

Just wondering. Why would God forbid sticking thy dick in thy neighbour's butt but still be ok with oral sex? It's not the right hole to make babies either now, is it? Or is sodomy ok with women but not men, and then why was it forbidden altogether for a long time?

Also, question to the faithful: if Jesus came back tomorrow, who would he lecture first about right and wrong?

- Evil gay people who are busy butt-fucking
- Military companies that still manufacture landmines to blow children up
- Filthy rich men who steal their workers' pension funds
- Catholic priests who fuck little children
- Presidents that declare wars on a false pretense at the expense of thousands of deaths
- Diplomats that tolerate bloody dictatorships or set up new ones for oil and military bases
- Gun-lobby nutters who think the spread of automatic weapons will save us all
- Industrial tycoons that pollute the air and water hundreds of thousand of people live off
- Phillip Morris' CEO [Good point Kensei!]
- Countries with the death penalty in express violation with the ten commandments

Unless you really think he would be most preoccupied with what Mitch does to his boyfriend, you might as well get off your high horses and find a greater cause to fight for than preventing gay marriage.

[kensei]

Amen, Brother Kustom.

[Kaji]

Technically, oral sex is banned as a formof sodomy as anal sex is.

Regarding the priests thing, it happens in other churches as well, and frankly there's no way to substantiate half the claims people are making these days because half the priests involved in the claims of child abuse are long dead. Only reason it became anywhere near as big of an issue as it did is because people like to rag on the Catholic church. Period.

[Dresh]

I'd just like to point out that unprotected buttsecks is not healthy at all. It wasn't until the 20th century with condoms and whatnot that it became safe to do. I think that has a lot to do with its taboo in Christianity.

[hapacheese]

You don't seem to grasp that, while your reading of the Constitution may imply that gay marriage is an absolute necessity and crucial civil right, a lot of people don't share that opinion. And it IS an opinion.

No, I grasp that entirely. All I'm saying is that we've been through the same thing with the civil rights movement. Back then, it was "just an opinion" that blacks should have the right to vote or people of different nationalities should be able to marry. There is *absolutely* no difference.

[kensei]

Technically, oral sex is banned as a formof sodomy as anal sex is.

Regarding the priests thing, it happens in other churches as well, and frankly there's no way to substantiate half the claims people are making these days because half the priests involved in the claims of child abuse are long dead. Only reason it became anywhere near as big of an issue as it did is because people like to rag on the Catholic church. Period.
That probably has a lot to do with the fact that the Catholic church is a rather old institution that claims itself to be the one true path of God. When you have members of the clergy beating and molesting children, yeah, it's a big deal.

So, to get things a lil' bit more back on track, the arguements against are still 1.) It's a sin against God, 2.) It desecrates the "sanctity of marriage", 3.) Tradition, 4.) ...um...it's icky.

[kensei]

I'd just like to point out that unprotected buttsecks is not healthy at all. It wasn't until the 20th century with condoms and whatnot that it became safe to do. I think that has a lot to do with its taboo in Christianity.
It's a fairly safe practice if one remembers basic hygiene and one makes sure to use proper lubricant. There is always the chance of tearing the tissue of the rectal wall if one isn't careful, mind you. Needless to say, you shouldn't be having unprotected sex in any way with someone who might be carrying some kind of STD.

On a mildly related note, I can't help but wonder how anyone could ban anal sex for the reason that it isn't "safe" with tobbacco companies killing off several hundred (or was it thousand?) people every year.

Crazy.

[yao_yao]

I eagerly await my 18th birthday, and my right to vote. I have a right to be heard in the government, but they will not take me seriously until I am an adult in their eyes. Who knows when that will be, but I believe my birthday will be a landmark.

And on all the religious arguments, I invite you all to convert to Buddhism!! We're very flexible and adaptive.
I have not studied the bible, and thus am no expert on it. Thus, I have no right to preaching about it. It will only make me look stupid, and get everyone riled up. Though from what little I know, it is inflexible. This can be a good thing, this can be a bad thing. Everything has its pros and cons.

Everyone was entitled to rights when they were born. Everyone has the right to love, to be loved, and to pursue love. Denying a person their rights is wrong, and it will return to you. Be it in this life, or the next.

[StormShadow]

It's a fairly safe practice if one remembers basic hygiene and one makes sure to use proper lubricant. There is always the chance of tearing the tissue of the rectal wall if one isn't careful, mind you. Needless to say, you shouldn't be having unprotected sex in any way with someone who might be carrying some kind of STD.

On a mildly related note, I can't help but wonder how anyone could ban anal sex for the reason that it isn't "safe" with tobbacco companies killing off several hundred (or was it thousand?) people every year.

Crazy.

Cigerette butts are much more enjoyable. MMMMmmmmmmmm........ Nicotine

(Kamel Red Lights Y'all)

[DarkFire168]

Kensie, the catholic church isn't the only one who claims to be the one true path to god, 90% of religions do (If not all).

However, the point is moot. God does not exist. Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, they were all just guys trying to make their civilizations last a bit longer by not doing stupid things. Pork back then could probably kill you (no seranwrap, no refridgeration, no USDA (or whoever the hell tests the pork)), so the Jewish community is told that eating pork is bad, that it's a sin. So they stop eating it. So they stop dying.

Not washing your body allows disease to fester and pass quickly amongst a populace, so Muhamad says you have to wash yourself everyday, that it's a sin to not do so. So they wash themselves before they pray. So they stop dying.

Jesus says it's not a-okay to murder people. So people stop doing it (as often as possible). SO PEOPLE STOP DYING.

I mean honestly, this issue isn't about religion anyway! It's about whether or not a state has the right to disobey a federal mandate, saying that MARRIAGE TAKES PLACE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. Civil unions have the EXACT SAME RIGHTS AS A MARRIAGE.

The real 'atrocity' here is that the media spins the information and distorts it so badly that the truth is hidden. It's pretty damn annoying. As annoying, if not moreso, than pop up ads. >.< GOD DAMN I HATE THOSE THINGS.

[NERD]

I don't think the question of whether God exists or not can be answered here. To unbelievers, there's evidences everywhere that there's no divine being, while for believers it's the opposite.

Because America works by the system of democracy, gay marriage issue is a big deal, as there's a fair amount of people who believe it should be banned legally. I do think it's silly to make a law where two grown individuals choose to live together and be counted as a single household is an illegal act.

We could waste the time and money arguing about this, or spend the time/energy/money onto something more practical, like say, having a universal health care system. Canada owns American in this regard.

[DarkFire168]

Yes, but Canada's flag has a maple leaf on it. Come on, how much fear can that inspire? What are you going to do, shrivel up and blow away at us?

If you're going to say "well how do stars and stripes inspire fear then?" think of it this way. The red comes from the blood of the enemy, the white comes from their bones, and the stars are FRIKKIN' POINTY! Those bastards will put an eye out.

[Roxie]

I really hate the way people throw in religion for a LEGAL right.

Cause you know, not everyone is Christian. I know. It's shocking, but true. These folks won't give a shit what the Bible says, but they desereve rights just like anyone else.

also, I'm surprised no one has brought up the interpretation of the Bible. I mean through 3 languages, stuff gets mixed up. You're not really reading what you think you're reading. Do some research, it is quite interesting.

[RDClip]

Yes, but Canada's flag has a maple leaf on it. Come on, how much fear can that inspire? What are you going to do, shrivel up and blow away at us?

If you're going to say "well how do stars and stripes inspire fear then?" think of it this way. The red comes from the blood of the enemy, the white comes from their bones, and the stars are FRIKKIN' POINTY! Those bastards will put an eye out.
That maple leaf could cme from a tree that is made to make maple syrup. That syrup can be heated too much and scold someone with 1st degree burns. Or that syrup can cause diabetes.

[JudoPorkChop]

I mean honestly, this issue isn't about religion anyway! It's about whether or not a state has the right to disobey a federal mandate, saying that MARRIAGE TAKES PLACE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. Civil unions have the EXACT SAME RIGHTS AS A MARRIAGE.


For those who missed it:

Yeah, we treat our people equally. We have a drinking fountain right here, and they have a spigot on the side of the building to drink out of. It's like the same thing!

Wait... lemme try another way...

Yeah, marriage is exactly like a civil union. Oh, unless the other person is not a U.S. citizen. They don't get citizenship just from being in the union. Married couples automatically obtain citizenship for the alien member. They have many of the same financial rights, except for the tax breaks that married couples get. It's entirely fair, except for the whole not being able to visit your mate in the hospital, or veterans benefits, survivor benefits, consideration to sick leave to aid ailing spouses... Oh, well, you CAN do that with a civil union, you just have to spend a small fortune in legal fees to set all of the respective powers of attorney up, and even then, it can still be challenged in court. With married couples, these considerations are automatic. But, ya know, it's like the same thing.

But not.

[CainEJW]

God has been the borebearer of our law since this country came into being. You can be reminded of this when you look at your money, say the pledge of allegiance, get sworn in at a court, or join the military. Al have the word 'God' somewhere associated.

You are correct, however allow me to associate many of these things with times.

"In God We Trust" or like phrases appeared on the denomination in 1863, to increase the simblance of strength of the United States of America in the Civil War. This almost happened a good 100 years after the founding of the United States of America.

"Under God" was added to the pledge of the allegance in 1954 in attempt to differ America from the Soviet Union, with which whom America was currently engaged in a Cold War.

Swearing on the Bible to affirm the truth is not a declaration unto God. It was originally set forth as an act of ultimate truth. You swear, or affirm, the truth upon that which is supposed to be sacred or most important. It was not, nor has it ever, been affirmation to God in state.

If you wish to bring up the idea of the presidential oath as well, it should be noted Washington added those words during the speech. It was never shown to be intended that God was to be in his oath. The same oath we use now.

The army pledge you speak of is below:

, {insert name here}, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Once again, an affirmation simply meant to give importance and meaning to an oath. This is not an admission or an inundation of God on state.

Remember the pilgrims mentioned in school? They fleed England seeking religious freedoms. So with that start America has always had religion and God somewhere in the background.

You are both correct and incorrect. A popular misassumption is that the colonization of America had anything to do with demanding freedom of THEIR religion. You see, the pilgrims left for many reasons. One of which was the Catholic church's hold on England. It starts with King Henry VIII, who broke with the Catholic church due to problems with his divorces and annulment. Pope Clement III refused to annul Henry's marriages so he could remarry, so Harry broke off from Rome.

In doing so Henry did many deeds such as demanding 10,000 pounds from clergymen from illegaling violating their jurisdiction as well as demanding those in England must recognize him as their sole head and protector. The church ultimately gave in to Henry. After additional posturing, the bishop of Canterbury was given full discretion over the tithes, matrimony, and other church activities. Simply put, the state ran the church. This is when Protestantism came into being. The church, ran by the state, angered many catholics that splintered off. Martin Luther.

It was only Queen Mary I that reconstituted the ties with Rome, a full 20-30 years after the first schism. It was then Elizabeth that caused the second schism. More jockying into James then into George.

Can you guess why the colonists left? The settlers established Jamestown in 1607, and as we know, Elizabeth was the one to allow the settlers to leave. That means the settlers may have experienced both Henry and Elizabeth, both oppressions. Meaning they fled not because they wanted their religion above all, but because they wanted to not be under the state running religion.

Which brings us to the idea that the settlers did not leave to establish a religion, but to get from under an established religion. That means the idea they left for only their religion to be free is incorrect. The settlers would not leave their homes just so they can repeat the errors of the past.

Now if we want to talk foundation of the country, that was about money. The settlers wanted to either be represented in England or start their own country. They were fed up with England getting their taxes while they had no say in how things were run. "No taxation without representation".

Religion did play a part, but not the part you wish. Our forefathers left religious tyrants to later establish a country where they could allow all people to do freely within the bounds of the law. Not so they could repeat the errors of the land they left.

We consider it worng to kill a person in this country due to the Judeo/Christian values of early politicians. Same thing with stealing, check out the 10 comm.

I earge you to look up Hammurabi and the code of Hammurabi. A Babylonian king who wrote law in 1700 BC, before the existance of Christ or Christianity. I also urge you to look up Plato. He was a man in an age of polytheism who wrote a book called "The Republic" around 350 BC, which invisioned many of the societal rules we still use. Then there's Draco, writer of Draconian law back in 600 BC. Also Solon, 400 BC.

Moses, forefather of Old testament law has been calculated to have possibly died in 1272 BC at 120 years of age. That would put him after Hammurabi, meaning the laws of Hammurabi existed before the commandments could be delivered to Moses.

In Washington, bestiality is a crime. Who's rights am I violating? (I don't do this, and you're a sick fuck if you do it btw, just playing devils advocate) To say that religion shouldn't be involved in the value system of America is to ignore where are country comes from.

Beastiality is a crime because it is cruelty to animals. Rape of a person violates the rights of the person. An animal, under U.S. law, has the right to be treated correctly. To be fed, groomed, upkept, and not put into horrible conditions. Having sex with the animal is rape, and since it could damage or even kill the animal, it is illegal as cruelty to animals.

I agree that it shouldn't play a major role, but the fact still remains that our value and moral compasses in this country were tuned to a magnetic North created by early religous figures in histroy.

If what you are saying is true, our first compass "tuning" was from Hammurabi around 1700 BC, prior to Moses. Since Hammurabi predates Moses, his law predates Moses, and must be the precident.

Please, I invite all of you to make use of history. It is a really great thing to look up, learn, and enjoy.

[Joe]

Ok people, quit ragging on bestiality. Quit dragging that into the argument. People say "It's against the animals will!" Seriously, think about it, if the animal doesn't want the sex, it's going to kick your ass. Try "forcing" a horse to have sex with you. How long can you fuck a dog before it turns around and tears out your throat.

I would also like to state that, while it is disgusting, the animal tends to ENJOY the experience, as they tend to get their rocks off.

[hapacheese]

i think Joe just broke the thread.

[DarkFire168]

For those who missed it:

Yeah, we treat our people equally. We have a drinking fountain right here, and they have a spigot on the side of the building to drink out of. It's like the same thing!

Wait... lemme try another way...

Yeah, marriage is exactly like a civil union. Oh, unless the other person is not a U.S. citizen. They don't get citizenship just from being in the union. Married couples automatically obtain citizenship for the alien member. They have many of the same financial rights, except for the tax breaks that married couples get. It's entirely fair, except for the whole not being able to visit your mate in the hospital, or veterans benefits, survivor benefits, consideration to sick leave to aid ailing spouses... Oh, well, you CAN do that with a civil union, you just have to spend a small fortune in legal fees to set all of the respective powers of attorney up, and even then, it can still be challenged in court. With married couples, these considerations are automatic. But, ya know, it's like the same thing.

But not.

You CAN visit your mate in the hospital, gaining power of attorney isn't that hard and doesn't cost an arm and a leg, I don't think foreigners should gain automatic status in this country simply by marrying someone (Even for marriages), and our tax system is a piece of shit and needs a major overhaul anyway.

And you're pretty fucked up to make people drink out of a spigget man, that's just not nice.

[hapacheese]

One of the main points in JPC's post is that power of attorney can be challenged by family members. If, for exampe, the family of one of the partners doesn't approve of their union... then what? They could legally prevent any and all of the things you mention above. Not possible if they've been married.

[DarkFire168]

But it can't be changed as long as the power of attorney is affirmed while the person in question is in good mental health and concious for the proceedings.

[Roxie]

i think Joe just broke the thread.
No. he's just broken.

[kensei]

But it can't be changed as long as the power of attorney is affirmed while the person in question is in good mental health and concious for the proceedings.
Why for any reason other than inequality should hetero couples be allowed to skip this step all together?

[Joe]

Someone needed to do it :)

[kensei]

Joe: Breaking threads since August 2005

[Hitokage]

Joe does have a point, though.

[Roxie]

No, he doesn't.

That what we call the 'slippery-slope' fallacy.

[hapacheese]

I think John Stewart put it best:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y134/hapaklay/GayMarriageFormula.jpg

[Roxie]

oH MAN!!

remember the sexy cheerleader equation???

Sexy cheerleading causes AIDS!

[hapacheese]

Hahaha... John Stewart is a god among men.

[KKF]

Seperation between state and religion. Looking at it like that what valid reason is their to ban gay marriages? I can't think of one.

[DarkFire168]

Personally marriage shouldn't give you any added benefits in my opinion and shouldn't be state supported. It should remain a religious institution and keep the fuck off the governmental radar, that's all I'm saying. If the government did that and the churches said "We do not recognize gay marriage." then I think everybody would be fine.

[KKF]

Personally marriage shouldn't give you any added benefits in my opinion and shouldn't be state supported. It should remain a religious institution and keep the fuck off the governmental radar, that's all I'm saying. If the government did that and the churches said "We do not recognize gay marriage." then I think everybody would be fine.


Your church might say that, but other churches, including gay accepting ones would say other wise. Shrug.

[Roxie]

Personally marriage shouldn't give you any added benefits in my opinion and shouldn't be state supported. It should remain a religious institution and keep the fuck off the governmental radar, that's all I'm saying. If the government did that and the churches said "We do not recognize gay marriage." then I think everybody would be fine.
Ah, marriage is also a legal institution. Always has been. The "who gets what" or "who gets to decide what in __________ event".

[Kustom]

Personally marriage shouldn't give you any added benefits in my opinion and shouldn't be state supported. It should remain a religious institution and keep the fuck off the governmental radar, that's all I'm saying. If the government did that and the churches said "We do not recognize gay marriage." then I think everybody would be fine.

That couldn't possibly work unless you also strip people of all the rights they have as a family; otherwise people would still want to get married to become a family. Sure, if you care about your spouse just as much as about the next guy, it makes sense, but I doubt most people think that way...

[Roxie]

"Gay marriage won't lead to dog marriage. It is not a slippery slope to rampant interspecies coupling. When women got the right to vote, it didn't lead to hamsters voting. NO court has extended the equal protection clause to salmon. And for the record, all marriages are "same sex" marriages. You get married, and every night, it's the same sex." -- Bill Mahr, New Rules pg. 113

[Killuminati]

Ok people, quit ragging on bestiality. Quit dragging that into the argument. People say "It's against the animals will!" Seriously, think about it, if the animal doesn't want the sex, it's going to kick your ass. Try "forcing" a horse to have sex with you. How long can you fuck a dog before it turns around and tears out your throat.

I would also like to state that, while it is disgusting, the animal tends to ENJOY the experience, as they tend to get their rocks off.

I really hope you are joking man, if not that's fucked up.

[eyez0nme]

Why. are. people. gay?

[Roxie]

Why. are. people. gay?
'cause. that's why.

[eyez0nme]

no really--i ain't fucking around. why are they gay?

[Dresh]

no really--i ain't fucking around. why are they gay?

For the exact same reason why people are hermaphrodites, or dyslexic, or have speech impediments, or are conjoined twins, or have one arm.

[hapacheese]

For the exact same reason why people are hermaphrodites, or dyslexic, or have speech impediments, or are conjoined twins, or have one arm.

Wow. Is your view of gays that they are somehow crippled or have some sort of problem?

[Dresh]

Wow. Is your view of gays that they are somehow crippled or have some sort of problem?

Somehow I knew I was going to get a response like this. I believe that people are born gay, and it is something with which I have no problem whatsoever. I simply use those things to get my point across to show people that it is perfectly reasonable to have a natural attraction to one's own gender.

In the future I suppose I should use fetishes when making that point, but while writing that post they were something that completely slipped my mind.

[TygressVirgo]

I fully believe that God made every single person in their mother's womb. I could take the time to find the verses, but not at this moment. I don't think that it is something that you choose. Yes, there are some people who do choose to imitate the lifestyle, for whatever the reason, but overall it is not a choice in my book. I have known people who are homosexual, none of them chose this, it was just the way they felt. For people, who don't known a homosexual in a close and personal friendship, i can understand as to why they would not understand that it is a natural thing. However, regardless of how and why they feel this way, they should be allowed to have the right to a legal marriage. If a church wants to deny them, than that is up to the church. But the government really has no right to deny them the same rights as heterosexuals.

my two cents,
Ty

[hapacheese]

Dresh - Ah... I see. Just your choice of examples seemed to all lean a certain way :)