Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
shaka5

Ny votes against......

293 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

SilverCougar

Cadetak is correct in all but one thing.

I'm a she, not a he ;D

But yep, that's my point. The whole sanctady of marriage changes, a lot. So claiming one thing will "destroy" it is bogus. Change our current made up meaning it will do, but it's already changeing globaly. Shame our nation that prides itself on progression and moral rights and freedoms falls behind on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mobhitmusicman

Welcome to Christian Nation B.S. that's been haunting America Since 1776

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverCougar

Welcome to Christian Nation B.S. that's been haunting America Since 1776

Mmmn... more like sometime in the 1800's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mobhitmusicman

But yep, that's my point. The whole sanctady of marriage changes, a lot. So claiming one thing will "destroy" it is bogus. Change our current made up meaning it will do, but it's already changeing globaly. Shame our nation that prides itself on progression and moral rights and freedoms falls behind on this.

Like Louis Said on Family Guy- "Two people who hate each other have the right to be married, but to people who love each other do not?"

This is part of the reason I really hate organized religion!

But lets say we find the definitive Bible that say Jesus was Gay, would that make all the straight marriages wrong? even after 2000 years of that happening? Would that then make Straight Marriage wrong?

And for arguments sake the Christians are worshiping a 33 years old guy who has never been married and they are so afraid that if it Turns out that Jesus and Mary Magidalyn where actually married it would be the end of the world!!! So why are they so wrapped in right and wrong about..... well any marriage, it just never make any sense the Christian Church wants it say in Politics Let Them Pay Taxes!!

AAAAAnnnnnnndddd SCENE!

MmM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

The real bigots are those who continually try to claim that it is only those who have religion who disagree with giving rights to homosexual behavior as if it is equal to heterosexuality.

I am not religious at all but do believe that homosexual behavior is detrimental to society. It is not something that we should treat as beneficial to society. We most definetally should not teach our children such lies as calling it normal.

There is also no real science at all that proves homsexuality to be a natural state of birth and not instead being a corruption that is more really in the realm of behavior.

The people have a right to representation on all issues of how sexuality is dealt with in the public realm. It is those who are the real bigots who are trying to deny these rights to people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoIverine

The real bigots are those who continually try to claim that it is only those who have religion who disagree with giving rights to homosexual behavior as if it is equal to heterosexuality.

I am not religious at all but do believe that homosexual behavior is detrimental to society. It is not something that we should treat as beneficial to society. We most definetally should not teach our children such lies as calling it normal.

There is also no real science at all that proves homsexuality to be a natural state of birth and not instead being a corruption that is more really in the realm of behavior.

The people have a right to representation on all issues of how sexuality is dealt with in the public realm. It is those who are the real bigots who are trying to deny these rights to people.

Actually it has been proven that certain areas of a male homosexual's brain are malformed in terms of what would be called normal anatomy. Saw something about it on Discovery Health a while back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUEYOUTRUEME

Actually it has been proven that certain areas of a male homosexual's brain are malformed in terms of what would be called normal anatomy. Saw something about it on Discovery Health a while back.

No actually it was only a study and was not proven as any absolute type of fact. There are a million studies that say things one way or the complette opposite way.

The fact of the matter is that there is no doctor or medical scientist who can prove or predict the future sexual behavior of any new born human being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverCougar

You're right True. And I think you're a bigot, since I know that bigotry does exist regardless if you're religious or not. And everything I've seen you post reeks of bigotry.

Homosexuality is not harmful in the slightest. It's been shown over and over to be genetic in many ways. *shrugs*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

The real bigots are those who continually try to claim that it is only those who have religion who disagree with giving rights to homosexual behavior as if it is equal to heterosexuality.

Nobody has actually bin saying its only religion. Religion is an excuse for homophobia and not a core cause. However religious organizations do support the bigotry.

I am not religious at all but do believe that homosexual behavior is detrimental to society. It is not something that we should treat as beneficial to society. We most definetally should not teach our children such lies as calling it normal.

What you believe not what you can prove. Heck, you don't even need to prove it just please provide logical rational to support yourself.

Treating people as abominations and second class citizens, homophobia in itself is harmful and detrimental to society. Going to show that unsupported ideals and prejudice supercede not only logic and reason but core American ideas of freedom and equality.

There is also no real science at all that proves homsexuality to be a natural state of birth and not instead being a corruption that is more really in the realm of behavior.

There is but it's irrelevant anyways. The natural versus unnatural, genetic versus environment versus choice debate isn't needed when discussing Gay Marriage or social acceptance. Clearly the law supports genetic differences(race) as well as choices(religion).

Other then in the interest of biology and psychology what would the conclusion of the genetic/non genetic debate effect?

The people have a right to representation on all issues of how sexuality is dealt with in the public realm. It is those who are the real bigots who are trying to deny these rights to people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Actually it has been proven that certain areas of a male homosexual's brain are malformed in terms of what would be called normal anatomy. Saw something about it on Discovery Health a while back.

yes but they also don't know if said problem happened before or after they become homosexual. further the study was done by a man who was gay but didn't tell anyone he was gay for like 20 years. so who knows if said study was on the up and up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoIverine

Hmmm, good points. I somewhat feel like the determining factor comes down to the mother, when the child is in-utero. If the fetus is male, but exposed to a high level of estrogen, or possibly a lack of testosterone, it can weigh the developmental stages of a child in one direction or another.

Edited by SpiderCyde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

It really doesn't matter what is logical and if 99% of the people on UM think Gay Marriage is OK or not. The 50+% of those who are voting against it really do not care. They either 1) don't like gays, or 2) where told by their parents, church or legislator to vote against it. The result has been the same nationwide. It fails initiative after initiative. Try again latter.

I hear the Pot-heads always going on about how that hurts no one, and from the total religous wackos on how they hurt no one either. But, their opinions on those subjects are not always clear and impartial. I'm not saying gays are wrong, I'm just saying their opinion of what is not hurtful is their own opinion. Perhaps there needs to be a National level report made that examines the differences between gays and straights, so that we can see if there are any expected harmful effects of gay marriage. If there is none, then gay marriage is good to go.

Personally, I think it will keep getting voted down for at least another decade, maybe longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

It really doesn't matter what is logical and if 99% of the people on UM think Gay Marriage is OK or not. The 50+% of those who are voting against it really do not care. They either 1) don't like gays, or 2) where told by their parents, church or legislator to vote against it. The result has been the same nationwide. It fails initiative after initiative. Try again latter.

I hear the Pot-heads always going on about how that hurts no one, and from the total religous wackos on how they hurt no one either. But, their opinions on those subjects are not always clear and impartial. I'm not saying gays are wrong, I'm just saying their opinion of what is not hurtful is their own opinion. Perhaps there needs to be a National level report made that examines the differences between gays and straights, so that we can see if there are any expected harmful effects of gay marriage. If there is none, then gay marriage is good to go.

Personally, I think it will keep getting voted down for at least another decade, maybe longer.

Hmmm maybe this

" Perhaps there needs to be a National level report made that examines the differences between gays and straights, so that we can see if there are any expected harmful effects of gay marriage. If there is none, then gay marriage is good to go."

This way we could screen out all the morons.

Some heterosexual people meaning the majority should not breed as I find stupidity a leading cause of dumbness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

If we screened out all the stupid people from breeding, we'd have negative population growth! We'd need to go to War to get other nations children and raise them as our own. :blink::lol::innocent::w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tsukasa

I will support civil unions because a civil union is a government function that gives the same rights as marriage.

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

The problem with marriage is that it is not a government institution but traditionally a religious institution. As such it is covered under freedom of religion for people to believe what religion they want. The government cannot dictate to a church that it will merry same sex couples because it is a violation of freedom of religion. So it is up to individual churches or religions to decide if they want to marry same sex couples or not, not the government.

But the government is free to go and give civil unions to same sex couples because they are not interfering with religion then. After all, its not hard to find a civil servant who can perform a civil union anyway, there is one in every town.

You cannot shove same sex marriage down peoples throats if its against their religion, its their choice to accept same sex marriage, but civil unions are fair game because that is a function of government not religion. Also just because one church will marry same sex couples does not mean all other churches have to recognize it.

I say give them civil unions with the same rights as marriage, but don't tell me they are married because it is a violation of my religion, and to shove it down my throat as marriage is a violation of my right to free religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

I will support civil unions because a civil union is a government function that gives the same rights as marriage.

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

The problem with marriage is that it is not a government institution but traditionally a religious institution. As such it is covered under freedom of religion for people to believe what religion they want. The government cannot dictate to a church that it will merry same sex couples because it is a violation of freedom of religion. So it is up to individual churches or religions to decide if they want to marry same sex couples or not, not the government.

But the government is free to go and give civil unions to same sex couples because they are not interfering with religion then. After all, its not hard to find a civil servant who can perform a civil union anyway, there is one in every town.

You cannot shove same sex marriage down peoples throats if its against their religion, its their choice to accept same sex marriage, but civil unions are fair game because that is a function of government not religion. Also just because one church will marry same sex couples does not mean all other churches have to recognize it.

I say give them civil unions with the same rights as marriage, but don't tell me they are married because it is a violation of my religion, and to shove it down my throat as marriage is a violation of my right to free religion.

You can have state recognized Gay Marriage while allowing church's the right to refuse to sign off or hold the ceremony. This wouldn't break seperation of church and state as the government is not forcing the church to do anything...however allowing a religion to dictate what marriage is and what it is not is a violation of seperation of church and state as it respects an establishment of religion and incorporates and upholds religious law as government law.

This issue should be resolved without any consideration for religion. Marriage is not a christian invention and is not exclusive to it, it is very much so a secular practice.

A civil union is viewed as a second class marriage.

Edited by Cadetak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tsukasa

You can have state recognized Gay Marriage while allowing church's the right to refuse to sign off or hold the ceremony. This wouldn't break seperation of church and state as the government is not forcing the church to do anything...however allowing a religion to dictate what marriage is and what it is not is a violation of seperation of church and state as it respects an establishment of religion and incorporates and upholds religious law as government law.

This issue should be resolved without any consideration for religion. Marriage is not a christian invention and is not exclusive to it, it is very much so a secular practice.

A civil union is viewed as a second class marriage.

Your right that marriage is not a christian invention, nor is it a Jewish invention but probably some ancient druid Creation. But also notice I never mentioned any specific religion, for all you know I am Buddhist, or Wikken, or Taoist, or Jewish or Christian, I never specifically mentioned which religion. But yet you went right after the Christians and attack them. I must ask why? What is so wrong with Christians?

What you are talking about is exactly what I am talking about. Government recognized marriage is Civil Union. No government official can marry someone in the name of a religion, only in the name of government, so it is a Civil Union.

I don't see how churches telling people what their definition of marriage is violates the separation of church and state. Right now what I see is the government trying to dictate to the church what the definition should be and how the church should view it, not the other way around as you put it. It is not the governments place to dictate to churches (of any kind) how they should view marriage, it is up to that particular church.

Marriage is both a secular and a religious practice depending on the context. If someone is married by a government official in the name of the government it is secular. If someone is married in a church, by a priest (shaman, rabbi, whatever) it is religious. It falls in both categories.

I don't view civil unions as second class marriage since all marriages must have a civil union to go with it in order to get all the benefits. In fact since religious marriage itself is not enough to get all the benefits you get through a civil union you could say religious marriage is the second class marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

Your right that marriage is not a christian invention, nor is it a Jewish invention but probably some ancient druid Creation. But also notice I never mentioned any specific religion, for all you know I am Buddhist, or Wikken, or Taoist, or Jewish or Christian, I never specifically mentioned which religion. But yet you went right after the Christians and attack them. I must ask why? What is so wrong with Christians?

Considering 70% of the American population identifies itself as Christian and every other religion you noted represents like one percent each, and also noting that Christianity and its Church's are at the forefront of opposition of Gay marriage, Christianity is pretty much implied...in truth no other religious group matters for this issue, as no other religion has any power or sway in the overall American society or politics.

At no point in my post did I attack Christians or imply that Christianity is inherently wrong.

What you are talking about is exactly what I am talking about. Government recognized marriage is Civil Union. No government official can marry someone in the name of a religion, only in the name of government, so it is a Civil Union.

The government issues marriage licenses and Civil Unions can and do incorporate religion.

All this is is segregation through words. You stated that you wish homosexuals to have civil unions that award all the same rights as marriage. So at the end of the day, they are exactly the same thing except they have different names. Same rights and standing with the government and under law and a married couple is in practice the same as "civil unioned" couple....so why call it by different names if it is in essence the same thing?

I don't see how churches telling people what their definition of marriage is violates the separation of church and state. Right now what I see is the government trying to dictate to the church what the definition should be and how the church should view it, not the other way around as you put it. It is not the governments place to dictate to churches (of any kind) how they should view marriage, it is up to that particular church.

The issue isn't about forcing churches to do gay marriages, it is about the state recognizing gay marriage. The government can recognize gay marriage(and award it equal standing) without needing to force any churches into doing anything.

The constitution and the people get to decide on how marriage should be defined and what rights are awarded to it.

Marriage is both a secular and a religious practice depending on the context. If someone is married by a government official in the name of the government it is secular. If someone is married in a church, by a priest (shaman, rabbi, whatever) it is religious. It falls in both categories.

We are talking about government recognition not church recognition. A church can recognize straight, gay, or whatever you call the deal where the man gets 20 wives...it doesn't matter, that's their deal. The government does not really care what flavor of belief you used for the ceremony...it cares about legal issues regarding marriage...ie taxes, name changes, child custody, property, and anything else that changes when you go from single to married(or 'civil unionized'?)and eventually either divorced or widowed.

I don't view civil unions as second class marriage since all marriages must have a civil union to go with it in order to get all the benefits. In fact since religious marriage itself is not enough to get all the benefits you get through a civil union you could say religious marriage is the second class marriage.

I guess you could see it like that. Guess it matters what you views as 'the marriage' the signing of the legal documents or the ceremony and 'till death do us part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Hmmm, good points. I somewhat feel like the determining factor comes down to the mother, when the child is in-utero. If the fetus is male, but exposed to a high level of estrogen, or possibly a lack of testosterone, it can weigh the developmental stages of a child in one direction or another.

either of these two conditions would produce a female.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tsukasa

At no point in my post did I attack Christians or imply that Christianity is inherently wrong.

You went out of your way to way that marriage is not a Christian invention and that they are not exclusive to it. Same thing to me since that most Christians never claimed to invent religion or that they had some exclusive privilege to it. A few wayward fools may have but that does not represent all of them.

The government issues marriage licenses and Civil Unions can and do incorporate religion.

Yea, the government recognizes a religious with a civil union.

All this is is segregation through words. You stated that you wish homosexuals to have civil unions that award all the same rights as marriage. So at the end of the day, they are exactly the same thing except they have different names. Same rights and standing with the government and under law and a married couple is in practice the same as "civil unioned" couple....so why call it by different names if it is in essence the same thing?

By that logic you could already say that religion is already segregated since some religions already do not recognize the unions of others. The Jews are segregated from the Christians, Muslims are segregated from the Christians and Jews, wikkens and druids are segregated from everyone else (unless you are a universalist). everyone worships in different houses of worship. So you could say its already segregated. Some religions have different terms for Marriage that mean the same exact thing, so whats one more. The gays could also create their own church and perform their own marriages, that would work too, heck, they could even call it "marriage" woohoo, I wouldn't care because that is their religion not mine.

The issue isn't about forcing churches to do gay marriages, it is about the state recognizing gay marriage. The government can recognize gay marriage(and award it equal standing) without needing to force any churches into doing anything.

In some places it has become a push to force churches to do gay marriages. Also if its so easy for the government to recognize gay marriage, why don't they just do it? The government does not need the churches permission to recognize it.

The constitution and the people get to decide on how marriage should be defined and what rights are awarded to it.

That's working well, voted down in both Maine and NY.

We are talking about government recognition not church recognition. A church can recognize straight, gay, or whatever you call the deal where the man gets 20 wives...it doesn't matter, that's their deal. The government does not really care what flavor of belief you used for the ceremony...it cares about legal issues regarding marriage...ie taxes, name changes, child custody, property, and anything else that changes when you go from single to married(or 'civil unionized'?)and eventually either divorced or widowed.

Then give them civil unions, I don't see what is stopping that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

You went out of your way to way that marriage is not a Christian invention and that they are not exclusive to it. Same thing to me since that most Christians never claimed to invent religion or that they had some exclusive privilege to it. A few wayward fools may have but that does not represent all of them.

I'm not even going to bother going on about this particular part as you seem to be drawing conclusions and assumptions of my character and intentions out of nowhere to somehow justify that I hate Christians or religion or something else that actually isn't happening.

By that logic you could already say that religion is already segregated since some religions already do not recognize the unions of others. The Jews are segregated from the Christians, Muslims are segregated from the Christians and Jews, wikkens and druids are segregated from everyone else (unless you are a universalist). everyone worships in different houses of worship. So you could say its already segregated. Some religions have different terms for Marriage that mean the same exact thing, so whats one more. The gays could also create their own church and perform their own marriages, that would work too, heck, they could even call it "marriage" woohoo, I wouldn't care because that is their religion not mine.

Again we are talking about government recognized marriage not church recognized marriage.

In some places it has become a push to force churches to do gay marriages. Also if its so easy for the government to recognize gay marriage, why don't they just do it? The government does not need the churches permission to recognize it.

That's working well, voted down in both Maine and NY.

Then give them civil unions, I don't see what is stopping that.

People are not logical or rational they are emotional and impulsive...there is no good reason why Gay marriage is not legal.

People don't want Gay Marriage because they hate homosexuality, ie homophobia. To fear what you don't understand, and reject that which is different. Heterosexual insecurity also creates and increased hate for homosexuality. Ignorance is bliss...yadda yadda.

Progress won't be made until new generations replace the old, just like every other time we decided to stop shunning a group for no reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

we are talking about constitutional amendments to state constitutions. once it is constitutional for same sex marriage. then these couples can force churches to marry them or sue them for not following the law. that is what this is about, other wise a civil union/common marriage would be enough, and that would just need to expand the state law not a constitutional amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HerNibs

we are talking about constitutional amendments to state constitutions. once it is constitutional for same sex marriage. then these couples can force churches to marry them or sue them for not following the law. that is what this is about, other wise a civil union/common marriage would be enough, and that would just need to expand the state law not a constitutional amendment.

Daniel, you come back to this argument again and again. It simply isn't true. No one would be able to FORCE a church to marry anyone. Besides - in the governments eyes A CHURCH WEDDING CEREMONY IS NOT A RECOGNIZED MARRIAGE. Were you aware of that?

The only recognized marriages are those that have met the government rules.

They MUST have either a valid state issues certificate (usually issued by the clerk and recorder) or they must meet and accept the standards of a common law marriage (varies a bit by state).

NONE of this has anything to do with a church.

Will stupid people continue to sue others for stupid reasons? Yeah but that has nothing to do with the government recognizing same sex marriages.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I think the issue with State Constitutions is not a major issue. If the individual constitutions are changed, they can always be changed again. My understanding of why it is always aimed at the state constitutions is because it is then not able to be messed with by the state legislatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Daniel, you come back to this argument again and again. It simply isn't true. No one would be able to FORCE a church to marry anyone. Besides - in the governments eyes A CHURCH WEDDING CEREMONY IS NOT A RECOGNIZED MARRIAGE. Were you aware of that?

The only recognized marriages are those that have met the government rules.

They MUST have either a valid state issues certificate (usually issued by the clerk and recorder) or they must meet and accept the standards of a common law marriage (varies a bit by state).

NONE of this has anything to do with a church.

Will stupid people continue to sue others for stupid reasons? Yeah but that has nothing to do with the government recognizing same sex marriages.

Nibs

were you aware that if a state allows a church to issue a certificate they can stop allowing them to do so as well. oh i don't because they aren't following the law or the state constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.