TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush's Reaction To Gay Marriage Ban's Defeat
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Argument denied.

Haha.

Anyone else think the "state" shouldn't be the ones controlling my marriage? Why do I need a damn license to get married? It's a right granted to us by God. Not man. God.

quote:

Originally posted by osuracnaes What makes them so different? I am drawing conclusions by comparing the two. Please, explain. You're throwing this word, 'biblical' at me. I won't go into my thoughts on the Bible/religion. As far as slavery goes, it is encouraged many times in the Bible. Ex. 22:2-3, Lev. 19:20, Lev. 25:44-46, etc. You say "it's not right." What makes it not right? My morals say it's right for a gay couple to have the same priveliges as a straight couple. Same sex marriage just feels perfectly fine to me, and I trust that feeling. I think a lot of people are the same way.

I know I threw it at you -apologies-

I say it's not right because it goes against my moral being. Aka conscience. I trust that implicitly.

However, I agree that a gay couple should have the same rights as a married couple - but you can't call it "married" because a marriage can't exist between two same sex people (in the sense of the word and the belief).

My .02, at least.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Haha. Anyone else think the "state" shouldn't be the ones controlling my marriage? Why do I need a damn license to get married? It's a right granted to us by God. Not man. God.

Because society grants you advantages if you are married.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Haha. Anyone else think the "state" shouldn't be the ones controlling my marriage? Why do I need a damn license to get married? It's a right granted to us by God. Not man. God.

the people of earth welcome you, tell us more of your strange ways

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag the people of earth welcome you, tell us more of your strange ways

Oh come on...

Didn't you go to Sunday school? This is just another example of where the government gets involved where it shouldn't.

I forgot who said this (it was someone much greater than me):

There are two reasons a government should exist: justice to evildoers and protection from enemies.

Oh, and you don't need to get a marriage license to get married. Go to a church, fill out the marriage certificate, do the "I do" thing, and you're married. And it's recognizable by the government for tax purposes. The only thing a marriage license does is give the state permission to take your kids. They're state property when you get one.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil However, I agree that a gay couple should have the same rights as a married couple - but you can't call it "married" because a marriage can't exist between two same sex people (in the sense of the word and the belief). My .02, at least.

Which is why I perfectly respect any religion's decision to not recognize gay marriages. It goes against their beliefs. I guess if you only view marriage as something religious, I can see how you'd be against gay marriage. Personally, I see nothing religious when two people decide to announce that they love each other.

But because marriage gives societal benefits, and society shouldn't favor any religion (or lack thereof) above another, I feel any religious argument against gay marriage is invalid. You say it goes against your morals. I say it's perfectly fine according to mine. What makes your morals better than mine?

(Sees answer coming....)

quote:

I guess if you only view marriage as something religious, I can see how you'd be against gay marriage.

Yeah, that follows pretty good. If you only view marriage as something religious, you're an idiot, and if you're an idiot, you're apt to be against gay marriage.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Yeah, that follows pretty good. If you only view marriage as something religious, you're an idiot, and if you're an idiot, you're apt to be against gay marriage.

You just called a lot of people an idiot. Past, present and future.

That doesn't even justify a response.

quote:

Originally posted by osuracnaes Which is why I perfectly respect any religion's decision to not recognize gay marriages. It goes against their beliefs. I guess if you only view marriage as something religious, I can see how you'd be against gay marriage. Personally, I see nothing religious when two people decide to announce that they love each other. But because marriage gives societal benefits, and society shouldn't favor any religion (or lack thereof) above another, I feel any religious argument against gay marriage is invalid. You say it goes against your morals. I say it's perfectly fine according to mine. What makes your morals better than mine? (Sees answer coming....)

Well said. I do view marriage as something religious, granted by God.

I also agree with you on a certain level that it shouldn't be "religious" to love each other.

I can see where you are coming from that any religious argument against gay marriage is invalid. However, our forefathers founded our country with certain beliefs and such (some of them religious) - and I believe we should honor those. We're straying away from what made our country great when we start doubting the founding ideas of our country.

As for my morals being better than yours, certainly not. They're probably the same, we just interpret them different.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil You just called a lot of people an idiot. Past, present and future. That doesn't even justify a response.

Which is why you gave it a response, right? I hope you're joking, because otherwise you just proved my point.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil You just called a lot of people an idiot. Past, present and future.

Logical fallacy: argument from majority.

A lot of people believed interracial marriage was wrong.

A lot of people believed slavery was right.

He's following your logic perfectly.

quote:

That doesn't even justify a response.

Indeed it does. He's following your logic perfectly. Please respond.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Yeah, that follows pretty good. If you only view marriage as something religious, you're an idiot, and if you're an idiot, you're apt to be against gay marriage.

This has got to be the best argument I ever read in this forum. LOL.

Btw. I'd like to ask this months "what's that awful thing in your avatar"-question: What's that awful thing in your avatar? It sure is ugly.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Btw. I'd like to ask this months "what's that awful thing in your avatar"-question: What's that awful thing in your avatar? It sure is ugly.

Fedor Emelianenko, one of the world's premier mixed martial arts heavyweights.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Logical fallacy: argument from majority. A lot of people believed interracial marriage was wrong. A lot of people believed slavery was right. He's following your logic perfectly. Indeed it does. He's following your logic perfectly. Please respond.

Respond to what? That all people that believe that marriage was granted to us by God and is a religious matter are idiots?

Or the fact that at one time people on a whole did some pretty terrible things?

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Oh come on... Didn't you go to Sunday school? This is just another example of where the government gets involved where it shouldn't. I forgot who said this (it was someone much greater than me): There are two reasons a government should exist: justice to evildoers and protection from enemies. Oh, and you don't need to get a marriage license to get married. Go to a church, fill out the marriage certificate, do the "I do" thing, and you're married. And it's recognizable by the government for tax purposes. The only thing a marriage license does is give the state permission to take your kids. They're state property when you get one.

Incorrect. A marriage licence that's granted by the State is the government's means of recognizing the unity between the two individuals without the needs for a religious marriage ceremony.

And the kids are State property only when the couple are deemed unfit for the responsibility of the children. Otherwise the State has no Constitutional holding over anyone's children.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil Respond to what? That all people that believe that marriage was granted to us by God and is a religious matter are idiots? Or the fact that at one time people on a whole did some pretty terrible things?

Arbiter is flipping your argument around towards those religious views of marriage. From your premise that you state here:

quote:

I guess if you only view marriage as something religious, I can see how you'd be against gay marriage.

You are concluding that individuals cannot be against gay marriage UNLESS they view it as religious.

This is erroneous. I can advocate gay marriage without holding the view of marriage being religious, or more specifically, the present-day Christian view.

There are a range of interpretations of marriage that do not hold toward the present-day Christian definition of 1 man and 1 woman. I can believe these interpretations as "true" just as much as you believe your interpretation as "true", and still believe gay marriage is correct.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Arbiter is flipping your argument around towards those religious views of marriage.

Just to clear up some confusion, let me point out that that argument was osuracnaes', not Seventil's.

Further

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 You are concluding that individuals cannot be against gay marriage UNLESS they view it as religious.

I would agree with this interpretation of osuracnaes' comment, but how does that relate to the rest of your post? It seems to me that you agree?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 This is erroneous. I can advocate gay marriage without holding the view of marriage being religious, or more specifically, the present-day Christian view.

I'm not saying individuals who don't view marriage as religious can't be against gay marriage. I'm saying that I can understand someone being against gay marriage based on religious beliefs. I don't understand how you could reasonably be against a civil marriage.

I'm only basing this on what I've seen. Which is that most opposition to gay marriage is based on religious beliefs/background.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Just to clear up some confusion, let me point out that that argument was osuracnaes', not Seventil's.

Ahh, thanks for the correction.

quote:

Further I would agree with this interpretation of osuracnaes' comment, but how does that relate to the rest of your post? It seems to me that you agree?

I believe I misspoke, my apologies. Damn hangover's in full effect right now.

osuracnaes followed your post with this:

quote:

I'm only basing this on what I've seen. Which is that most opposition to gay marriage is based on religious beliefs/background.

While that may certainly be true for some individuals, what I was attempting to explain is that is not necessarily true for all advocates of gay marriage. Essentially I am saying that you do not have to necessarily view marriage as a religious ceremony (specifically a Christian ceremony, though there are other religions against homosexuality) in order to be a proponent of it.

Is that any better? If not, I'm sorry, but my head's fucking killing me, and I'm likely gonna head outa here soon.....

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 ...what I was attempting to explain is that is not necessarily true for all advocates of gay marriage. Essentially I am saying that you do not have to necessarily view marriage as a religious ceremony (specifically a Christian ceremony, though there are other religions against homosexuality) in order to be a proponent of it. Is that any better?

If by your last "it", you mean "marriage", then I got it now. Thanks for clearing it up.
I would also like to draw attention to Yoepus 2nd post, as he demonstrated a line of reasoning - going against gay-marriages - but which did not rely on religion. I do not agree with him, but it pretty much destroys the "against gay-marriage implies religious nut"-argument.

The legal underpinnings for same sex civil unions (civil marriage) are there based on the Loving v Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas US Supreme Court decisions.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/pro...law/loving.html

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html

I do not in any way support the government forcing religious institutions to perform or recognize same sex marriages.

Civil marriage is a different story however.

The only basic difference I can see between a "civil union" and "civil marriage" is what you call it. When you use the word �marriage� people tend to bristle.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok I love how the issue of gay marriage has made the Democrats supporters of states rights..

Indeed it is odd to see the roles reversed and the far right advocate for the federal government to intervene while liberals become state's rights advocates.

Both parties are largely "big government" though, so it shouldn't come as a huge surprise.

Ashcroft, an avowed federalist, has used his power to attempt to reverse Oregon�s assisted suicide law and also California�s tougher than EPA mandated clean air standards.

He failed on both counts.

Also note that 3 of the 4 Massachusetts SC justices that legalized same sex marriage in that state are Republicans.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj_Irish My thoughts exactly actually. I also feel it's a blatant chickenshit-stance on the subject, not supporting gay marriage out right but rather twist the issue it a bit and argue such decicions should be made at state level. Feels like they are just avoiding making a direct official stance on the subject because they are afraid to loose votes. damn those democrats and their chronic lack of spine

Haha indeed.

I've only found one person running for office of any political party who makes any sense on the subject:

http://www.ginnyschrader.com/Issues/gaymarriage.htm

quote:

Gay Marriage The term gay "marriage" is a semantic smokescreen for unwarranted discrimination. Committed couples should be able to form a union with binding rights and responsibilities including inheritance, healthcare coverage, property ownership and medical decisions for each other. Whatever the name, the ability to form this union must not be withheld. When a man and a woman go to the county courthouse to take out a "marriage" license they�re requesting that the State recognize their up coming civil union. Choosing to marry before a justice of the peace or at the courthouse, this couple is, in fact , entering into a "civil" union recognized by the State. If this same couple goes to a religious congregation to "marry", they are then not only engaging in a civil union recognized by the State but having a religious "marriage" recognized by their church, synagogue or mosque. These are two totally separate forms of recognition. For inheritance, healthcare coverage, property ownership or for medical decisions, the couple is protected by State law governing civil unions. As to their religious beliefs, couples follow the teaching of their religious community. In fact, the couple�s rights and responsibilities as pertains to their religion may not be the same as the civil contract. Conversely, in case of a civil divorce, the religious organization may or may not recognize the dissolution of the union. Today, gay and lesbian couples are asking for the same consideration, as heterosexual couples; recognition by the State of a legal union. Whether their particular religious community will conduct a "marriage" ceremony is a decision made by the religious organization and does not involve government. As to the civil contract, committed couples deserve to have the rights and responsibilities to form a civil union regardless of sexual orientation.

this whole 'gay marriage' issue is utter non-sense. gays CAN get married! just not to each other. if they want to be together, it's called union. there should be NO issue, but for some reason you socialists insist they need their marriage. the majority of america sees it this way, yet the socialists dont. if it were up to me i'd ban marriage for people who support gay marriage to shut you idiots up.

quote:

Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie "We stand for institutions like marriage and family which are the foundations of our society," he said, drawing thunderous applause from the partisan crowd. "We stand for judges who strictly and faithfully interpret the law, instead of legislating from the bench." Two words: Puh. Lease. This vote was the American system at its best. Bush is trying to make it seem like Senate did something wrong when really what they did was simply how our system is supposed to work. Nevermind that people were calling votes political strategy, THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN. How can you say that its an error in the system? And on a more general note, its one thing to have your own ideas and your own views/beliefs, but when you start saying that your way is the only way then the proverbial line has been crossed. Can I say that my left wing liberal ways are absolute truth and everyone should feel the same way I do? No. How can anyone say that? Who are we to judge what is truly right and wrong? I just dont undertand people sometimes...

i agree completely! the only opposition to gay marriage stems from two things: religion and homophobia.
pt. one: the united states were not meant to be a theocracy. even though we have "one nation, under god" in the pledge, and "in god we trust" on our currency, (two things i wish would change) separation of church and state has always been an american ideal. bringing in religious beliefs into a system of government where many different people of varying beliefs coexist is just wrong.
pt. two: being gay, or marrying someone of the same sex effects no one but the two people involved. the only homophobic argument i've ever heard for a gay marriage ban is "i don't want to see that shit." remind me when it's appeasing to see ANY couple make out in public? it can be kinda trashy. not all gay people go around parading their sexuality, contrary to what some people may think. if two people love eachother, they should be together. gay marriage in NO WAY effects any one but the two being wed.

on a funnier note- i saw fahrenheit 9/11 a few weeks ago, and met a guy wearing a shirt that said "will someone please just blow bush so we can impeach him?"
made me rofl.
bush is a monkey. i hope he chokes on another TV dinner.

quote:

Originally posted by prolikewhoa i agree completely! the only opposition to gay marriage stems from two things: religion and homophobia. pt. one: the united states were not meant to be a theocracy. even though we have "one nation, under god" in the pledge, and "in god we trust" on our currency, (two things i wish would change) separation of church and state has always been an american ideal. bringing in religious beliefs into a system of government where many different people of varying beliefs coexist is just wrong. pt. two: being gay, or marrying someone of the same sex effects no one but the two people involved. the only homophobic argument i've ever heard for a gay marriage ban is "i don't want to see that shit." remind me when it's appeasing to see ANY couple make out in public? it can be kinda trashy. not all gay people go around parading their sexuality, contrary to what some people may think. if two people love eachother, they should be together. gay marriage in NO WAY effects any one but the two being wed. on a funnier note- i saw fahrenheit 9/11 a few weeks ago, and met a guy wearing a shirt that said "will someone please just blow bush so we can impeach him?" made me rofl. bush is a monkey. i hope he chokes on another TV dinner.

The solution is quite simple. Gays should not be allowed to marry, and the state should not recognize any marriages. Any other set of circumstances is simply hypocritical absurdity.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.