21 replies to this topic

[Chrysophylax]

Oh shit, I'm a day late. Nevermind.

Man, I feel like a moron.

Edited by Chrysophylax, 14 July 2004 - 02:44 PM.

[Oroku Saki]

Didn't Congress vote on delaying the amendment proposal? I think that the reason behind this may be because it is an election year, and neither side wants to vote on it right away. I am sure that there may be another vote on this later, after the election.

Personally, I don't care too much what happens, because either way, it is going to piss off a lot of people. If the amendment passes, it is going to piss off the gay community, and if it doesn't, it'll piss off the Christains. Besides, individual states are deciding on whether gay marriage is illegal anyway, so why should the Feds step in?

Another reason why I think we should not worry about this issue is because there are more important things that our federal government should be worried about, like terrorism. I think that you should find this little article interesting: http://www.angrypatr...m/politics.html

Just scroll down to the Gay Marriage article. Even though it is not a news source, I found this guy's points to be rather interesting.

[THIRST]

His points are...interesting, yet not entirely useful. Its called multi-tasking. People are blessed with the ability to do several things as much, and America is focusing on their military standpoint more than Gay marraiges, so we less to worry about.

THIRST

[cxwq]

Multi-tasking doesn't even begin to describe this.

Bush was under pressure from his right-wing base to put this out there and that's the only reason he did it. Republicans don't want to vote on it this year because more swing voters are against the amendment so either way they hurt themselves. Dems don't want to vote on it because Kerry/Edwards have lame mixed views on the subject and it would have hurt them either way. It was a nobody-wins situation, but at least Bush can tell the Christian Coalition that he tried.

In a recent poll, Americans were asked to rank the issues that are most important to them. Gay marriage came in 20th out of 21 issues. The majority of people simply don't care and think that this is a waste of time.

[Crankymonky]

What happened to Seperation of church and state? I want my constitutional fucking rights!

[Black Wrath]

Didn't Congress vote on delaying the amendment proposal? I think that the reason behind this may be because it is an election year, and neither side wants to vote on it right away. I am sure that there may be another vote on this later, after the election.

Personally, I don't care too much what happens, because either way, it is going to piss off a lot of people. If the amendment passes, it is going to piss off the gay community, and if it doesn't, it'll piss off the Christains. Besides, individual states are deciding on whether gay marriage is illegal anyway, so why should the Feds step in?

Another reason why I think we should not worry about this issue is because there are more important things that our federal government should be worried about, like terrorism. I think that you should find this little article interesting: http://www.angrypatr...m/politics.html

Just scroll down to the Gay Marriage article. Even though it is not a news source, I found this guy's points to be rather interesting.

That was the best link ever. Being a Canadian, I really don't need to worry about American politics too much, or their everyday issues. The only reason the world is involved in American politics, is because sadly, it decides the direction of the world at large. It's terrible, but I've lived with it for 15 years, and will seemingly continue to do so for years to come. Gay marriage is fine, what the fuck will it do to you personally, I ask to all those who oppose. When religion comes into play, thats when it gets weird... which is why I personally dislike faith. Anyways, to me, Gay Marriage is fine, anywhere. It's already legal in my country, Canada, so why can't it be legal in other places? Oh, because people have egos, and other hop on the bandwagons of those people, and pretend to be offended. Oh well.

To my point about the link, I've been reading alot of his 'articles' and find it mildly-to-greatly amusing. The issues you people have to deal with, as well as the rest of the world, astound me. This guy thinks of everything, and presents it so humourously, I can't stop reading. Judging by what he says, and I agree on a few things, some people need to have a beer and forget about all of their flawed, in my opinion, views. But to cut the crap, this guy is funny, and I like reading what he has to say, because honestly, I don't care about the outcome of many of the issues he speaks about. It's like reading a book... because like a book about a kid who goes back in time to the dinosaurs, this world is so twisted and fucked, it's almost unbelieveable. I can't believe some of the things that happen in our world, actually happen.

It's too bad. I'd like to quote Uncle AP Bastard: (Picture of Buddist) "This guys so enlightened, even his farts don't stink!"

P.S. Read the Anna Nicole Smith comparison article!

[greenflash]

The only problems I have with a Constitutional Amendment is that - well a constitutional amendment is a pretty big deal...sure there's been lots of them but I mean it just seems like a big thing to deal with right now. I believe in the constitutional saying of "all men are created equal" and therefore this amendment ruins the whole document in my oppinion by giving some people different privileges.

Edited by greenflash, 14 July 2004 - 08:01 PM.

[merlinski]

The only problems I have with a Constitutional Amendment is that - well a constitutional amendment is a pretty big deal...sure there's been lots of them but I mean it just seems like a big thing to deal with right now. I believe in the constitutional saying of "all men are created equal" and therefore this amendment ruins the whole document in my oppinion by giving some people different privileges.

Exactly. Almost all of our constitutional amendments have granted rights to a previously disenfranchised group of people, and a marriage amendment would be a step backward in this regard.

[TimberwolfCY]

I just remember the part about "Whatever powers that are not granted to the federal government are given to the states or people," or something to that effect. There is nothing in the Constitution that bans gay marriage, there are no laws (at least, to my knowledge) that directly deny it, and only some states have laws that deny it directly. What does this say? That since neither the federal government, nor most states, have banned it, it is legal for the people to do. Therefore, gays who wish to be married should have the ability to do so, without hinderance. I personally don't care, because it doesn't impact my life or anyone else's except those directly involved, so neither should anyone else. As some of you have said earlier, there are other things to deal with anyway, things far more important, though this issue will resound later in the future, I think, the question is how much.

[Worlds largest bed race]

What happened to Seperation of church and state? I want my constitutional fucking rights!

Seperation of church and state isn't a constitutional right.

[cxwq]

Freedom from religious persecution is.

Personally, I think that applies in this case.

[Blaster]

What happened to Seperation of church and state? I want my constitutional fucking rights!

Good point. I think I have what Cx would call a lame mixed view. This is what I think, as Americans we are told that all are created equal. Therefore there should not be laws against same sex marriages. However since there is a seperation of church and state, the government should not force the church to marry two people of the same sex. That decision should be left up to that church. If one church won't marry the partners then they could go to another one that does. I don't mean switch religions I just mean the Christian religion has more than one church. Two churches of the same religion may have different views on this subject. There have been a few churches that do not oppose same sex marriages. This way you still have seperation of church and state and people are equal. My pastor did bring up an interesting point on this though. He said if the government is allowed to force the church into this then they may think it in their power to change everyone's religion. But that's just an off topic thought. Anyway this way churches are allowed to have their seperate opinions on the subject. And if worse comes to worse those two partners can just elope. Here's one extra thought, the church is so strongly against two people of the same sex, who believe in God, getting married, but I've never heard such a strong argument against people who do not even believe in God getting married. Isn't it better to believe in God and do something he finds sinful and ask His forgiveness, than to not believe in God at all and be living in sin (since according to the bible we are all sinful all the time). Just another random thought. My lame mixed view is that as a Christian I do not approve of homosexuality, but as an American I tolerate it, and also as a Christian I do not hate people who are homosexual. Ok so that was just my random thoughts and opinion.

[merlinski]

I actually have what I think is a pretty strong legal case on behalf of gay marriage. Here goes:

You can't say "where does it give gays the right to marry" because not only are gays not afforded that right, straight people are not afforded that right either. It's not a right, it's a privilege, like getting a drivers license. So the legal issue becomes whether a state has the right to deny the privilege of marriage to a couple based on gender. In order to be legally capable of denying that privilege, the state has to prove that allowing 2 men to marry would be somehow detrimental, otherwise they do not have a right to deny marriage based on gender. Just as they would not be able to deny marriage based on race. So now, the issue becomes is allowing gay people to marry inherently detrimental to society. Considering that studies have been done that show no adverse effect on children in gay households, and that "it makes me feel uncomfortable" and "it's not tradition" are not legal complaints, I don't see the justification in denying this priviliege to gays.

[cxwq]

Considering that studies have been done that show no adverse effect on children in gay households

While I agree with your views on this subject, I have to play devil's advocate here and point out that the social conservatives have their own studies about the harm caused by non-traditional families. Rest assured that the data on this can be put to great use by both sides.

I think San Francisco's legal case is based entirely on the gender discrimination point which may or may not be strong enough to stand on its own.

[rawray7]

However since there is a seperation of church and state, the government should not force the church to marry two people of the same sex. That decision should be left up to that church. If one church won't marry the partners then they could go to another one that does. I don't mean switch religions I just mean the Christian religion has more than one church. Two churches of the same religion may have different views on this subject. There have been a few churches that do not oppose same sex marriages. This way you still have seperation of church and state and people are equal.

i agree with your point, the government shouldn't have the right to force churches to marry gays...that's the churches deal. but there is where the real problem lies, there needs to be an accessible way to apply for a civil union outside of a church. right now churches are the only way to create a civil union between two people - and i think this crosses the line into the whole "in god we trust". religion (and i know people will argue "well it doesn't say which god") does not and should not be a given as far as the state department is concerned. no one needs the word "god" on the dollar, and no one should have to go to a church to get a tax break. civil unions need to be accesible without going through a church.


on this topic, i remember i was talking to my friend about this a while back and his point was "the government shouldn't even have the right to know whether you're a male or a female, and thus couldn't descriminate against you on any sexual basis, especially in the case of marriage." kind of radical, but i'd thought i'd through it out there.


and merlinski - i agree with Kevin, i've seen some studies done on how same-sex parents have been shown to produce weird side effects in the kids. i can't vouch for the validity of the article i saw, because it was handed to me as "proof" by a man on the sidewalk with a sign that says "homosexuality is a sin". i was arguing with him for a while, and he was quite amusing. can't win an argument with those street zelots. when i asked if he thought he was being a bit offensive, (seeing as how in old town pasadena its not uncommon to see gays/lesbians), he told me "i get the same reaction when i hold up my sign that says "god loves you". nasty people these guys were, a group of about a dozen or so, a huge crowd around them on the sidewalk, some listening, some arguing. anyway, one guy said to me, "what do you think about these guys", he looked like a guy just watching the action, when i said i thought they were "over the top" and going out of their way to create controversy on a public sidewalk, he revealed that he was one of them, and started to quote bible verses i'm sure don't exist. apparently god was quoted as saying "it's wrong to have shit on your dick". anyway....

[Blaster]

You've got a point. Which brings us to eloping. I guess I must be shady on it, I thought that if you eloped it meant you were married outside of the church. I thought it was a government thing, but is it a religious ceremony? Originally I thought it was just being legally married without a church ceremony. And now I'm confused (more than usual ).

[Blaster]

Considering that studies have been done that show no adverse effect on children in gay households, and that "it makes me feel uncomfortable" and "it's not tradition" are not legal complaints,

Sorry to double post, but I thought since this post had a different point, and since I've seen people with different points double post to put them both in, I thought I would. Anyway, Merlinski, part of the argument is that God instituted marriage as a bond between man and woman, and that letting gays marry would be hypocritical. Which brings in the government forcing the church and blah, blah, blah. So the legal complaint is "the government is thinking about forcing my church to think it's way". People don't want the government forcing the church to do one thing because some are afraid it may try to change things too much.

[cxwq]

All right, I can't handle this BS anymore...

The marriage we're talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

Read that ^ one more time. Thanks.

People get married outside of churches all the time, they're called civil ceremonies and they're usually performed at a city hall. You can make an appointment here if you like - 18 or older please, heterosexuality not required.

OK, now that we're clear on that, lets talk about what marriage is, shall we?

Marriage is a legal status. When you do your taxes, buy a house, or try to collect a pension, it makes a whole mess of difference if you are married or not.

There are protections that our government will not afford you if you are not married. In 48 1/2 (plus or minus) states right now, there is no way for gay people to obtain this legal status.

Unfortunately, marriage is also a cultural institution. The religious right is going to fight to keep these legal sanctions against gay people as long as there are fucktards in the government who will still listen to them.

Oh yeah, the government isn't talking about forcing any goddamn churches to marry gay people. Red herring, shut up.

I'm done for now.

[Alexthebeast]

You've got a point. Which brings us to eloping. I guess I must be shady on it, I thought that if you eloped it meant you were married outside of the church. I thought it was a government thing, but is it a religious ceremony? Originally I thought it was just being legally married without a church ceremony. And now I'm confused (more than usual ).

Uhh... Eloping is fucking, not marrying.

As Cx Said, Shut up.

[cxwq]

Uhh... Eloping is fucking, not marrying.

I was sooo ready to be done.

Eloping implies marriage. Eloping is what you do when you're sick of your mother(s) trying to take over your wedding and you say "fuck off!" and go get married in Vegas instead.

e·lope
intr.v. e·loped, e·lop·ing, e·lopes

1. To run away with a lover, especially with the intention of getting married.

[Blaster]

All right, I can't handle this BS anymore...

The marriage we're talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

Read that ^ one more time. Thanks.

People get married outside of churches all the time, they're called civil ceremonies and they're usually performed at a city hall. You can make an appointment here if you like - 18 or older please, heterosexuality not required.

OK, now that we're clear on that, lets talk about what marriage is, shall we?

Marriage is a legal status. When you do your taxes, buy a house, or try to collect a pension, it makes a whole mess of difference if you are married or not.

There are protections that our government will not afford you if you are not married. In 48 1/2 (plus or minus) states right now, there is no way for gay people to obtain this legal status.

Unfortunately, marriage is also a cultural institution. The religious right is going to fight to keep these legal sanctions against gay people as long as there are fucktards in the government who will still listen to them.

Oh yeah, the government isn't talking about forcing any goddamn churches to marry gay people. Red herring, shut up.

I'm done for now.

Wow, calm down pal . I'm just learning as I go. No need to get all angry. I just kept getting worried because I thought that eventually the government may force the church to do gay marriages or something. Well now that fear has been put to rest, thanks.

Edit: Ok Alex, I was just wondering. Originally I thought to elope was to gain the legal status of marriage without a religious ceremony.

Edited by Blaster, 22 July 2004 - 02:30 AM.

[Alexthebeast]

Uhh... Eloping is fucking, not marrying.

I was sooo ready to be done.

Eloping implies marriage. Eloping is what you do when you're sick of your mother(s) trying to take over your wedding and you say "fuck off!" and go get married in Vegas instead.

e·lope
intr.v. e·loped, e·lop·ing, e·lopes

1. To run away with a lover, especially with the intention of getting married.

Goddamnit