Thread: SCOTUS decides on Prop 8 :D

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

I think it's Pretty obvious the court will rule much like this Article predicts, even if it is just humorous.

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

That's happening Regardless, ie Colorado and Washington and Recreational substances.



All persons are created equal.... the Gov shall not blah blah

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

But marriage Grants certain rights, like tax breaks, custody...... which are in that document.

hmm.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I have one simple question for you. Who do you think you are? Your going to come into a thread and tell the mods to lock it because you say someone else is trolling when you haven't had a single post about the topic yet. Your posts thus far are limited to insults at me. Last time i checked the op was gay marriage not your opinion of me. Now once again feel free to bring your argument to the table and i will gladly discuss it.

Selective memory, maybe.

You're first post on the Subject has nothing to do with the OP, but twisting words posted by another. Do what you please sir, as anyone that tells you otherwise is either insulting your or not on par with the OP. I'm not here to troll, that's your job.

Marriage gives rights to individuals, given by the government. If the government discriminates against individuals based on Religious criteria, then the separation of Church and state has been nullified. Which is against the founders ideals and one of the reasons this country was made. Taxation without representation and freedom from religious persecution.

Take the off topic BS out of this thread and to PMs.

This thread... lulz.

This debate is not about equality, it's about acceptance. The LGBT community isn't asking for permission to sleep with one another. They aren't asking to be able to live with one another. They aren't asking for the privilege to hold hands and kiss in public. These are acts that no matter what a government says, will happen regardless.

If this issue is about legal standing in terms of taxation, and other civil benefits... then "done". I have no problem giving the LGBT community the same access to a loved one in the ICU than any another 'family member'. There is literally no rationale argument that can be made to deny State derived benefits, no matter what sexual orientation, or for that matter... race, sex, religion, creed, etc, etc.

I find the real issue here is one of nomenclature. It's about the term 'marriage'. Now marriage, whether you like it or not, is an artifact of religion. The Bible calls the church the "Bride of Christ". That's where the church derived the idea of marriage to begin with. So at the very LEAST, this places any State intervention firmly in the realm of separating church and state. My feelings are, the government shouldn't be in ANYONE'S marriage. I don't care what your plumbing is. The State has no business in my marriage or yours.

Period.

I think marriage should remain within the purview of the church, but all citizens of the United States should have expanded rights, consistent with the 14th amendments to include civil unions. If that means I'm not considered "married" by the sate, and instead I am seen as being in a civil union by the State, then I'm okay with that. Those in the LGBT community should not expect to feel any special accommodation from the Church and if they don't like it, tough noodles... life isn't fair. It makes far more sense to make all of our relationships into civil unions, where, in the states eyes, is a legal contract which enumerates rights for all parties. Allow people who want to be "married" to pursue religions endorsement from the place where the term "marriage" comes from... their church.

Does this arrangement not make ALL of us equal? If they answer is yes, then we're done here. If you're going to be hung up on a term, then my original statement stands; its about acceptance, not equality. And I don't care what anyone says, you can't legislate acceptance.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

The Bible calls the church the "Bride of Christ". That's where the church derived the idea of marriage to begin with.

I don't believe that for an instant. The idea of "marriage" has been around for 20,000 years. The church adopted it and claimed it as their own just as it has with all sorts of stories in the bible.

So if it's an "artifact of religion" then lets just say that the Church of LGBT is now providing **MARRIAGES** and there you go. They have their terminology AND the legality of it that the gov't can regulate. And the Church of LGBT has two tennets... Marriage by anyone... And believe whatever other religion you want.

Boom. Instant religious acceptability, freedom to be any other religion as well, AND the legal benefits of *marriage*.

You can't usurp a word and claim it as your own and only your own. No matter what Apple ( Apple claims trademark infringement against Amazon for using the phrase “App Store” « GPM Web Solutions – Web Design & Advice for Anyone ) says.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

This thread... lulz.

This debate is not about equality, it's about acceptance. The LGBT community isn't asking for permission to sleep with one another. They aren't asking to be able to live with one another. They aren't asking for the privilege to hold hands and kiss in public. These are acts that no matter what a government says, will happen regardless.

If this issue is about legal standing in terms of taxation, and other civil benefits... then "done". I have no problem giving the LGBT community the same access to a loved one in the ICU than any another 'family member'. There is literally no rationale argument that can be made to deny State derived benefits, no matter what sexual orientation, or for that matter... race, sex, religion, creed, etc, etc.

I find the real issue here is one of nomenclature. It's about the term 'marriage'. Now marriage, whether you like it or not, is an artifact of religion. The Bible calls the church the "Bride of Christ". That's where the church derived the idea of marriage to begin with. So at the very LEAST, this places any State intervention firmly in the realm of separating church and state. My feelings are, the government shouldn't be in ANYONE'S marriage. I don't care what your plumbing is. The State has no business in my marriage or yours.

Period.

I think marriage should remain within the purview of the church, but all citizens of the United States should have expanded rights, consistent with the 14th amendments to include civil unions. If that means I'm not considered "married" by the sate, and instead I am seen as being in a civil union by the State, then I'm okay with that. Those in the LGBT community should not expect to feel any special accommodation from the Church and if they don't like it, tough noodles... life isn't fair. It makes far more sense to make all of our relationships into civil unions, where, in the states eyes, is a legal contract which enumerates rights for all parties. Allow people who want to be "married" to pursue religions endorsement from the place where the term "marriage" comes from... their church.

Does this arrangement not make ALL of us equal? If they answer is yes, then we're done here. If you're going to be hung up on a term, then my original statement stands; its about acceptance, not equality. And I don't care what anyone says, you can't legislate acceptance.

exactly.

Originally Posted by Kanati8869

I don't believe that for an instant. The idea of "marriage" has been around for 20,000 years. The church adopted it and claimed it as their own just as it has with all sorts of stories in the bible.

So if it's an "artifact of religion" then lets just say that the Church of LGBT is now providing **MARRIAGES** and there you go. They have their terminology AND the legality of it that the gov't can regulate. And the Church of LGBT has two tennets... Marriage by anyone... And believe whatever other religion you want.

Boom. Instant religious acceptability, freedom to be any other religion as well, AND the legal benefits of *marriage*.

You can't usurp a word and claim it as your own and only your own. No matter what Apple ( Apple claims trademark infringement against Amazon for using the phrase “App Store” « GPM Web Solutions – Web Design & Advice for Anyone ) says.

You have no proof to back your assertion up other than, "I really, really, really don't want to believe that". Sorry, but that's not going to fly. The concept of marriage was formed from the very beginnings of the the writings that would eventually become the "Bible". They were around long before the Bible was the "Bible", and certainly around before any of the religions the Bible created. Show the me the cave painting where early neanderthals created the institution of "marriage" (not unions), and then you might have something. Otherwise, your argument is semantic in nature.

But I did like how you simply skipped over the whole part where I suggested a course of action that would make all of us "equal". so you see... it's not about equality, but acceptance. Admit that its about nomenclature, not being truly equal.

And if they want to create a "Church of the LGBT community", then fine... that's not a problem. That's freedom of religion, we enjoy that in this country. I have some very good gay friends who really don't care at all what a state says. They bought rings and call each other husbands. Do they need a state to endorse them? No. They could care less.

Originally Posted by Captain Coors

I just don't understand, if churches can still refuse to marry gay people, why do religous folks care about gay people being able to be married?

They won't be able to in your church right? They do their thing and religous people do their own thing.

If I understood laz correctly, my thinking would be in that people feel they are being "attacked", I guess because it diminishes what they believe in, idk lol.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

You have no proof to back your assertion up other than, "I really, really, really don't want to believe that". Sorry, but that's not going to fly. The concept of marriage was formed from the very beginnings of the the writings that would eventually become the "Bible". They were around long before the Bible was the "Bible", and certainly around before any of the religions the Bible created.

How about the sumerian and mesopotamian laws of marriage that existed over 5000 years ago? Those would be the first written records other than christian. Sumerian families were husband, wife, children.... Divorces were accepted... Ancience Jewish marriages (2500 years ago is the oldest known marriage contract) were lists of legal obligations... The writings of Plato define marriage as a union of the practical and the pleasant. He urged young men to find a partner based on the interests of the city or state and not based on love or other desires. Marriage was a real thing in pre-christian Greece obviously.

You are deluding yourself if you think that marriage wasn't around before christianity or in alongside it in other cultures.

Originally Posted by Captain Coors

I just don't understand, if churches can still refuse to marry gay people, why do religous folks care about gay people being able to be married?

They won't be able to in your church right? They do their thing and religous people do their own thing.

The same reason religions exist at all. Control. Control of the mind, the body, and ideas.