General Chat / San Francisco Allows Gay Marriages

God, I hope your banned again.

Pray, Turtleman, pray.

And just...wow, Metal. Wow. You're really stupid..

Hey! I'm smart enough to know where my dick goes!

He disaproves of what gays do.

*splashes water on the turtleman*

Really now. Have you had a nice conversation with him lately asking if God really does? The bible wasn't made by God. It was made by people and their opinions on all of this. For all we know, God could be looking down and shaking his head at all the people against gay marriage..

arguing is stupid lol

And Turtleman, the Bible was written by people, but, God told the people what to write.  Word for word.  So, essentially, he wrote the book.

BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? You don't. Its just what you think and have been taught. What if your views on everything is wrong? What if EVERYONES views on everything is wrong? That would be really screwed up.

But what if..?

It's called faith.

Agreed on the preist sex scandal, but one comment. Those guys were human, and not perfect. That doesnt negate the teaching.

If homosexuals can be men of God, why is there any teaching whatsoever regarding homosexuality?

who cares, people can believe what they want, and can be gay if they want, but i dont' think marriage should be allowed

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).

You've obviously not studied the Far East's history, which adds to me leading to say that marriage based on love is entirely a Western concept, at that.

erm, to all those who are religious:

what does God think of Britney Spears going to Vegas and getting drunk and getting every single right granted to married couples bestowed upon her, but not giving these rights to a same-sex couple that has been committed to each other for 15 years?

Pym, regardless of being in the Bible or not, there are teachings that say that homosexual orientation is "objectively disordered" (found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) and homosexual practices are "sins gravely contrary to chastity." The church doesn't outrightly discriminate against homosexuals, but their stance on the entire thing is far from being a positive reinforcement for equality.

I don't really care what people think, the singer of one of my favorite bands (A.F.I.) is gay but it doesn't affect the way that I like their music.

I like religion even though my religion isn't really a religion, it is more of a relationship.

Here is a story about a Christian person and I don't care if you read it but this is what my relationship is all about:

A Christian man who was kind of famous, was in Hawaii for a Christian conference. He was in his hotel room one night and awake at like 3 AM and couldn't sleep, so he left his room and found an all night diner. He went in there ordered some stuff and a long came some prostitutes who had just gotten of the job. The man listened in on there conversation, he heard that one of them, had their birthday the next day, and that she had never gotten a birthday cake. After they left he went and asked the waiter if they came in there every night and he said yes and at the same time every night.

The next night he came there and it was full of hookers, pimps, and other prostitutes, he noticed that word had gotten around. When the prostitute came in she was so suprised to see that people were there. She saw the cake and did all the stuff that people normally do except eat it. She asked if she could just take it home and rushed home with it and came back.

After everyone left the waiter asked what kind of church the man went to. He said that he went to a church that brough cakes to prostitutes at 3 AM. The waiter said that if there was a church like that he would be there in a heartbeat.

That is the kind of church that I go to. We don't judge people for whats on the outside or on the inside. We just accept them for who they are, even homosexuals.

everyone is different, just because their are hetero's who fuck up a lot, dosent mean the ENTIRE group is screwed up. homosexuals are the same way to me, their one couple at my school who had been together for about a year (until they seperated for college).

Do you think God is shaking his head when those spit upon their religions?
erm.. this really is pointless. I'm the only Muslim in this website so i come off weird because though my religion has similarities to Christians it has its differences, like in Saudi Arabia if their ever was a gay Imam (like a priest for Christiants) that was fine by the people, some would be erked but overall no one would care. BECAUSE that is his decision alone, but when it came ot such issues as saying to children that being homosexual was gay, thats when you cross the line. because when your a kid you act upon curiosity and therefore it was a sin. I truly do think that some homosexuals are in love, no doubt, i'm not gonna lie and say their vision is masked by lies and confusion, no i do believe some are indeed in love.
but to my like Butterfinger said, marriage has always been passed down since the dawn of time as marriage between man and woman, the correlation of the two opposite sexes to have an everlasting relationship and family, just because NOW the homosexual community decides they want to change eons of religion and history to suite their first generation lives is wrong. Because you open a pandora's box for the next generation to believe this is something of ok, nad therefore weakening religions moral and strength. Can you help it that 90 plus percent of the world beleives in a major religion and are against this.

I agree with Butter, give the homosexuals the civil Unions, with all the rights of marriage. Its really indeed in the word use.

thats really all i got to say.

p.s. Metal, back down, your making yourself look really really bad. leave those who are athiests alone, just respect it as it is.

I agree with Butter, give the homosexuals the civil Unions, with all the rights of marriage. Its really indeed in the word use.

thats really all i got to say.

p.s. Metal, back down, your making yourself look really really bad. leave those who are athiests alone, just respect it as it is.

But, you're still placing them on a different level than heterosexual couples. If you're going to, in essence, rename 'marriage' for homosexuals, you should do it for heterosexuals, too. If 'marriage' is deemed a religious term, it should stay that way, and as such it should not be used for governmental purposes.

Okay, I never get things out correctly, but here's my full thoughts:


Blitz is entirely correct that if marriage is to be based off of religious purposes that it would be simply going against the constitution itself by not seperating church and state. If one looks at it from a legal point of view, he's also got it right that there should be no laws against gay marriage because it is discrimination. Discrimination in this country is illegal from my understanding of my viewing of laws. If one views it to be keeping the sanctity of marriage and the family, they need to see gay parented-families, and see children that were raised with a gay couple as the parents to really know if their arguement is hoo-hah, which around here is.

I'm not going to bring religion into my arguement simply because it has been stressed enough in this conversation already.

I feel that people controlling the laws need to pull their heads out of their asses and realise these things before making this an issue, it would be much simpler.

separation of church and state is good, but not good if taken too far

See, the fact it is there is why I can bring my point of view up and validate it.

You do realise, that, the whole "separation of church and state" was only put in place that America could have religious freedom from England [this was when they were 'controling' us].  It never meant to go this far.  Quite frankly, its been distorted so much, I don't know why the fuck we don't just drop it altogether.

ya. I want the pope making decisions for America.

The Pope? Isn't he like 805 years old? J/K. I think that the Catholic church is ready fo a new Pope.

Frankly I think a complete seperation of church and state is assanine.

The government needs to take into account all the aspects of the people it governs to be able to effectively run a country. (p.s. by church I don't necessarily mean catholicism, just the religion of the people in general)

We are presented with a choice, democracy.....or freedom.

If we take away their right to marry because the majority of the people have voted against it, then people may be screaming because they are being denied freedom, but it will have been an act of pure democracy, and the will of the people will have been done.

Whereas if they allow them to marry then you may be screaming that it is against the will of the people, but it will be an act purely promoting freedom.

So either way we are going to piss alot of people of for a very good reason on either side of the issue.

My vision of America is cenetered more around freedom, and I think they should be given the same rights we give to everyone else. When you think about the way we run our government in the first place, it functions more like a republic than a democracy anyway, so we won't really be losing anything.