Gay marriage and you (religious zealots)

[shilala]

My thoughts are that marriage as an institution is a very serious thing. I was serious about it when I got hitched, and still am. I was so serious about it that I never married until I was 30 years old. "Too many rules", I always thought. "Gotta be just right". All those rules and regulations were passed down to me from church, family, and society.
Until these days, I never considered marriage as anything but a union between a man and a woman.
I still don't think of it any other way. It doesn't fit within the "rules", and it's pretty obvious.
If two people want a ceremony to make a vow to one another, I think that's great. If it can be held in church before God, that's even better.
Need a marriage license? Marry the opposite sex.
Very simple.

Allowing a single homosexual person to adopt children? Great.
Allowing joint custody of a child by two same sex people? Terrific.
Allowing a same sex couple to have the same protective benefits that a different sex couple would? Sure.

Married, no.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Originally posted by: spunkz

Originally posted by: FoBoT
so many straight people live together without getting married these days, what difference does it make?

why do any non-religious people get married? is there a reason to get married if you don't think it is a sin to live together without marriage?

exactly. people always say, "what business do u have saying they can't get married", but i say "what business do they have getting married in the first place?" give them their unions or whatever and be done with it. if they want legal status as significant other or whatever, that's fine. but don't come in my church and say "you MUST marry us" just because you want a ceremony and a wedding ring and think its your right to have one.

Your church doesnt have to marry them by the way. They can get married without involving any religion at all. You can go get a liscence and be married by a non-minister.

I think most people get confused when they believe that marriage is a religious thing.

I would let the issue drop for now if they had equal rights in that legal status but the fact is that they do not and some states have went so far as to even ban civil unions.

heh, that's why we vote.

And we voted So, sorry. NOT....try again.

For the 1340981703th time; the opinion of the people doesn't somehow make the law "correct" in an absolute sense. Yes, they voted against it, but there's no concrete reason for this law to be on the books. The people are entitled to their opinions, but their opinions shouldn't necessarily be law.

See also: segregation.

so why is it allowed?

If it is on the books then it is kosher and is law. There's nothing preventing it from being such.

It is up to the state to recognize marriage, the state decided it didn't want same-sex marriage. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

My point is that there's no good reason given for the law.

The law does not benefit anyone.

The law does not protect anyone.

Why is it on the books at all?

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Originally posted by: spunkz

Originally posted by: FoBoT
so many straight people live together without getting married these days, what difference does it make?

why do any non-religious people get married? is there a reason to get married if you don't think it is a sin to live together without marriage?

exactly. people always say, "what business do u have saying they can't get married", but i say "what business do they have getting married in the first place?" give them their unions or whatever and be done with it. if they want legal status as significant other or whatever, that's fine. but don't come in my church and say "you MUST marry us" just because you want a ceremony and a wedding ring and think its your right to have one.

Your church doesnt have to marry them by the way. They can get married without involving any religion at all. You can go get a liscence and be married by a non-minister.

I think most people get confused when they believe that marriage is a religious thing.

I would let the issue drop for now if they had equal rights in that legal status but the fact is that they do not and some states have went so far as to even ban civil unions.

heh, that's why we vote.

And we voted So, sorry. NOT....try again.

So if somehow State X voted that women are not allowed to work.... it's OK?

poor analogy. one needs work to live.

Then it's a perfect analogy. My point is that votes alone do not determine whether a law should be allowed to stay.

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Originally posted by: spunkz

Originally posted by: FoBoT
so many straight people live together without getting married these days, what difference does it make?

why do any non-religious people get married? is there a reason to get married if you don't think it is a sin to live together without marriage?

exactly. people always say, "what business do u have saying they can't get married", but i say "what business do they have getting married in the first place?" give them their unions or whatever and be done with it. if they want legal status as significant other or whatever, that's fine. but don't come in my church and say "you MUST marry us" just because you want a ceremony and a wedding ring and think its your right to have one.

Your church doesnt have to marry them by the way. They can get married without involving any religion at all. You can go get a liscence and be married by a non-minister.

I think most people get confused when they believe that marriage is a religious thing.

I would let the issue drop for now if they had equal rights in that legal status but the fact is that they do not and some states have went so far as to even ban civil unions.

heh, that's why we vote.

And we voted So, sorry. NOT....try again.

For the 1340981703th time; the opinion of the people doesn't somehow make the law "correct" in an absolute sense. Yes, they voted against it, but there's no concrete reason for this law to be on the books. The people are entitled to their opinions, but their opinions shouldn't necessarily be law.

See also: segregation.

so why is it allowed?

If it is on the books then it is kosher and is law. There's nothing preventing it from being such.

It is up to the state to recognize marriage, the state decided it didn't want same-sex marriage. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

As I have stated before.. so by your logic.. if a state voted and the majority decided it was okay to castrate people of religion without their consent. Then this would be kosher and law right?

Just because something is a law doesnt make it right.

There used to be Jim Crowe law as well but you probably think it was kosher.

Slavery was legal but it was probably kosher.

Teachers used to be denied the right to date (unless they attended church regularly and were male) but I guess it was kosher.

Now tell me again why the law makes it right?

 

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
BTW: It's NOT just the religious zealots.

I'm am very anti organized religion, and yet I still can't see same sex marriage.

Can you think of a good reason to disallow it other than you finding it distasteful?

Other than I think it would set, what in my opinion is a bad precedent. No.

I take that back.

It would open the door to all kinda of abuse of the system.

I have usually had room mates. What's to keep me or anyone else from "Marrying" their room mate for Tax breaks, insurance breaks, and any other benefit allowed to married couples?

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
BTW: It's NOT just the religious zealots.

I'm am very anti organized religion, and yet I still can't see same sex marriage.

Can you think of a good reason to disallow it other than you finding it distasteful?

Other than I think it would set, what in my opinion is a bad precedent. No.

I take that back.

It would open the door to all kinda of abuse of the system.

I have usually had room mates. What's to keep me or anyone else from "Marrying" their room mate for Tax breaks, insurance breaks, and any other beifit allowed to married couples?

What prevents that from happening now?!?

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
BTW: It's NOT just the religious zealots.

I'm am very anti organized religion, and yet I still can't see same sex marriage.

Can you think of a good reason to disallow it other than you finding it distasteful?

Other than I think it would set, what in my opinion is a bad precedent. No.

I take that back.

It would open the door to all kinda of abuse of the system.

I have usually had room mates. What's to keep me or anyone else from "Marrying" their room mate for Tax breaks, insurance breaks, and any other beifit allowed to married couples?

There's nothing stopping different sex roommates (I can only dream) from marrying each other for those same bonuses.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
BTW: It's NOT just the religious zealots.

I'm am very anti organized religion, and yet I still can't see same sex marriage.

Can you think of a good reason to disallow it other than you finding it distasteful?

Other than I think it would set, what in my opinion is a bad precedent. No.

I take that back.

It would open the door to all kinda of abuse of the system.

I have usually had room mates. What's to keep me or anyone else from "Marrying" their room mate for Tax breaks, insurance breaks, and any other beifit allowed to married couples?

What's to stop a male couple and a female couple from "intermarrying" to get the benefits under the existing definition of marriage?

 

[Fausto]

I am way too slow.

 

[TuxDave]

lol... 3x insta-reply-slam!

 

[spunkz]

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Originally posted by: spunkz

Originally posted by: FoBoT
so many straight people live together without getting married these days, what difference does it make?

why do any non-religious people get married? is there a reason to get married if you don't think it is a sin to live together without marriage?

exactly. people always say, "what business do u have saying they can't get married", but i say "what business do they have getting married in the first place?" give them their unions or whatever and be done with it. if they want legal status as significant other or whatever, that's fine. but don't come in my church and say "you MUST marry us" just because you want a ceremony and a wedding ring and think its your right to have one.

Your church doesnt have to marry them by the way. They can get married without involving any religion at all. You can go get a liscence and be married by a non-minister.

I think most people get confused when they believe that marriage is a religious thing.

I would let the issue drop for now if they had equal rights in that legal status but the fact is that they do not and some states have went so far as to even ban civil unions.

well i may be confused, but i would imagine that it began as a religious thing, and i think this issue has just brought attention to how frivolous and retarded marriage has become in this country. the divorce rate is probably above 50%, britney spears' escapades dont help, and now you can marry members of the same sex. i think religious people want to see marriage held in high regard again, and they're going to force that view on everyone whether people like it or not, as long as they have the majority. the question could be whether gov't should be the tool for that, or something along that line, but i still don't think gays have the right to be married.

im all for allowing a gay person to see their partner in a hospital, or for their money to be transferred to their partner when they die, and other such legal things, but please, marriage has always been man/woman in this country, so why is it so bad that people want to keep it that way?

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Fausto
I am way too slow.

But it's a good slow

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
BTW: It's NOT just the religious zealots.

I'm am very anti organized religion, and yet I still can't see same sex marriage.

Can you think of a good reason to disallow it other than you finding it distasteful?

Other than I think it would set, what in my opinion is a bad precedent. No.

I take that back.

It would open the door to all kinda of abuse of the system.

I have usually had room mates. What's to keep me or anyone else from "Marrying" their room mate for Tax breaks, insurance breaks, and any other beifit allowed to married couples?

This can still occur.. my only roommates have been members of the opposite sex..

I think this is far fetched. If it doesnt happen often between members of the opposite sex what makes you think it would suddenly be abused by members of the same sex. If someone isnt gay I dont think theyre going to ask their room mate to marry them.. maybe it is just me.. but I would have to move out if my same sex room mate asked me to marry them and I am by no means a homophobe.

 

[spidey07]

Fausto,

I think marijuana should be legal. I think I should be able to grow it and smoke a simple plant...kinda like other cultures do and how other cultures are protected even within the US.

I think it is my right to grow a plant and smoke it.

Society, culture and other people feel otherwise. It isn't hurting them, right? It isn't infringing on their rights, correct?

Yet the people vote and speak "we don't want people growing and smoking marijuana." Their reasons probably range all over the place, but they have their reasons.

So theres a reason why we vote on these things. The will of the people/society get to decide upon their own laws. In a sense we govern ourselves. We could up and decide the speed limit should be 100 MPh, we could even put it up to a vote and if it passed, the speed limit would be 100.

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: spunkz

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Originally posted by: spunkz

Originally posted by: FoBoT
so many straight people live together without getting married these days, what difference does it make?

why do any non-religious people get married? is there a reason to get married if you don't think it is a sin to live together without marriage?

exactly. people always say, "what business do u have saying they can't get married", but i say "what business do they have getting married in the first place?" give them their unions or whatever and be done with it. if they want legal status as significant other or whatever, that's fine. but don't come in my church and say "you MUST marry us" just because you want a ceremony and a wedding ring and think its your right to have one.

Your church doesnt have to marry them by the way. They can get married without involving any religion at all. You can go get a liscence and be married by a non-minister.

I think most people get confused when they believe that marriage is a religious thing.

I would let the issue drop for now if they had equal rights in that legal status but the fact is that they do not and some states have went so far as to even ban civil unions.

well i may be confused, but i would imagine that it began as a religious thing, and i think this issue has just brought attention to how frivolous and retarded marriage has become in this country. the divorce rate is probably above 50%, britney spears' escapades dont help, and now you can marry members of the same sex. i think religious people want to see marriage held in high regard again, and they're going to force that view on everyone whether people like it or not, as long as they have the majority. the question could be whether gov't should be the tool for that, or something along that line, but i still don't think gays have the right to be married.

im all for allowing a gay person to see their partner in a hospital, or for their money to be transferred to their partner when they die, and other such legal things, but please, marriage has always been man/woman in this country, so why is it so bad that people want to keep it that way?

Again your logic is illogical.

At one time it had always been that marriage was between same race... so why is it so bad that people wanted to keep it that way?

This arguement is VERY WEAK.

 

[Brutuskend]

Well, I love my dog, and I KNOW he loves me. Why shouldn't WE be allowed to get married.

Another bad analogy perhaps, but where DOES it end?

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: shilala

Allowing a single homosexual person to adopt children? Great.
Allowing joint custody of a child by two same sex people? Terrific.
Allowing a same sex couple to have the same protective benefits that a different sex couple would? Sure.

Married, no.

Cool! Then help support nationalized civil unions which will bestow those same rights to same sex couples. I personally don't care how people name their unions, but I think that at least those protective benefits should be equally accessible.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Originally posted by: spunkz

Originally posted by: FoBoT
so many straight people live together without getting married these days, what difference does it make?

why do any non-religious people get married? is there a reason to get married if you don't think it is a sin to live together without marriage?

exactly. people always say, "what business do u have saying they can't get married", but i say "what business do they have getting married in the first place?" give them their unions or whatever and be done with it. if they want legal status as significant other or whatever, that's fine. but don't come in my church and say "you MUST marry us" just because you want a ceremony and a wedding ring and think its your right to have one.

Your church doesnt have to marry them by the way. They can get married without involving any religion at all. You can go get a liscence and be married by a non-minister.

I think most people get confused when they believe that marriage is a religious thing.

I would let the issue drop for now if they had equal rights in that legal status but the fact is that they do not and some states have went so far as to even ban civil unions.

heh, that's why we vote.

And we voted So, sorry. NOT....try again.

So if somehow State X voted that women are not allowed to work.... it's OK?

poor analogy. one needs work to live.

Then it's a perfect analogy. My point is that votes alone do not determine whether a law should be allowed to stay.

Laws have to pass constitutional muster as well.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: spunkz

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Originally posted by: spunkz

Originally posted by: FoBoT
so many straight people live together without getting married these days, what difference does it make?

why do any non-religious people get married? is there a reason to get married if you don't think it is a sin to live together without marriage?

exactly. people always say, "what business do u have saying they can't get married", but i say "what business do they have getting married in the first place?" give them their unions or whatever and be done with it. if they want legal status as significant other or whatever, that's fine. but don't come in my church and say "you MUST marry us" just because you want a ceremony and a wedding ring and think its your right to have one.

Your church doesnt have to marry them by the way. They can get married without involving any religion at all. You can go get a liscence and be married by a non-minister.

I think most people get confused when they believe that marriage is a religious thing.

I would let the issue drop for now if they had equal rights in that legal status but the fact is that they do not and some states have went so far as to even ban civil unions.

well i may be confused, but i would imagine that it began as a religious thing, and i think this issue has just brought attention to how frivolous and retarded marriage has become in this country. the divorce rate is probably above 50%, britney spears' escapades dont help, and now you can marry members of the same sex. i think religious people want to see marriage held in high regard again, and they're going to force that view on everyone whether people like it or not, as long as they have the majority. the question could be whether gov't should be the tool for that, or something along that line, but i still don't think gays have the right to be married.

im all for allowing a gay person to see their partner in a hospital, or for their money to be transferred to their partner when they die, and other such legal things, but please, marriage has always been man/woman in this country, so why is it so bad that people want to keep it that way?

You almost have a point, but you forget that there's not any kind of push for social parity on the heels of this vote the other day. The GA amendment is actually worded such that it pretty much kicks the legs out from under any possibility of civil unions to boot. This whole thing would be much less contentious if people were voting "no gay marriage, but civil unions should be legal and have all the same benefits".....but they're not.

Besides, if two men get married and live happily and faithfully together into their old age, how is that not upholding the institution of marriage?

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Fausto,

I think marijuana should be legal. I think I should be able to grow it and smoke a simple plant...kinda like other cultures do and how other cultures are protected even within the US.

I think it is my right to grow a plant and smoke it.

Society, culture and other people feel otherwise. It isn't hurting them, right? It isn't infringing on their rights, correct?

Yet the people vote and speak "we don't want people growing and smoking marijuana." Their reasons probably range all over the place, but they have their reasons.

So theres a reason why we vote on these things. The will of the people/society get to decide upon their own laws. In a sense we govern ourselves. We could up and decide the speed limit should be 100 MPh, we could even put it up to a vote and if it passed, the speed limit would be 100.

I like how you ignore my post that shows how unreasonable your arguement is.

I again point out.

Slavery as a law that was once agreed upon by the majority and ask you how their agreement that african americans should be servants makes it "kosher."

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Originally posted by: spunkz

Originally posted by: FoBoT
so many straight people live together without getting married these days, what difference does it make?

why do any non-religious people get married? is there a reason to get married if you don't think it is a sin to live together without marriage?

exactly. people always say, "what business do u have saying they can't get married", but i say "what business do they have getting married in the first place?" give them their unions or whatever and be done with it. if they want legal status as significant other or whatever, that's fine. but don't come in my church and say "you MUST marry us" just because you want a ceremony and a wedding ring and think its your right to have one.

Your church doesnt have to marry them by the way. They can get married without involving any religion at all. You can go get a liscence and be married by a non-minister.

I think most people get confused when they believe that marriage is a religious thing.

I would let the issue drop for now if they had equal rights in that legal status but the fact is that they do not and some states have went so far as to even ban civil unions.

heh, that's why we vote.

And we voted So, sorry. NOT....try again.

So if somehow State X voted that women are not allowed to work.... it's OK?

poor analogy. one needs work to live.

Then it's a perfect analogy. My point is that votes alone do not determine whether a law should be allowed to stay.

Laws have to pass constitutional muster as well.

Again I point out so many laws that have that now any reasonable person would agree shouldn't have.

Slavery, Jim Crowe....

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: stnicralisk
If God gave them freedom of choice then why the hell dont you?

god created them to reproduce, and buggering some guy in the rear exit won't get the job done.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Originally posted by: spunkz

Originally posted by: FoBoT
so many straight people live together without getting married these days, what difference does it make?

why do any non-religious people get married? is there a reason to get married if you don't think it is a sin to live together without marriage?

exactly. people always say, "what business do u have saying they can't get married", but i say "what business do they have getting married in the first place?" give them their unions or whatever and be done with it. if they want legal status as significant other or whatever, that's fine. but don't come in my church and say "you MUST marry us" just because you want a ceremony and a wedding ring and think its your right to have one.

Your church doesnt have to marry them by the way. They can get married without involving any religion at all. You can go get a liscence and be married by a non-minister.

I think most people get confused when they believe that marriage is a religious thing.

I would let the issue drop for now if they had equal rights in that legal status but the fact is that they do not and some states have went so far as to even ban civil unions.

heh, that's why we vote.

And we voted So, sorry. NOT....try again.

For the 1340981703th time; the opinion of the people doesn't somehow make the law "correct" in an absolute sense. Yes, they voted against it, but there's no concrete reason for this law to be on the books. The people are entitled to their opinions, but their opinions shouldn't necessarily be law.

See also: segregation.

so why is it allowed?

If it is on the books then it is kosher and is law. There's nothing preventing it from being such.

It is up to the state to recognize marriage, the state decided it didn't want same-sex marriage. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

As I have stated before.. so by your logic.. if a state voted and the majority decided it was okay to castrate people of religion without their consent. Then this would be kosher and law right?

Just because something is a law doesnt make it right.

There used to be Jim Crowe law as well but you probably think it was kosher.

Slavery was legal but it was probably kosher.

Teachers used to be denied the right to date (unless they attended church regularly and were male) but I guess it was kosher.

Now tell me again why the law makes it right?

At the time all those laws we're the will of the people and what they wanted.

But as you know society changes and the rules by which it governs itself change. And someday we'll have same-sex civil unions/what have you. Just not today.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Laws have to pass constitutional muster as well.

EXACTLY! That's why if someone wants to prove that banning gay marriages is a lawful law, they should argue using the Constitution and not by just saying "because we voted it in".

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Fausto,

I think marijuana should be legal. I think I should be able to grow it and smoke a simple plant...kinda like other cultures do and how other cultures are protected even within the US.

I think it is my right to grow a plant and smoke it.

Society, culture and other people feel otherwise. It isn't hurting them, right? It isn't infringing on their rights, correct?

Yet the people vote and speak "we don't want people growing and smoking marijuana." Their reasons probably range all over the place, but they have their reasons.

So theres a reason why we vote on these things. The will of the people/society get to decide upon their own laws. In a sense we govern ourselves. We could up and decide the speed limit should be 100 MPh, we could even put it up to a vote and if it passed, the speed limit would be 100.

I see your point (and I happen to feel the same way about weed, even though I don't personally indulge) but my original point remains; if a law is on the books based on prejudice or misconceptions, that law needs serious examination. The debate over pot is almost a parallel of this thread; there really aren't good reasons for it to be illegal, but it is because people have had it drummed into their heads that it's "bad".

Speed limits are kind of a different beast, IMHO. You and I both know that there are a lot of people out there on the roads with no business doing 100mph.