Gay marriage ban

[TheBZ]

[quote name='Dan_Bengals_NJ' post='277946' date='Jun 5 2006, 01:43 PM']There should be no ban on gay marriage.

If gays want to marry, join in a civil union whatever, let them.

There are plenty of people who get married who piss all over the religion. I am 100% positive there are people who are gay, who follow Christian values a lot better than a lot of so called straight Christians. The fact that they have one "flaw" in their values shouldn't hold them back.[/quote]

I agree completely...Although I don't believe Churches should be forced to perform homosexual marriages. (or any marriage, for that matter...according the conscience of the clergy)

[quote name='mongoloido' post='278083' date='Jun 5 2006, 07:54 PM']Unfortunately, the government does have to be involved because of the legal ramifications of "marriage." Tax status, family medical insurance plans, spouse swapping parties, whatever. [/quote]

Yup...Once the government got into the marriage business...They charted their own course with having to deal with this issue.


My father is a Presbyterian minister, and we have 'gotten into it' over this issue on a number of occasions.

His primary worry is being forced by the government to perform marriages...I just don't think the government wants or cares to do that.

But since they have 'stolen' notions of sanctified marriage from the Churches, governments need to open up their definitions...Churches usually already have independent guidelines on such things.

I think the answer is to require a CIVIL marriage certificate for the purposes of all legal bounds...And everyone should have the right to that. It's really just a license.

Then, leave it up to the churches who they are willing to sanctify or not...Since it's faith and interpretations anyways, all the power to them.

Some churches will do it and some won't...But at least it won't drag down the government as far as equal rights and freedoms go.

Essentially, this is what my wife and I did when we got married...We had a civil union performed and got our license (without telling anyone but two witnesses), and then had the religious service a month later. This was required, because our minister (from Alberta) couldn't perform marriages in British Columbia.

Personally, I didn't feel cheated on either count...And both sides had their place in what we were looking for out of being married.

BZ

[Guest fredtoast]

Marraige was not originally created as a religious ceremony. The first marraiges were arranged deals between families to consolidate power and wealth. What is so "holy" about some guy telling his daughter that she is going to marry the son of a stranger so the family can get a few camels? It kills me that christians are the ones moaning about the sanctity of marraige when one of the heroes of their bible was a polygamist (See Jacob Sarah and Rachel). I think that their ideas about marraige deserve to be pissed all over.

Marraige is nothing more than a legal arraingemant between parties. What the hell does sexual orientation have to do with that?

[Guest bengalrick]

what is the point in life? forget all the materialistic shit, and even the religious shit... the purpose in life is to recreate...

so explain to me exactly how two dudes can have a baby together....

i dont' know the history behind how marriage was originally created... to be frank, i could give a fuck less... i look at it as a sacred vowel that my wife and i took... my faith teaches me that a man and a woman are joined in holy matriamony by GOD... that is why i believe in marriage, and think it is a relious bond, and not simply a gov't bond...

so i have my faith that tells me that two people of the same sex isn't right, but i also have common sense telling me that two men or two woman cannot carry out the basic function of mankind... forgive me for using my logic to come to the conclussion that homosexuality is not the way life was meant to be led...

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='278319' date='Jun 6 2006, 11:50 AM']what is the point in life? forget all the materialistic shit, and even the religious shit... the purpose in life is to recreate...

so explain to me exactly how two dudes can have a baby together....

i dont' know the history behind how marriage was originally created... to be frank, i could give a fuck less... i look at it as a sacred vowel that my wife and i took... my faith teaches me that a man and a woman are joined in holy matriamony by GOD... that is why i believe in marriage, and think it is a relious bond, and not simply a gov't bond...

so i have my faith that tells me that two people of the same sex isn't right, but i also have common sense telling me that two men or two woman cannot carry out the basic function of mankind... forgive me for using my logic to come to the conclussion that homosexuality is not the way life was meant to be led...[/quote]


[b]to play homos advocate ...

a gay man could technically even marry a woman .... but have gay man lovin on the side .... so the natural argument doesn't hold that much water as far as just the homosexual act ..... hell anal sex doesn't recreate ... but even with a man and woman it can be a lot of fun ....

Also so many behvaiors today are not related to the further procreation of mankind .... and those are not viewed under the same scope ....


Also couldn't a gay man choose to inseminate a woman whose husband can't produce sperm ... (thus furthering his lineage) but then still fuck dudes and marry a guy ?[/b]

[Guest BadassBengal]

Gay people, you can marry. You just can't marry each other.

Guys banging guys IMO is almost as bad as people banging animals. Just not... right.

But... i dunno. Go ahead and marry each other. Whatever.

[Guest fredtoast]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='278319' date='Jun 6 2006, 11:50 AM']what is the point in life? forget all the materialistic shit, and even the religious shit... the purpose in life is to recreate...[/quote]

Uh oh, here comes a Constitutional Ammendment against people getting married that can't (or choose not to) have babies.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='fredtoast' post='278340' date='Jun 6 2006, 12:12 PM']Uh oh, here comes a Constitutional Ammendment against people getting married that can't (or choose not to) have babies.[/quote]

my fucking lord, forget politics for a minute... am i right that the point of life is to recreate?

[Ben]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='278375' date='Jun 6 2006, 01:11 PM']my fucking lord, forget politics for a minute... am i right that the point of life is to recreate?[/quote]

O.k.... Say we concede your point on the "answer to life"(42). What does that have to do w/ marriage/civl union?

This seems more like. According to the reiligous dogma i have been taught, this is wrong. Therefore, i believe that everyone else should subscribe to this same dogma. Otherwise my beliefs would be shaken.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Ben' post='278382' date='Jun 6 2006, 01:15 PM']O.k.... Say we concede your point on the "answer to life"(42). What does that have to do w/ marriage/civl union?

This seems more like. According to the reiligous dogma i have been taught, this is wrong. Therefore, i believe that everyone else should subscribe to this same dogma. Otherwise my beliefs would be shaken.[/quote]

ok, let me break this down better...

according to my religion, it is wrong... my religion also teaches compassion, acceptance, and forgiveness so even if i think that it is wrong, i hold no grudges, and i don't treat a gay man or woman any different than i would a straight man or woman...

according to my common sense, it doesn't work right... you can't do the basic function of life w/ two people of the same sex, so my common sense tells me it isn't supposed to be like that... however, personally i don't think i have the right to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong in my eyes, so i could care less what they do...

but i think of marriage as a sacred bond w/ God... not a government or tax advantage... so to me, marrying homosexuals is spitting in the face of my religion... call it civil unions, take the religious implications out of it, and give them the same "rights" i have w/ marriage, and i call that a good compromise...

[Nati Ice]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='278390' date='Jun 6 2006, 01:26 PM']ok, let me break this down better...

according to my religion, it is wrong... my religion also teaches compassion, acceptance, and forgiveness so even if i think that it is wrong, i hold no grudges, and i don't treat a gay man or woman any different than i would a straight man or woman...

according to my common sense, it doesn't work right... you can't do the basic function of life w/ two people of the same sex, so my common sense tells me it isn't supposed to be like that... however, personally i don't think i have the right to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong in my eyes, so i could care less what they do...

but i think of marriage as a sacred bond w/ God... not a government or tax advantage... so to me, marrying homosexuals is spitting in the face of my religion... call it civil unions, take the religious implications out of it, and give them the same "rights" i have w/ marriage, and i call that a good compromise...[/quote]thats good to know...

now, since we have this little thing called seperation of church and state, well be moving on...

were not talking about churches allowing gay marriages, were talking about the state here, and your arguement doesnt state why it should be illegal.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Nati Ice' post='278404' date='Jun 6 2006, 01:43 PM']thats good to know...

now, since we have this little thing called seperation of church and state, well be moving on...

were not talking about churches allowing gay marriages, were talking about the state here, and your arguement doesnt state why it should be illegal.[/quote]

fine, piss all over my religion then asshole... i said that they should have the exact same rights as my wife and i do, except not being "married" because that, to most people, is a religious bond... it spits in my face...

btw, i don't support a constutional ban on gay marriage... so why would i defend why it should be illegal?

[Ben]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='278411' date='Jun 6 2006, 01:57 PM']fine, piss all over my religion then asshole... i said that they should have the exact same rights as my wife and i do, except not being "married" because that, to most people, is a religious bond... it spits in my face...

btw, i don't support a constutional ban on gay marriage... so why would i defend why it should be illegal?[/quote]

I'm not trying to direct this at you peronsally...but you are the only person bringing up the christian god aspect of all this.

How do you feel about Buddist/Muslim/Atheist getting "Married". They are making a bond w/ "A God", but not the "Christian God". Wel... the atheist are just making a bond w/ each other i guess.

As long as it is a vagina and penis is it all cool? Or are you talking about marriages being endorsed by the Christian(all variations(catholic/baptist/etc...) church?

[Nati Ice]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='278411' date='Jun 6 2006, 01:57 PM']fine, piss all over my religion then asshole... i said that they should have the exact same rights as my wife and i do, except not being "married" because that, to most people, is a religious bond... it spits in my face...

btw, i don't support a constutional ban on gay marriage... so why would i defend why it should be illegal?[/quote]jesus christ, you do realize that this has nothing to do with anything, and its not "pissing all over your religion." especially when all i ever said was according to our constitution your religious beliefs should hold no merit when discussing the applicability of law.

if you were only half as informed as you think you are amazing things would happen.

your direct quote:
[quote]why not treat it like we are the immigration issue, and [i]banning [/i] gay marriage, while allowing civil unions?[/quote]

now, this could just be me, but last time i checked, common sense tells me when you want to [i]ban [/i] something you typically make that thing [i]illegal[/i], but thats just me and my silly common sense, and really, what do i know anyways?

[Guest bengalrick]

nati, what is the difference between a civil union and marriage?

<edit> how about this... lets take out the word "marriage" out of all politics, and call every "marriage" a civil union, and let people that believe it is more than a gov't unity, and get married "by God" on their own... i would have absolutely no problem w/ that... the problem i am seeing as i debate this w/ you guys, is that politics and religion cannot coincide smoothly...

call them all civil unions, make that "union" about the gov't benefits and let people that want a "marriage" (in the religious sense) have it on our own time... then i think everyone is happy...

[Homer_Rice]

Someone touched on this earlier, but the problem with marriage in modern times is not so much the gender, imo, but the level of commitment. Is marriage a bond of the highest order, which many people reflect by taking some form of sacred vow? Is it a contract in which clauses are stipulated and, upon mutual agreement, can be severed with relative ease? Is it a handshake deal, bound by some notion of honor but less formal than a contract?

Most importantly, folks ought not allow the R-epublican party to divert their attention from what is really important this election cycle. That is why this is an issue now and if you people fall for it again, then you pretty much deserve the crappy world in which you live. Do you really think GWB et al gives more than a hoot and a half about this? It's pandering of the most crass kind and it demonstrates just how little that folks in power respect those who are suckers for this crap.

[Guest Coy Bacon]

Do the godless pagans marry men to men, or is that just a godless atheist thing?

[Homer_Rice]

Courtesy Balkinization:

***

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Tales of Horror from Dr. Distracto

Dr. Distracto: All right, children, it's 6/6/06, the day of the Beast, so gather round, while I regale you with tales of horror that are sure to curdle your blood!

Children: Yippie! Tell us the one about the big flood that destroyed New Orleans! Tell us the one about the deficit that ate the economy! Tell us the one about the war in Iraq!

Dr. Distracto: No, children, I don't want to talk about those things right now. I have something *much* scarier.

Children: Hurray!

Dr. Distracto: If you don't vote R-epublican in the next election, gay couples will burn American flags at their weddings!

Children: Noooooo!

Dr. Distracto: Then they will drive Mexican nationals across the border in hybrid cars!

Children: Noooooo!

Dr. Distracto: And then they will take all the Mexicans to abortion clinics, and force them to watch Al Gore's documentary on global warming!

Children: Oooooh, that's so scary, Dr. Distracto. I'm so frightened I can't think about anything else!

Dr. Distracto: Mission Accomplished.

Children: Oh no, not those words! Now you're scaring me again!

[Guest steggyD]

[url="http://www.lp.org/flash/removal.html"]http://www.lp.org/flash/removal.html[/url]

[Guest fredtoast]

[quote name='steggyD' post='278595' date='Jun 6 2006, 08:48 PM'][url="http://www.lp.org/flash/removal.html"]http://www.lp.org/flash/removal.html[/url][/quote]

RThe Libertarien party is just a tool of corporate America. Anyone who thinks that individuals can stand up against the evil of corporate interest without a strong government is foolish. If we take power away from government then who are we giving it to? Enron? Worldcom? Exxon? Mobile? Just look at the United States before we had government regulation. Rivers were so polluted that they were catching on fire. Child labor was exploited. Huge monopolies controlled our economy. If you are in favor of all of this then please vote Libertarian.

[Guest steggyD]

[quote name='fredtoast' post='278808' date='Jun 7 2006, 11:07 AM']RThe Libertarien party is just a tool of corporate America. Anyone who thinks that individuals can stand up against the evil of corporate interest without a strong government is foolish. If we take power away from government then who are we giving it to? Enron? Worldcom? Exxon? Mobile? Just look at the United States before we had government regulation. Rivers were so polluted that they were catching on fire. Child labor was exploited. Huge monopolies controlled our economy. If you are in favor of all of this then please vote Libertarian.[/quote]
You are foolish. Power to the people. It's up to us to decide what we want, not someone else. The government does not speak for me, I speak for myself. And if enough people speak the same language together, someone listens.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='fredtoast' post='278808' date='Jun 7 2006, 11:07 AM']RThe Libertarien party is just a tool of corporate America. Anyone who thinks that individuals can stand up against the evil of corporate interest without a strong government is foolish. If we take power away from government then who are we giving it to? Enron? Worldcom? Exxon? Mobile? Just look at the United States before we had government regulation. Rivers were so polluted that they were catching on fire. Child labor was exploited. Huge monopolies controlled our economy. If you are in favor of all of this then please vote Libertarian.[/quote]

the reason that corporations are so powerful now, is b/c they know who to buy off... they can use their gov't connections and get benefits and votes that help them...

how would they do this, if the gov't actually listened to the people instead of listening to money and corporate power... the gov't is there b/c of the people... they should do the will of the people... weakening the gov't is not the only answer to stopping corporate corruption in our gov't, but it would definately help stop the rise of the powerful corporations...

the problem w/ a strong gov't is that they would have too much power... and as i always say, that is guarenteed to make them abuse it... [url="http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/"]go to the "rumor of the day" article[/url] <= this article rings truth to me, from someone that had to go through a "strong central gov't" (granted, you are not asking for a dictatorship in america, but i still think it makes a good point):

[i]The indisputable fact is that dictatorship did not lead us to become an advanced nation and I never heard of a dictatorship that was able to make a nation free and advanced and the results we reached from decades of dictatorship was nothing we could ever be proud of.

Some here say that Saddam managed to control the country but they admit he was bad and they think that if only he looked after economy better than he did then things would've been way better…[b]maybe the common dream among my people of generation is to become the one good ruler who can fix all the mistakes of the previous bad rulers but reality proves [size=2]that everyone who came to power in any of the earlier nationalist tyrannical governments turned out to be "bad".[/size][/b]

[b]In fact this has nothing to do with the individuals in power and perhaps that's the core of the problem; here in the Middle East we need to understand that it's all about the system we choose for our countries and we're yet to absorb this.[/b][/i]



now if we want to get serious about doing this, and making gov't better, we need more than two parties... competition breeds excellence and how we got this far w/ only two real choices for our gov't amazes me...

[Guest oldschooler]

Right now there is a clear line drawn, as to what marriage is.

If you start crossing that line... and making it blurry... then where does it stop ?

[Ben]

[quote name='oldschooler' post='278830' date='Jun 7 2006, 12:00 PM']Right now there is a clear line drawn, as to what marriage is.

If you start crossing that line... and making it blurry... then where does it stop ?[/quote]

Tube Socks

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='Ben' post='278834' date='Jun 7 2006, 11:03 AM']Tube Socks[/quote]



Sure ...so you say. But then it would lead to ankle socks.
And then footies !

[Guest steggyD]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='278829' date='Jun 7 2006, 11:58 AM']the reason that corporations are so powerful now, is b/c they know who to buy off... they can use their gov't connections and get benefits and votes that help them...

how would they do this, if the gov't actually listened to the people instead of listening to money and corporate power... the gov't is there b/c of the people... they should do the will of the people... weakening the gov't is not the only answer to stopping corporate corruption in our gov't, but it would definately help stop the rise of the powerful corporations...

the problem w/ a strong gov't is that they would have too much power... and as i always say, that is guarenteed to make them abuse it...[/quote]
Yes, and two of the Presidents of the past that actually gave more and more power to the federal government are two of the most like Presidents in United States history. Funny? Well, somewhat, but those powers will only lead to abuse years down the road. Lincoln and FDR.

The government should be more separated from the Corporations, much like religion. Once you regulate corporations, then they are going to infiltrate the system and make things happen their way. We don't need a stronger government, we need a smarter one. And it would take a fool to think that our two existing parties consist of smarter choices.