# California put same-sex marriage on hold.



## Theraima (Aug 17, 2010)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> Federal panel puts same-sex marriage on hold as appeal of Prop. 8 ruling goes forward.
> 
> The decision by three judges from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upsets gay couples in California who had hoped to wed this week. But a legal expert says the ruling could be a strategic victory for Prop. 8 opponents.




Whole story here -->http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ga...0,3298714.story


Ok seriously what is this? First they deny it, then its ok, then deny it again! Decide already, even though it doesnt involve me but still.


----------



## Pong20302000 (Aug 17, 2010)

LOL
just let um get Wed

they worried that they might reproduce?


----------



## luckwii (Aug 17, 2010)

Deny it then okay, deny then okay, is not a fair way to describe it. The voters voted to ban it, then the government over-ruled their rite to vote more than once. Its a complete Obamanation.

I personally think gays should be alowed to have the same rights as married couples. And unfortunately in this case, gays are being used by the progessive socialists to ram their change down our throats. Going against the voters, and a specific vote is un-American.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 17, 2010)

luckwii said:
			
		

> Deny it then okay, deny then okay, is not a fair way to describe it. The voters voted to ban it, then the government over-ruled their rite to vote more than once. Its a complete Obamanation.
> 
> I personally think gays should be alowed to have the same rights as married couples. And unfortunately in this case, gays are being used by the progessive socialists to ram their change down our throats. Going against the voters, and a specific vote is un-American.



So mob rule can over-rule the rights given in the constitution? That sounds pretty un-American to me. When the majority was for segregation, should the country  have waited until the majority of voters wanted equal rights to abolish it?

Democracy doesn't mean three cannibals can vote to eat the fourth.

I'll agree Obama hasn't handled this well, he's pandering far too much to the religious right, as usual.  The problem in America is that the left are far too scared to have a backbone in case they get branded a "radical leftist" or something, so Obama spends most of his time paying lip-service to the right on issues like this and the a-few-blocks-from-ground-zero mosque.


----------



## Sanoblue (Aug 17, 2010)

honestly i really dont think it should matter but in the end everyone should have the right to do whatever they please with in reason. to deny any set of people a right that is allowed and allocated to another set is un American. 

Gay male here. im 23 and proud to be a furry and gay. and no i dont want to get married at this time but i do want it to happen eventually (think i might have found the one recently) heheheee


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 17, 2010)

Honestly I am not sure what to say at the moment, it's wrong to do this to human rights though.


----------



## worlok375 (Aug 17, 2010)

Dude I thought that one judge banned that ban.


----------



## AzuraSky (Aug 17, 2010)

I really thought we took 2 steps forward with the same-sex marriage, guess we just took 2 steps back.. now i wonder will we take a step forward or back?


----------



## injected11 (Aug 17, 2010)

It's shit like this that makes me want to move to another damn country. The constitution doesn't matter anymore until they need it to try and block what the other team is doing. Prop 8 was and is unconstitutional, and both Canada and Mexico have legal gay marriage. Legalize it and keep it legalized, you governmental idiots. You're tearing down the very foundation of this country.


----------



## meornot0 (Aug 17, 2010)

It has been voted down.  We live in a republic, and in a republic, voting matters.  If people voted yes, then there would be no problem allowing same-sex marriage.

It's only ok to not listen to people in communism and fascism.


----------



## injected11 (Aug 17, 2010)

meornot0 said:
			
		

> It has been voted down.  We live in a republic, and in a republic, voting matters.  If people voted yes, then there would be no problem allowing same-sex marriage.
> 
> It's only ok to not listen to people in communism and fascism.


The majority of those people are voting to deny the rights of people they will never meet and in no way will affect them. Denying rights that the constitution guarantees is *shocker* unconstitutional. People rant and rave how it would dissolve the sanctity of marriage and be an attack on the church. When the divorce rate isn't so astronomically high, they might have a better argument but for now it's laughable. If marriage is so sanctified, why does every single television program and movie ever make being married out to be a horrible life-draining experience? Separation of church and state says "Shut the fuck up, overzealous religious people", and the bible says for you to not cast the first stone. Seems the only group not making douchebag moves here are the gay people that this actually affects.


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 17, 2010)

tyt bitch

y'aint supposed to deny minorities basic constitutional rights yall


----------



## trumpet-205 (Aug 17, 2010)

I think this is a complete waste of tax payers' money. First it went to the state supreme court, followed by the district court, now the appeal court. No matter how you look at it, it will reach US supreme court eventually.

But anyway, even prop 8 were to be struck down, it only affected homosexual. So why are there many people rant on and decide others fate?

Our constitution calles for separation of church and state, so why in the court religion is part of the argument for the proponent?


----------



## emigre (Aug 17, 2010)

some people are gay, get over it

FOr soem reason it won't allow the image to be shown


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 17, 2010)

I can't believe in a country that flaunts itself as a free country and a country that wants to keep state and church separate, still has to do this. I mean is really going to hurt anyone? It's not like when I get married I am going to break down you door and shoot rainbows at you. I find it more depressing that in the year 2010 stuff like this is still going on. I mean I thought by now we would be above picking on the little man, but instead we just move from one to another. The cat boy is displeased with the human race.


----------



## meornot0 (Aug 17, 2010)

injected11 said:
			
		

> meornot0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First, i am in no way religious.  I don't think i ever even went to church.  I know someone gay who is actually against same-sex marriage.  Also, The reason every tv program does that is because it IS out of the ordinary.  Just because there are horror movies does not mean that zombies are going to kill us all.  I actually agree with this though

"Seems the only group not making douchebag moves here are the gay people that this actually affects."

That is somewhat true.

I am just saying that a majority of people do not want gay marriage.

Edit: Personally, i don't care which way it passes.  Just saying.


----------



## emigre (Aug 17, 2010)

And I personally beleive teh majority of those people are wrong.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 17, 2010)

emigre said:
			
		

> And I personally beleive teh majority of those people are wrong.


+1
A majority of people also didn't want black or women rights. Really just because it's a majority, don't mean it's right, often time it just a bunch of people following something blindly.


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 17, 2010)

I'll bet a million bajillion dollars gay marriage/marijuana will be legal nationwide in under 4 years

Also, who the hell says the majority of people DON'T want gay marriage to be legalized, I don't buy that so-called stat.  Why are you calling gays "douchebags ?" don't they have the right to fight for what they want ?  By that standard, EVERYONE that gives a shit about anything is nothing more than a douchebag.  So never raise your voice in favor or against anything, or else meornot0 will brand you the bag of douches.

Also again, plenty of non Christians get married.  Aint nobody crying foul.  So what the fuck does Jesus shit have to do with people wanting to get married ?


----------



## Jamstruth (Aug 17, 2010)

Its always some Church people talking about the "sanctity of marriage". This why here in Britain Gay people can't get "married" they instead get a "civil partnership" which is basically the same thing. They get the same rights as a normal married couple its just that the Church can't bitch about it at all. I'll admit its not the best solution as even though it gives the same rights to a same-sex couple as marriage does to a heterosexual couple it just begs the question "Why not just let us get married?" Its the one our government came up with to avoid constant fights with some people in the Chruch.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Aug 17, 2010)

What I find more hilarious than homophobes is the people shitting themselves trying to get this struck down.

I mean really, if the gay couple next door gets married, first of all what fucking business is it of yours, and second, how the hell does it effect YOUR day to day life?


----------



## Jamstruth (Aug 17, 2010)

I really love the main people for Proposition 8. Here is one of the things they say it does:



			
				ProtectMarriage.com said:
			
		

> It would protect our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and would prevent other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.


Few problems with this.
1. WHY IS IT NOT THE SAME AS NORMAL MARRIAGE?!?! They want the same rights you have with your spouse. Why should they be discriminated against just because they are both the same gender?
2. You mean teaching our children to be tolerant is a bad thing? Dear god! I see it now. WE SHOULD SHUN EVERYONE DIFFERENT!!
3. You're saying its right for someone to hate Gay people just for being gay? That's like being back to when Racism was common! We hated people just for being Black, now we've changed and are better for it. Why should it be any different from gays? We're not saying you should approve of it just that you need to accept that that's how they want to live their lives.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 17, 2010)

Jamstruth said:
			
		

> I really love the main people for Proposition 8. Here is one of the things they say it does:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Really this can all be summed up with something simple and common through out history.
Our country is in trouble, most blame and or distract the people with something. Why not just throw in a small group of people to take the twits minds off the real problems. It's happened for centuries. This time is no different. America is in a losing war, in debt, and slowly falling to pieces. So they need to find some small group to distract the people from the real problems, this group just happens to be homosexuals. It's quite evident if you look at history.


----------



## Clookster (Aug 17, 2010)

The majority of people doesn't like Pokémon.

The majority is wrong. And it's not their business.

Go and ban fast-food. That's more important.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Aug 17, 2010)

So called American dream...............


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 17, 2010)

A Gay Little Cat Boy said:
			
		

> Really this can all be summed up with something simple and common through out history.
> Our country is in trouble, most blame and or distract the people with something. Why not just throw in a small group of people to take the twits minds off the real problems. It's happened for centuries. This time is no different. America is in a losing war, in debt, and slowly falling to pieces. So they need to find some small group to distract the people from the real problems, this group just happens to be homosexuals. It's quite evident if you look at history.



A very interesting notion. Should they finalize same-sex marriage, they'd need something else to divert the American people's attention while they continue with their own hidden agendas. The American people are already desensitized by the war overseas.


----------



## ProtoKun7 (Aug 17, 2010)

Jamstruth said:
			
		

> 1. WHY IS IT NOT THE SAME AS NORMAL MARRIAGE?!?!



Normal marriage is male/female. There's quite a glaring difference, actually.


----------



## [M]artin (Aug 17, 2010)

DarthTheufel said:
			
		

> The majority of people doesn't like Pokémon.
> 
> The majority is wrong. And it's not their business.
> 
> Go and ban fast-food. That's more important.


----------



## justinwright (Aug 17, 2010)

im sorry, no offense but i dont believe in same sex marriage,

2 men together and 2 woman together...
have you ever seen a child raised by gay couples actually turn out normal?

and even if you take out parenting..

i see no problem with same sex's being together..
but really.. marriage...why? be thankful your not in Mexico where if your gay you might be allowed to have marriage but if anyone found out they'd kick your ass...they dont really like gays in Mexico..

look gays and normal people are not the same..
guess what would happen if everyone was straight?
there would be more people in the world..

what happens if everyone was gay and married?
we'd all be dead..no more babies =/

yeah im hateful..oh well.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 17, 2010)

ProtoKun7 said:
			
		

> Jamstruth said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Does the difference really matter to anyone? We should still get the same rights as any other marriage.


----------



## ball2012003 (Aug 17, 2010)

Is there a need to start a another thread about this.
Seriously look at how the other thread ended.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 17, 2010)

ball2012003 said:
			
		

> Is there a need to start a another thread about this.
> Seriously look at how the other thread ended.


Well as long as people keep their comments to themselves, this one won't go the same way.


----------



## TheDarkSeed (Aug 17, 2010)

Jamstruth said:
			
		

> I really love the main people for Proposition 8. Here is one of the things they say it does:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1. Have you seen a child raised by a gay couple turn out normal? The only reason I think the child might not turn out normal would be because of stupid little children harassing that child for having gay parents.

2.So the only two choices for the human race would be overpopulation or extinction? Lol! Accept this fact. Not everyone is strait and not everyone is gay. 

I wouldn't say you're hateful, just uneducated.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 17, 2010)

justinwright said:
			
		

> have you ever seen a child raised by gay couples actually turn out normal?



Two of my oldest friends (they're brothers) were raised by their Mum and her partner who was, gasp shock horror,  a woman.  Both of them turned out perfectly fine.  One of them is currently an English teacher in Japan.  The only real impact it had on them was it made them fighters because they had to stand up to bigots.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 17, 2010)

justinwright said:
			
		

> look gays and normal people are not the same..
> guess what would happen if everyone was straight?
> there would be more people in the world..
> 
> ...


Gay people and straight people are the same, we are both normal people. We were born on this Earth the same as everyone. It's when we are forced to live with these terms is when we believe that people are different creatures because they are separated.

Gay marriage isn't going to cause the human race to die of this Earth. In fact lesbians can and often do have babies. As well I know quite a few straight married couples who don't have nor want kids as well I know couples who can't have kids. So the children argument really isn't a valid one. Plus in this world, do we need more people? Be honest with yourself, I think we have too large a population and not enough to go around.


----------



## Advi (Aug 17, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> justinwright said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly.
Personally, I would probably like to adopt a child and raise him/her with my own partner, and I believe I'll be a great parent at that point. But sometimes I wonder if I'll ever have that opportunity because I'm not straight. It scares me to think that (and I have seen and met people like this before) white trash raising four kids in an aluminum trailer are considered to be better parents than me by the majority of America.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 17, 2010)

Advice Fox said:
			
		

> TrolleyDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's sad to think that people would find abusive parents to be better parents than gay parents, just because the parents happen to be gay.


----------



## Vidboy10 (Aug 17, 2010)

A Gay Little Cat Boy said:
			
		

> It's not like when I get married I am going to break down you door and shot rainbows at you.


Actually...
I think YOU would due to how gay you are.


----------



## meornot0 (Aug 18, 2010)

yuyuyup said:
			
		

> I'll bet a million bajillion dollars gay marriage/marijuana will be legal nationwide in under 4 years
> 
> Also, who the hell says the majority of people DON'T want gay marriage to be legalized, I don't buy that so-called stat.  Why are you calling gays "douchebags ?" don't they have the right to fight for what they want ?  By that standard, EVERYONE that gives a shit about anything is nothing more than a douchebag.  So never raise your voice in favor or against anything, or else meornot0 will brand you the bag of douches.
> 
> Also again, plenty of non Christians get married.  Aint nobody crying foul.  So what the fuck does Jesus shit have to do with people wanting to get married ?


Re-read my post.  If you understand english, you will realize i am saying that the gay people are the only ones not being douchebags.  I am sorry if you are foreign.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 18, 2010)

Vidboy10 said:
			
		

> A Gay Little Cat Boy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, I would just shoot your house with rainbows.


----------



## ball2012003 (Aug 18, 2010)

A Gay Little Cat Boy said:
			
		

> Vidboy10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you did shot twice already instead of shoot


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 18, 2010)

ball2012003 said:
			
		

> A Gay Little Cat Boy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I do that far too often >.< *shrug* Then again I failed every single spelling test in my whole life, so it's no shocker


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 18, 2010)

I really don't get what the big deal is...

If two people of legal age, sound mind, and content wish to be married, why can't people just let them?


----------



## Advi (Aug 18, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> I really don't get what the big deal is...
> 
> If two people of legal age, sound mind, and content wish to be married, why can't people just let them?


Because people are assholes and like to tell other people how to live their lives?


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 18, 2010)

Advice Fox said:
			
		

> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This still make no sense to me.

How does two people of the same sex getting married negatively affect ANYONE?


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 18, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> Advice Fox said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It doesn't, people just act like it does. Just like back in the day with interracial marriages. These hates towards the minority are just trends really. They come, do their damage, then are frowned upon later.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 18, 2010)

A Gay Little Cat Boy said:
			
		

> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


America.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 18, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> A Gay Little Cat Boy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looking at American history, pretty much.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 18, 2010)

A Gay Little Cat Boy said:
			
		

> Looking at American history, pretty much.


Isn't it surprising that America was founded on the principle of religious freedom, yet most people are so quick to deny such things to people?


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 18, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> A Gay Little Cat Boy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


At the same time it's not surprising. We are just repeating history (wish some different groups and some different tech.) Look at every single empire/nations that have done similar things. Nothing is shocking about what America is doing once you just look at history.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 18, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> I really don't get what the big deal is...
> 
> If two people of legal age, sound mind, and content wish to be married, why can't people just let them?



When you put it that way, it doesn't limit it to heterosexual and homosexual marriages. Such a statement would also include sibling and incest, and whatever else there is.


----------



## Kane91z (Aug 18, 2010)

I am straight and have a beautiful wife. I am not pro nor anti gay. This does appear to be a majority picking on a minority, which is why judges are allowed to overturn voter rulings such as prob 8. No one is harmed by gay marriage. Think about the children is the argument I keep hearing and in reality studies have shown that children raised by same sex parents, do better in life than single parents. These children would be adopted anyway, which I am sure a gay parent is better than no parent.  The whole "well are we going to be able to marry animals" argument is just disgusting and shows how individuals view homosexuals as less than human. I think everyone knew the appeal was coming - the appeals court almost didn't accept the argument which I kind of found unexpected. Really though I do not see how "well the bible says" can be upheld in court. I guess we'll see how it turns out. If i were emperor of the world I would make opposite sex marriage illegal for some undisclosed period of time just to teach people a lesson in empathy.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 18, 2010)

DiscostewSM said:
			
		

> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Okay, but who does _that_ affect?

Also I said of sound mind. If you were to have those feelings toward your siblings, I doubt that you would be of sound mind.


----------



## Canonbeat234 (Aug 18, 2010)

Hmmm I'm confused, aren't we suppose to allow this so the homo's can stop complaining about government being unfair? 

Majority of the times the government is unfair, its time for the gay/lesbians FIGHT for their rights instead of giving it to them!

EDIT: Also if they do get married, what hotel or cruiser will allow them to...make passionate romance with each other? They can't reproduce, they are getting away handling responsiblity for taking care of their deeds like BUM BUM BUUUUMMMM 'PARENTHOOD CHILDCARE 101'

EDIT2: What's the aftermath? Taxes?! Are they going to be willing to pay for taxes? Heck they might trick the system so one day its the spouse and the alpha male/female then reverse roles the next tax season. How about announcing their anniversity on the news; a gay/lesbian anniversity! Then most if not all of them want to travel a state that doesn't support their kind and guess what? More debates to get that state to have the same-sex marriage! If we allow this people then within year 2015 all 50 states will have same-sex marriage...its up to us to prevent this future from reviving Zuul!


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 18, 2010)

Canonbeat234 said:
			
		

> Hmmm I'm confused, aren't we suppose to allow this so the homo's can stop complaining about government being unfair?
> 
> Majority of the times the government is unfair, its time for the gay/lesbians FIGHT for their rights instead of giving it to them!


It's the 21st century. Nobody should have to fight for what should be provided.


----------



## Clookster (Aug 18, 2010)

Actually this is an US-american disussion. 

Gay marriage is not a big deal in Mexico and Canada. And it's no problem in Europe.

But it's a big deal in the USA. And Iran.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 18, 2010)

DarthTheufel said:
			
		

> Actually this is an US-american disussion.
> 
> Gay marriage is not a big deal in Mexico and Canada. And it's no problem in Europe.
> 
> But it's a big deal in the USA. And Iran.


I don't see why it is though.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 18, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> DarthTheufel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



America is still a country very much motivated by religion.  We seperated government from church a while ago in most European countries.  We're truly secular, so religion has little influence or impact on law making.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 18, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I find it odd that separation of Church and State has not truly spread the way that it should have.

I assume that when married, couples receive tax benefits and the like? That is not truly secular.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 18, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> I find it odd that separation of Church and State has not truly spread the way that it should have.
> 
> I assume that when married, couples receive tax benefits and the like? That is not truly secular.



Yeah, all couples who are married regardless (regardless of whether it's hetro or homosexual) get all the same benefits as far as I know.  It doesn't have to be a church wedding, civil unions achieve the same effect.  How is it not truly secular?


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 18, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Marriage is a religious matter. It is also governed by the state.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 18, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> TrolleyDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can have civil marriages/unions as well which are seperated from any religion.  I think that could be why it's so hard to bring in in the States.  People still see it solely as a religious matter, rather than just a union of two people.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 18, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> TrolleyDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Really it's more a state matter than a church matter if you look at it. It seems more like the church is the middle man for some people, but technically it's the state the yays or nays a marriage


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 18, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Civil Unions ? Marriages. A Marriage is still religious, even when governed by the state.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 18, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> DiscostewSM said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What does it mean to have a sound mind? Why should two siblings in this fashion be exempt from that?


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 18, 2010)

DiscostewSM said:
			
		

> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_taboo#...ic_explanations


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 18, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> Civil Unions ? Marriages. A Marriage is still religious, even when governed by the state.



Over here, well as far as I know anyway, a civil union is the same as a marriage.  My sister is married, but there was nothing religious about the ceremony at all and it was done in the town hall.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Aug 18, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> TrolleyDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 18, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> Civil Unions ? Marriages. A Marriage is still religious, even when governed by the state.


With a Civil Union, I believe you still get the legal benefits of a marriage


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 18, 2010)

dudeonline said:
			
		

> Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.
> 
> Marriage is usually recognized by the state, a religious authority, or both.
> 
> ...


This is true. But marriage itself will never be truly separate from both church and state.


----------



## Clookster (Aug 18, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Same here. A marriage has nothing to do with any religion. You aren't even allowed to have a wedding ceremony in church (no matter if with a girl or a boy) if you're not married for real.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 18, 2010)

DarthTheufel said:
			
		

> TrolleyDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wait, what does this mean?
You can't be married "for real" outside of a church?


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Aug 18, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> Marriage is usually recognized by the *state*, a *religious authority*, *or* both.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 18, 2010)

DiscostewSM said:
			
		

> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Using incest as an argument in this situation is just plain silly. There are a lot more harmful side-effects from incest than anything. Incest would destroy this world sooner than gay marriage.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 18, 2010)

By definition, Marriage is, "the  social  institution  under  which  a  man  and  woman  establish  their  decision  to  live  as  husband and  wife  by  legal  commitments,  *religious  ceremonies*,  etc. ; a  similar  institution  involving  partners  of  the  same  gender."

As long as religious remains an option, it will never be truly secular.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 18, 2010)

But anyway: 

Gay marriage, I see nothing wrong with it.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Aug 18, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> By definition, Marriage is, "the  social  institution  under  which  a  man  and  woman  establish  their  decision  to  live  as  husband and  wife  by  legal  commitments,  *religious  ceremonies*,  etc. ; a  similar  institution  involving  partners  of  the  same  gender."
> 
> As long as religious remains an option, it will never be truly secular.



That logic makes no sense. That's just like saying as long as Chocolate exists no one will truly ever like Vanilla.


----------



## Canonbeat234 (Aug 18, 2010)

Personally, the US constitution is being altered by people who wants to mess with something that wasn't broken in the first place. The same-sex issue is the same thing, its trying to make the constitution fit where their rights are in there also. However, before any rights were given, they have to fight for them! 

The fact is the hold is there because the government doesn't know what's going to happen if they allow this.  If they do allow this then all the gay/lesbians will want their state to have the same rights! That's when the government will decide should they continue giving the same-sex marriages to all the states?


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 18, 2010)

dudeonline said:
			
		

> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There shouldn't be any question about it.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Aug 18, 2010)

Well, my point is that marriage predates religion. Religion was brought into marriage. not the other way around.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 18, 2010)

dudeonline said:
			
		

> Well, my point is that marriage predates religion. Religion was brought into marriage. not the other way around.


Actually, I don't think it does.

It may predate Christianity, but not religion.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 18, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> DiscostewSM said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And yet those theories are rejected by most anthropologists when their own research showed the contrary. The "taboo" is still a creation of the people, and can therefore be changed. And besides, who says one couldn't tie their tubes, while the other can still bring forth children by other means other than their partner, or both tie their knots and adopt?


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 18, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> If it were truly secular, it would be a matter of either church or state, never both.



In this country it's a case of Church or state.  State marriages are completely seperate from the Church.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentciti...ships/DG_175717


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 18, 2010)

DiscostewSM said:
			
		

> And yet those theories are rejected by most anthropologists when their own research showed the contrary. The "taboo" is still a creation of the people, and can therefore be changed. And besides, who says one couldn't tie their tubes, while the other can still bring forth children by other means other than their partner, or both tie their knots and adopt?


You bring up an interesting point.

I have no way of countering this, assuming that your info about rejected theories is true.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Aug 18, 2010)

Not trying to take sides in the incest thing, but this is how royalty stayed royalty in the medieval times. Brothers were marrying sisters to keep the royalty in the family.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 18, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But church-married couples receive state issued benefits as well, correct?


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 18, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> TrolleyDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As long as the marriage is registered with the civil office.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 18, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, the marriage incorporates both church and state?

EDIT:

I feel we went just a bit off topic for way too long...


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 18, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> So, the marriage incorporates both church and state?
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> I feel we went just a bit off topic for way too long...



It does.  And I see what you're trying to get at.  But the fact that you can get married without the approval, use or the religious ceremony of the Church and the fact that the Church has no influence on the marriage laws shows that the country is secular.  The Church ceremony is strictly for those who believe that unless you're married under God then you're not married.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 18, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh, alright. I didn't quite get that at first. Now I see what you were trying to get at. 

We're pretty much the same here, in that you don't need church approval or ceremonies. However, stupid laws like this prevent us from being what we could be.


----------



## amptor (Aug 18, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> But anyway:
> 
> Gay marriage, I see nothing wrong with it.



I'm starting to think I should go pro on this because even when I vote no on something stupid in this state, it always gets passed.

show me when a man can conceive or a woman can conceive with a mate that is a woman and then it will make a bit more sense lol

obama has already caused health care to go up in price by a lot so giving gays the right to marry won't really affect anything in the real world any more.  and it all comes down to insurance rates which is why it got shot down before.


----------



## Clookster (Aug 18, 2010)

Is that your own definition?

"Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony." --> English Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 18, 2010)

amptor said:
			
		

> show me when a man can conceive or a woman can conceive with a mate that is a woman and then it will make a bit more sense lol



What kind of argument is that?  So marriage is just about reproduction?  Then why have marriage at all, you can get pregnant outside of marriage easy enough.  Why should infertile couples be allowed to marry?  What about couples that don't plan on having children?  What's the difference between a heterosexual couple that get married and adopt and a gay couple that do the same in this argument?

I really haven't seen a single rational argument against gay marriage.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 18, 2010)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> dudeonline said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It pre-dates recorded history, so we can't be sure, but there's certainly an argument that it pre-dates any kind of organised religion.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 18, 2010)

amptor said:
			
		

> show me when a man can conceive or a woman can conceive with a mate that is a woman and then it will make a bit more sense lol


Nothing is inconceivable.



Spoiler


----------



## ProtoKun7 (Aug 18, 2010)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> It pre-dates recorded history


No it doesn't...

But what the history was recorded in people don't seem to pay attention to anyway.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 18, 2010)

ProtoKun7 said:
			
		

> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not entirely sure what you're getting at, but OK, I'll put is how wikipedia phrases it - it predates _reliable_ recorded history.

Gay marriage certainly pre-dates Christianity however.


----------



## Clookster (Aug 18, 2010)

Harmodius & Aristogeiton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmodius_and_Aristogeiton
514 BC in ancient Athens






Gilgamesh & Enkidu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh
Ca. 2500 BC in Uruk


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 28, 2010)

Bump for this gem


----------

