California to De-Legalize Gay Marriage

Lestat:

True, but gay marriage isn't the same as just being gay or having sex with someone of the same sex.
It's because marriage happens before God that it's a problem to them.

See, that's what I don't get...
I can understand if Churches chose not to recognize gay marriages because it's against their faith and whatnot but why would the US government not legalize it?

I just want one good reason, not related to religion, as to why they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

There is a little thing called Separation of Church and State so the US government should have a legitimate reason as to why it's repeatedly being outlawed and I'd love to hear it.

:wait:

No good reason?
Or maybe because the majority of the citizens don't want gay marriage. Or because the old laws said it was between man and woman, and they 'want to stay true to our founding fathers.'

Some bullshit, it's all the same really.

Perfect Teeth:

No good reason?
Or maybe because the majority of the citizens don't want gay marriage. Or because the old laws said it was between man and woman, and they 'want to stay true to our founding fathers.'

Some bullshit, it's all the same really.

The majority of citizens don't want to pay taxes.
The majority of citizens didn't vote Bush into office.
But all citizens have rights afforded to them by the Constitution.

druscilla; cried.:

Perfect Teeth:

No good reason?
Or maybe because the majority of the citizens don't want gay marriage. Or because the old laws said it was between man and woman, and they 'want to stay true to our founding fathers.'

Some bullshit, it's all the same really.

The majority of citizens don't want to pay taxes.
The majority of citizens didn't vote Bush into office.
But all citizens have rights afforded to them by the Constitution.

I completely agree.

No, I didn't mean that the majority disliking gay marriage was a good reason, I was putting it with the other bullshit reasons.

Perfect Teeth:

No, I didn't mean that the majority disliking gay marriage was a good reason, I was putting it with the other bullshit reasons.

No, I know.
I gathered.
But I know some people actually use that argument so I responded.
It wasn't directed at you though.

I don't get marriage, gay or straight. I don't like any legal contracts actually. Therefore I conclude that all marriage should be legal, except marriage to animals, because that's rape.

Ok, here's the way I look at it (bearing in mind I'm a Christian)...

Personally, I don't really agree with gay marriages. I'm fine with gay people, it's just the marriage part. To me, marriage is something between the couple and God. That can't really work if it's two men/women. I wish it could, but it can't.

I think gay couples should be given the choice, though, for a civil partnership, just as every straight couple is given the choice of marriage.

Lestat:

That can't really work if it's two men/women. I wish it could, but it can't.

Well why not?

I know that you're a christian, Lestat, but marriage isn't just a religious thing. It's surpassed that and is a staple in modern society as a means of professing one's love for another in a very personal way.

If it was just a Christian tradition or just a tradition in only one religion I wouldn't protest it but this isn't a religious matter, therefor religion shouldn't be a factor.

I think that the US governement should legalize it but churches have the right on whether or not to wed homosexual couple or acknowledge it as it is part of their faith.

Though legally, they should be married, there's no reason not to.

finksgirl:

I know that you're a christian, Lestat, but marriage isn't just a religious thing. It's surpassed that and is a staple in modern society as a means of professing one's love for another in a very personal way.

If it was just a Christian tradition or just a tradition in only one religion I wouldn't protest it but this isn't a religious matter, therefor religion shouldn't be a factor.

I think that the US governement should legalize it but churches have the right on whether or not to wed homosexual couple or acknowledge it as it is part of their faith.

Though legally, they should be married, there's no reason not to.

Lestat:

Ok, here's the way I look at it (bearing in mind I'm a Christian)...

Personally, I don't really agree with gay marriages. I'm fine with gay people, it's just the marriage part. To me, marriage is something between the couple and God. That can't really work if it's two men/women. I wish it could, but it can't.

I think gay couples should be given the choice, though, for a civil partnership, just as every straight couple is given the choice of marriage.

So does that mean people that aren't Christian's, or aren't religious can't get married? :shock: If it's before God and all, and if you don't believe in God, then...I don't know if that's possible. But would you ban atheists from getting married?

Marriage isn't religious. Marriage is societal.

What if I worship homosexuality? What if I have my own little religion and just because Christians don't like it, my religion would be illegal? It sounded a lot better in my head...

This is pathetic. I don't get why it should be illegal in the first place. Does it hurt anybody? Is it any different from straight marriage? Not as far as I can see.

Pathetic. Simply pathetic.

So are they actually doing this, or are they just wanting to?

finksgirl:

I think that the US governement should legalize it but churches have the right on whether or not to wed homosexual couple or acknowledge it as it is part of their faith.

Though legally, they should be married, there's no reason not to.

That's actually quite a good way to look at it, I guess. I'm sorry I wasn't more open minded before. . .

Perfect Teeth:

Marriage isn't religious. Marriage is societal.

I just want to pick up on that last line, because I think it's a little bit of an assumption.

Wikipedia:

"Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state, by religious authority, or by both."

The quote pretty much says how I see marriage.

And to your question (which I forgot to quote), I woudn't ban anyone from marrying, although it was a good question. But I think finksgirl's idea was pretty good: "The US governement should legalize it but churches have the right on whether or not to wed homosexual couples or acknowledge it as it is part of their faith."

Lestat:

Ok, here's the way I look at it (bearing in mind I'm a Christian)...

Personally, I don't really agree with gay marriages. I'm fine with gay people, it's just the marriage part. To me, marriage is something between the couple and God. That can't really work if it's two men/women. I wish it could, but it can't.

I think gay couples should be given the choice, though, for a civil partnership, just as every straight couple is given the choice of marriage.

How do you explain all the non-Christians that get married? The crux of the issue of gay marriage isn't really about religion these days. I think it's kind of silly for someone to say, "homosexuals can't get married because it's going against god etc. etc.", because non-Christians can get married left, right and centre. So that argument isn't really valid to me.

^ It doesn't appear to be valid to anyone. . .

Anyway, I've already answered a similar type of response to your's.

Lestat:

Ok, here's the way I look at it (bearing in mind I'm a Christian)...

Personally, I don't really agree with gay marriages. I'm fine with gay people, it's just the marriage part. To me, marriage is something between the couple and God. That can't really work if it's two men/women. I wish it could, but it can't.

Then how come Atheists can get married?
A marriage does not have to be between a couple and God.
My mother and stepfather got married by a judge in a courthouse without any mention of the word God. My mother is an Atheist.
The first marriages were not Christian. They were Egyptian. God was never mentioned.
The entire idea of marriage being a Christian sacrament is completely and utterly ridiculous and bullshit. It's just not true.
Marriages that happen in a church with mention of the word God are religious.
And if marriages are so religious, why do you have to have a piece of paper from the government giving your permission to wed?
If marriages are religious, then you shouldn't need that.
A marriage license is from the government. The government should not have the right to deny any couple the chance to get married, especially as God is not mentioned when getting a marriage license.
So, if we're going to get all religious and technical here, marriage certificates should not be issued to people who are going to have a religious marriage, because it's bringing politics into the church.
As for the "it can't" statement, I am completely and utterly offended and disgusted. If marriage works so fucking well for heterosexual couples, why do fifty percent of them end in divorce?
Maybe straight couples should let gay couples try it for awhile and see if they can do it right. :file:

This is kind of off topic, but I'm beginning to think I've got this whole gay marriage thing backwards :think:
Clearly, I have always perceived this not in terms of including everyone, but excluding everyone who does not conform to religion (which mostly relates to straight people). Because, if people argue that marriage is before God, then I don't see why it should be okay for straight Atheists to marry when Christian gay people can't. It makes no sense to me. Surely it should be the other way around, with the Christian gay people getting married and Atheists being restricted to civil proceedings. Therein lies the problem, because it would be much simpler for me to argue that marriage should be an all-inclusive thing, rather than attempting to seprarate the Church and State in all of this. Church and state has been mixed far too much. If marriage is only a religious preserve then it should have no legal recognition. But it's probably better to see it in terms of adding rights rather than taking them away.

Anyway, this has all been brought about from reading the comments of Spanish archbishops 4-5 years ago when gay marriage was legalised in Spain. Following on from that, if anyone has any information on how the Hispanic community have reacted/contributed to the issue of gay marriage in California, it would be useful because I'm doing an exam on it in a couple of weeks.

druscilla; smiles.:

Lestat:

Ok, here's the way I look at it (bearing in mind I'm a Christian)...

Personally, I don't really agree with gay marriages. I'm fine with gay people, it's just the marriage part. To me, marriage is something between the couple and God. That can't really work if it's two men/women. I wish it could, but it can't.

Then how come Atheists can get married?
A marriage does not have to be between a couple and God.
My mother and stepfather got married by a judge in a courthouse without any mention of the word God. My mother is an Atheist.
The first marriages were not Christian. They were Egyptian. God was never mentioned.
The entire idea of marriage being a Christian sacrament is completely and utterly ridiculous and bullshit. It's just not true.
Marriages that happen in a church with mention of the word God are religious.
And if marriages are so religious, why do you have to have a piece of paper from the government giving your permission to wed?
If marriages are religious, then you shouldn't need that.
A marriage license is from the government. The government should not have the right to deny any couple the chance to get married, especially as God is not mentioned when getting a marriage license.
So, if we're going to get all religious and technical here, marriage certificates should not be issued to people who are going to have a religious marriage, because it's bringing politics into the church.
As for the "it can't" statement, I am completely and utterly offended and disgusted. If marriage works so fucking well for heterosexual couples, why do fifty percent of them end in divorce?
Maybe straight couples should let gay couples try it for awhile and see if they can do it right. :file:

I don't mind people challenging my views once in a while, but to have them be called "bullshit" and "absurd" was uncalled for.

Marriage can be just religious.

I think that marriage is a personal choice.. however, the technical purpose of marriage is to pro-create... and well, that's really only something heterosexual couples can do. I mean no offence to gay couples - I think they should be allowed to get married if they want to.
After all, the modern purpose of marriage isn't really to pro-create - it's more about showing commitment, which I think gay couples should be allowed to do =)

I think the Gov. should legalise civil services, that way, religious people won't get mad, and almost everyone's happy :cute:
Except for religious gay couples. :XD Okay, so not everyone's gonna be happy.. but we can dream, can't we?

Buffy-willow:

I think that marriage is a personal choice.. however, the technical purpose of marriage is to pro-create... and well, that's really only something heterosexual couples can do.

But it isn't.
What about infertile heterosexual couples? Does their existence lack purpose, should they be denied the right to marriage? What about those of us who choose not to have children? We can't get married, either?
I also feel that your argument neglects lesbians, who are perfectly capable of having children.