S.F. Gives finger to Feds, Ok's same sex marriages...

[Notepad]

Greater acceptance of gay relationships means greater propigation of gay celebrity videos. Why watch Paris Hilton and her ex-boyfriend or Pam and Tommy...WHEN YOU CAN GET BOTH PARIS AND PAM ON ONE AWESOME DOWNLOAD!!!

*nyuk-nyuk*

I'm for it. I think.

 

[mythosx]

You want rights for gays, fine have them. However, don't label the union as a marrige and don't tell us 'closedminded bigots' to accept thier marriges.

 

[Spiderman]

SeFRo: Can't you already get that?

mythosx: I'm sorry that it appears you cannot see that even a hetero marriage today is not wholly religious. But of course I'm not telling you that YOU, personally, have to accept their marriage. But the fact is, state rights are guaranteed to those couple that have a marriage certificate, not religious, and until society separates that out, if gays want those same rights, they need to be married, plain and simple. If you don't want the "religious" aspect to "tainted" by such, it would probably be better to fix that as the root problem, from your perspective.

 

[Notepad]

There isn't anything sacred about straight marriage anyway, unless the people involved choose to make it that way. With drive-through chapels, divorcee Britney Spears, and Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire out there, who can really say with a straight face (sorry for the pun) that gays would corrupt anything?

Originally said by Thomas Jefferson
I am certainly not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors...

Read up more at: http://www.karelchannel.com/stories/Jefferson.html

 

[mythosx]

Originally posted by Spiderman
SeFRo: Can't you already get that?

mythosx: I'm sorry that it appears you cannot see that even a hetero marriage today is not wholly religious. But of course I'm not telling you that YOU, personally, have to accept their marriage. But the fact is, state rights are guaranteed to those couple that have a marriage certificate, not religious, and until society separates that out, if gays want those same rights, they need to be married, plain and simple. If you don't want the "religious" aspect to "tainted" by such, it would probably be better to fix that as the root problem, from your perspective.

What would be the root of the problem? hehe.

Marrige is a religious institution. And before anyone interrupts me and says it isn't, I want you to stop and think about it. The first records of marriages are recorded through religious instituions, there fore they have claim to it. That's how it works. First person to claim something gets it. Land, Gold Mines, etc.

Secondly, it is just as wrong for the government to force me to accept something that my religion is wholly against as it is for me to deny rights to other people.

Lastly, I don't know the right answer. But I don't believe that this is the answer.

Originally posted by SeFRo
There isn't anything sacred about straight marriage anyway, unless the people involved choose to make it that way. With drive-through chapels, divorcee Britney Spears, and Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire out there, who can really say with a straight face (sorry for the pun) that gays would corrupt anything?

Oh lord, don't even bring those up.

 

[Spiderman]

The first records of marriages are recorded through religious instituions, there fore they have claim to it

That's an iffy piece of logic for that kind of reasoning behind why marriage is a religious institution. That also dates back to when man thought up gods for naturally occurring events in nature.

Specifically, when was the first records of marriages? During the Medieval period when a) only the religious institutions knew writing and were the only ones who could record a marriage to begin with and b) when the religious institutions had a much bigger say in a country's government?

The basic question is can you get married NOT through a church or religious institution? Obviously the question is yes, so marriage is not currently solely part of the religious province and thus the whole argument doesn't wash.

And while it's unfortunate that at time the government and religion go head to head, the government takes precedence in legal matters (generally). Obviously you personally don't have to recognize such marriages, but legally you would. I mean, what if your religion forbad you to pay taxes? Let you own slaves? Heck, let you own multiple wives (that one is actually still out there).

 

[chocobo_cid]

Originally posted by Spiderman
Obviously you personally don't have to recognize such marriages, but legally you would.

Which of course is the real issue in this instance. Were people to be forced to recognize the unions only in the legal sense, then they could whine about not considering it moral any other day of the week, as it were.

 

[mythosx]

Originally posted by Spiderman
That's an iffy piece of logic for that kind of reasoning behind why marriage is a religious institution. That also dates back to when man thought up gods for naturally occurring events in nature.

Specifically, when was the first records of marriages? During the Medieval period when a) only the religious institutions knew writing and were the only ones who could record a marriage to begin with and b) when the religious institutions had a much bigger say in a country's government?

The basic question is can you get married NOT through a church or religious institution? Obviously the question is yes, so marriage is not currently solely part of the religious province and thus the whole argument doesn't wash.

And while it's unfortunate that at time the government and religion go head to head, the government takes precedence in legal matters (generally). Obviously you personally don't have to recognize such marriages, but legally you would. I mean, what if your religion forbad you to pay taxes? Let you own slaves? Heck, let you own multiple wives (that one is actually still out there).

No first recorded marriages date way older than the medival period your thinking of the christian church. Secondly, that statement about man thinking up gods is an offensive statment. I'm not saying I am offended. But look at what your saying. To you gods are a myth. To the religious they are real. They are/is more real to them than their cars or houses. So please be careful of how you phrase that.

Secondly, just because you steal and idea does not make it legit. For example, tyco blocks aren't legos, but they fit together. So don't go around calling tyco blocks Legos. Just because you design single magic cards on this site and they interact with the game doesn't make it a legit magic card. What the government provides are civil unions.

I understand that most of you or at least half of you arent religious. Which is fine (for now, hehe) but issues like this do have major ramifications in the church. When you blur the distinction of what is proper and what isn't you have churches that do very werid things. Like the Anglicans (i think) who last year ordained gay ministers. This is leading to a huge thing and might even tear the church apart. If america were truly a democracy like we say we were then there should be no gay marriages. Why? cuz we didnt vote for it.

As much as I would love that everyone was perfectly logical and could seperate church and political matters. It is not so.

 

[Notepad]

On the argument of the "first come, first rights" thing, well then, let's take that and use it to declare:

-The first "Western" records of marriages were actually way back in ancient Babylonian times. We also get the "honeymoon" phrase from back then, as well. (If anybody knows of more ancient records, please speak up). These happened far before Christian times, so they should get precedence. What does this mean? Well, it means ancient Babylonian churches get full dibs on marriage ceremonies, and thus it is the Christians who are corrupting things with their evil ways of trying to take them over.

-Additionally, there are older records of marriages. Egyptian emperors had multiple wives, so it seems that marriage should be overseen by Egypt and that polygamy is totally okay as long as you're a wealthy land-owner. Christians, again, have tried to corrupt this time-honored sacred bond between sons of God and their thriteen wives.

-Religion itself is claim to whoever had the decency wo worship a divine entity first. Christians, being merely a step aside from Judaism, are totally void in their beliefs as all they did was rip off Jewish faith. Evil! Corrupt! All Christians should go to temple and ask about converting to Judaism. Sadly, Jews were not the first reiligious folks. In turn, all Christians turned to Jews, and all Jews (and all Muslims) must turn to whatever the Old Testament ripped off so many ages ago.

Gays we can argue about another time. Then again, the ancient Greeks and Japanese are both on record as condoning gay relationships. So...I guess their time-honored tradition should supercede any merely 2000-year-old beliefs.

 

[mythosx]

Originally posted by SeFRo
On the argument of the "first come, first rights" thing, well then, let's take that and use it to declare:

-The first "Western" records of marriages were actually way back in ancient Babylonian times. We also get the "honeymoon" phrase from back then, as well. (If anybody knows of more ancient records, please speak up). These happened far before Christian times, so they should get precedence. What does this mean? Well, it means ancient Babylonian churches get full dibs on marriage ceremonies, and thus it is the Christians who are corrupting things with their evil ways of trying to take them over.

-Additionally, there are older records of marriages. Egyptian emperors had multiple wives, so it seems that marriage should be overseen by Egypt and that polygamy is totally okay as long as you're a wealthy land-owner. Christians, again, have tried to corrupt this time-honored sacred bond between sons of God and their thriteen wives.

-Religion itself is claim to whoever had the decency wo worship a divine entity first. Christians, being merely a step aside from Judaism, are totally void in their beliefs as all they did was rip off Jewish faith. Evil! Corrupt! All Christians should go to temple and ask about converting to Judaism. Sadly, Jews were not the first reiligious folks. In turn, all Christians turned to Jews, and all Jews (and all Muslims) must turn to whatever the Old Testament ripped off so many ages ago.

Gays we can argue about another time. Then again, the ancient Greeks and Japanese are both on record as condoning gay relationships. So...I guess their time-honored tradition should supercede any merely 2000-year-old beliefs.

Technically, if you take record itself, the pentitude or torah, which are the first books of the bible are the oldest records of anything. The claim to go all the way back to the creation of the world. Judaism has been around longer than the babylonians and bablonians no longer exist to even have churches.

The oldest records of anything came from Sumaria. I don't believe they condoned homosexuality.

The christian faith is tied to Judaism, but you have the wrong idea about chrisitanity. It would require me to post a 20 page thesis to explain the thing properly. So I'll give you the lowdown. Where it differs from Judaism is the fact that approxametly 2000 years ago. A man, Jesus, claimed he was God. He claimed to love everyone and he claimed to save everyone. That is a relatively simple view of it. I'd be happy to answer any questions this might bring up. But I doubt any of you are really interested enough to bother. In short, NOT A RIP OFF. Related? yes. Rip off? no.

You know for a 'christian' nation, very few American know anything about christianity.

 

[Spiderman]

Originally posted by mythosx
No first recorded marriages date way older than the medival period your thinking of the christian church. Secondly, that statement about man thinking up gods is an offensive statment. I'm not saying I am offended. But look at what your saying. To you gods are a myth. To the religious they are real. They are/is more real to them than their cars or houses. So please be careful of how you phrase that.

Again, can you provide a source as to where these first recorded marriages are actually through a religious institution?

You misunderstood about what I said about the "making up gods". In ancient cultures, "man" (or society) thought of many acts of nature as "gods" as they did not understand the process at the time. Need rain? Pray/sacrifice to the "rain" god. Feel an earthquake or see a volcano erupting? The "earth" god must be angry.

What the government provides are civil unions.

I am fairly sure that if you go to the courthouse down in the seat of government of whatever county and state you are in, you will be married, not have a civil union. You may be using "civil union" in a not commonly accepted definition, I don't know. I finally went and looked for some sources and definitions between the two:

Difference between marriage and civil union

This ones states that the federal government doesn't even recognize civil unions in regard to benefits and such, so the "government" can't possibly be providing civil unions.

If america were truly a democracy like we say we were then there should be no gay marriages. Why? cuz we didnt vote for it.

It's a "representative democracy", not a true democracy. That means you have to elect people who supposedly believe the same way you do so they can represent you. To the best of my knowledge, America never billed itself as a "true democracy" (although the line is generally blurred when generally talking about democracy).

Technically, if you take record itself, the pentitude or torah, which are the first books of the bible are the oldest records of anything. The claim to go all the way back to the creation of the world. Judaism has been around longer than the babylonians and bablonians no longer exist to even have churches.

If you look farther at the torah, it is generally agreed among biblical scholars that they were actually written about 1500-1700 BC, during the time of King David. Before that, it is word of mouth (and the more cynical might say it is just the Jewish version of the creation of the world, no different than other religions stories of how the world was created).

The oldest records of anything came from Sumaria. I don't believe they condoned homosexuality.

Did they explicitly condemn it?

You know for a 'christian' nation, very few American know anything about christianity.

It's because it got "diluted" over the 200+ years with people with other religions. And it's not as strong in every day lives as it was in the beginning of the country (partially due to the adherence of separation of church and state).

 

[mythosx]

Very good points.

Actually most historians and biblical scholars agree that the torah is actually dated back further than king David. It dates back to Moses who freed a slave caste from Egypt. He gave them these stories to provide a sense of identity to them. The claims of course that they were given to him by God and oral traditions.

I digress. It is true that we aren't a democracy. We are actually a republic. Regardless, It is against the law and they shouldn't be doing it. In reality they are a small minority and this is not the majorities thinking.

 

[Istanbul]

Originally posted by mythosx
You know for a 'christian' nation, very few American know anything about christianity.

This isn't a 'christian' nation. Thank you, drive through.

 

[Istanbul]

Well, here's my take on it.

Failing to allow homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples is nothing short of discrimination, and I would consider it equivalent to forcing blacks to pay higher taxes or denying women the right to vote.

Duke, your opinions never fail to disgust me. I knew you were a bigot, I just didn't know that you were also this flavor of bigot. This is just one more way in which your opinions prove what a truly awful person you are inside.

Allowing homosexuals to have 'civil unions' is not an answer so long as those civil unions carry with them none of the protections that married heterosexual couples enjoy. I would say that it is equality in name alone, but then it isn't even equality in name.

Preventing homosexual couples from marrying is simply saying, "You're gay, so you're not as good as we are. You can't enjoy our protections, equal rights, or any of the conveniences that heterosexual married couples enjoy. Now get back under our heel, we want to oppress you some more."

I can't believe there's even a debate on this topic. Repulsive.

 

[chocobo_cid]

Originally posted by mythosxYou know for a 'christian' nation, very few American know anything about christianity.

Especially considering the brief, idiotic moment of Islamic hate post-9/11 and Bush's self decribed "Crusade" against terrorism.

Originally posted by Istanbul
Allowing homosexuals to have 'civil unions' is not an answer so long as those civil unions carry with them none of the protections that married heterosexual couples enjoy

Which, of course, is the suggestion I posted way back when to bump up this thread. Provide a "civil union" that is different from "marriage" IN NAME ONLY.

Oy, vey...

 

[mythosx]

I don't mean to say we are a christian nation, but your government claims it is. It is lame and I agree. George bush is off his rocker.

Secondly, everyone seems to care so much about discrimination, but when Christians are discriminated against, no one seems to care. Odd don't you think? Before any of you say that it doesn't happen, it does. How I have always attended public schooling before my last years in college, and have always had my rights trampled upon.

 

[Istanbul]

Try being Jewish some time and enduring rampant anti-Semitism.
Try being a Muslim some time and being called a terrorist out-of-hand.
Try being Wiccan some time and having your religion's very existance publically ridiculed.
Try being an agnostic or atheist some time and being looked down on by all religions.

Trust me, Christian is the EASIEST religion to be in America.

 

[mythosx]

Originally posted by Istanbul
Try being Jewish some time and enduring rampant anti-Semitism.
Try being a Muslim some time and being called a terrorist out-of-hand.
Try being Wiccan some time and having your religion's very existance publically ridiculed.
Try being an agnostic or atheist some time and being looked down on by all religions.

Trust me, Christian is the EASIEST religion to be in America.

You have no Idea what your talking about.

I am chinese. I have been called gook, chink....anything you can think of. I have been expelled from school before because of fighting cuz people have attacked me physically.

I am a christian in california in the bay area near San Francisco. I have been called a bigot even though I hang out with gay people. In California you get ridiculed for being conservative and not the other way around.

Atheism is a religion.

Now, explain to me why I have it easy?

 

[Istanbul]

Because the government recognizes your religion as valid and gives breaks to churches, nationally recognizes more Christian holidays than any others, and even makes it a point to announce their Christian leanings in public (see our current president).

You want to know what having a hard time being who you are is? Try being attacked and beaten to a pulp because you're a Muslim. Try having people burning swastikas into your front yard because you're Jewish. Try having people scream religion into your face and attack you because you're an Atheist.

Race is another issue entirely. Stick to the topic, please.

 

[Notepad]

...why is it that the great unwinninable debates (meaning neither side can convince the other of anything--it is just a rhetoric battle) always seem to be charged hugely by religious beliefs on one side? Homosexual rights and abortions come to mind as two key unwinnable arguments. (Not to say abortions are anywhere in the same ballpark as discussing gay rights).

Actually, I'll go beyond fanboy bait and answer that. The religious tend to fall back on the "this is what this here book here SAYS! And this book can't lie because its the word of GOD himself!!!...just translated and lost in context over multiple centuries of revisions and translations). Meanwhile, the people who are arguing not on religious ground, fall back on the "your book is a book. I will not listen to you or your book based on your book's existence."

But um, since everyone's kinda stuck to their side: JUST BE GAY AND WEAR A BIG SMILE ABOUT IT!!!!

(I mean the "happy" gay.)