California to investigate Mormon aid to Prop 8

[BoomerD]

http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...illy-and-rashida-jones

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Its not only the Mormon church that needs to be investigated. Christian churches have always told their congregation on what and who to vote for. They hand out pamphlets including this information, which then most bible thumpers will vote according to it. Must be real fun not being able to have a mind of your own.

Fuck religion and fuck bigots.

You are no less bigoted.

Am I donating money to have religion banned?

Am I telling you that you can't practice your religion?

Am I VOTING against any of your rights?

What I stated was simply my opinion. I am in no way, shape, or form a bigot. If a proposition came up to eliminate the churches (when pigs can fly) I would vote against it. Why? Because I believe people are allowed the right to do/practice anything they please....unless it is harming someone else.



Edit: This also goes to the idiot bigot brandonb

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
As far as I am concerned the government should not even be "marrying" anyone, it would eliminate a lot of the confusion and arguments. I do not see why gays are not happy with the idea of a "civil union" with the same rights and privelages of married couples. If it was up to me there would be none of this, the state would define everything as a civil union; the churches would marry heterosexual couples.

That'd be great, but civil unions don't have the same rights and privileges. That's the problem.

There are two options here

1) Rewrite all laws on the books, striking out "marriage" and putting in "civil union". OR adopt a bunch of new laws that bring civil union to the same legal level as marriage. Either case will take decades and cost millions of dollars
2) Let gays get married, which was legal before Prop 8 anyway

In other words, the bigots are basically trying to waste taxpayers' money due to their own ignorance.

Also, let us remember how effective "separate but equal" really is. When two institutions are made to be separate, they are inherently never equal. No matter how hard you try, one will always be inferior, even if it's just societal inferiority.

Nobody is denying that they are entitled to the exact same protection under the law as heterosexual couples; they are protesting that marriage should remain as it has always been and that gay couples should enjoy the same rights/privileges under a civil union.

By preventing them from having marriages, you are denying them the same legal rights OF GETTING MARRIED.

Let's remember what actually happened. Gay marriage was part of marriage in California. The bigots changed the legal definition after the fact. Your argument is factually incorrect.

IMPORTANT: MARRIAGE IS NOT UNIQUE TO CHRISTIANITY

I don't see where I said anything about this. I am not religious whatsoever and I believe in traditional marriage so I certainly agree with that statement.

Your definition of "traditional marriage" comes from the Judeo-Christian idea of one man and one woman. Even if you're not religious, this is where your idea comes from.

There are other cultures which have had gay marriages. There are other countries which have gay marriage now. Your "traditional marriage" is only Christian traditional, and that's what my comment was directed at, not your religious preference.

Gay marriage has always been legal until states started specifically defining it to mean between a man and a woman

A clear definition of marriage won't be found in any law or constitution because the writers of those documents never thought that it would be necessary, that we would actually be arguing over whether marriage included gay couples.

I'm done with this subject; it isn't going to go anywhere no matter what I say or what you say, people have made up their minds on both sides. It is clear that the majority of America agrees with my side of the view; this forum is far-left and is not a good sampling of the typical American. As I said earlier, I am not religious, I don't want to enforce "my religion" on anybody else. I do want some elements of tradition and morals to be upheld, however, and morals/traditions are fading rapidly in this country. If it was up to me marriage would not be controlled by the government and we would not be having this conversation, but I can't see that ever getting changed.

You don't seem to understand. Please read the US Constitution, specifically amendments nine and ten. As long as there is no law forbidding it, it is a right held by the people. The fact that there is no law describing gay marriage means that gay marriage is legal (and a right, in fact) unless a state explicitly forbids it in its own constitution (by either outlawing gay marriage or defining marriage as being between a man and a woman).

But you're right, you refuse to recognize our US Constitution, and until you do we won't be going anywhere. The guys who wrote it already included amendments (9 and 10) that include the right to gay marriage, and a few billion other rights that they knew they could never possibly expect would be a problem one day. This is part of the genius of our constitution.

I am going to bold this next part so everyone who disagrees with me (hopefully) reads it. Go read your US Constitution. Any right not expressly forbidden by the state is yours to keep! In CA, gay marriage was a right until Prop 8 stripped it away.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Its not only the Mormon church that needs to be investigated. Christian churches have always told their congregation on what and who to vote for. They hand out pamphlets including this information, which then most bible thumpers will vote according to it. Must be real fun not being able to have a mind of your own.

Fuck religion and fuck bigots.

You are no less bigoted.

Am I donating money to have religion banned?

Am I telling you that you can't practice your religion?

Am I VOTING against any of your rights?

What I stated was simply my opinion. I am in no way, shape, or form a bigot. If a proposition came up to eliminate the churches (when pigs can fly) I would vote against it. Why? Because I believe people are allowed the right to do/practice anything they please....unless it is harming someone else.

I've gone over this earlier, but Atreus is an idiot, so I'll discuss it again for his benefit.

Are you intolerant towards bigots? I'd argue no, for the reasons you stated. Since you take no action towards bigots you're not really bigoted. But even if you DID take actions against them (like voting to strip bigots of the right to marriage), you'd be "bigoted towards bigots," and that's the most asinine phrase in existence.

By making that kind of argument, Atreus has effectively conceded and made a fool of himself. Congratulations Zeppelin, you won without having to even lift a finger

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. Therefore, it is not and never was correct to alienate interracial couples and only allow same race couples to marry. Whether the laws prevented that is entirely irrelevant. A relationship between a black man and a white woman fall under the definition of marriage and therefore it is clear discrimination if you say that couple, "You can't marry because you are not of the same race."

Gay marriage is much different. A relationship between a gay man and another gay man does not fall under the definition of marriage. Therefore, it is not in any way discriminatory to say to that couple, "You can't marry, because you have no business doing so - marriage is between a man and a woman and does not apply to your relationship." It is no different than having different laws and guidelines for adults versus children or men versus women. How is it not the right of 5 year olds to live on their own and get married when older Americans are able to? Is that not clear discrimination? That sounds rediculous but it is the same idea as what gays are trying to do. Gays want to broaden the scope of marriage to include their relationships.

You seem challenged to respond to my posts, so let me try another approach, questions.

1. Were the biblical leaders who had many wives "married"?

2. Are the gay couples now legally married - the 16,000 in California, the many in Massachussets - married?

2. At what age, if any, is one of the spouses (usually the female) too young to get married, e.g.. when societies marry, say, a 9 year old girl to a boy or man, is that a marriage?

Just noting that a second proponent of discrimination against gays - first Atreus, now Extellaron - has decided not to respond to my post to them. Oh well.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

To all the bigots out there...go see Milk. Might open your eyes a bit.

 

[OrByte]

I know all the Gay Marriage opponents abandoned this thread because their excuses dried up but I figured I'd bump this thread with a new article from Newsweek

Here is a cut:

In the Christian story, the message of acceptance for all is codified. Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins, and brings the whole Christian community into his embrace. The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author, cites the story of Jesus revealing himself to the woman at the well? no matter that she had five former husbands and a current boyfriend?as evidence of Christ's all-encompassing love. The great Bible scholar Walter Brueggemann, emeritus professor at Columbia Theological Seminary, quotes the apostle Paul when he looks for biblical support of gay marriage: "There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ." The religious argument for gay marriage, he adds, "is not generally made with reference to particular texts, but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness."

I believe in the Bible that teaches this inclusiveness and love. Relegating gays and lesbians to 2nd class citizenry is against the teachings of Jesus. When we banish groups of people to the outskirts of society we aren't being very "Christ-like." Makes you wonder why churches do the things they do....

 

[piasabird]

What about the Children?

I guessed you missed the bit in the bible about Sodom and Gohmorra (Spell), and raining down Hellfire?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: piasabird

What about the Children?

I guessed you missed the bit in the bible about Sodom and Gohmorra (Spell), and raining down Hellfire?

You could always grow up and stop believing in fiction. :laugh:

 

[piasabird]

This quote is from the Apostle Paul.

"There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ."

What he means when he says this is the Gospel is given to all men, and not just the jews. It does not mean all people are equal, or free or all people are saved and are going to Heaven. It just means the atoning sacrifice of Jesus is available to all men assuming the follow the commandments of God, receive repentence and Baptism by the laying on of hands for the Holy Ghost.

Paul said many things. This is what happens when you take something out of context. Paul baptised many people and established branches of churches and then wrote them letters encouraging them to remain faithful to the end.

Instead of reading one article in some newspaper or magazine, I suggest you read the Bible from one end to the other. Whenever, I see some quote, I always look it up for myself to see if the Bible agrees with what they say.

Remember God is a Jealous God.

Maybe you should study the Law of Chasity?

A Man (or woman) shall have no sexual relations except with whom he(she) is legally or Spiritual(In a church/religion) married to.

It has always been understood that marriage is a union between a Man and a Woman. While in Italy we went on a few fieldtrips and found wall paintings giving warnings about this very subject. It has been discussed for a very long time.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: OrByte
I believe in the Bible that teaches this inclusiveness and love

...and ignore the bible that condones slavery and stoning to death for petty offenses? I hear they're the same book

Originally posted by: piasabird
It has always been understood that marriage is a union between a Man and a Woman. While in Italy we went on a few fieldtrips and found wall paintings giving warnings about this very subject. It has been discussed for a very long time.

anyone in those paintings wearing funny underwear?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: piasabird

Remember God is a Jealous God.

AFIC, your jealous god, your bible and a dollar bill aren't worth the price of a single item in a 99 Cents Store.

Maybe you should study the Law of Chasity?

Sorry. Not much fun in that one. I gave it up a long time ago.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Instead of reading one article in some newspaper or magazine, I suggest you read the Bible from one end to the other. Whenever, I see some quote, I always look it up for myself to see if the Bible agrees with what they say.

Remember God is a Jealous God.

Maybe you should study the Law of Chasity?

A Man (or woman) shall have no sexual relations except with whom he(she) is legally or Spiritual(In a church/religion) married to.

It has always been understood that marriage is a union between a Man and a Woman. While in Italy we went on a few fieldtrips and found wall paintings giving warnings about this very subject. It has been discussed for a very long time.

dude. What are you on about? I'm not a christian. Why would I read the bible? Why should i care about any of this christian stuff. Marriage isn't christian, deal with it and Christianity isn't the state religion. We don't have a state religion!

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: piasabird
This quote is from the Apostle Paul.

"There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ."

What he means when he says this is the Gospel is given to all men, and not just the jews. It does not mean all people are equal, or free or all people are saved and are going to Heaven. It just means the atoning sacrifice of Jesus is available to all men assuming the follow the commandments of God, receive repentence and Baptism by the laying on of hands for the Holy Ghost.

Paul said many things. This is what happens when you take something out of context. Paul baptised many people and established branches of churches and then wrote them letters encouraging them to remain faithful to the end.

Instead of reading one article in some newspaper or magazine, I suggest you read the Bible from one end to the other. Whenever, I see some quote, I always look it up for myself to see if the Bible agrees with what they say.

Remember God is a Jealous God.

Maybe you should study the Law of Chasity?

A Man (or woman) shall have no sexual relations except with whom he(she) is legally or Spiritual(In a church/religion) married to.

It has always been understood that marriage is a union between a Man and a Woman. While in Italy we went on a few fieldtrips and found wall paintings giving warnings about this very subject. It has been discussed for a very long time.

Arent we all created in the image of God?

does that not mean we are equal?

I swear I read that somewhere...

Edit: as far as your 'Law of Chastity' goes I'm glad you subscribe to something so well intentioned. But that is your church teachings. It is a man made construct of a specific church that I am not a part of...which, with all due respect, I could not care less about. You have your church and your beliefs/laws...feel free to obey and cherish them.

But don't expect the rest of us to follow.

Hmmmm again...I feel like a broken record. Your religion has no bearing on how the government should conduct it's business wrt gay marriage. Your Laws of Chastity sound really grand....good enough for you to believe in I suppose. But don't attempt to legislate based upon such religious "law"

imho

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: OrByte
I believe in the Bible that teaches this inclusiveness and love

...and ignore the bible that condones slavery and stoning to death for petty offenses? I hear they're the same book

it is the same book. Written by many men, with many motivations over many many many years.

I will take from the Bible what I want...it is what any of us all do when it comes to religion no? What ever that religion may be.

My Faith is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. Evidently something that is different these days from the religion that I subscribe to.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Humans have un-alienable rights except in the eyes of bigots and haters like you.

So a man marrying a man is unalienable right, but a man marrying two women is not?

I have no particular love for the Church of LDS, but you and some other posters here are obviously very confused.

 

[crothall]

^Well, that's a different issue altogether because no legislation has been drafted for multiple marriages.

Legislation has already been drafted for marriage between 2 people...it's just a matter of who is included and excluded from that legislation.

 

[jonks]

Hypocrites:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=men+kissing&geo=usa&sa=N

(hat tip to http://xkcd.com/522/)

 

[Steeplerot]

My apologies for the semi-partisan link but Cenk from the Young Turks nails these Christian hypocrites good. I am sure G. Carlin is laughing his ass off as he said the same thing ages ago.
No One Follows the Bible

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: OrByte
I believe in the Bible that teaches this inclusiveness and love

...and ignore the bible that condones slavery and stoning to death for petty offenses? I hear they're the same book

Originally posted by: piasabird
It has always been understood that marriage is a union between a Man and a Woman. While in Italy we went on a few fieldtrips and found wall paintings giving warnings about this very subject. It has been discussed for a very long time.

anyone in those paintings wearing funny underwear?

Ah yes, the old "appeal to tradition" argument. It's true, the religious paintings in Italy are quite old...so old in fact that if you look at what ELSE was going on when they were painted, I don't know how wise an idea the traditional definition of marriage really is. Back in the good old days, Christians were all about killing people who didn't believe in their God...or even didn't believe in their God strongly enough...or just didn't agree with them on the specifics of believing in God. Are THESE the moral authorities we really want to rely on?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Humans have un-alienable rights except in the eyes of bigots and haters like you.

So a man marrying a man is unalienable right, but a man marrying two women is not?

I have no particular love for the Church of LDS, but you and some other posters here are obviously very confused.

Isn't drawing the line at allowing a man and a woman to get married, but not two men or two women, just as arbitrary and "confused"?