Prop 8 struck down!

[refurbmike]

I'll be honest that I don't agree with much of what you've said on this topic, but this in particular is an interesting point. A main issue religions seem to have is that the word "marriage" keeps getting thrown around in the same sentence as "same-sex." I have to wonder if the government changed the wording to call ALL marriages "civil unions" if we'd be in the same place we are today. I'd like to think that if, legally, everyone was "united" and not "married" that there wouldn't be an issue.

I believe this happened in one of the New England states when Prop 8 went into effect - was it New Hampshire? While obviously there is some opposition from the church, there's been little legal objections. And I 100% support this method.

Separate the church from the state. Create the institution which the government can regulate and churches cannot. While this would take some re-writing of legislation (replace function in Word, anybody?), this is easily implementable.

[cinder]

Hence why I said that I don't think marriage is a right. But I digress....



And this is flat out wrong. With enough of a vote, America can pass an Amendment to the Constitution which re-instates slavery.

Do you REALLY in your heart of hearts believe that this can happen? I sure don't.

Obviously not. And just because you know people who don't find it religious, that doesn't mean it isn't for a lot of people (apparently a majority of Californians). Regardless, this is why I'd like to push marriage back into the church and separate it from government. Then, give whatever new institution to the government - which can be regulated by the people



While there's truth to that, religion obviously has intolerance for things that they deem wrong. Among these are prostitution, stealing, murder, etc. You would obviously not allow these as well, right?

That being said, please don't turn this into a "religion sucks" argument.

Don't give Californians too much credit. Neither one of us can sit back and say what this is about...you can't say this is about religion to Californians, much like I can't say it's because of homophobes. It's probably a healthy mix of both...

The normal human being has intolerance for prostitution, stealing, murder...don't make it religious.

And WHERE did anyone say a THING about religion sucking? I stated that *I* am not religious. ME. It's not because religion sucks. And IF I choose to ever become a member of a church, it will be one that interprets the Bible in a manner that does not support intolerance and hate.

Interesting viewpoint. Allow me to play my church's governing body's opinion on the issue. Before that, a backstory is required. Last year the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America voted to allow homosexuals men and women in committed relationships to be clergy. This move was a bold move, and one that caused a lot of consternation.

The ELCA's take is that there's a lot of discussion over the place in the Bible where it says that one shouldn't sleep with a man the way one sleeps with a woman, for that is an abomination. It's not saying you will go to hell, or any such nonsense. It's stating that it is not honoring God's Creation, as certain things were designed for going certain places.

Of course, we all live on the other side of Eden. We all sin, we all don't glorify God's Creation. Homosexuality isn't a different case than other transgressions we commit, but it gets blown out of proportion.

So what does that make you say about, say Christianity (the religion I am most familiar with, being a devout Lutheran)? Lutherans, Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, etc all have different ways of interpreting the same things. It's not a matter of the religion itself, but how different people interpret things. The Bible is a big complicated book, and of course people will have disagreements.

I think some of it also has to do with where we live. The Bible is all about oppressed peoples, and living in the biggest and strongest empire the world has ever seen, we don't understand here in the USA what oppression can be like. Jesus also said in his sermon on the mount:


That's what Jesus was about, and he kept saying it again-and-again-and-again. And to this day people still don't get it!

Additionally another point that can be made is that we are all fragment's of God's identity, and thus we should be sharing and rejoicing in His creation!

Gay men and women don't deserve the treatment they get, and the Bible even says that about everyone facing situations to the one they do! So how people can take little sentences that say one thing and blow them up beyond what they specifically state without even looking at the context of the other verses in the Bible truly confounds me.

THIS.

I believe this happened in one of the New England states when Prop 8 went into effect - was it New Hampshire? While obviously there is some opposition from the church, there's been little legal objections. And I 100% support this method.

Separate the church from the state. Create the institution which the government can regulate and churches cannot. While this would take some re-writing of legislation (replace function in Word, anybody?), this is easily implementable.

So, you're completely comfortable with having your marriage be called a civil union, then?

[cinder]

I made a quick text to my Coach and her wife yesterday congratulating them on this decision (although we all know it's far from over).

However...I was under the impression that once the vote went through...all those previous marriages were null and void. My neighbor notified me that was NOT the case...that all those marriages were still recognized that got in under the wire. True?

[1FoolishMortal]

Are you talking about the marriages before Prop 8 was passed? The pro Prop 8 people tried to get them nullified, but the judge said you can't retroactively take something away from people when it was granted under legal terms at the time. Makes sense to me.

[cinder]

Are you talking about the marriages before Prop 8 was passed? The pro Prop 8 people tried to get them nullified, but the judge said you can't retroactively take something away from people when it was granted under legal terms at the time. Makes sense to me.

Yes. And if memory serves me correctly...just b/c they were legally married, they still weren't privy to the rights straight married couples are, correct?

[refurbmike]

Do you REALLY in your heart of hearts believe that this can happen? I sure don't.

Nope. But my argument wasn't that it wasn't going to happen. Jonvn said that it was impossible to happen, regardless of how many people would vote on the issue. I merely said that he claim was incorrect - which it is.

Don't give Californians too much credit. Neither one of us can sit back and say what this is about...you can't say this is about religion to Californians, much like I can't say it's because of homophobes. It's probably a healthy mix of both...

Possibly. I made that generalization based on a lot of statistics I remember seeing when the proposition passed. It was divided on "religious" lines. Likewise, there was a lot of pro-prop funding from religious institutions. However, this isn't fact - merely an assumption.

The normal human being has intolerance for prostitution, stealing, murder...don't make it religious.

Really? The normal human being has intolerance for prostitution? I guess countries that allow such are not normal? And regardless, these are "moral" issues. You cannot argue that prostitution contains violations to our societies security.

And WHERE did anyone say a THING about religion sucking?

Nobody did, yet. However, this is a very hot topic and religion is a very easy target in these types of discussions. I was merely trying to prevent this conversation heading in that direction.

And IF I choose to ever become a member of a church, it will be one that interprets the Bible in a manner that does not support intolerance and hate.

Let me ask you this: I am a Christian. I believe that homosexuality is a sin. I believe that Christians should not engage in related acts. That being said, I also believe lying, cheating, getting drunk, and selfishness to be sinful as well. I would discourage any Christian from doing those acts.

However, I have a gay friend. We hang out with my fiance and her daughter; no problem. Do I hate this guy? Heck no. Does he know my stance on his sexual preference? Absolutely.

I wonder if you'd label me intolerant because I disapprove of his actions, though.

So, you're completely comfortable with having your marriage be called a civil union, then?

Well, I'm not married anymore. However, if I got "married" again, I would be 100% okay with it being only recognized by my church while I required to file a legal equivalent with the government - the latter being also provided to homosexuals.

[refurbmike]

The pro Prop 8 people tried to get them nullified, but the judge said you can't retroactively take something away from people when it was granted under legal terms at the time. Makes sense to me.

Sadly, they were not legal marriages. It would be like me trying to sell you stolen goods. It's not a legal sale at the time. Yes, it's unfortunate to take it away from you retroactively, even if you didn't know they were stolen. However, a lot of these people knew they were acting outside of the law. To this day even, there is still no legislation which gives homosexuals the right to marry.

[jupiter]

"Separation of church and state" doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means, and it isn't actually in the constitution. I'm too lazy to spout details but do some Googling and you'll find stuff. Just thought I'd throw that in here.

I'm glad Prop 8 was overturned. People in committed relationships should be able to marry whoever they want. I don't think morality should really be a government issue, on any level. Thought Police, anyone?

Everything else should be covered by the Golden Rule. (And punishments should be the reverse: You do something to someone, it gets done to you.)

There, I've solved the world's problems.

[cinder]

Well, I'm not married anymore. However, if I got "married" again, I would be 100% okay with it being only recognized by my church while I required to file a legal equivalent with the government - the latter being also provided to homosexuals.

I'll hit your other points in a minute (the baby is kind of demanding my time)...but I was reading this and went "fiancee"...wait, aren't you married?! Sorry to hear things didn't work out.

[refurbmike]

"Separation of church and state" doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means, and it isn't actually in the constitution. I'm too lazy to spout details but do some Googling and you'll find stuff. Just thought I'd throw that in here.

1. I know it's not in the Constitution. I'm aware it's a quote from Jefferson that was misinterpreted.

2. That being said, I still agree with the premise. I don't believe the church should meddle in government business or legislation.

3. Why are you arguing this point? Are you trying to imply that church should not be separate from government? or are you just arguing to argue?

I'm glad Prop 8 was overturned. People in committed relationships should be able to marry whoever they want. I don't think morality should really be a government issue, on any level.

Ironically, the position of people being able to marry whomever they want IS a moral issue. Equal treatment IS a moral issue.

And again, if you're willing to separate "morals" from the government, then you need to allow a number of immoral practices to be legalized (all identified above; I don't need to repeat them).