Saturating my circles.

thereclaimer wrote:

I've probably never been more offended in my entire life. Luckily my humour overrules most, so lulz

fucking epic omg

Primary wrote:

I've probably never been more offended in my entire life. Luckily my humour overrules most, so lulz

The logical and humorous parts of your brain have my utmost respect.

I agree with our Canadian contigent

my stance is that its Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve but as long as the ass bandits dont touch me with their poo pushing ways i dont really care they can go off and be as gay as they like.

Gay people are just normal people. It doesn't have any effect on me if they get married or not. To me it looks like anti-gay marriage people seem to be saying "NO, I DON'T WANT YOU TO BE HAPPY BECAUSE WHATEVER MAKES YOU HAPPY OFFENDS ME". Don't get me wrong, I know that isn't how people feel but still it seems unfair to me

Having played a Quake 3 derivative game for a long time, that pic is absolutely HILARIOUS.

P.S. I'm with the residents of Canada on this one, but I am from Minnesota. That's about as close as you can get to being Canadian without actually being Canadian. Also, I'm typing this about one mile from the border.

P.P.S. I also agree with 2ndry.

Secondary wrote:

Gay people are just normal people. It doesn't have any effect on me if they get married or not. To me it looks like anti-gay marriage people seem to be saying "NO, I DON'T WANT YOU TO BE HAPPY BECAUSE WHATEVER MAKES YOU HAPPY OFFENDS ME". Don't get me wrong, I know that isn't how people feel but still it seems unfair to me

id say that would be a fair argument there although it totally disgusts me, everyone has a right... to be gay

what difference at all does it make if they get married? does your soul become smaller or something because you know another gay has married?

Cunningblade wrote:

what difference at all does it make if they get married? does your soul become smaller or something because you know another gay has married?

Yes

I would prefer gay marriage not use the term marriage. I could give a shit about rights being given. In fact I think they should have a way to get them, without it being a whimsical, "Oh I'm with him, so give him my insurance" type deal. A legal union would be appropriate of some kind. Just different name.

The kicker is, I don't even really give enough of a shit to fight it. It's just my inclinations against not wanting to use a term from being raised at church.

Right, but the question at hand isn't whether or not the church deems gay marriage to be ok its whether or not the government should treat it as a criminal act. Religious beliefs are fine until the government forces those regulations on people who are not part of the religion where the belief comes from. Homosexuality has been around just as long as marriage has and they both predate today's religions.

Not criminal, just not recognized in California.

Making something illegal is criminalizing those who would otherwise take part in the act, no?

Either way its a denial of government acknowledgment because of a religious belief and that is wrong.

Either way we have already voted on this and won. A few gay activist judges found a loophole and overturned a majority decision. We will vote again and win. The only duty I was asked to do is to re-inform people that we needed to vote again on something that has already been decided.

Religion has always been a powerful force in the way governments act. Sure, the US government claims complete separation of church and state, but that isn't really true, for example, in courts people swear on a bible to tell the truth, the pledge of allegiance, and if I am not mistaken when a new president goes into office he also swears on a bible.

The church has always had a large political power throughout history, and so for it to influence things the government does is not that surprising. Not to mention that I'm pretty sure that the majority of people in the US have a religious background, so they will support the church as well, meaning when it comes to votes, or government officials have to make decisions, they have those teachings and ideals in their head.

And I'm not just talking about Christianity, but I am pretty sure that Judaism and Islam agree that same sex marriage is a sin of sorts.

Rishana, you don't know much about Thomas Jefferson do you? Whether or not you are "pretty sure" other religions consider gay marriage a sin, the government is not in place to prevent people from sinning. Church rules are for church, not government and the people who created our government knew this and wrote about it.

As you said most people in america have a religious background, I'm included, but I am very much unreligious now and prefer that dogmatic law not be a part of my government. Of course I'm simply voicing my opinion here because as time goes on religion has less and less of an influence on our society so its only a matter of time before gay marriage, marijuana and prostitution are all legal in this country. Then, everyone wins.

if prostitution's legal, paying for sex will become a logistical nightmare. "Is your hooker board certified?"

I wasn't saying that the government should follow the same rules that the church follows, but that the church can and has influenced what the government has decided to do sometimes.

And even those people without a religious background find same sex marriage to be a taboo, because its always been man/female marriages. For this not to be the case is a huge change that people don't really like.

Polarity wrote:

if prostitution's legal, paying for sex will become a logistical nightmare. "Is your hooker board certified?"

Better than "are you a cop" right?

Rishana wrote:

I wasn't saying that the government should follow the same rules that the church follows, but that the church can and has influenced what the government has decided to do sometimes.

The argument of religion having presence in the government is used to convey the message that some religious beliefs should be enforced by the government and its incorrect. Church does not influence government, people who belong to a church are who influence the government to meet their church's standards. This is a corrupt practice and is against the law, as it should be. Simply because all along marriage has meant a man and a woman shouldn't bind people into the pattern that its the only way that it can be. It is a form of prejudice and in 2008 we don't think homosexual people are possessed by the devil or morally corrupted and our government laws are slowly reflecting that realization.

It wasn't too long ago that boys had metal underwear put on to prevent masturbation because of the negative religious stigma and the wive's tales of going blind, crazy or turning into wolf boy. Now its considered a healthy act and you can buy sex toys at a store down the street. I don't mean to parallel homosexuals with masturbation other than their previous repression due to religion and their gradual acceptance into modern society.

Jesus, no wonder the US can't make any social progress. I had no idea bigotry was so wide spread... I thought it was this southern phenomenon about hating spiks/gays/watermelon eaters.

I blame the San Francisco bay area social bubble for my ignorance...

This is what happens when I don't get to the forums for a day.

Look, if you're going to say that Gay Marriage is 'bad' because it has some kind of precedent, you may as well say that Slavery is 'okay' because of the hundreds of years of precedents behind it, as well. In 150 years, assuming the human race hasn't blown itself up, it will be laughing at the idea of gay marriage being illegal.

You want to use the term 'marriage' as something sacred to religion, but it's used by the courts just as much, and we all know that, "A rose by any other name smells just as sweet." We're talking about nomenclature here, not sacrament.

You cite the previous ruling that the public body voted on that the court overruled, but claim that the court should not meddle in the public's opinion. News flash, the public represents the legislative body here, and the courts have every right to deem the law unconstitutional. Yes, the public will vote on it again, but polls show the race is not nearly as lop-sided as it was. Field polls from late July show a slight majority against the proposition, showing a possible trend of acceptance from former opposition (the latest poll from KTLA shows the race more decidedly in the 'favor' column, although the dramatic shift from the previous polls suggests a bias or oversampling of conservative constituencies).

Your own admission that you are not a well-qualified candidate for debating the issue here is probably the most damning piece of evidence because you are basically saying, "I don't know much about this issue but some guy says I should believe this so you guys should, too." Yes, I realize I'm slanting the viewpoint a bit, but this looks an awful lot like you're advocating the Will of the Sheeple rather than a logically thought-out opinion.

I've been very into politics this year and have no qualms stating my biases on these issues. This forum is fair game for this type of talk, but don't let 20-plus years of religious dogma strip out any sense of reason. There's a very good reason that people who 'break from their church' tend to wind up highly socially progressive, like Galt (who I think just went from cool to beyond-awesome after hearing his story). You think it's a coincidence that once someone thinks about it for a while without the pulpit talking in one ear that they tend to go, "Holy shit, this is ridiculous."

You're advocating expectorating on the civil rights of gays by clutching the term 'marriage' in a Smeagolesque manner while muttering, "My preciousss..." If you get to keep the word marriage, what do they get to keep that you can't claim? Civil Union? Nope, that's perfectly normal for heterosexual relationships. Anal sex? No, and I don't need to go into why.

Don't impose your provincial greed on other human beings, other Americans. They pay their taxes just like you do, and deserve every bit the same treatment under the law; nomenclature be damned.

thereclaimer wrote:

Jesus, no wonder the US can't make any social progress. I had no idea bigotry was so wide spread... I thought it was this southern phenomenon about hating spiks/gays/watermelon eaters.

I blame the San Francisco bay area social bubble for my ignorance...

Seconded

It really does seem to be a nomenclature issue. And it wouldn't be fair to just call it "homosexual union", that's still discrimination.

btw...I believe same-sex relationships have been around longer than the church has...correct me if I'm wrong here :-\

P.S. Welcome back to the forums PB

thereclaimer wrote:

Jesus, no wonder the US can't make any social progress. I had no idea bigotry was so wide spread... I thought it was this southern phenomenon about hating spiks/gays/watermelon eaters.

I blame the San Francisco bay area social bubble for my ignorance...

after reading this and the comment about watermelon eaters, I had to go back and watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIHAs5soE9I

I love the gay landscapers part

PB

The reason I say I am not qualified to debate is because more often than not I cannot form what I want to say into a well formed speech or essay. If I had MY way homosexuality would be forbidden all together not just marriage, but that is a completely unattainable goal. I do believe that homosexuality is wrong. I also believe that we should be standing up for what we think and believe is wrong, if you don't stand up for what you believe then you are accepting, endorsing, something I can't think of the word, the opposite. Just as you and Galt are standing up for what you believe, I just disagree with you.