At least Prop 8 passed..

catefrances

From a Catholic Website:
...
Christians must give witness to the whole moral truth concerning human sexuality and the dignity of persons.

the WHOLE moral TRUTH. what does that mean??
if i am engaging in sexual acts without the intent of abusing the other person(or myself ) in any way, then thats all the moral truth ill be needing thanks very much men who dont even engage in any sexual practises let alone so called moral sexual practises.

as for this:

Any sexual activity outside marriage with others or alone is gravely evil.

looks like im going to hell. if only i actually believed it existed. :rolleyes:

norm

South of Seattle wrote:

The thing is that most Catholics I've encountered don't act like this. But it is what they believe.

catholic guilt....it's not a myth

_Crazy_Mary_

"I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." ~ Barrack Obama
Why would anybody disagree with the man that America voted into office?

ReleaseMe...

_Crazy_Mary_ wrote:

"I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." ~ Barrack Obama
Why would anybody disagree with the man that America voted into office?

i never saw that

Cosmo

_Crazy_Mary_ wrote:

"I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." ~ Barrack Obama
Why would anybody disagree with the man that America voted into office?

...
To answer your question... I believe it's because , as Americans, we don't have to automatically agree with anyone... even if that person was elected as our president.

iamica

This is from the Saddleback Forum Discussion:

REV. WARREN: Define marriage.

SEN. OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. (Applause.) Now, for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. You know, God's in the mix. (Applause.)

REV. WARREN: Would you support a constitutional amendment with that definition?

SEN. OBAMA: No, I would not.

REV. WARREN: Why not?

SEN. OBAMA: (Applause.) Because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution. It's been a matter of state law that has been our tradition. Now, I mean, let's break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in a hospital, for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are.

I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or a different view. (Applause.)

Here's the link to read the whole thing: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/08/transcript_of_obama_mccain_at.html

decides2dream

Cosmo wrote:

...
To answer your question... I believe it's because , as Americans, we don't have to automatically agree with anyone... even if that person was elected as our president.

exactly.


even as a supporter of obama, while he most closely represents my pov out of all the candidates before the election, his position on the death penalty, and on gay marriage, we don't agree. i am happy he at least supports civil unions, but i would far prefer he fully support gay marriage. besides the fact, his 'personal' view if his own, just like anyone else. as long as he publicly supports what's right...it's all good.

blondieblue227

I’m sure this had already been said.

I heard it because of African Americans this didn’t pass. Church goers. So it really comes down to religion. Ironic because they had to struggle for their rights and here they are telling somebody they can’t get married.

ReleaseMe...

iamica wrote:

This is from the Saddleback Forum Discussion:

REV. WARREN: Define marriage.

SEN. OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. (Applause.) Now, for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. You know, God's in the mix. (Applause.)

REV. WARREN: Would you support a constitutional amendment with that definition?

SEN. OBAMA: No, I would not.

REV. WARREN: Why not?

SEN. OBAMA: (Applause.) Because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution. It's been a matter of state law that has been our tradition. Now, I mean, let's break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in a hospital, for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are.

I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or a different view. (Applause.)

Here's the link to read the whole thing: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/08/transcript_of_obama_mccain_at.html

wow i guess this is why this thread has died over the past few days....no loudmouths now huh

catefrances

iamica wrote:

SEN. OBAMA: (Applause.) Because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution. It's been a matter of state law that has been our tradition. Now, I mean, let's break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in a hospital, for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are.

what the heck does this mean??

i was unaware gays visiting the hospitalised was an issue.

jeffbr

ReleaseMe... wrote:

wow i guess this is why this thread has died over the past few days....no loudmouths now huh

What the fuck are you talking about? Threads die all the time. They run their natural course. But since you asked, I think Obama is full of shit on this issue.

mammasan

_Crazy_Mary_ wrote:

"I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." ~ Barrack Obama
Why would anybody disagree with the man that America voted into office?

Do you agree with the person you voted for 100%? That is an extremely week argument you have there.

mammasan

ReleaseMe... wrote:

wow i guess this is why this thread has died over the past few days....no loudmouths now huh

Just because some politicians says so doesn't mean that he is right. I don't care what your religious beliefs are it is discrimination and no amount of bible passages or politicians supporting it will change that fact.

ReleaseMe...

mammasan wrote:

Just because some politicians says so doesn't mean that he is right. I don't care what your religious beliefs are it is discrimination and no amount of bible passages or politicians supporting it will change that fact.

well heres everyones big chance. instead of whining on a pearl jam message pit and calling other people bigots and discriminators.....go march on the future president (A PERSON THAT PROB 90% OF YOU PEOPLE VOTED FOR) and call him out to his face. get a bunch of you, make some signs, and hit the streets in DC, ohhhhhhhhhh thats probably too much work for something is so sensitive to you and that you all care so much about about

mammasan

ReleaseMe... wrote:

well heres everyones big chance. instead of whining on a pearl jam message pit and calling other people bigots and discriminators.....go march on the future president (A PERSON THAT PROB 90% OF YOU PEOPLE VOTED FOR) and call him out to his face. get a bunch of you, make some signs, and hit the streets in DC, ohhhhhhhhhh thats probably too much work for something is so sensitive to you and that you all care so much about about

Well I for one didn't vote for him and I'm doing my part here in my home state to help people like my brother get equal rights. Obama has no business getting involved in this issue as it is not a federal issue, so protesting Obama is fucking useless.

meistereder

Obama said that for him personally, marriage is between a man and a woman. OK, fine. He is entitled to have a personal opinion on that. Just because your president thinks of marriage as between a man and a woman does not have any implications on the constitutionality of proposition 8.

He also said he does NOT support a constitutional amendment, and that it should be left to the states. There is nothing particularly offensive about leaving it up to the states. In fact, that would lead to the repealing of the "Defense of Marriage Act" in my opinion.

Leave it up to the states but enforce the US Constitution when the states screw it up. In California, our courts got it right but the people got together and violated the US constitution. So the federal courts have to correct that. That is what "should" happen, but who knows how it will play out.

meistereder

ReleaseMe... wrote:

well heres everyones big chance. instead of whining on a pearl jam message pit and calling other people bigots and discriminators.....go march on the future president (A PERSON THAT PROB 90% OF YOU PEOPLE VOTED FOR) and call him out to his face. get a bunch of you, make some signs, and hit the streets in DC, ohhhhhhhhhh thats probably too much work for something is so sensitive to you and that you all care so much about about

What are you saying? You mean because Obama himself thinks marriage is a man and a woman? That makes no difference. I think there are a lot of people who can distinguish between what marriage PERSONALLY means to them on teh one hand and on the other hand what the law should allow on a state level based on equality. The only thing that ultimately matters is whether state law is in accordance with the constitution, and that is what will play out in the months and years to come.

mammasan

I did a little research and found that marriage licenses started coming into affect in the early to mid 1800's, here in the states. The states justified the issuance on marriage licenses as a mean to prevent the spread of disease, to prevent marriage under duress, and to provide both parties a grace period to make sure that they where making the right decision. No where does it state that the state issued these licenses to prevent a marriage based on ethnicity, sexual preference or race. Up until the 1960's marriage licenses where used to prevent mixed racial marriages.

Also or most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the seventeenth century, Christian Churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows — even without witnesses — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

meistereder

mammasan wrote:

I did a little research and found that marriage licenses started coming into affect in the early to mid 1800's, here in the states. The states justified the issuance on marriage licenses as a mean to prevent the spread of disease, to prevent marriage under duress, and to provide both parties a grace period to make sure that they where making the right decision. No where does it state that the state issued these licenses to prevent a marriage based on ethnicity, sexual preference or race. Up until the 1960's marriage licenses where used to prevent mixed racial marriages.

Also or most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the seventeenth century, Christian Churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows — even without witnesses — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

Thank you. Yeah, as I have posted the history of marriage shows it is far from the bond of love between a man and a woman that people claim it to be. I have nothing against marriage as an institution, but it's historically been mostly about the estates of the two families, not the bond between the individuals.

decides2dream

mammasan wrote:

I did a little research and found that marriage licenses started coming into affect in the early to mid 1800's, here in the states. The states justified the issuance on marriage licenses as a mean to prevent the spread of disease, to prevent marriage under duress, and to provide both parties a grace period to make sure that they where making the right decision. No where does it state that the state issued these licenses to prevent a marriage based on ethnicity, sexual preference or race. Up until the 1960's marriage licenses where used to prevent mixed racial marriages.

Also or most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the seventeenth century, Christian Churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows — even without witnesses — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

funny how much THAT has changed!


interesting stuff.
i was not aware of the history of american marriage licences, merely the history of marriage say in europe, middle ages, etc....and the familial contracts and arrangements of such.