Obama: Court must end California gay marriage ban

Ducimus · 03-02-13, 10:33 AM

I don't see how the involvement of religion is a red herring. Personally, I don't appreciate anyone forcing their religous views upon me. Likewise, I can appreciate how one might take similar offense by having someone elses views being forced upon their faith. Marriage in and of itself, I fail to see how you can separate religion from it. On the other hand, i think that's already been done, and is called a civil union, which as i already stated, think they should be able to have.

Sailor Steve · 03-02-13, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Personally, I don't appreciate anyone forcing their religous views upon me. Likewise, I can appreciate how one might take similar offense by having someone elses views being forced upon their faith.

How exactly does making same-sex marriages legal force anything on you? Will you be forced to marry another man? Will churches be forced to perform gay marriages? In both cases the answer is "no".

Quote:

Marriage in and of itself, I fail to see how you can separate religion from it. On the other hand, i think that's already been done, and is called a civil union, which as i already stated, think they should be able to have.

As I said, going to a JP removes religion from the equation. The point of marriage is twofold. First is to guarantee that the children will have two parents, one of each sex. In that context it can be argued that marriage, and sex, need to be between a man and a woman. But no one marries for that reason anymore, just as no one has ever had sex just to make a baby. The main benefit of marriage today is to guarantee inheritance. If you die your wife inherites everything, and doesn't have to pay an inheritance tax. That benefit does not apply to "civil unions" as far as I know.

The point is that the definition of "marriage" has never been just religious, and tha definition has changed many times over the millenia. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, why should you care if a man marries another man? It neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg.

Platapus · 03-02-13, 10:56 AM

No one has yet made the point that allowing gays to marry will, in any way, adversely affect heterosexual marriages.

Will married heterosexuals somehow feel "less" married once gays are allowed to marry?

If gays are allowed to marry, will the heterosexual marriage divorce rate skyrocket to 40-50%? (http://www.divorcerate.org)

If gays are allowed to marry, will the average length of heterosexual plummet down to 8 years? (http://www.families.com/blog/average...h-of-marriages)

Hmmm seems to already be happening in heterosexual marriages.

So how exactly is gay marriage going to adversely affect the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage?

Armistead · 03-02-13, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

No one has yet made the point that allowing gays to marry will, in any way, adversely affect heterosexual marriages.

Will married heterosexuals somehow feel "less" married once gays are allowed to marry?

If gays are allowed to marry, will the heterosexual marriage divorce rate skyrocket to 40-50%? (http://www.divorcerate.org)

If gays are allowed to marry, will the average length of heterosexual plummet down to 8 years? (http://www.families.com/blog/average...h-of-marriages)

Hmmm seems to already be happening in heterosexual marriages.

So how exactly is gay marriage going to adversely affect the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage?

Good points, afterall, it was the first marriage "cough cough" between Adam and Eve that screwed humanity in the first place.

Platapus · 03-02-13, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armistead

Good points, afterall, it was the first marriage "cough cough" between Adam and Eve that screwed humanity in the first place.

And that was an incestuous one to boot!

Gay marriage is bad, but porking a woman who was made out of one of your body parts (a rib) is allowed.

GoldenRivet · 03-02-13, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

No one has yet made the point that allowing gays to marry will, in any way, adversely affect heterosexual marriages.

Will married heterosexuals somehow feel "less" married once gays are allowed to marry?

If gays are allowed to marry, will the heterosexual marriage divorce rate skyrocket to 40-50%? (http://www.divorcerate.org)

If gays are allowed to marry, will the average length of heterosexual plummet down to 8 years? (http://www.families.com/blog/average...h-of-marriages)

Hmmm seems to already be happening in heterosexual marriages.

So how exactly is gay marriage going to adversely affect the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage?

Two things will happen if Gays are allowed to marry

1. children will ask their parents interesting questions about why those two men (or women) are holding hands and kissing.

2. There will be an increase in business for Gay divorce lawyers

Platapus · 03-02-13, 11:30 AM

It will be interesting in the next 50 years or so to compare the heterosexual divorce rate with the homosexual divorce rate.

Unfortunately, I fear they will both be high.

Armistead · 03-02-13, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

Two things will happen if Gays are allowed to marry

1. children will ask their parents interesting questions about why those two men (or women) are holding hands and kissing.

2. There will be an increase in business for Gay divorce lawyers

Gays do walk around holding hands and kissing in public without marriage.

Betonov · 03-02-13, 12:07 PM

So the general opinion in GT about gay mariage is: civil union yes, marriage only if the church is for it and some of them even are while the rest may be bribed.

Then what the hell are the politicians still complicating. Too dumb to handle something important like the economy ??

Ducimus · 03-02-13, 06:25 PM

Ill reiterate my position in as clear and simple terms as i can make, according to my own understanding of the subject.

Marriage, has two aspects.
- Spiritual and religious. I see this as a matter of Church.
- Legal "stuff" (one legal entity, certificate, etc etc). I see this as a matter of State.

Two separate issue. As should be patently obvious, I am a firm believer in the separation between church and state. I am firmly against, the state enacting changes to religion via legislation or more importantly, vice versa. The state should stay out of matters of faith, and the Church should stay out of matters of the state.

Now, If a church decides that within it's own strictures, dogma, rules, what have you, that gay marriage is permissible, then that is that church's decision. Likewise, if a church decides that gay marriage is not permissible to that faith, then that too, is that church's decision. If a gay couple want to get married, and their religion isn't permissible to it; then that is a spiritual and religious matter between that gay couple, their faith, and their church leadership. I think It is wrong to go to the government, and try and get the state to intervene on this matter. This is not a matter of the state. It is a matter of church.

To sum, I am not for or against Gay marriage. In fact, i honestly do not care what gays do or don't do. My view is simply a pragmatic one.

- On the legal aspects of marriage, i think gay couples should be afforded all the benefits and perks that are afforded to anyone else. This is a matter of state, and as such should be impartial , unbiased and fair.

- On the spiritual aspect of marriage, I think that is a Church matter. Being a member of any church is voluntary, and is privy to belief and faith, as such, should not be legislated.

As it happens, most faiths don't see gay marriage in a favorable light. But that is not my problem as I am neither a member of a church, nor gay. I would be equally indifferent if most faiths were permissible of gay marriage. What others want to do in their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness is none of my concern.

Platapus · 03-02-13, 06:40 PM

This is why I really like the way Germany handles it (according to The Frau)

Everyone goes through a civil ceremony that establishes the legal state of marriage. After that, the couple has the option of going through a church service that will establish the spiritual state of marriage.

Nice and clean. What the United States did wrong was combine the legal and spiritual ceremonies of marriage.

Takeda Shingen · 03-03-13, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Now, If a church decides that within it's own strictures, dogma, rules, what have you, that gay marriage is permissible, then that is that church's decision. Likewise, if a church decides that gay marriage is not permissible to that faith, then that too, is that church's decision. If a gay couple want to get married, and their religion isn't permissible to it; then that is a spiritual and religious matter between that gay couple, their faith, and their church leadership. I think It is wrong to go to the government, and try and get the state to intervene on this matter. This is not a matter of the state. It is a matter of church.

Same-sex marriage is legal in 9 states and no one is forcing churches to participate in or recognize them. What is happening is that in 41 states churches that wish to exercise their faith and permit same-sex marriage are prohibited from doing so by the state.

What I found peculiar was your statement in an earlier post about Obama involving himself in the matter, when his stated view is that DOMA should be repealled. It would seem that he is in favor of getting the government out of the marriage business, which I would think you would be in favor of.

Armistead · 03-02-13, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I don't see how the involvement of religion is a red herring. Personally, I don't appreciate anyone forcing their religous views upon me. Likewise, I can appreciate how one might take similar offense by having someone elses views being forced upon their faith. Marriage in and of itself, I fail to see how you can separate religion from it. On the other hand, i think that's already been done, and is called a civil union, which as i already stated, think they should be able to have.

Many gays are religious and go to church and many mainstream churches have no problem marrying gays. Why should gays not be allowed a religious marriage if that is what they choose based on their faith? Could it be your religious bias that would deny gays a religious marriage? Marriage hasn't been a religious institution since the govt. got involved with it's many laws.

I'm against gay marriage for myself.

Skybird · 03-03-13, 10:07 AM

For a change now to a really earth-moving and important issue. We must want to get more unisex toilets in the public sphere. I agree that gay marriages add a lot of highly valuable, appreciated contribution to the project of improving the world and fight and social communities could not live without increasing the numbers of homo marriages - but what we really need to win the battle against the militant followers of Jerry Lewis and their moronic agenda is more genderism and more unisex toilets.

Vote for unisex toilets - because people have the right not to be stigmatized as male or female: hermaphrodites and cross-dressers are voters, too.

Takeda Shingen · 03-03-13, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

For a change now to a really earth-moving and important issue. We must want to get more unisex toilets in the public sphere. I agree that gay marriages add a lot of highly valuable, appreciated contribution to the project of improving the world and fight and social communities could not live without increasing the numbers of homo marriages - but what we really need to win the battle against the militant followers of Jerry Lewis and their moronic agenda is more genderism and more unisex toilets.

Vote for unisex toilets - because people have the right not to be stigmatized as male or female: hermaphrodites and cross-dressers are voters, too.

So, you are for total and inviolable rights so long as it suits you. When it doesn't, well then rights be damned.

03-02-13, 10:56 AM	#3
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,380 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	No one has yet made the point that allowing gays to marry will, in any way, adversely affect heterosexual marriages. Will married heterosexuals somehow feel "less" married once gays are allowed to marry? If gays are allowed to marry, will the heterosexual marriage divorce rate skyrocket to 40-50%? (http://www.divorcerate.org) If gays are allowed to marry, will the average length of heterosexual plummet down to 8 years? (http://www.families.com/blog/average...h-of-marriages) Hmmm seems to already be happening in heterosexual marriages. So how exactly is gay marriage going to adversely affect the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage? __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

03-02-13, 11:30 AM	#7
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,380 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	It will be interesting in the next 50 years or so to compare the heterosexual divorce rate with the homosexual divorce rate. Unfortunately, I fear they will both be high. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

03-02-13, 06:40 PM	#11
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,380 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	This is why I really like the way Germany handles it (according to The Frau) Everyone goes through a civil ceremony that establishes the legal state of marriage. After that, the couple has the option of going through a church service that will establish the spiritual state of marriage. Nice and clean. What the United States did wrong was combine the legal and spiritual ceremonies of marriage. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

03-03-13, 10:07 AM	#14
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,665 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	For a change now to a really earth-moving and important issue. We must want to get more unisex toilets in the public sphere. I agree that gay marriages add a lot of highly valuable, appreciated contribution to the project of improving the world and fight and social communities could not live without increasing the numbers of homo marriages - but what we really need to win the battle against the militant followers of Jerry Lewis and their moronic agenda is more genderism and more unisex toilets. Vote for unisex toilets - because people have the right not to be stigmatized as male or female: hermaphrodites and cross-dressers are voters, too. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-02-13, 10:33 AM	#1
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	I don't see how the involvement of religion is a red herring. Personally, I don't appreciate anyone forcing their religous views upon me. Likewise, I can appreciate how one might take similar offense by having someone elses views being forced upon their faith. Marriage in and of itself, I fail to see how you can separate religion from it. On the other hand, i think that's already been done, and is called a civil union, which as i already stated, think they should be able to have.

03-02-13, 12:07 PM	#9
Betonov Navy Seal Join Date: May 2009 Location: Slovenia Posts: 8,647 Downloads: 26 Uploads: 0	So the general opinion in GT about gay mariage is: civil union yes, marriage only if the church is for it and some of them even are while the rest may be bribed. Then what the hell are the politicians still complicating. Too dumb to handle something important like the economy ??

03-02-13, 06:25 PM	#10
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	Ill reiterate my position in as clear and simple terms as i can make, according to my own understanding of the subject. Marriage, has two aspects. - Spiritual and religious. I see this as a matter of Church. - Legal "stuff" (one legal entity, certificate, etc etc). I see this as a matter of State. Two separate issue. As should be patently obvious, I am a firm believer in the separation between church and state. I am firmly against, the state enacting changes to religion via legislation or more importantly, vice versa. The state should stay out of matters of faith, and the Church should stay out of matters of the state. Now, If a church decides that within it's own strictures, dogma, rules, what have you, that gay marriage is permissible, then that is that church's decision. Likewise, if a church decides that gay marriage is not permissible to that faith, then that too, is that church's decision. If a gay couple want to get married, and their religion isn't permissible to it; then that is a spiritual and religious matter between that gay couple, their faith, and their church leadership. I think It is wrong to go to the government, and try and get the state to intervene on this matter. This is not a matter of the state. It is a matter of church. To sum, I am not for or against Gay marriage. In fact, i honestly do not care what gays do or don't do. My view is simply a pragmatic one. - On the legal aspects of marriage, i think gay couples should be afforded all the benefits and perks that are afforded to anyone else. This is a matter of state, and as such should be impartial , unbiased and fair. - On the spiritual aspect of marriage, I think that is a Church matter. Being a member of any church is voluntary, and is privy to belief and faith, as such, should not be legislated. As it happens, most faiths don't see gay marriage in a favorable light. But that is not my problem as I am neither a member of a church, nor gay. I would be equally indifferent if most faiths were permissible of gay marriage. What others want to do in their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness is none of my concern.