California legalizes gay marr... ZOMG!!!! MY EYES!!!!! IT BURNS!!!

[Azure]

I think its been a while since we've had a gay marriage thread on CP.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Thor

So your argument is that not only is the term Marriage only a religious term, but that its the definition of only your religion or the dominant religion of North America?

There are religions that define Marriage as Polygamy, even today. Yes we have Marriage in a few countries and states now that state Marriage is between man/woman, woman/woman, man/man.

Isn't the point you and others against Gay Marriage that its against your specific beliefs? and if so, then do you not support minority rights?

See there are people who do not share you views, not just Gays but many others who don't share your beliefs. We've already covered the word Marriage is not 'owned' by Religion or their creation/invention.

Its a term that describes the union of 2 people.

Which you want only to mean a union that supports your religious beliefs, and not for anyone else even if they don't share your views or beliefs.

Forgot to use green text.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Really, why do you care? What possible effect could some gay people calling their relationship a "marriage" have on you? How does it negatively affect you if they use this word?

It sure as hell doesn't affect me. It doesn't do anything to me. They changed the law a few years ago now and nothing changed. Nothing at all. What changed for you?

Again, I should have used green text.

I love a good debate, and honestly, I don't have all that much emotional stock in this one. Just a good, heated issue.

[Save Us Sutter]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Again, I should have used green text.

I love a good debate, and honestly, I don't have all that much emotional stock in this one. Just a good, heated issue.

What happened to orange text? When did it get changed to green? Wasn't it originally something to do with Oiler gold...? Does anyone else remember this?

But, OT, I find it deplorable that you are arguing to deny rights to a group of people who have been persecuted for years and years and years but you have no "emotional stock" in it.

I guess I'd rather someone be passionate in their persecutions instead of just apathetically discriminating, as if it makes no difference.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

I respect that your values are so firmly rooted, but you don't have to yield to either the "swing in acceptance" or the "hate-mongering behind you" to change your mind. All you have do is learn to love every man and woman on this planet as you love yourself. And that is not a religious message at all.

I don't think those are mutually exclusive, but I think we're closer on this issue than it may seem.

[MaDMaN_26]

Just thought I'd point something out.... We have a few gay guys posting their opinion here, some open minded hetero-sexuals and a few bigots all represented fairly equally in this post... but the conversation is missing one group... a fairly significant one considering the argument is often about whether or not gays should be able to use the term "Marriage"...

There are some gay people that are also religious, although I'm sure a few of you (and I can already guess who) will say that is some sort of an impossible Juxtaposition. These Gay AND Religious people will want to A) have the right to be religious, believe in and love the same god as you B) Have the right to proclaim their union under the blessing of God. You know equal rights...

Finding them a new word so they don't offend non-gay religious people is not a solution and akin to segregation in my mind and just as wrong. I personally think believing in God is akin to believing in Santa passed the age of 15... I find the sheer number of educated free thinking religious adults astounding... I'm all for people living their lives with some moral guidelines, but I don’t need an old book to do it... Alas to each their own and as such I believe anyone should also have the right to marry... but I certainly do not think that a religious person's religion is a justifiable excuse to be a bigot... its a hollow and silly excuse to treat one human being as a lesser human being or even different based on that.

But I'm not gay or religious and really think the whole argument is stupid. Other than the tax breaks getting married period seems silly to me. It certainly doesn't grantee you anything, including monogamy as so few take it seriously anymore and even less respect its sanctity... perhaps less people would vilify religion and its processes if it generally promoted behaving like caring accepting people, instead so many use their belief structure to ostracize and belittle their fellow human beings that are different, religion often promotes intolerance and hard line ultimatums via exclusion... less and Less of us want to be associated with such organized bigotry, even if we do not disagree with many of the additional and more enlightened moral teachings.

[Antithesis]

I showed my students a great editorial cartoon a while ago about this very concept. There's a bride and groom in a church, and the bride is outraged - "I am against gay marriage! We must keep the traditional view of marriage!" ... the priest responds, "OK, I now pronounce you husband and property."

[Flames_Gimp]

i don't believe in marriage period.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

What happened to orange text? When did it get changed to green? Wasn't it originally something to do with Oiler gold...? Does anyone else remember this?

But, OT, I find it deplorable that you are arguing to deny rights to a group of people who have been persecuted for years and years and years but you have no "emotional stock" in it.

I guess I'd rather someone be passionate in their persecutions instead of just apathetically discriminating, as if it makes no difference.

I'm not denying anyone anything. I thought I was compromising?

And just because I have little to no emotional stock in the outcome of this debate, does not say I am not affected by the subject at hand.

I guess I should have been more clear before making that comment.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by J pold

What does that even mean?

If a couple has a totally secular wedding, would you consider them to be married?

Interesting that this is being ignored by Gozer.

Marriage is a function of the state now. Changing that is going to be very difficult. I disagree that the purpose of marriage is to procreate. The purpose of sex is to procreate. A family makes it convenient to raise young, but marriage is by no means a requirement for that to take place. It's a made up thing to show "commitment" to the union. Therefore there should be nothing wrong with homosexual marriage, at least in my mind.

In my mind.. until marriage no longer has any benefits from the state, gays should be entitled to the same benefits that traditional marriages have.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

What happened to orange text? When did it get changed to green? Wasn't it originally something to do with Oiler gold...? Does anyone else remember this

Yes. It's circa 2003 board. It's definitely in reference to Oiler copper/orange.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

I do not understand though how a priest can marry a gay couple, the Bible is pretty black and white when it comes to that issue.

Well speaking of the Bible and black and white, it is also black and white on the following matters

1) One should not wear cross blended clothing
2) You cannot eat the fruit of a fruit tree that you plant for the first 3 years that it is alive
3) If a man commits adultry, then both the man and the woman with whom he committed adultry shall be put to death (this verse is 3 verses before the gay verse that Christians always cite as being the word of God)
4) Clams, Oysters, Crabs, Lobsters and shrimp are an abomination in the eyes of our lord
5) Leviticus 13:41 : If you have the crescent action of baldness you are unclean
6) A woman in her time of uncleanliness shall be kept separate from her man for 7 days (this would be great for the construction industry, 2 homes for every properly married heterosexual couple)
7) Leviticus 18:19: Though shall not look at a menstrating woman naked, that is an abomination
8) You shall not have more than one type of seed in a field as a farmer
9) You shall not shave your beard (goodbye Gillette)
10) No tattoo's
11) Priests shall not be bald (Leviticus 21:5)
12) If you have a broken leg or arm though shall not approach the alter of the Lord, neither can a blind man or a handicapped person (21:16-23)
13) You cannot approach the alter of the Lord if you have damaged testicles

Those are religious commandments to live by. I am still at a loss as to why only one verse of Leviticus is repeated over and over again in Christian churches, but these other valid and practical rules are overlooked.....

These laws seem pretty black and white as well, and yet I seem to remember priests overlooking them, as well as other Christian denominations. I must admit, in my 12 years of Catholic school, I missed the Jesus preaching about gays part of the Bible, maybe there are other religious people that can point me to a verse other than Leviticus that discusses homosexuality.

[Save Us Sutter]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I don't think those are mutually exclusive, but I think we're closer on this issue than it may seem.

I get that you think your beliefs are not discriminatory, but I simply cannot agree with you. Perhaps we are close on the issue, but what you perceive to be a few inches, to me is still miles.

I hope you don't take that as a personal attack or anything.

I feel the urge to point out the difference between "tolerance" and "acceptance" here. It would appear you "tolerate" the gay lifestyle. You claim to want them to have equal rights and blah blah blah you pay good lip service to them.

True acceptance is opening your heart and mind and honestly acknowledging that there is no difference in the relationship between you and your wife (whether current, potential or past) and a man and his husband. At the risk of getting even more corny, true love is all that friggin' matters, man! To deny that a a gay marriage is "sacred" is to deny that all marriage is such.

[AC]

edit: EddyBeers with the same line of thinking

I don't understand the argument that religiously the stance on gay marriage is black and white. While it can easily be argued that this is true, the bible is very clear about numerous other things that I imagine very few people would admit to agreeing with.

For example, the bible neither supports or condemns slavery, but it does give rules on how to treat your slaves. This is easily explained by the fact that bible was written in a time when slavery was commonplace, as were numerous other things and beliefs that should no longer be considered appropriate in society.

Or how about stoning disobedient children?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...-21&version=31

This is the same for gay marriage; its an archaic way of thinking. While I completely understand how people can base their stance on the issue using the bible, the very same people just happen to ignore other specific and clear-cut issues.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

And just because I have little to no emotional stock in the outcome of this debate, does not say I am not affected by the subject at hand.

How are you affected?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

That is a pretty slippery slope to travel down though. Just my interpretation. If the big man upstairs hated it enough to destroy two cities and turn anyone who watched him destroy those cities into pillars of salt I don't see him suddenly being okay with it.

Neither do I, which is why I think that we need to be very careful when approaching the Bible as a collection of inspired scriptures. You make the assumption right away that everything recorded in the Bible happened exactly as it says it did. You furthermore suggest that anything contained in the Bible must be construed as the "Word of God" simply by its inclusion therein.

I reject both premises.

Originally Posted by Boblobla

That's fine, I didn't write the book, I was responding to how Text said it could be open to interpretation.

I never said that the Bible could be "open to interpretation". I did, however say that an accurate and sensible interpretation of the Jewish and Christian scriptures recognizes that they are far too complicated, diverse, and problematic to be read "plainly". I most certainly believe that there is a right and a wrong way to read the biblical texts. If read incorrectly, or if they are inappropriately applied to present circumstances without careful consideration for the implications, then the Bible in many respects is a dangerous book. This is one of those instances.

[Save Us Sutter]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I'm not denying anyone anything. I thought I was compromising?

And just because I have little to no emotional stock in the outcome of this debate, does not say I am not affected by the subject at hand.

I guess I should have been more clear before making that comment.

How is saying that they cannot use the word "marriage" not denying them something?

What is your compromise? Creating a fun new "gay" word? You mean, like a slur? Like a word that identifies them as "not really married". I know you've said it's all exactly the same except that word, but what I'm trying to point out is that just the fact that it is a different word labels them as not good enough for the "real" one.

And thanks for the clarification. Though I fail to recognize how you cannot have emotional stock in an issue that goes way beyond letting gays call themselves married.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

How are you affected?

By the emotions, for and against the subject at hand, of my friends in the homosexual community.

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

What is your compromise? Creating a fun new "gay" word? You mean, like a slur? Like a word that identifies them as "not really married". I know you've said it's all exactly the same except that word, but what I'm trying to point out is that just the fact that it is a different word labels them as not good enough for the "real" one.

I appreciate your position about how a new term would essentially become a slurr, much like the N word. The difference is that the gay community would be giving it to themselves and thus the negative fallout as an offensive slurr would be short-lived as the primary sense.

Ie, people still use the N word offensively today, but just as common among blacks is using it as a greeting. The gay community would be decades ahead from the get-go than the black were with the n-word.

[
And thanks for the clarification. Though I fail to recognize how you cannot have emotional stock in an issue that goes way beyond letting gays call themselves married.

I don't want to have another Alberta surplus thread where I actually do get upset, to the point where I had to leave my place of work for a few minutes to calm down. Please be assured, that this is a very real issue for a lot of my friends.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I see it as encroachment, bordering on vengefulness against the community that has ostracized them for eons. I would argue a primary motivator the homosexual community is making a huge deal about this is about sticking to the "straight man". I am not defending their plight, but two wrongs don't make a right.
s.

That's a massive assumption on your part. TO be clear its your belief gay people actually don't care about having the right to use the word "marriage" but rather are doing it out of spite.

A big organized, movement all out of spite.

That's your position?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

By the emotions, for and against the subject at hand, of my friends in the homosexual community.

Huh?

Sounds to me like you are saying that you are "affected" by same-sex marriage because some people you know have strong opinions on the subject.

Are you affected in, you know, a real way?