California backs gay marriage ban

Not sitting on the fence. If certain churches refuse to marry, (certain churches are all for gay marriage) then you should not force them.

It's a libertarian approach to the issue if that helps to explain myself.

 

Ever heard of human rights?
Okay, off my high horse.
I have a problem with the whole "marriage" dibacle...because it is only a word.
But, ALL churches should allow gay "marriage"...
Whats the big deal anyway?

 

I don't think you understand my point.

I believe anyone should get married if they want to get married. But if say, the catholic church does not want to marry, no matter they are right or wrong, they don't have to if they do want to... that's what a republic is. I just believe that if 100k people want something, but one person does not, then you should not force that one person to accept it. Just apply that same idea to what I said about the Catholic church.

But if a certain church marries same sex couples, cool. That's great. I am happy. I just don't like the forceful aspect of anything. If say a religious group went out there and tried to stop same sex marriages, even they have a right to do so in this country, I would still think that they are wrong for it, because like I said... I hate force because I believe it's contradictory to human rights... and not to be sappy, but also love.

 

Don't we have laws for equality?
The law should be that ALL couples should have the same rights.
The church, any church, should be neutral on this matter.
They do not need to say "marriage" if they feel sickened by the fact two people of the same sex want to be "marry"
The church should be a facilitator not a judge and jury.

 

1) Yup.

2) That's a matter of opinion. Some churchs believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. If this was 1970's where the church refused to marry interracial couples, and their religious doctrines specifically stated "Marriage is between a man and a woman", and they went against that, then they would be contradicting themselves. Some believe that same sex couple marriage is not a right (This does not include me). I still believe in separation between church and state.

3) Still a matter of opinion. This is a religious institution. If they say that it goes against their views to eat pork, then you can't force feed them pork rinds. Religious freedom is important as long as it does not infringe on human rights. But this is a tricky issue... (edited)

4) Sickened? Now that isn't a fair thing to say. You are turning their opinions into something else. They believe that marriage should be between a man and woman due because its a part of their religious doctrine. I guess some are against it because they do feel sickened, but when you say that you have to realize that you really are making a broad assumption.

5) The church should be whatever it wants to be within reason. Religious freedom is important. And you aren't going to change the minds of millions but forcing them. Maybe one day the church will change their minds about it, but right now you can't just force that on them. Doing so will cause a lot more harm than good.

In the end, why even get married by a church that won't even recognize you as significant? You can't expect to change thousands of years of tradition by enforcing neutrality.

Think about it... how can you get a same sex couple married inside a catholic church by a catholic priest? How is that even possible?

 

I admit I am making a broad assumption when I say the church is sickened. But I do believe that is what it boils down to.
The church did not invent "marriage" so it should not be up to them to decide who is or isn't fit to be married.
I appreciate faiths have a wide opinion on this...but, untill any faith forces people to accept 1 way of looking at things, there is no harm in allowing mariage to anybody. They should not be above the law.
I'm certain in any reasonable church there is somebody who would carry out a marriage ceremony for ANYBODY.

 

Its all a smokescreen.

One of the big reasons suburbia is against this is about something thats never said out loud.

Its not about gay marriage, its about secret bi marriage and gaydar

If you legitamise gay marriages, have them out in suburbia, 1 in every 50 houses or so mixing with the common people, then they are going to be better at spotting bi guys and girls, married to their opposite sex partner whilst running around doing same sex stuff in secret without their partners knowledge, leaving the "public" partner frustrated and somewhat unloved.

Gay is at best 2% of the population, if you want to continue to believe bi is as small a minority as gay, or that all those guys running around at truckstops in the middle of the night are gay, or every wifes girlfriends are just plutonic, then you are simply not going to get the full picture on this issue

 

This makes no sense.
Good grief, you are an adult but you speak like a child.

 

So you admit that it is an assumption then you say that it boils down to that another assumption. But I understand, I get what you mean and I respect your opinion. I just don't agree with you that is the reason.

No they didn't invent marriage, but their church did. That's what a marriage is to them.

I don't agree that anyone should force anyone to look at anything in one way... pretty much why I am against forcing neutrality.

They should not be above the law, but some laws aren't very well thought out or really fair.

I don't know about your last statement. I don't see a catholic priest performing a same sex wedding... I'm sorry, but I just don't see that happening. I could be wrong.

Btw, what do you feel about polygamy? Do you feel that's a right? Some would say that it is, but some would be against it. But those that are against it, can we say that they are against it because they are sickened by it or is it another reason?

 

Yes.
It is a horrid word to use, I admit. But, I didn't have any other word to use. From what I read about - for e.g - the catholic churches take on people that are gay...I can't think of another word to use, but: sickened.

I'm not quite sure that makes sense.

Okay, I'm not trying to force everybody within any church to accept gay marriage.
But there are 360 ways to look at any given situation.
The bible has been interpreted in many different ways...
Surely it is not beyond acceptance to let people of faith who happen to be gay, get married...it will not be the end of the world, will it?
There will be priests or whom ever - that accept gay marriage - to carry out a service...and the deed is done.
Perhaps it is up to the state to allow gay people to be married and use the term "married"...
To be honest, I have more of a problem with a country that does not allow gay marriage than I do with what any particular faith has to say.
It seems to mean the state has a monoply on faith and what is acceptable.

I agree.
The real point is (for me anyway)...it is just a word.
A word that has divided the world.
It should be about equality and the truth that nobody should be discriminated against because they happen to want to use a particular word and have the same rights that word affords them.

I'm hoping there are reasonable people who accept varied opinions.

I would love to be able to keep more than one woman happy for long a period of time.

I don't see many women having multiple husbands...only men having multiple wives.
If it was more balanced, it would not bother me.
I do have a problem with the imbalance.

 

It's not really about it being the end of the world. It's about the here and now and forcing something that should not and will not happen. If church A allows same sex couple marriages, ok good... Government institution B will marry same sex couples, but Church C will not marry you because it goes against their beliefs. Is it the end of the world if these couples have to seek the churches that will marry them and ignore the one's that don't?

I don't think that you understand the conviction these people have that choose to be priests for the Catholic church... if gay marriage goes against their doctrines, they will not budge on it because doing so is to go against the church, their beliefs, and most of all, the God that they believe in. If it were up to me, I would have it your way and just have the churches marry. If you happen to find catholic churches that allow this, then good, if not, good luck and I hope that we can.

These people can do the sign of the cross on you, bless you, give ya a hug, but ask them to marry a same sex couple and they will politely tell you no and then give you a list of prayers to repeat once you get back at home... I live in the Bronx, and I am surrounded by catholic church's. There are about 4 in around a half mile. I have had many dealings with them and I know what they will say if asked and I have a good feeling what would happen if they are forced.

As for the catholic churches take on homosexuals... I don't know what to say really, all I can say is that if one doesn't go inside the shoes of another person and see the world through their eyes, then they risk making assumptions about the person and risk demonizing them. But in the end, I can't say... I'm not a catholic.

I don't understand what you mean when you say that faiths hold a monopoly on what is acceptable because they assumes so much and I really don't know where you are going with that honestly.

A word that has divided the world? I dunno where that is coming from because we aren't even talking about the Bible. I know that you are, but this is besides the point. I am discussing a separation between church and state

All I know is that if a church does not want to have something done then you should not force them... it isn't hard. What I meant by my church created marriage is that they invented their version of marriage if that makes more sense.

You're right with polygamy, if men can have multiple wives then women should be able to have multiple husbands. Personally, I don't think that it is possible to keep multiple spouses happy. Most people have a problem with the one, lol. Besides, it splits up the focus. But hey, if it can be done, gl with that. But that's why I brought polygamy up because you can end up being against it and you can be against it for reasons other than, "because it's sickening".

 

Dude, its like Santa Claus, you know how when you encounter a kid that still believes in Santa, you go along with the act to protect that innocence.....

Its the same with a lot of parents, one act in front of the kids, completetly different act with everyone else

There is a whole world of crazy shit going on without the kids knowledge, just cos you never see any of it doesnt mean it doesnt happen, often those that appear to be the most moral are simply the ones just the best at putting on the act.

You are never really going to know your parents, especially in terms of their sexuality. How do you know your parents arent swingers? How do you know your dad doesnt have a secret boyfriend, or mum has a secret girlfriend? How do you know they dont know about each others secret friend? They cant be like that cos they are good people? Its got nothing to do with being good, the only part the real need to be good with is they keep it from the kids.

Think I'm crazy? If you're sure your dad isnt bi, then prove it

 

What I meant was that there are various faiths, and okay, not all should be forced to allow gay marriage.
I'm not trying to suggest it should be across the board.
I'm sorry if that is what I seemed to be implying.
What I mean is, "marriage" is just a state of being.
Democracies should get over the fact that they seem to think "marriage" is some kind of religious fact.
It really isn't.
Religion has taken it and used it to devide people.
Many states have decided the word of a faith is more importnat than anything else.
This is not fair or reasonable.
No, it isn't the end of the world if gay couples have to seek out a church that will marry them.
I guess it really boils down to the state accepting the couple as a married couple...not a civil partnership.

I think I have said in this thread...I do think it more important there is equality, regardless of any words people choose to use.

I do understand peoples convictions.
There are more faiths than catholicism.
Let them remain in the stone age if they so wish.
But, in law, marriage has been defined as man and women.
Surely a state has no religion and no doctrine on this matter.
If they do, it should change.
Especially if they are seemingly saying there is a seperation between church and state.

I agree: IF one doesn't go inside the shoes of another person and see the world through their eyes, then they risk making assumptions about the person and risk demonizing them.

I don't think I said a faith, I think I said the state seemingly held the monopoly.
They seemingly have taken what is supposedly written in the bible and ran with that idea.

What I mean when I say a word has devided the world, is that, what are we really talking about...
It isn't really faith or gay people per se...but a simple word that has been defined as: Man and Woman.
When the actual definition is the joining of two people.
That is the definition a state should hold and not that of any particular faith.
Once that is achieved then there will be equality.
The church then can go burn in glorious hell, for all I care.

It is true religion has defined a word, this is clearly wrong.

I don't find polygamy sickening.
I just think it is too male oriantated.

 

I'm sorry Vanilla Gorilla, but I don't really understand the point that you are trying to make.

People can keep their sexuality hidden from their spouses, family, and even possibly themselves, but I don't know what this has to do with gay marriage. If you're gay and want to get married, then you already know that you are gay so it really isn't about concealed identities.

 

I really have no clue what you are talking about.
Actually, I kinda do, but fail to see how it is relevant to this issue.

Yes I do think you are crazy.

 

But they cant keep it secret from some of us.


We are talking about a public vote, many votes arent based on a decision directly linked to the proposal. Some are voting on cos they dont want gay normalised cos of fear of being outed, not as gay,but as bi, some are voting cos they see gay marriage as the step before gay people raising kids; dont normalise gay marriage cos that will lead to normalising gay parents.

Homophobia is a phrase I hate using cos it pales in comparison to sexism. But the term means fear of homosexuals, it doesnt mean hatred of homosexuals.
If someone thinks homosexual is icky, or they hate them, thats a totally diffent thing to fearing them.

And thats what we all have to work out with this issue, what is everyone afraid of? are they all afraid of the same thing? and is there any fear that some straight people never ever verbalise to anyone?

 

and so......prove he isnt bi

 

Thank You for making more sense and making it more relevant.

 

Why should I?

 

See, Odon, I am with you on this. I don't think that the state should make a religious argument because then that isn't a separation of church and state. The church should not intercede on the state and the state should not intercede on the church.

It's like what Lewis Black said... you have the constitution, an amazing document, then at the end... MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. It's contradictory to the whole point of the constitution.

I'm sorry too, because it seemed like that was what you were implying. But ya, I am with you on this one. I just have an issue over the groups that want it their way or no other way, and I am talking about both sides of the issue.

I am up for absolutely anything anyone wants, just as long as people aren't demonized for seeing it another way. The whole point of equality is to allow all of these differences without intolerance, otherwise it can lead to one group oppressing another.

"Let them remain in the stone age if they so wish." =/ Not really necessary, but I understand your sentiment up to a point.

In law, marriage should not be clearly defined as being between man and woman. You're right.

I don't think polygamy is sickening either, wasn't implying it either. Just saying that it probably isn't the best route to take if one wants a very meaningful relationship, but that's me.

Ya, there are more faiths than the one that I mentioned. I don't know if defining a word is wrong... philosophers do it all of the time. The word love has been redefined for centuries. If a religion defines a word a certain way, ok, just as long as it doesn't hinder the words of others if you know what I mean. If we can do that, then there will be equilibrium.

All I can say is that I am glad that we are no longer in the stoneage