quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Not initially... initially, Christianity (everyone was Catholic originally) was a sect of Jeudaism. The majority of the world believed in the Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, and Muslim religion. Islam is based in large part on Jeudaism and in many respects Christianity (they recognize the existance of Jesus, but not as the messiah). Originally, the "church" (that is Christianity / Cahtolisism) and the Crusades were more of a cultural war / power struggle between the muslims in the south (Hungary) and the Christians in the North (Turkey). Romania (had a different name, wassalia or some crap) was right in the middle of it and changed hands many times. It was always "religious" in nature. Several Christian leaders (Kings) went off to fight in the name of God. More or less like what the Muslims are doing now... although, it's the year 2008, so the muslims really have no damn excuse for doing it. In any case, there were several Kings, many of which whom truly believed they were spoken to by God (they actually believed this, not made up as a front for their actions), or they saw something and justified it as a sign from God to fight for the Crusades. The church as an entity didn't really become corrupt until after the middle ages. (like 1300 AD). It had, really, the same power as the Kings in greater Europe. I don't believe for a minute that the church is corrupt... but one thing that people often forget... Priests, Pastors, etc... they are all human beings... and as they say.... "Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely".

Wwell ya, some of teh congregation just go , go home and forget they went. The motivations of the leaders are corrupt I should say.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Of course, but the English as a culture / language was all Christian, and the original terms that exist from the original inception of the development of the language. I'm not arguing whether it's right or wrong, I'm simply stating fact. Marriage, in terms of the english language has always meant that. Whether that changes in the future is of no consequence to this specific argument. It's like arguing whether or not humans are meat eaters. We clearly are omnivores, equipped to eat both meat and vegetation, but most vegetarians swear up and down that we are strictly herbivores and what we're doing is wrong. You can question the morality of the belief of the term "Marriage" in today's society, but it is what it is as it stands today. Whether the courts or "society" decide to change it in the future is to be seen. The argument the opposing side makes is that they say "Marriage" has always meant between two people that love eachother, which is not the case. It's always meant the wedding of a man and a woman. Like I said, my opinion is of no consequence... I'm just stating fact. Doesn't mean it can't be changed. Our original language has changed many many times since it originally branched out into Germanic, Dutch, Italian, French, etc... from the early languages of Arabic, Hebrew, Latin, etc...

yup - perfect agreement with ya.

I guess this just means we need to work on the "hetero rights" which noone else gets to have. that little extra the nation lets you have for marrying a person of the opposite sex. and, why not? there is NOTHING more important - NOTHING - that making & raising a good kid. perhaps we should hold back them little extras until the kids arrive, eh? that sounds a little more fair.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: equal rights? like letting negros & women vote. was that black/womens rights or equal human rights? nothing "extra" is being asked. NOTHING.

There is no difference between the races. There are huge differences between the sexes.

This is a redefinition of marriage. There is no gay marriage prior. This is an invention of a new right.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: There is no difference between the races. There are huge differences between the sexes. This is a redefinition of marriage. There is no gay marriage prior. This is an invention of a new right.

so, letting women vote was a mistake? - nm
marriage has been used in many ways besides man & woman. the union of solid objects, the intergration of ideas, the joining of corporations have been called marriages. yes, I understand many have gone running to quickly stamp out their private definition - but sorry - just a word. heck - even GAY has been redefined, has it not? when did it become a word associated with homosexual?

the right to live happily with another person has ALWAYS existed. all that is being asked is the legal discrimination be removed.

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-03-2008).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I wonder why God became a homophobe? All the legal rights in this country surrounding marriage, every single one of them, was invented out of thin air. Not a single one of them existed in the world before they were legislated into law after the formation of this country, and most of those even didn't exist before a hundred years ago. On any scale that you care to measure history on, those are all "new" rights. Don't want to call it marriage? Fine by me, strip the word marriage out of law and call them civil unions in all cases, let the "marriage" part of it be done in a church or other religious institution. But allow two people who love each other to actually show that love by committing to a legal relationship. This is basically a turf war between religious factions, and an attempt to [enforce] religion through legislation. Sadly for our country, a successful attempt. JazzMan

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I wonder why God became a homophobe? All the legal rights in this country surrounding marriage, every single one of them, was invented out of thin air. Not a single one of them existed in the world before they were legislated into law after the formation of this country, and most of those even didn't exist before a hundred years ago. On any scale that you care to measure history on, those are all "new" rights. Don't want to call it marriage? Fine by me, strip the word marriage out of law and call them civil unions in all cases, let the "marriage" part of it be done in a church or other religious institution. But allow two people who love each other to actually show that love by committing to a legal relationship. This is basically a turf war between religious factions, and an attempt to religion through legislation. Sadly for our country, a successful attempt. Hey, before long maybe we can bring back "separate but equal" and lynchings... JazzMan

Never saw religion used as a verb, but most (many?) people see it the other way around. Legislating religion's role in the world. I 'think' there is something in the constitution regarding that.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: so, letting women vote was a mistake? - nm marriage has been used in many ways besides man & woman. the union of solid objects, the intergration of ideas, the joining of corporations have been called marriages. yes, I understand many have gone running to quickly stamp out their private definition - but sorry - just a word. heck - even GAY has been redefined, has it not? when did it become a word associated with homosexual? the right to live happily with another person has ALWAYS existed. all that is being asked is the legal discrimination be removed.

The name of the movement to give women the right to vote was called Women's Suffrage. All of these movements have names even if you refuse to acknowledge them. Your arguments are symantics. They may sound good but there is no substance behind them.

There is no right to live happily with another person. Please point in the Constitution or any law that guarenties that right. Prop 8 did nothing to prevent anyone from living happily with another person.

[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 11-07-2008).]

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Children are home schooled for a lot of reasons. One reason may be to get away from the values taught in public school. Even so, the teachers union and the liberal state legislature here in CA wants to de facto take that away from parents as well. They want to require all home schooling parents have teaching credentials. But that is a different subject.

Honestly, for the sake of argument, the laws that California legislation has passed is equally as discriminatory as that which the religious citizens have passed. By having the state mandate that a mother must have education credentials in order to properly teach her child in home schooling is absolutely ridiculous. Education is a privledge that we as tax payers enjoy since we pay for it. It should NOT be "sentence" that's mandated by the government which in turn forces parents to abide by the state of California's rule of "how to raise a child". Just like forcing sexual education, and gay awareness in schools (and not being allowed to be waived from it) is also a mandate and unconstitutional.

As I've said before, my opinion is of no consequence here because I don't live in California for one... but I understand the plight that many activists are going through. However, often forcing people to acceptance will often be met with increased resistance. The gay community should be focusing on trying to get EQUAL rights, not redefining a term. The majority of society has spoken and stated that they do not want the term to be redefined. You have to build a foundation before you can build a structure... the issues they fight are all over the place.

quote Originally posted by aconesa: Here are some of the reasons why I will always fight for marriage equality, ( now I am off to dinner )

Like I sakd Aconesa, at least as far as my views are concerned, I sympethize with you, and it's a moral struggle that I go through in my own head. On one side, I have had currently and in the past, many friends, co-workers, and aquiantences who are homosexual. (some of them really hot lipstick lesbians too). I struggle with my own beliefs as a Catholic, and trying to justify if my resolve for protecting the term "Marriage" is worth the expense it causes homosexual couples. I voted YES on Amendment #2 here in Florida (similar ban, although it protects gay couples rights), but it was not easy. I have a gay sister in law, and the last thing I would want to do is hurt them. But as it stands, and as I've stated before... if the gay community wants to get something done, they need to be properly organized and focus on the issues they want to protect.

The population of the United States has clearly spoken that they do NOT want (in their mind) a re-definition of the term Marriage. As it stands, it would behoove the gay community to focus on trying to pass legislation that protects and secures their rights as a "couple" rather than trying to re-define the term marriage. Whether it's a scape-goat excuse to preclude themselves from being biggots, or they really mean it... the vast majority of people who "I" personally know state that (like me) they believe homosexuals should have complete equal rights, but don't want the term marriage to be redefined.

The community should organize, take that as a hint, and focus on that. Then, when they've secured their rights, maybe take another swing at it... and maybe by that time, the world's population might have grown (or regressed, whoever you ask) and it might be accepted.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Wwell ya, some of teh congregation just go , go home and forget they went. The motivations of the leaders are corrupt I should say.

You can't say that all Catholic leaders are corrupt. As an institution, the Christian religion helps more people, donates more money, than any other charity in the entire world. Most huge charity organizations expunge huge amounts of capital, donated from people all over the United States, to countries like Africa, Thailand, Malaysia, etc. Granted... every person they do help, they are basically more or less hoping to convert to Christianity. I sponsor a child in Africa, a child known as Eurepe. He writes me letters from time to time, but I'm one of those a$$holes that never calls old friends back, and frequently writes back because I'm busy. In any case, as a religion, especially in present time, Christianity is good. We are single handedly helping millions and millions of homeless and poverty stricken people in Africa. Most of them are IN the situation they are in now due to colonization and desertification (back in the day), and from mass genocide from Islamic radicals. (damn SOBs).

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: yup - perfect agreement with ya. I guess this just means we need to work on the "hetero rights" which noone else gets to have. that little extra the nation lets you have for marrying a person of the opposite sex. and, why not? there is NOTHING more important - NOTHING - that making & raising a good kid. perhaps we should hold back them little extras until the kids arrive, eh? that sounds a little more fair.

Like I said above a couple of times. Clearly the strategy for the gay community is being met with huge failure. For every step forward, they take two steps back. Maybe they should focus on securing their rights as couples first, before they try to change old, deep rooted culture (IE: forcing America to accept a change to the term "Marriage").

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: There is no difference between the races. There are huge differences between the sexes. This is a redefinition of marriage. There is no gay marriage prior. This is an invention of a new right.

California legislature had proposed a law at some point which would have mandated that every restaurant have a third bathroom for Transexuals / TransGender (Post / Pre-Op), and Hermaphrodites. The requirement stated that they would either need to have a third bathroom to accompany a Female / Male bathroom, or they would have to turn all their bathrooms into single-serve, unisex restrooms with locks. The legislation was shot down.

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Can't say anything about the hospital visitations but, some of it does come down to money, ask your Health Insurance Provider. Let's call it a Liberal Life Style will lead to greater payouts for your health insurance provider. Other legal issues, not sure what they are but there is no doubt in my mind that money is related. Ron

That is but one of many issues in the struggle / disagreement.

------------------
Todd,
2006 Pontiac Solstice
2004 Volkswagen Beetle Convt. (Wife's)
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1981 EZ-GO Xi875-A "Miami Dolphins" Medical Cart
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter
1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme 350

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I wonder why God became a homophobe?

If God is god, He makes the rules, not you or I. If there is no god, all bets are off.

quote All the legal rights in this country surrounding marriage, every single one of them, was invented out of thin air. Not a single one of them existed in the world before they were legislated into law after the formation of this country, and most of those even didn't exist before a hundred years ago. On any scale that you care to measure history on, those are all "new" rights.

I'm not sure where you get this idea. Marriage has been around for many centuries, and other countries before us recognized marriages, property rights, inheritance and so on. In fact, I've heard it said that the civil side of marriage came about to resolve matters of estate, money, ownership, children and so on.

quote Don't want to call it marriage? Fine by me, strip the word marriage out of law and call them civil unions in all cases, let the "marriage" part of it be done in a church or other religious institution. But allow two people who love each other to actually show that love by committing to a legal relationship.

Yes. Or have two terms - marriage and civil unions. Allow churches to perform marriages and government to do civil unions and both have equal rights and privileges under the law.

quote This is basically a turf war between religious factions, and an attempt to religion through legislation. Sadly for our country, a successful attempt. Hey, before long maybe we can bring back "separate but equal" and lynchings... JazzMan

You were doing pretty good until this part. But, rant if you must.

On the subject of belief and legislation, many complain about religion trying to legislate morality. But what about legislation of immorality, as some would see it? Are those people required to just sit by and let that which offends them roll on by?

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-03-2008).]

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I wonder why God became a homophobe? All the legal rights in this country surrounding marriage, every single one of them, was invented out of thin air. Not a single one of them existed in the world before they were legislated into law after the formation of this country, and most of those even didn't exist before a hundred years ago. On any scale that you care to measure history on, those are all "new" rights. Don't want to call it marriage? Fine by me, strip the word marriage out of law and call them civil unions in all cases, let the "marriage" part of it be done in a church or other religious institution. But allow two people who love each other to actually show that love by committing to a legal relationship. This is basically a turf war between religious factions, and an attempt to impose religion through legislation. Sadly for our country, a successful attempt. Hey, before long maybe we can bring back "separate but equal" and lynchings... JazzMan (edited to add "impose". Man, I hate head injuries...)

I suggest you look up the Magna Carta, natural law, John Locke, Plato and Aristotle. The rights that this country was founded on were not made up out of thin air as you think. I am sorry that your public education has failed you.

Also, you confuse which side is imposing their values on whom. It is the gay-rights movement that is imposing their value on the rest of the country. Given that in three states this past election it was soundly rejected, I think the country is not very happy about that imposition.

[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 11-07-2008).]

In the US, usually majority rule is the way it is. The people have spoken twice in CA thanks to those judges, and said this:

"Marriage is a union between a man and a woman."

Cut and dry, that's it.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...pursuit_of_happiness "Activist" judge said it was ok for blacks and whites to marry: The phrase "pursuit of happiness" appeared in the 1967 Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute. Chief Justice Warren wrote: The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. (emphasis mine) If we can overturn that one we can reinstate the religious laws against interracial marriage and fraternization, and therefor get those people back to where they belong, eh? Was that your general thought process?

What was the definition of marriage when that opinion was written?

I already answered the question about interracial marriage. I am not going to get into a religious discussion on this topic because each faith has their own beliefs. That does not mean that the gay-rights movement has the right to force their values on people who's religious beliefs is against it.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Are you saying that if anyone does not agree with gay-marriage being taught in schools that they should home school their children? I don't think that is a very realistic answer considering that most households are two income households.

No I am not saying to pull your kids out of the public school system. I believe that family value are taught at home mostly.

There is no homosexuality in the Muslum world.

I think all people should be able marry to whatever they want. Why should the homosexuals not be allowed to be as miserable as most other married couples.

First off. WTG California.
Second. I am not anti gay

Twisted reasoning: I believe that the only way for two people to get married is with a preacher, in a church, or in a garden, as long as God is involved. A Union is every other form, judges, or other people allowed by the state to preform such things.

Unions should be recognized as the same rights as a Marriage, same insurance rights, same Tax rights, etc. There should be no bias toward anyone having a "Union". A couple is a couple.

Marriage is recognized by the church, let the church decide who they will and will not marry. Gay, straight, it doesn't matter. God should be involved, the state should not.

Brad

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I wonder why God became a homophobe?

Yeah, that's helpful. If someone does not support gay marriage they MUST just hate gays.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Don't worry. He doesn't believe it's wrong just because you, I or anyone else does. He says it's wrong because he believes it is. How much precedence will this vote/ammendment hold for other states to follow?

All I'm saying it's not our place to judge mary jane...They're not hurting you or I. They should be aloud to live there life aas they choose.

quote Originally posted by aconesa: Parents should be judged on their ability to parent, not by their age, race, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.

Because males and females have different perspectives on lifes challenges for example, and different temperments they are a compliment to eachother in parenting. Two of the same sex are not.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: I wonder why God became a homophobe? All the legal rights in this country surrounding marriage, every single one of them, was invented out of thin air. Not a single one of them existed in the world before they were legislated into law after the formation of this country, and most of those even didn't exist before a hundred years ago. On any scale that you care to measure history on, those are all "new" rights. This is basically a turf war between religious factions, and an attempt to impose religion through legislation. Sadly for our country, a successful attempt. Hey, before long maybe we can bring back "separate but equal" and lynchings... JazzMan (edited to add "impose". Man, I hate head injuries...)

Hello, look at your own body, things were meant to go in places and out places. We were created that way for a reason. Its not only about that though which you would notice if you read any of this thread. Did you build your car for gas to flow into the tailpipe and exhaust to come out the carb? God says it is wrong and it is clear to me why. As I said before not just for teh physical hazards either.
Though you would not admit it, we started out with these views that came from God. The only legislation that goes on is legislation that tries to remove that.

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: First off. WTG California. Second. I am not anti gay Twisted reasoning: I believe that the only way for two people to get married is with a preacher, in a church, or in a garden, as long as God is involved. A Union is every other form, judges, or other people allowed by the state to preform such things. *snip* Brad

So the Atheists that went to the courthouse have something less then a marriage?

I work in a high school and every day we recite the Pledge of Allegiance which is as follows:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all."

"With Liberty and Justice for ALLl"

How can America claim to be the greatest nation on the planet if we can not or will not grant liberty and justice for All?

Whether you agree with homosexuality or not is not the issue. The issue is why would the greatest nation on the planet deny basic rights to some of its citizens.

I was suprised and saddened to hear of California's vote on this. I'm not gay. But I know quite a few people who are gay, and I don't think they deserve to lose some of their civil rights because of their sexual orientation.

~Bob

------------------
"Its nice to be important.
Its more important to be nice."

quote Originally posted by User00013170: I have to disagree. It all depends on the person. Perhaps that is true "in general", but we aren't talking in general terms here and addressing a much smaller segment of our society.

Unless you have a way to find out with each person I think it still stands.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: So the Atheists that went to the courthouse have something less then a marriage?

I don't think it should be less. Equal to, just a different name.

My first marriage was in a courthouse, I would not have objected to it being called a Union at all, as long as I was afforded the same rights as a Married couple would have had.

I think we are playing semantics here. Just word play. Whats wrong with giving people something that is exactly the same as one thing, just with a different name?

Brad

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-03-2008).]

How about we outlaw divorce - to protect the institution of marriage?

quote Originally posted by 2.5: The only legislation that goes on is legislation that tries to remove that.

That is correct. The constitution is quite clear that the govt is not to try to legislate religon into our lives. They do not attempt to do so on a serious note. They do, however attempt, (with recent successes) to legislate our lives out of religon.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: The rate of homosexuality as a percentage seems to be fairly constant across populations. The difference between the Muslim world and the Christian world is that in the Muslim world they are much more hidden to avoid being murdered. However, there are apparently a lot of Christians who think the Muslim approach is the correct one. JazzMan

So you are saying that a lot of Christians want to *murder* homosexuals?

Interesting discussion going on here, so far not particularly ugly one either amazing!

All issues of having the benefits of a partnership as in marriage that I have heard here on the gay side can be handled through legal contracts except for possibly getting your partners SS benefits and or family based medical insurance rates. You just don't get to call it a marriage.

I don't think they stand much a chance with trying to redefine what marriage means in the eyes of the public or the courts. I am glad that in today's climate they can live open lives and be who they feel they are.
I have seen a few cases where gay couples break up after long term relationships go sour and one of them ends up very screwed due to property not being held jointly. In many states the same thing can happen to married couples due to community property laws or lack there of. You may be surprised to find out how community property laws in fact does mean that will you get full ownership of your spouses property after death, or that you get to make health related decisions on behalf of your spouse, you will need a separate community property agreement and medical waivers for that.

I think their time and energy would be better spent pursuing personal contracts stating the intent of their union for the courts and making these contracts readily available for those wishing to enter into an agreement of this nature. I think from there they might stand a chance at getting their unions recognized as far as government or health benefits go.

I don't think forcing beliefs on another person are appreciated by either side. I personally think that these gay in your face parades are not helping their cause one little bit, what I mean here is they seam to use the most flamboyant and provocative, or let's say the worst examples in what I see as an attempt at shock value which certainly does not help their cause one bit. In fact I think it only perpetuates a very bad stereotyping of the gay community and breeds ill will and does nothing but push support farther away.

I feel that "marriage" is reserved for a male and a female relationship. However, I also respect peoples personal right to choose their life partner, if it be same sex and makes them happy, doesn't matter to me. Live and let live.

Sorry for the long posting.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: We are talking about a proposition in Calif. Buts is very much an important part of gay marriage discussion. Continue please.

I thing I've done enough already.

TL : DR
i was talking with a buddy who's sister is one of them hippie lezbo.. they wanted prop 8 to pass so they can take there case to a higher court i.e. supreme court, so they can deem it un-constitutional and force it upon everyone in the u.s., personally this is only an excuse to scream out there being discriminated against and claim the victim when really no one cares anymore. when the original law got shot down there where pastors and churches being sued left and right for saying they didn't want to marry them and like now since the Mormon church openly opposed prop 8 now there being scrutinized as hate mongers and being sued like crazy.. its just like if you opposed obama to a liberal they called you raciest. Welcome to the beginning of the new USSA.

[This message has been edited by HI-TECH (edited 11-09-2008).]

They will lose there too. Even the Obama said he was against it.

quote Originally posted by aconesa: I feel that I should put in my two cents into this thread. Speaking from the other side of this issue, I can confirm that it comes down to the rights granted by the local, state, and federal government which is why citizens like myself are fighting for full marriage eguality. Curreny the state of New Jersey is granting Civil Unions to same sex partners. Let me make it clear, it does not offer the same protection under the law even though is was intended to be the same. There have been issues regarding hospital visitations, insurance coverage and other legal issues. If it was up to me, I would not care at all what the heck it was called, just give me the same rights to protection my partner of over 6 years and myself the same way my neighbors who are a married hetro couple.

So would it not make a whole lot more sense to work on getting Civil unions Federally recognized and expanded to cover all the same rights as marriage instead of trying to subjugate other people's beliefs? Please tell me why should a minority group of people be allowed to tell the majority what they should or should not believe?

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Bill, just because all men are created equal does not mean they ALL get to do what ever they want to do.

Uhhh yes it does.

quote I might want to play slappity slap with your head but that doesn't mean I can.

Right.
You can "want" to play with my head all you like todd but unless I give you permission it's called assault... possibly even sexual assault. But I dont see where this is going or how it relates other than you just wanting to play slappity slap with my head. Not my thing man, sorry.

quote Originally posted by HI-TECH: TL : DR i was talking with a buddy who's sister is one of them hippie lezbo.. they wanted prop 8 to pass so they can take there case to a higher court i.e. supreme court, so they can deem it un-constitutional and force it upon everyone in the u.s., personally this is only an excuse to scream out there being discriminated against and claim the victim when really no one cares anymore. when the original law got shot down there where pastors and churches being sued left and right for saying they didn't want to marry them and like now since the Mormon church openly opposed prop 8 now there being scrutinized as hate mongers and being sued like crazy.. its just like if you opposed obama to a liberal they called you raciest. Welcome to the beginning of the new USSA.

Ah, of course, legislating through the courts. If you can't get what you want from the legislature, just bypass it. Democracy is messy anyway. Better to rule by legal fiat!

Oh, and did you intend to say the Mormon church *supported* prop 8?

Yup. Welcome to the USSA.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: The difference between the Muslim world and the Christian world is that in the Muslim world they are much more hidden to avoid being murdered. However, there are apparently a lot of Christians who think the Muslim approach is the correct one. JazzMan

Apparently? What is your evidence?