I got this email today....(about gay rights)

Gato_Solo said:
Because of one thing...Marriage is a sacred rite, created by the church. The government has no business involved in marriage at all, except to register the marriage. It has more to do with government meddling in a private affair than equal rights, and I'm sure, deep down, you know it. Once again...marriage is not a right. Never has been, and, unless you like the government dictating to you who you should marry, and how your family should be set up, it never should be. Only a completly self-serving, and ignorant, individual would assume that marriage, based on 3,000 years of church policy, should be controlled by the government in any way.
Click to expand...

Seperation of Church and State. If the church says that it's willing to bless same-sex marraiges, then so be it.

What about civil unions in front of the JOP? It's non-church related.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Because of one thing...Marriage is a sacred rite, created by the church. The government has no business involved in marriage at all, except to register the marriage. It has more to do with government meddling in a private affair than equal rights, and I'm sure, deep down, you know it. Once again...marriage is not a right. Never has been, and, unless you like the government dictating to you who you should marry, and how your family should be set up, it never should be. Only a completly self-serving, and ignorant, individual would assume that marriage, based on 3,000 years of church policy, should be controlled by the government in any way.
Click to expand...

See, now we get back to this. I was not married in the church, I was married in a civil ceremony. As far as I can tell, by your reasoning, this makes me unmarried (I suppose I'm only married in the government's eyes). You don't want the government dictating who you may or may not marry, but it's perfectly allright for them to dictate the same to gays? Sorry, I have a problem with that. 3,000 years of church doctrine? Fine, don't let 'em get married in the church. I didn't, I wouldn't and I won't ever. As I said before, it doesn't matter whether you consider it a right, rite or priviledge, if gays can't marry whomever they want, then they are not equal. Why is it so hard to say it? We agree about one thing. It is none of the governments business. Either way. Now, what states currently have laws on the books specifically forbidding gay marriages? I know that Tennessee does not because there's a big push to get one.
 
chcr said:
They're just words, why do they bother you so much. I know which ones I'm going to have sex with, do you?

Edit: of course I meant which one (if I know whats good for me :D ).
Click to expand...

Exactly my point, why does the gay community insist on the word marriage? Why not just accept civil union?



MrBishop said:
Seperation of Church and State. If the church says that it's willing to bless same-sex marraiges, then so be it.

What about civil unions in front of the JOP? It's non-church related.
Click to expand...


First off, where do you get this phrase "Separation of Church and State"? I believe this is common myth you're trying to qualify with.

So which Church are you going to let decide the issue?

There is a difference between married and legally married.

My wife and I went thru the rite of marriage, 3-years before we were legally married.
 
chcr said:
See, now we get back to this. I was not married in the church, I was married in a civil ceremony. As far as I can tell, by your reasoning, this makes me unmarried (I suppose I'm only married in the government's eyes). You don't want the government dictating who you may or may not marry, but it's perfectly allright for them to dictate the same to gays? Sorry, I have a problem with that. 3,000 years of church doctrine? Fine, don't let 'em get married in the church. I didn't, I wouldn't and I won't ever. As I said before, it doesn't matter whether you consider it a right, rite or priviledge, if gays can't marry whomever they want, then they are not equal. Why is it so hard to say it? We agree about one thing. It is none of the governments business. Either way. Now, what states currently have laws on the books specifically forbidding gay marriages? I know that Tennessee does not because there's a big push to get one.
Click to expand...

I never said that. You did. I said that marriage was a ritual that was created by the church, and the only thing the government should be doing is keeping track of who is married and who isn't. If you have a problem with church doctrine, then don't go to church. There's your seperation of church and state right there. ;) As for 'equality', I'll say this again...and I'll put it in bold so you actually read it this time...According to all state laws, there are certain people who may not be married. Heterosexual and homosexual alike. You don't hear about heterosexuals complaining if they can't get married in their state, do you? It happens, so, unless you know where it never happened to two heterosexuals, then I suggest you pull your head out of your butt, and listen...marriage is not a right.
 
You are the one that keeps bringing up the church, Gato. I keep trying to point out that for most people a religious reason is not the only reason to be married. Not even the only acceptable one. Society has evolved. It continues to do so. I don't go to church but it is perfectly acceptable for a church to condemn gay marriage. What is not acceptable (in America) is to enact a law based on such a religious belief. I understand that certain heterosexuals can't be married in certain states. For specific reasons. "I don't approve of homosexuals" isn't a good enough reason IMO. Now, what states have a law specifically forbidding gay marriage?

You know, twenty years from now any gay person who wants to be married will be able to and most people won't remember what the shouting was all about (or even that there was any shouting). There is not enough support in the government for an amendment banning gay marriage and there never will be. It's a non-issue meant to distract.

Again, my biggest question is what is the BFD?

Edit: I can assure you that I am in no way limber enough to get my head up my ass. I had thought this was a discussion of opposing viewpoints. I see now the my error.
 
Sorry, Sam :blush:

Thirty-nine states already prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying with laws modeled after the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Passed by Congress in 1996, the federal DOMA bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to ignore gay marriages performed elsewhere. Four states (Maryland, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Wyoming) have laws or court rulings prohibiting same-sex marriage that predate the federal DOMA.
Click to expand...

Article

I was curious so I answered my own question. If, in fact, it is none of the government's business (as I believe), why then is the government involved in pretty much every part of it?
 
Exactly my point, why does the gay community insist on the word marriage? Why not just accept civil union?
Click to expand...

I don't have an answer, RM. Spin doctors stirring the pot (living as we are in the United States of the Offended)? Sometimes I really believe it's a society of lawyers, by lawyers for the sole benefit of lawyers.

My point is that if gays and non gays are completely equal, then you can't say they're equal except for this. :shrug:


Gonz, in 1996?
 
Perhaps the constituents from those 4 states did have issues & the local government did what it was supposed to do. Marriage is a state issue, not federal. It only became federal as soon as the homosexual activists decided to use federal judges.

In essence, yes, it's quite possible that there were problems relating to homosexual marriage in 1996. Though I'm uncertain.
 
Gonz said:
In essence, yes, it's quite possible that there were problems relating to homosexual marriage in 1996. Though I'm uncertain.
Click to expand...

I don't remember hearing anything about it. I didn't watch the news quite as much back then though, although it seems like I'd have noticed. :shrug:
 
1996 - Congress passed, and President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act.
Click to expand...

You're right, everything is his fault. :lol:

I still think all the current brouhaha is some kind of smokescreen. Even the proponets of an amendment freely admit they don't have the support to bring it to a vote. It's a political football, and it will fade away after the election.
 
I don't know. When he signed the DoM Act, that may have been true. But with the Texas sodomy ruling just ahead of the Mass court telling the Mass congress to make law & then the SF Mayor illicitly passing out marriage certificates, etc etc, it may have gone past the news to get you upset today. It's been brewing for almost a decade.
 
Once more, for the cheap seats...

The government has, both in the present and the past, forbidden some heterosexuals to marry. You insist on ignoring this, and acting as though it doesn't happen. By your own keyboard, you have called marriage a right, and an issue of equality. If this is an issue of equality, then why can't some heterosexuals get 'legally' married as well?

That's why I asked you to pull your head out of your butt. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top