California overturned gay-marriage ban today!

Page 1 of 27 [ 420 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 27  Next

Averick
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,709
Location: My tower upon the crag. Yes, mwahahaha!

15 May 2008, 4:45 pm

It's only a matter of time before "californiacation" effects us all.
First it was Massachusetts, now them. In time, all fifty-two states
will allow gay marriage.

Sorry my fundalmentalist brethren.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

15 May 2008, 4:53 pm

I heard this on the news hours ago. I wonder how long it'll last before it is repealed (that is if it becomes repealed). Although, they did report that Ah-nold is not going to support an amendment. Hmm. Time.

One thing I was thinking about: It never said that a Church/Temple is to allow gay marriages. Neither can they be forced to.



Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

15 May 2008, 4:56 pm

Averick wrote:
It's only a matter of time before "californiacation" effects us all.
First it was Massachusetts, now them. In time, all fifty-two states
will allow gay marriage.

Sorry my fundalmentalist brethren.


As a Texan, does that mean I'll be safe for a while? :P
Ah, to live in one of the last remaining conservative strongholds...
Life is good. 8)


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Averick
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,709
Location: My tower upon the crag. Yes, mwahahaha!

15 May 2008, 5:00 pm

Ragtime wrote:
Averick wrote:
It's only a matter of time before "californiacation" effects us all.
First it was Massachusetts, now them. In time, all fifty-two states
will allow gay marriage.

Sorry my fundalmentalist brethren.


As a Texan, does that mean I'll be safe for a while? :P
Ah, to live in one of the last remaining conservative strongholds...
Life is good. 8)


Maybe until "Brokeback Mountain II" is made there. :lol:



Averick
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,709
Location: My tower upon the crag. Yes, mwahahaha!

15 May 2008, 5:04 pm

oscuria wrote:
I heard this on the news hours ago. I wonder how long it'll last before it is repealed (that is if it becomes repealed). Although, they did report that Ah-nold is not going to support an amendment. Hmm. Time.

One thing I was thinking about: It never said that a Church/Temple is to allow gay marriages. Neither can they be forced to.


There are many priests who support gay marriage.
Enter conundrum.



Escuerd
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 1 May 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 101

15 May 2008, 5:08 pm

oscuria wrote:
I heard this on the news hours ago. I wonder how long it'll last before it is repealed (that is if it becomes repealed). Although, they did report that Ah-nold is not going to support an amendment. Hmm. Time.

One thing I was thinking about: It never said that a Church/Temple is to allow gay marriages. Neither can they be forced to.


Well, I should think not. Unless something has changed that I'm not aware of, churches aren't required to perform any marriages they don't want to. And if there were a movement to force them to do so, I'd oppose it. Then again, it is annoying to me that the legal, cultural and religious concepts of marriage have been so conflated.



CityAsylum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,190
Location: New York City

15 May 2008, 5:09 pm

oscuria wrote:
One thing I was thinking about: It never said that a Church/Temple is to allow gay marriages. Neither can they be forced to.

Why would anyone try to force a church or temple to allow gay marriages? Marriage was invented as a business arrangement, and then became a legal condition as well, which is why it is unfair at many levels to deny such a legal right to gays.

There are plenty of religious organizations that happily support gay marriage, but the catch was that there was no legality involved to allow for such basic things as insurance, ownership of property, health care proxies, etc.

While the tradition of marriage may have been adopted by most religions, it did not originate as a 'holy sacrament', which is exactly the sort of rubbish you'll hear from fundamentalists of any religious base.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

15 May 2008, 5:14 pm

CityAsylum wrote:
oscuria wrote:
One thing I was thinking about: It never said that a Church/Temple is to allow gay marriages. Neither can they be forced to.

Why would anyone try to force a church or temple to allow gay marriages? Marriage was invented as a business arrangement, and then became a legal condition as well, which is why it is unfair at many levels to deny such a legal right to gays.

There are plenty of religious organizations that happily support gay marriage, but the catch was that there was no legality involved to allow for such basic things as insurance, ownership of property, health care proxies, etc.

While the tradition of marriage may have been adopted by most religions, it did not originate as a 'holy sacrament', which is exactly the sort of rubbish you'll hear from fundamentalists of any religious base.


Ah, naive? There are many gays who demand to be married by a church or religious organization.

Besides, your beliefs are rubbish to me. I really am not sympathetic to homosexuals getting married.



CityAsylum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,190
Location: New York City

15 May 2008, 5:21 pm

oscuria wrote:
Ah, naive? There are many gays who demand to be married by a church or religious organization.

Yes, and there are plenty to accommodate them, so it is not necessary to force them - you have created an artificial problem.

oscuria wrote:
Besides, your beliefs are rubbish to me. I really am not sympathetic to homosexuals getting married.

Yeah, when I wrote that I was saying, "Oh, dear God, what if my beliefs are deemed rubbish by oscuria?", and with a mighty voice He answered, "Who gives a damn what oscuria thinks?" :lol:

So it looks as if I'll be able to sleep tonight after all! :wink:



Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

15 May 2008, 5:25 pm

Ah, progress. As expected.


_________________
Un-ban Chever! Viva La Revolucion!


ja
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 140

15 May 2008, 7:12 pm

It's a helluva thing -- Activist Judges ruling from the bench that never let voters have any say...
What a fuggin' disgrace!

Anyone ever read LIBERAL FASCISM by Jonah Goldberg?
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-A ... 730&sr=8-1



Odin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

15 May 2008, 7:21 pm

ja wrote:
It's a helluva thing -- Activist Judges ruling from the bench that never let voters have any say...
What a fuggin' disgrace!


This is a democratic republic, not a tyranny by majority. Majority rule is restrained by the rights of the rights of the minority.

Oh, and "activist judges ruling from the bench" is how common law works, you dolt.


_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

15 May 2008, 7:28 pm

ja wrote:
It's a helluva thing -- Activist Judges ruling from the bench that never let voters have any say...
What a fuggin' disgrace!

Anyone ever read LIBERAL FASCISM by Jonah Goldberg?
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-A ... 730&sr=8-1



you say that and yet i'm more than willing to bet on an issue like the legalization of marijuana where it's been voted on for it to be legalized outright or for medicinal use and you probably side with the activist judges who decide to ignore the 10th amendment that states a state has the right to govern its people in ways not covered by the constitution (which drug laws aren't).

state law should trump federal. and yes, including with the gay marriage bans in the midwest.

...and if you really think cali would vote against gay marriage...uh...what?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

15 May 2008, 8:10 pm

oscuria wrote:
One thing I was thinking about: It never said that a Church/Temple is to allow gay marriages. Neither can they be forced to.

I can agree with this. Freedom of association is important.

ja wrote:
It's a helluva thing -- Activist Judges ruling from the bench that never let voters have any say...
What a fuggin' disgrace!

Well.... I only dislike this method because I think that this goes against how the institutions were originally meant to work. This is not to say that some activism does not have good results, such as right to privacy and things like that, or to say that I disagree with the results, I just think that re-definitions and certain re-interpretations should be acts of legislation. Really though, this matter goes both ways given how the interstate commerce part of the constitution is used to justify all sorts of nonsensical decisions, as shown by skafather's comments on marijuana.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

15 May 2008, 8:28 pm

The Church doesn't have to bend over for gays. And I don't want to see it bend over. Why don't the gays have their own churches and stop trying to push their buggery on heterosexual churchgoers?



Kalister1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,443

15 May 2008, 9:36 pm

slowmutant wrote:
The Church doesn't have to bend over for gays. And I don't want to see it bend over. Why don't the gays have their own churches and stop trying to push their buggery on heterosexual churchgoers?


While we're at it, why don't the blacks and mexicans have their own churches?! :roll: