General Chat / San Francisco Allows Gay Marriages

here here

Welcome to the beginning of the end of the morals of this country and the world as a whole.

Enjoy.

Depends on your definition of whats moral and whats not, which is a purely ethical issue, based on opinion. And San Fransisco being part of the US, has freedom of opinion, and they are gonna let it fly.

Kudos to RCTFreaks and Aero's arguements, could'nt of said it better.



p.s. their will never be a second homosexual generation.

Kudos to RCTFreaks and Aero's arguements, could'nt of said it better.



p.s. their will never be a second homosexual generation.

well it's not a hereditary thing dude, you don't get it from your parents, or else you woulnd't have parents that you could get hereditary information from in the first place.

aero, its you who doesnt understand marriage. I'm not gonna fight with anyone about whether I think its moral or what God thinks. I think its fine, I think that God just made them that way, and I think that from hearing Jesus' message, he loves them unconditionally. If you disagree, great, I'm not going to criticize your religious beleifs, or call you "immature", or criticize you for not saying this 5 years ago.

Anyways, I'm talking about legal benefits. Aero said,

Also, to say homosexuals are being denied rights is absolutly wrong, if you disagree then you don't understand marriage.

.

Well, there are 1,049 different federal laws and benefits that are granted to married couples. Amoung them, entitlement to bereavement leave, automatic inheritence, immunity against testifying against their spouse, joint bankruptcy, wronful death benefits, etc. I'm NOT saying its as bad as slavery, but to say that: heterosexuals have these benefits, homosexuals cannot: is by DEFINITION descrimination. Whether you feel your religion or the religion of the forefathers justifies it doesnt change the fact that it is descrimination.

dis·crim·i·na·tion    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (d-skrm-nshn)
n.

Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.

. Bingo, we have a winner!

Going back to aero's quote, yes, homosexuals are being denied rights, 1049 of them, and YOU don't understand marriage, in a legal sense.



And @ Freak, why am I saying this now. Despite me saying this online (especially at RCTStation and rcthq's old debate forums way before Bush ever mentioned ammending the constitution at his state of the union this year) before and in my personal life, the reason that this is an issue is because it was made into an issue. Bush could've used his State of the Union to tackle world hunger, a commitment of the US to fight AIDS, plans on fighting terror, plans on building global goodwill, etc. He didn't. He used it to tackle the issues of banning gay marriage and athletes using steroids. It's an issue, Bush is using it as a campaign issue, and you are going to hear people disagree about it. To claim that people are "immature" for opposing the president, well, is immature.

so i guess marriage is more like a benefits program?

I'm sorry, maybe i was just confused, but i thought marriage was religious, but if its only for the frickin benefits, then give gays those benefits. If it makes you feel happy i'll buy you the ring.

so i guess marriage is more like a benefits program?

I'm sorry, maybe i was just confused, but i thought marriage was religious, but if its only for the frickin benefits, then give gays those benefits. If it makes you feel happy i'll buy you the ring.

thanks, that all I want them to have. Equal legal rights as heterosexuals.

I love these arguments. I really do, because people open up their hearts and really talk as themselves instead of their false images on the boards. You all have strong opinions. And you're all right in stating them because you all believe you're right. Of course some of you have to be wrong, but I enjoy it nonetheless.

I am personally a very religious person but I'm not going to bring that into it. What I really want to talk about is my perception of the world. The universe is a spider web, barreling towards equality among human beings at light speed, even if some humans, by no fault of their own, step in front of their own path and shout "WE ARE NOT EQUAL!" Yes aero, we're all different. But much less different then 100 years ago, or 1000 years ago, wouldn't you agree? 1000 years ago, black people were actually black, white people were actually white, and everyone inbetween and around had no idea anyone else existed. Now, every day we're becoming one race. Personally I believe history runs in cycles, but whether you see it as cycles or a straight line, there's no denying we're becoming more equal. And every day things happen that continue the path to the middle of the spider web. 200 years ago it was the fight for race. 100 years ago it was the fight for sex. And today it's the fight for sexuality. Maybe it seems less significant than the others to some, but significant or not it's a fight for equality nonetheless and it needs to be won. It will be won. Maybe 100 years from now it'll be a fight for clones. I don't know. But maybe some of you need to ask yourself this question:

Am I a roadblock?

I am

For the last time...marriage has not been a strictly religious union for a very long time. We are talking about the definition of marriage from a legal perspective, not a religious perspective. From a legal perspective, it is discriminatory not to provide the privelages of marriage to homosexual couples. I have no problem if a specific religion refuses to provide the service of marriage to homosexuals. If a homosexual person does not like the tenets and rules set out by a specific religion, they can find one that suits them better. Remember, you don't worship the religion, you worship God (speaking of Christianity of course). It is however ridiculous to think that I can marry my wife even tho neither one of us believes in god, but a gay person can not get married because it is against the religious sanctity of marriage. By your arguments, I should be denied the right to marry as well.

Aero...bestiality is wrong, because the animal cannot consent to the act. There are cruelty to animal laws in place. To compare the two acts is utterly ridiculous, but you go ahead and hide behind that argument. Also, if a law is wrong and discriminatory, it needs to be challenged, not followed blindly. Just because gay marriage is illegal at the moment, does not mean that it is wrong. It is the law that is wrong and to challenge a law that is basically wrong is to help with the progress of your nation. Without such challenges, women could not vote, you would still have slavery, there would be no child protection laws and minimum work age, etc. This is how societies transcend into something better.

Finally, 150 years ago people had many arguments from the bible to justify slavery. There is much slavery in the bible and I'm sure many religious zealots of the time justified this by citing the bible. Slavery was abolished anyway. 90 years ago religious zealots would have used religious arguments to deny women the right to vote and claim that God wanted it that way. They would have claimed it to be the beginning of the moral decline. Women weren't meant to vote. Women got the vote and eventually 'equal rights' tho the battle still continues. Today, religious zealots claim that gay people should not be allowed the right to marry. It's the beginning of the moral decline. They can't have kids, so it's not meant to be. Guess what, gay people will get the right to marry. It's funny how the religious groups are often the one's with the greatest opposition to progressive change in moral values. I wonder who has the direct pipeline to God to really know his will. The bible certainly can be interpreted in many ways, so saying the bible bans gay marriage is false. Who then did God tell to protect the sanctity of marriage and not allow gay people this right?

Welcome to the beginning of the end of the morals of this country and the world as a whole.

Enjoy.

This is what absolutely pisses me off.

It's stuff like this that makes us want equal rights.

It's people like this that set the laws against us in the first place because they were living with their head stuck too far up their asses in their bigoted little world.

It's people like this that make us come together, so that we can be equal amongst ourselves.

It's words said like this that make myself (and I'm sure others) absolutely astonished one can say things like this.

It's thoughts like this that lead to homophobia. Homophobia, I despise with a great, burning passion.

It's people that think like this that end up passing the laws that bring up this situation in the first place.

And to be frank, I feel these sort of comments are bigoted and discriminatory in themselves, if anyone can see my point of view.

TheGuardian Posted on Feb 15 2004, 10:39 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so i guess marriage is more like a benefits program?

I'm sorry, maybe i was just confused, but i thought marriage was religious, but if its only for the frickin benefits, then give gays those benefits. If it makes you feel happy i'll buy you the ring. 

Marriage was turned into a religious "proccess" when the Church got a hold of it in Europe before the middle ages. Marriage is simply something to conjoin a couple and give the spouses benefits for when the other dies or gets ill, such as properties, money, the ability to control an illness situation at a hospital, etc.

Marriage was turned into a religious "proccess" when the Church got a hold of it in Europe before the middle ages. Marriage is simply something to conjoin a couple and give the spouses benefits for when the other dies or gets ill, such as properties, money, the ability to control an illness situation at a hospital, etc.

or not. marriage was a relegious institution long before the middleages. it is a way of officially signifying the spiritual bond between a man and a women (or a man and a man, or woman and a woman). taking two people, who love one another, and making them family, in the eyes of their god (or gods), and community.

the legality only come into play, as legality itself came into play. relegion once was the legality of society, but that changed quite some time ago.

the legality of the situation is to make that bond of family get through all of the dirty paperwork, in a way. providing evidence that can be used in a legal means, to state that these two people are family, for whatever reasons deemed nessecary by law (including the benifits you listed, but others as well, and yes, even for negative purposes).

and with all of that stated, i shall return to this...

marriage began as a religious institution, and should have remained one. and if any legal merrit is to be applied to marriage, then anyone who is married by a religion (possibly barring cults, and things of that nature) should be granted the legal rights containted therin, regardless of anything, regardless of everything.

...i know you all threw it out the window, but to me it isn't that easy, and to do so is completely counterproductive to both sides of the arguement.

I think its very funny how the Catholic Church preaches about the grace of God and how God loves everyone and how everyone goes to heaven and will be excepted there, but people whos NATURAL feelings are different than everyone elses are BAAAAAD.

Just ironic.

I think its very funny how the Catholic Church preaches about the grace of God and how God loves everyone and how everyone goes to heaven and will be excepted there, but people whos NATURAL feelings are different than everyone elses are BAAAAAD.

Just ironic.

I find it ironic that you never seem to have your own opinion and end up just rewording that of someone else to make a point.

Ironic indeed.

Not to menton your ideas of Catholic theology are grossly misinformed.

If you want to bring religion into this then lets do it.  In the Bible it specifically notes that God created man and woman to replenish the earth and have joy in their posterity (again something that gays cannot do on their own between themselvs, outside help must be brought in).  That particular statement imfers that children are to be brought into this world by a man and a woman, regardless of wether they would be good parents.  It is also noted that it is not who we are but what we do that determins our final destination (which no religion actually knows what those will be or how it will be carried out.)  Wether you like it or not the founding fathers of this nation practiced judeo/christian principles, which is very obvious in the founding documents.  I'm sure if they were around today they would still try and maintain those principles.  The term "seperation of church and state" came about becuase those who came here, for the most part, were driven from thier oragins by religious persecution.  There has never in world history been an explosion of different religions as there were with the creation of this country.  I will put religion aside now and go back to my main arughment.  You cannot change rules and definitions in order to make your position valid thereby becomeing unaccoutable to consequenses.  With out consequences there cannot be rules, and with out rules there is chaos.  Also, to say homosexuals are being denied rights is absolutly wrong, if you disagree then you don't understand marriage.  The only right I get from being married is I get to file my taxes jointly, whoopeeee!  There are no more rights given that i couldn't get, so why do gays want that (when they can already have that benifit by haveing a civil union. 

Discrimination is always here, and always will be, it can never end in this world because we are ALL different.  A crusade to stamp it out is laughable.  Barring the exsistance of clones, i just don't see it happening.  Oh, and don't use "progress" as an excuse to validate law breaking.  As far as you going to the "bestiality card", you proved my point.  You are disriminating based on someones preference which thereby invalidates your whole arughment that we shouldn't discriminate based on someones choice. Granted i don't see a bucnh of people from the kennel club raceing to city hall to protest, but i can say that it WILL happen and if we let the definition change once, well then we better leave the door open for everybody and everything.

my main points are still as follows:

1. Marriage is Marriage, it is a definition upheld by law and should not be changed just to validate ones choice in life.
2. Breaking a law because you don't "feel" it isn't right is ridiculous, we have a system of law for a reason.
3.  Majority rule is what this country's law was based on, it is everything.  To have a small group of individuals change something so inherently important as marriage destroys our constitution, which was "By the people for the people".



Again, I must say i am not against Gays, even though I do not believe it is correct.  I do believe in choice, so long as it is within the boundaries set by sociaty, and i have the right to exercise choice within those boudries.  If America chooses to allow Gay Marriage then so be it, but if it as a majority says no (no matter the philosophies that send it in that direction) then so be it.

But, you see, the Bible is not a history book. You are using it literally as if it is proven fact. Sorry, but it isn't. It was written by people millions of years after the Earth was created; how could these people possibly know of a man named Adam and a woman named Eve suddenly appearing? It isn't meant to be used literally. Those people don't know why this God put them there, and they certainly didn't know how they got there, so it was obvious some higher being had to be involved. Using the Bible as justification for discriminating against any specific group is completely ridiculous, no matter what it may say. It was written thousands of years ago, and even within it there are disagreements regarding dates, times and numerous other events. Although it may have been written, does it still make sense with what we are as a society today? This is still coming from the same group of people that killed pagan worshippers because they didn't believe in the one supreme God; you have to take everything with a grain of salt... Things were meant to be questioned, and with the many contradictions within itself, the Bible is definitely one of those things that's up for debate.

Even with civil unions, you are still demeaning gay couples' stance in society as that of a lower, unequal being. Which frankly isn't the case at all. You can't stay separate and equal. That has been proven time and time again throughout history. How many more times must it occur before people understand that? Furthermore, if they are not being denied any rights, what's all the fuss of them marrying in the first place? There's obviously something wrong if it is being debated over.

This type of wide-spread discrimination before a government that claims equality for all is most definitely not a laughable situation. That's madness for a separate-but-equal approach to even be thought up. Something like that is laughable, it completely violates what our country stands for. Religious influenced or not - we are all to be treated equal. If an amendment is created barring gay marriage, all of our rights to equality can and will eventually be compromised. Using the "beastality card" really doesn't help your argument any more, because the circumstances are just completely different. You want to tell me a person having sex with an animal is equivelant to that of two humans consenting sex? That's a petty argument to even consider, and you know it. The circumstances are not even comparable.

Laws have been changed before, why is it so wrong for an amendment that constitutes any consenting adults recieving a marriage license wrong? No one is asking for religious support. No one is trying to "break a law", an amendment needs to be made to something that is pure discrimination against an entire group of people based around virtually nothing. Times change, people change and laws change. This issue is similiar to many other issues that have troubled our country, like slavery, except on a lesser scale. Farmers in the South would have argued that taking away slaves meant the end of their economic world, and that changing a law just to benefit them was completely ridiculous. Same here. You're arguing that changing a law to suit a specific group of people is ridiculous when it is just time for an amendment to a discriminatory law. Again, even though our government is based upon "majority rule", that still doesn't make the issue morally corrected or technically "right." Discrimination destroys what our government stands for more than a minority disagreeing with a law. Our government isn't "by the people, for the people." It's controlled by a minority who are acting on behalf of what they think the majority wants. So, in essence, we've never actually upheld our constitution to want it should be held to. How many people actually vote for president? Do those votes even control the outcome of the elections?

@ toon and john: personally, when discussing this issue, I've run into countless religious people spouting off the "adam and eve and God said this and that" stuff. I think that our side should focus on the legality of it. Homosexuals are being treated differently under the law than heterosexuals. Here is the definition of discrimination. Banning Gay marriage = discrimination.

A lot of Americans aren't ready to beleive that God doesn't hate gay people. A lot of Americans hate gay people. They think their religion justifies it (similar to religion justifying slavery, allowing blacks to marry ["God put different races on different continents for a reason!"], allowing women the vote). And just as now we look back and find those arguments laughable, those people were doing exactly what you are doing now. "This is the end of morals in this country. God wanted it this way, and its staying put! Progress ends right HERE." And eventually there is progress and the next generation looks back and laughs at all the roadblocks.

Can you imagine if you lived in the 60's and had to tell your kids that you were one of them that were protesting the integration of schools? I'd rather proudly tell my kids that I was helping the movement for equal rights, etc. In 40 years, I'm going to be happy I felt this way.

Anyways Toon, just let them beleive whatever the hell they want about God. Getting into a theological debate is helpful to no one...in fact counterproductive. An effort needs to be made to educate the American public of the distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage. Let them keep religious marriage, let the principals of equality and the constitution govern civil marriage.

no Marriage is ment as a religious concept from Judea times, Christian and on and on with many other religions.

Marriage in America is like a special benefit program, if thats all you want thats great i'll give it to ya to take care of your partner.

God, i believe did not intend for his creation to pro-create, not screw each other, its an alien nature and therefore wrong, just everyone in the here and now believe that beastiality is totally wrong. i don't mean make a connection, but when it comes right down to it, the only connection between beastiality and homosexuality is the sexual prefrence of the person. therefore it could be taken as an act against the very nature of what God had intended, you dont see a Chicken fuck a Cow, nor do you see a Rooster screw another Rooster. I've already gone over this before in "wanna get controversial"

I'm totally against discremnatly bringing down homosexual through higher taxing just so couples can be together, but i also laugh when you guys think that marriage was created when the church got a hold of it, they did not, there WERE societies before Christianity you know, the Babylonians, the ancient Egyption, EVEN the ancient Romans and Greeks with their polythestic religion, MARRIAGE IS RELIGIOUS issue.

if gay-rights movement get their marriage so be it, but do not expect me to recognize it as marriage. its basically the special benefits is all you want.

Religion can be twisted so much it dosent look like its former self anymore, your gay priests and bishops and who ever are fine.
There is a lesbian rabbi who tried saying that hiding the old jews did from the Romans was the same as her own struggle, it felt like a slap in the face using that analogy, don't compare those who risked their LIVES praying to their lord, when all you'd get would be a slap on the hand for being homosexual.

Again, i don't see it, maybe its the Western view of marriage, but to me marriage is religion

Marriage is religious, its a joke to say it only started from the Church.

P.S. if it'll make you feel better i'd get a picket sign and get the government your rights to take care of your partner. but i cross the line when it comes to marriage, simply from my moral, historical, religious understanding of religion and marriage.

I changed this post a bit, but basically i'm saying is this, marriage is a religious act really it is. civil marriages are find too, but then label it that way to make everybody happy, but to a lot of people who believe in religion

I just have a question to those who constantly say their church's are contradictory, that their double edged and their all bad, and to those who constantly put down religion. Say that their is a God (I believe there is FYI) what do you tell him in Judgment Day? What are you going to say? You can't just say "Fuck You Bigot" because that'll be pretty bad? and not to be rude to the homosexuals but what do you say?

God loves everyone, it is true, but even Christians say that Jesus did'nt give up hope on the sinner, that their was still a good person there.

what will they say?

"Hey God, thanks for loving me. Next time, maybe you can make me feel like everyone else so that not everyone gives me a hard time about the way You made me."

Marriage in America is like a special benefit program, if thats all you want thats great i'll give it to ya to take care of your partner.

Bam. Right there. Again, beleive whatever the hell you want in your own religion, but don't not give them rights. We agree. I don't want to "cross your line", of religious and moral understanding of marriage, I wouldn't touch that shit with a 10 foot pole. I just don't want my government discriminating against a class.

gymkid, I don't know if it's going to work to ignore the religious aspects because those who oppose gay marriage mostly do so because of their religious backgrounds. Then you get them saying things to me like theguardian asking me what I would tell God on judgement day. The fact is, I don't believe there is such a thing. But that's the thing. The majority of my friends are fundementalist Christians and they won't even talk about the gay marriage issue. The ones that do ask me if I'm a religious person and I tell them I am. They say, how can you support gay marriage if you believe in God? WHAT? What I want to know is, why am I not allowed to believe in God if I don't accept every single thing the Christian church decides? It's just like Republicans and Democrats. If you're registered, you can't make you're own decisions, you let those in power make them for you. It's retarded.

Maybe we shouldn't bring religion into it. I just wish people would use the rights given to them by the free will they possess, instead of blindly accepting everything they're told.

God loves everyone, reguardless of their sexuality, race, etc. It is humans that discriminate and make wrong choices.