General Chat / San Francisco Allows Gay Marriages

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?

You know what I would say? "Fuck this Catholic Church that pretends to endorse You. Their contradictory, biased and hypocritical teachings are not what You stand for, and even without that garbage, I can still say with good faith that I have a belief in You." Fact is, I don't need the Church for my beliefs. They are completely obsolete, not needed at all for a basic belief in a Creator or God.

I think that my main concern with the Church would have to be all of the people who attend just to go to church. It holds no spiritual value to them, it's just because that's what they were taught to do. I have found Church masses to be the biggest waste of time. The priests don't know what they're talking about, the sermons are less-than-wise and baptisms are a joke. It just all seems so incredibly fake to me. No one seems truly authentic, there just for God, even the priests seem fake.

If you atleast attended other churches and saw what they were about, and their views, you'd know that not all churches are like Catholics

My entire stance has been solely based on the Catholic Church (and, to an extent, those branches of it). I haven't spoken about other religions other than Catholicism, though I have experienced Jewish and Lutheran services. All are more-or-less the same, with few differences that all lead to the belief in God. There's no need for the excess that goes along with being religiously affiliated, it's just pointless, IMO. God can, and has existed without organized monotheistic religion in some form or another, today is no exception.

see john, again, people are going to view this as an "anti-religion" movement, when in fact it should be a constitutional rights movement.

As Micool rightly stated, you can't ignore religious sentiments about it. Because, those outrightly influence opinions on subjects like this, even IF the connotation of "marriage" is not a religious one. The issue is still fundamentally a civil rights one, but the religious sentiments could render consequences. Ignoring that fact doesn't help when it DOES come down to religious affiliation. If there were a gay president right now, do you think he would try to ban gay marriages? We have a Christian president right now, and what is he trying to do? It's just too obvious to be completely ignored.

I'm not trying to shift the focus away from the subject matter, but there ARE other factors to it than what everyone is willing to admit. As much as anyone would like to refute it, you cannot be an unbiased person with affiliations, it wouldn't work that way with the public thinking one way, and your supporter thinking another. Religion, as far as I see it, is taking the forefront in a subtle way. (If that makes sense.)

first issue:

since marriage is religious in guise, support, and nature, then no rights should be mandated to married couples through government at all. This in itself is religion taking on a role in government, which by the virtues of this country would be a paradox of ideals if it is allowed in the first place.

therefore, we rule out marriage being banned from gays on religious grounds.

next:

marriage offers many hundreds of rights to heterosexual couples that are not afforded to homosexual couples. If it is a government institution, then no determining factors such as race, sexual preference, etc. should ever be determining values in its application to its citizens.

therefore, we rule out marriage being banned from gays on lawful grounds.

and then:

Logically, there is no reason to ban marriage from gays if you look at it from a humanistic standpoint. But since most christians do not base any of their negative or dismissive ideals on EMPATHETIC principles, and only those based on their RELIGION, it is no wonder that they do not judge those who take part in gay marriage as deserving of the GOVERNMENT rights that it would afford them through marriage.

That takes care of the pseudo-altruism which enemies of gay marriage take all too often. I simply call it "Perceived Moral Standpoint".
...

anyway:

the final issue is of course, the rallying call of its original institution, which is: "marriage is between a man and a woman". To which I say, touching on the first point: "If it truly is only that, then have these connections forged by marriage have no weight economically, socially, or especially. If you can't allow this government right to be exercised to all who meet all non-descriminatory pre-requisites, then don't bother extending these rights afforded by marriage to ANYONE AT ALL. If all it really means is just "man and woman" for the sake of you own religious peace of mind, then why should the government give you RIGHTS for it?"

Most of this has probably been said more than once, but I just wanted to post a cut and dry version. Very "to-the-point", and logical.

If you want marriage without gays, you should have to settle for marriage without rights as well.

oh and john:
you are right when you say that religious sentiments play a role in the reality of the issue. But I want to add something to that...
Just remember that as far as human rights are concerned, religious sentiments are not, infact, THE issue. Outside of the logistics involved with the argument, the case made for acceptance of those terms boils down to personal extrapolation of a persons firmly held beliefs and experiences and the analysis of those beliefs and experiences and drawing parallels to the issue where needed. In english now: you'd have to teach them not to be prejudice. Not exactly possible. That's why most people who take a logical or persuasive standpoint DO ignore those sentiments, because they are such a personal and individual issue that it is infact impossible to tackle. Though they should not be completely ignored, nor should they be at the forefront of the argument; logic comes first.

Ok guys, I've had enough with some of you tearing down religion. I'm sick of it, and you're being total hypocrites. You're now discriminating against Christians and other religions saying how we're all horrible people and how our beliefs contradict each other. Most of you don't even know what you're talking about.

I'm not Catholic, but I've gone to Catholic school since the 4th grade, and this issue has been brought up again and again. Let's see, 5 years of mass every Tuesday, and 2 years of mass 1 or 2 times a month, not to mention retreats. The Catholic Church condemns NO ONE to hell, and when it comes to homosexuals, they do not believe that they will automatically go to hell like you seem to think. They believe that being one is ok, but acting upon your feelings of homosexuality is a sin. That being said, they do not say that God hates homosexuals.

They, and most Christian churches believe and preach that God loves us all and will forgive us of our sins in the end.

But sinning is sinning in the eyes of Christians, and it is wrong.

So people like Thorpedo, please stop acting as if you know what you're talking about. You obviously don't, and in speaking as if you do, make yourselves look like fools.

Ok guys, I've had enough with some of you tearing down religion.  I'm sick of it, and you're being total hypocrites.  You're now discriminating against Christians and other religions saying how we're all horrible people and how our beliefs contradict each other.  Most of you don't even know what you're talking about.

I'm not Catholic, but I've gone to Catholic school since the 4th grade, and this issue has been brought up again and again.  Let's see, 5 years of mass every Tuesday, and 2 years of mass 1 or 2 times a month, not to mention retreats.  The Catholic Church condemns NO ONE to hell, and when it comes to homosexuals, they do not believe that they will automatically go to hell like you seem to think.  They believe that being one is ok, but acting upon your feelings of homosexuality is a sin.  That being said, they do not say that God hates homosexuals.

They, and most Christian churches believe and preach that God loves us all and will forgive us of our sins in the end.

But sinning is sinning in the eyes of Christians, and it is wrong.

So people like Thorpedo, please stop acting as if you know what you're talking about.  You obviously don't, and in speaking as if you do, make yourselves look like fools.

Well said freak. According to my religion teacher, the catholic church didnt even condemn hitler to hell. Basically hes in some sort of purgatory type thing.

Personally i dont see what the whole issue is. From a legal standpoint, ok, civil unions would grant the rights they want. The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. Sorry guys, but the concept of marriage come from religion, which means it is defined as they see it. The government recognizes the idea of marriage, because they want strong families. They want strong families so that kids grow up in good homes, and essentially so the state does not have to deal with them later. Im not saying that gay people cannot raise families, all im saying is if the government didnt give a shit about marriages, would this even be an issue?
Simple answer is no. The individual churches would be responsible for the marriage itself, and the government wouldnt have jack shit to do with it. So answer me this, if a civil union gives the legal rights that gays want, why is it such an issue that the government allow them to be married?

So answer me this, if a civil union gives the legal rights that gays want, why is it such an issue that the government allow them to be married?

ill answer you this.

I want the government to treat homosexuals the same way as heterosexuals.

And like 2 states have "civil unions". That's why its an issue. Civil unions are better than nothing, but 48 states still to go, and being that my ultimate goal is that the government not discriminate between hetero and homosexuals, then hopefully full marriage licenses are next.

2 issues i usually hear about that...

firstly, because some homosexuals do not want to be denied something which they feel is part of their religion. AKA, some homosexuals are christians, and believe that as a part of their religion, marriage should not be limited to what a specific(different) denomination of christianity deems it should be. That's like saying all christians should follow catholic teachings, which isn't the case, and would piss off a lot of christians. Only this is even more volatile, because actual rights are involved, and not just religious ideals.

secondly, civil union gives LESS rights than actual marriage does. As such, it shows itself to be lightening the blow, when no fist should have been thrown to begin with, if you catch my meaning. And someone who feels it is a RIGHT that they are fighting for is not going to settle for damaged goods, because that insinuates it being a privelage of a lower class and not a right of an equal class. No one likes to be patronized.

Those are the 2 common beefs, and frankly they both make a lot of sense and I atleast can see why it would be an issue.

Freak - what is considered a sin and isn't is not the issue. The seperation of church and state is supposed to be firmly planted in this country. The argument is strictly that homosexuals want equal treatment in "state"- just as you would want to be treated equally if you were different. If I said you couldn't have rights because you were diabetic, that would be wrong. Yes, that's totally connected because homosexuality is completely natural, just like diabetes. And I don't know if I am or not, but please don't say I'm being a hypocrite.

Wow, there are some intelligent people here at NE. I shouldn't be surprised, but I kindof am. This has been a great discussion.

People in this country should start making an effort to understand why we all have such different opinions. Understand that your experiences have led you to different points of view and being a democracy, we should be able to respect other people's opinions for the good of the state and more importantly for the good of human happiness and well-being. I know the "people should" arguement is problematic. What I really mean is that I should, and you (insert your own name here) should and everyone else gets to make up their own opinion. Cause that's all there is to social change. Individuals taking a stand and imploring others to share it with them.

About gay marriage in particular, I agree with Blitz and Toon and John and cg and Micool. Everything in this country is a religious issue because religion has a lot of influence over how people think. Yes this country was founded by Christians and there's nothing wrong with that. Christianity is essential to the history of Europe. (and in many ways the rest of the world too ever since the Age of Exploration) But just like technology changes, society changes too and we have need to constantly reasses our own rules and decide for ourselves what to believe, what is right, and what is wrong. If you are religious, I hope that your stance on the issue comes from your own search for meaning and not from what other people have told you. I can say for myself that I didn't really start forming my own informed opinion until I was 17 or 18 so don't worry. There's still time for people to change. Not that change means seeing the light and denouncing Christianity. That's not what I mean at all. I mean change as in forming personal conviction which does not come straight out of the culture you grew up in.

Remember that just because something worked in the past DOES NOT mean that it is the best policy for us now. Bipartisanship, capitalism, democracy, human rights -- these are all issues that we need to think about for ourselves. Don't let the dogmatists do your thinking for you.

And for christ's sake, let's not turn this into another example of the bipolar phenomenon. It isn't us against them. It isn't liberals against conservatives. It isn't fanatics against heathens or the rightous against the wicked or the nonconformists against the status quo. It's about people - people who are different - figuring out what's best for themselves and what's best for others. You may disagree, but you are all the same as human beings and deserve equal respect. You need to listen to people and see them as people, not as whatever label they may represent to you.

----

John, this is specifically for you. From your reading list in the other topic I know you recently read The Davinci Code and are doing more related reading. I'm in a similar position and I just want to warn you to be careful. You probably find the information fascinating and that's fueling your quest for more and I feel the same way but it's easy to go too far and start accepting things noncritically just because they sound appealing to you. Be careful not to allow yourself to go too far and lose sight of the cultural objectivity which made it appealing in the first place. This is my worry for myself, so I'm just passing it on to you. There's nothing in your posts to suggest you have become impartial. Keep an open mind, that's all.

God obviously made BOTH adam and eve and adam and steve, because if adam and steve didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this debate right know.

God didn't make shit, because god dosen't exist. Evolution is real.

And we thank you for your opinion Turtleman. I know you put a lot of thought into that.

I am just saying, we shouldn't have organized religion. It brings a lot of hate to people because they feel so strongly in their religion. People should just believe in what they want and not what others think. Religion is what brought most of the wars in this world. Religion is what brought religious extremists that kill people over their beliefs. Religion imo, brings nothing but hate and discriminatory actions. And I don't believe in God. Does that mean I should not have the right to marry? Bullshit.

It just sounds to me like this is anger speaking, not reason. I agree that religion can be very problematic socially. It brings just as much conflict as unity. People do kill each other over religion because belief is a very powerful thing. That doesn't mean that it's wrong to believe in something. Believing in something greater than yourself, whatever that might be, is what gives life meaning. The problem is in thinking that your beliefs give you the right to harm other people.

What is the basis for the anti-gay argument except religion? Is there a non-religious argument against gay rights? Nature? Please. Where's the organ that allows people to fly? Where's the organ that allows people to write? These things are not "natural", does that make them evil? People used to think Europeans had a divine right to rule the planet because they were given technology while everyone else was primitive. Well perhaps conditions made it possible for them to develop certain technologies first, but that does not mean Imperialism was just and godly.

Look at marriage politically. Let's call it a civil union and pretend that accords all the same rights as marriage does in America. In that case is it wrong for two men or women to have a civil union? It's only a problem when you use the word 'marriage' right? And if you want to say why that is, sooner or later you're going to bring up the Bible. Now I'm not saying it's wrong to believe in the Bible because I don't believe that's true. I'm just saying that if the religious element is removed, it's obvious that gay marriage should be allowed. Is there anyone who disagrees with that? I haven't seen any arguments against gay marriage so far which don't come down to religion.

So accepting that, you must realize that liberty means people get to choose for themselves what is best for them. It means that people are free to believe in the Bible or the Koran or evolution or something else or all of the above. So whatever the majority believes, that is law. If the majority believes that the Bible should dictate policy with regards to certain issues, than it will. Not because it's the Bible, but because it's the majority opinion. There's nothing wrong with that, everyone is looking for meaning in life. People just find it in different places. This is how liberty works. This is what America is supposed to represent. If America is primarily Christian, the law will reflect that. Since the majority opinion is always changing, law is always changing too. So you rationally form your own opinion and you vote. In theory, everyone else does the same and then we all have the good sense to follow the rules or break them and face the consequences. People in California voted against it, people in San Francisco voted for it. It's a political issue at this point which is the authority. Should San Fran get to choose for themselves or live by the law set for California? What about California and the rest of the country? This is the issue. If this disturbs you then you don't want democracy. Everyone wants a dictatorship if they get to be the dictator though right? Government will always be a compromise. Which is the lesser evil?

As far as forming your own opinion, you have to realize that one of the primary goals of every society is to enculturate the new generation. Call it education, call it indoctrination - it's the same idea no matter what spin you put on it. Propaganda is ethical if the society agrees it is for the greater good. These issues get complicated. Anyway, once you grow up it becomes your responsibility to question the society you live in and the education you received. This is important because this is how societies grow and adapt. It is essential for the success of any nation that people think for themselves. So I plead with you all to realize that you HAVE been enculturated. You now have the power to believe whatever you want. Ask yourself why you believe what you do. Are you voting a certain way because you really analyzed the issues or because it was easy? Just don't let other people do your thinking for you. The power to think rationally is what makes you a human being. Use it as much as you can!

God didn't make shit, because god dosen't exist. Evolution is real.

thats one of the most un-intelligent things I've heard

I wish all people who are against gay marriage would change their perspective for a while, and see it from a person who is for gay marriage point of view.
Everyone should of course try to look at the issue from all sides, but from what I've read in this thread it seems most posts against gay marriage has been bringing up the same arguments again and again pretty much regardless of the other posts.
So, why should a person who wants for gays to have the legal right to marry have that opinion?

You're going to hell

No I'm not. Because I don't believe in hell. Thanks, Prove to me that there is a Heaven and Hell and maybe I will start going to church and praying to god. Until then, I am believing in what I believe, which is based on science. If god created Man and Women, tell me, do you not believe in aliens? If not, then you would have to be the most thick headed sobs. The universe is beyond human understanding and there is definetly life. Tell me what the bible says about aliens in different galexies.

that is such a cliche "prove to me Heaven and Hell"

look up the word "faith" to believe in something that cannot be seen or touched by the human mind or hand.