Gay Marriage

[Sketter]

In the case of Prop. 8, it wasn't even a matter of "messed up people in high power" that caused it to pass it was a matter of religious organizations getting into the fray.

 

 

There was a lot of funding that didn't even come from religious groups to push prop 8.

My statement was meant more for the government in general, but i guess my statement there was off topic, so fair enough.

 

 

your whole arguments flawed thou, america was founded on religious beliefs, ever hear of In god we trust?

 

Well the last part was already commented on.

 

Back then, all there is was religion. The church was law. The church itself WAS a controlling en!@#$%^&*y...the church at one point, was in it's own way GOVERNMENT.

 

There is a lot of history you need to look up when it comes to the ruling hand of the church and what role the church/Pope had for centuries.

Back then the government had to answer to the church. Kings and queens in a political way, answered to the church/Pope.

This practice is no longer followed. And it took a long time for this change, with small changes first. (and clearly there are still struggles)

Look at it this way; the government is no longer a slave, no longer has a master. (Sounds familiar?)

 

Perhaps the principles of the government where founded by religious beliefs, (why not, in some ways the church principles in today are generally acceptable (thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal..)) it certainly does not carry the burden of the church.

 

 

In today's world, church and government ARE different en!@#$%^&*ies.

Founded on principles, is not the same as following the hand of God, just because you based you're rules on a previous existing working system.

 

The Government should never force religions to adhere to same sex unions and call them marriages...

 

Government adopted the !@#$%^&*le and use of the word "marriage"

Marriage by law, and Marriage by church are similar, but are not the same.

(example: By the church you must get "married" in front of god, so you need a pastor, or priest, or religious icon to represent the higher power for acknowledgment. But that alone grants you nothing by government law, unless the government says ok.

By law, all you need is a judge. You don't even need any church to say, yes we will acknowledge them as a union. Why can it work one way, but not the other way unless one really has nothing to do with the other...O.o)

Because the church had no issues with how government was using "marriage" there was no fighting.

Government does not, will not, should not, enforce church to acknowledge same sex marriages, if they do not chose to do so.

 

What gay people want, is the governments acknowledgment as their union together, so that they may have the same equal rights as a non same sex couple, under law.

I don't think they could care any less if the church said "we would never hold a gay marriage here" or asking for their approval. This doesn't even come close to the issue.

It is about legal rights.

In a same sex relationship, if one partner dies, his properties (bank account, land and so on) does not then transfer over to his/her partner.

A family member ( who may have cut off his brother or sister because they were gay) then has the legal right to the property.This is just one example, but this is what they are fighting for.

 

 

If the government never adopted the word "marriage" but still granted the same rights I wounder if that would change anything.

 

Sketter

Edited November 10, 2008 by Sketter

[Aceflyer]

Government adopted the !@#$%^&*le and use of the word "marriage"

Marriage by law, and Marriage by church are similar, but are not the same.

(example: By the church you must get "married" in front of god, so you need a pastor, or priest, or religious icon to represent the higher power for acknowledgment. But that alone grants you nothing by government law, unless the government says ok.

By law, all you need is a judge. You don't even need any church to say, yes we will acknowledge them as a union. Why can it work one way, but not the other way unless one really has nothing to do with the other...O.o)

Because the church had no issues with how government was using "marriage" there was no fighting.

Government does not, will not, should not, enforce church to acknowledge same sex marriages, if they do not chose to do so.

 

This sums things up nicely.

[Hate The Fake]

[Hate The Fake]

Gay marriage does more then people realize.

 

Heres the law:

 

The new law says a government school cannot have "instructional materials" or school-based "activities" that reflect adversely upon persons because of their gender or sexual orientation. Opponents say that this, in effect, means that schools can ban books or teaching aids which have the terms mom, dad, husband and wife without also having positive references to gay, bisexual and transgender couples or parents.

And as for boys and girls using the same bathrooms and locker rooms, since the California definition of gender "includes a person's gender iden!@#$%^&*y and gender related appearance and behavior," then boys can use the girls' bathroom or locker room as long as they dress like or identify themselves as girls (I wonder if there is some official registration process for this).

[Bak]

your first mistake was citing(or rather pasting) the wikipedia article on "Traditional marriage movement"

 

2nd story is about someone getting in trouble for not doing their job. if the state pays you to conduct marriages and you don't conduct marriages you lose your job... it IS the equivalent of if she were to "refusing to marry a black person"

 

not sure what point you were trying to make in the 3rd paragraph, you probably don't understand what "adversely" means. 4th point has little to do with marriage.

 

stop pasting and express your own thoughts with sources

[Hate The Fake]

no its stating that now shes being forced to marry same sex couples. Even thou shes worked there for years and did her best to make it into a reasonable situation.

 

The the new california laws, are laws restricting privacy and education materials because of so called "gay rights"

[Aceflyer]

your first mistake was citing(or rather pasting) the wikipedia article on "Traditional marriage movement"

 

2nd story is about someone getting in trouble for not doing their job. if the state pays you to conduct marriages and you don't conduct marriages you lose your job... it IS the equivalent of if she were to "refusing to marry a black person"

 

not sure what point you were trying to make in the 3rd paragraph, you probably don't understand what "adversely" means. 4th point has little to do with marriage.

 

stop pasting and express your own thoughts with sources

 

This.

 

This is the same thing as pharmacists being legally required to fill prescriptions, including prescription contraception, whether or not doing so would be against their beliefs or not.

[Hate The Fake]

your first mistake was citing(or rather pasting) the wikipedia article on "Traditional marriage movement"

 

2nd story is about someone getting in trouble for not doing their job. if the state pays you to conduct marriages and you don't conduct marriages you lose your job... it IS the equivalent of if she were to "refusing to marry a black person"

 

not sure what point you were trying to make in the 3rd paragraph, you probably don't understand what "adversely" means. 4th point has little to do with marriage.

 

stop pasting and express your own thoughts with sources

 

This.

 

This is the same thing as pharmacists being legally required to fill prescriptions, including prescription contraception, whether or not doing so would be against their beliefs or not.

 

it is indeed the same thing, this woman has worked at the same place for some time, it wasnt until later in her career was she forced (or being forced into) marrying gay couples.

[Aceflyer]

it is indeed the same thing, this woman has worked at the same place for some time, it wasnt until later in her career was she forced (or being forced into) marrying gay couples.

 

Yes, and I think the woman really has no right to complain. Her job does not involve making judgment calls. Her job involves performing certain actions in accordance with the law and with her job responsibilities. It is the same with the pharmacists: their jobs do not involve making judgment calls. Their jobs involve performing certain actions (i.e., dispensing medication) in accordance with the law and with their job responsibilities.

 

On the other hand, it is not the same with doctors. Doctors' jobs actually involve making judgment calls. Every decision about whether or not to prescribe a specific medication or whether or not to recommend a specific procedure involves a judgment call about what the doctor believes would be best for the patient.

[Hate The Fake]

the woman has every right to complain, both her job and the pharmacists jobs were not involving their moral ideals when they started. To start saying they must dispense something now they feel is immoral and wrong is not part of their original job description. A pharmacist of 5 years 10 years 15 years ect shouldnt have to be obligated in helping kill an innocent life. Same with a woman who has worked in her career for years and not until recently is being forced to do something she feels is immoral and may make her pay with the cost of her soul. This is one of those crappy cir!@#$%^&*stances where the minorities screw the majorities Edited November 11, 2008 by Hate The Fake

[NBVegita]

You've got some pretty far fetched ideas.

 

No, you have some pretty archaic ideas.

 

So it would be ok for this woman to refuse to marry interracial couples because she feels it's wrong? It would be ok for her to refuse to marry and old man and a young woman because she feels it to be wrong?

 

No matter how you look at it, it is discrimination. You may argue that it is religious discrimination to force her to marry homosexual couples, when she believes this to be wrong. Would it be wrong for someone to refuse to do business with a female because of their religion? Church and state are distinct en!@#$%^&*ies. If you go to work for the state(government of any level) you must be either prepared to uphold state mandates or change jobs.

 

Yes the discrimination she received from co-workers was wrong, but so was the fact that she refused to do her job. She is being paid to uphold the law. If that law changes it is her job to change with it.

 

I mean I can keep going, is it right for me to refuse to serve food to homosexuals because I believe it's wrong? Is it right for me to refuse to serve food to interracial couples because I feel it is wrong?

[Aceflyer]

the woman has every right to complain, both her job and the pharmacists jobs were not involving their moral ideals when they started. To start saying they must dispense something now they feel is immoral and wrong is not part of their original job description. A pharmacist of 5 years 10 years 15 years ect shouldnt have to be obligated in helping kill an innocent life. Same with a woman who has worked in her career for years and not until recently is being forced to do something she feels is immoral and may make her pay with the cost of her soul. This is one of those crappy cir!@#$%^&*stances where the minorities screw the majorities

 

She's not being forced to do anything. If she feels that her job responsibilities include actions that are 'immoral', she is perfectly free to quit her job. But as long as she does her job, she must perform her job responsibilities in accordance with the law, as that is what she is being paid to do. If for any reason she is unwilling to perform her job responsibilities in accordance with the law, then she clearly needs a new job.

 

She is not being asked to do anything that is not part of her original job description. Her job involves conducting marriages in accordance with the law. This has not changed.

[Sketter]

You've got some pretty far fetched ideas.

 

No, you have some pretty archaic ideas.

 

So it would be ok for this woman to refuse to marry interracial couples because she feels it's wrong? It would be ok for her to refuse to marry and old man and a young woman because she feels it to be wrong?

 

No matter how you look at it, it is discrimination. You may argue that it is religious discrimination to force her to marry homosexual couples, when she believes this to be wrong. Would it be wrong for someone to refuse to do business with a female because of their religion? Church and state are distinct en!@#$%^&*ies. If you go to work for the state(government of any level) you must be either prepared to uphold state mandates or change jobs.

 

Yes the discrimination she received from co-workers was wrong, but so was the fact that she refused to do her job. She is being paid to uphold the law. If that law changes it is her job to change with it.

 

I mean I can keep going, is it right for me to refuse to serve food to homosexuals because I believe it's wrong? Is it right for me to refuse to serve food to interracial couples because I feel it is wrong?

 

You made me smile.

 

I love this part.

"Church and state are distinct en!@#$%^&*ies. If you go to work for the state(government of any level) you must be either prepared to uphold state mandates or change jobs."

 

Not to say that the state law is discriminative.

Law allows individuates to practice their beliefs inside the work place as long as it does not interfere with the safety of the job, and or the safety and general practices of others, and in some business, customers.

 

By marriage of state, they are asking of service to be recognized (law permitted), and therefore you can not be discriminative to the customers, even if your religion asks you to be, even if you believe it to be.

But "if" her faith is catholic, then isn't it wrong to believe an in any religion to begin with. So isn't it morally wrong to provide this service to anyone who isn't catholic? Isn't it wrong to provide the server, if they weren't recognized by any sort of higher power let alone the catholic God?

Wouldn't this be then discrimination? It would, and you know it would. And not only that, it is also hypocritical.

 

So what is protecting her rights? She has the right to her own beliefs, just like everyone else. But her beliefs are now discrimination.

 

(and here is a little secret, that you might not actually like, but it is in fact true)

 

Government is (and think about it first) above faith. Yes, yes it is.

In this world (or country) that you live in, Law is above all. However delicately they handle it not to cause conflicts, it is reality.

I can seriously provide facts and examples, but i want to keep this rant shorter then my last. But if you really want, ask, and I'll provide. But i hope you will seriously think about it first, and not just jump and type down on your first reaction.

 

In the end, what is asked of us all, is not to be discriminative to one another, even if your religion dictates that you should. It doesn't mean what is being asked of you is to believe a different way. If your religion is going to send you to deepest part of the fires of !@#$%^&*, because you were asked to provide a service, (not that you believe in) then that is their prerogative. And some can view that to be struggle of equality recognition within the society of the religion. But in government, equality is what is practiced. It may not be perfect, but that is human. We learn, we fail, we make mistakes, we change to continue the evolution.

 

Change is part of the human evolution. And changes are going to keep happening to everyday life, in all aspects in humanity.

If she believes she should not be providing her services, and can find no compromise, then she needs to choose.

The country she she is in, or her religion.

And it isn't even the government that is asking her to choose, it is her religion. Tell me who is not being fair.

 

Sketter

 

If the government never adopted the word "marriage" but still granted the same rights I wounder if that would change anything.

 

Sketter

Yes, i wanted feedback on this! <_<

Edited November 12, 2008 by Sketter

[Sketter]

A pharmacist of 5 years 10 years 15 years ect shouldnt have to be obligated in helping kill an innocent life.

 

I'm sorry, you really can't put a pharmacist in the same category here.

One is about human rights, the other is about killing life. There are "rights" involved, but it's to big and complex to tie this and make this a proper comparison to this thread.

 

I would love to comment on the pharmacist issue, but that's totally going off topic.

It's probably why everyone above ignored that part of your post.

 

Lets stay on track.

 

Forget this.

Edited November 12, 2008 by Sketter

[Aceflyer]

Excellent news: Gay couples can now begin to wed in Connecticut. [1]

[Hate The Fake]

Horrible news: Gay couples can now begin to wed in Connecticut. [1]

 

fixed

[CRe]

Horrible news: Gay couples can now begin to wed in Connecticut. [1]

 

fixed

 

Thank you for fixing it.

[Bak]

Marriage is defined as “a formal union of a man and a woman by which they become husband and wife.”

 

(you can't deep link youtube videos on ssforum with start times? )

[Simulacrum]

(Bumped for great justice)

 

A year later, Maine has unbanned and then rebanned gay marriage, while New Hampshire has just begun allowing it. Thoughts?

[Sketter]

(Bumped for great justice)

 

A year later, Maine has unbanned and then rebanned gay marriage, while New Hampshire has just begun allowing it. Thoughts?

 

Don't forget that Portugal (one of the most catholic country) just allowed gay marriages.

[BDwinsAlt]

Don't forget that Portugal (one of the most catholic country) just allowed gay marriages.

You're new to this whole gay priest thing aren't you?

[Simulacrum]

(Bumped for great justice)

 

A year later, Maine has unbanned and then rebanned gay marriage, while New Hampshire has just begun allowing it. Thoughts?

 

Don't forget that Portugal (one of the most catholic country) just allowed gay marriages.

Not really. The Portuguese Parliament passed a first-round vote on a gay marriage bill, if Wikipedia can be trusted.

[Sketter]

(Bumped for great justice)

 

A year later, Maine has unbanned and then rebanned gay marriage, while New Hampshire has just begun allowing it. Thoughts?

 

Don't forget that Portugal (one of the most catholic country) just allowed gay marriages.

Not really. The Portuguese Parliament passed a first-round vote on a gay marriage bill, if Wikipedia can be trusted.

I stand corrected, however, it is just waiting to be ratified, and its been said it will mostly not be vetoed, and be legal by April of this year.

 

Still, if you know anything about Portugal, you would be surprised people are not walking around with pitchforks.

[BDwinsAlt]

In Alabama some people accept it and others don't. People usually tolerate it as long as they aren't trying to show how über gay they are. I.E. Dressing like a drag-queen. Sometimes somebody will say, "That's a damn shame." I do sometimes. For the most part it's still black people talking about the white man and white people talking about the black man. In Alabama we have "black people" and "n*ggers". Ask anyone from Alabama and they can tell you the difference. Neways, I don't have anything against gay people, I just don't want a repeat of sodom and gomorrah. I'd rather see my son grow up and have a wife and kids, but that's his decision. I guess all you can do is lead the horse to water, I just hope he drinks from the right bucket.

[Simulacrum]

Why is there a "right" bucket?

 

BIG EDIT: Apparently a federal case to overturn Prop 8 (and, thus, gay marriage bans nationwide) had its first day in court today in California. The top lawyers from both sides of Bush v. Gore are teaming up on the pro-freedom-and-puppies side with this one, and actually seem pretty confident in getting it to a receptive Supreme Court by Fall 2011.

 

As an amateur student of legal theory, I'd be surprised to see them overturn the precedent on this. But bringing in witnesses seems like a good idea.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Simulacrum