At least Prop 8 passed..

Mrs.Vedder78

ReleaseMe... wrote:

my goal as a Catholic is to protect my religion. things that i have been taught and have studied since basically i was old enough to comprehend. according to this, marriage is between a man and a woman, so they can raise a family, the natural way, the way God intended.

i am a Catholic at my job, while playing sports, and in the voting booth. if the government puts in front of me, a choice of something that will support my religion...i get behind it.

same sex couples can live together, hold hands, whatever they want. marriage is a male and female

let the bashing begin

so says your religion... no one should have other people's religion shoved down their throat.

Separation of government and church in this country is the biggest lie.

urbanhippie

JWBusher wrote:

It an amendment to the California state constitution that denys gays the right to marry, that some religious nuts apparantly voted for.

Ahh right. Thankyou. I'm glad I live in the UK where those it is an issue for are in the minority. Hopefully this will go the same way as votes for women/black people. Common sense will prevail in the end.

blackredyellow

ReleaseMe... wrote:

my goal as a Catholic is to protect my religion. things that i have been taught and have studied since basically i was old enough to comprehend. according to this, marriage is between a man and a woman, so they can raise a family, the natural way, the way God intended.

i am a Catholic at my job, while playing sports, and in the voting booth. if the government puts in front of me, a choice of something that will support my religion...i get behind it.

same sex couples can live together, hold hands, whatever they want. marriage is a male and female

let the bashing begin

But how is gay marriage affecting your catholic religion? that's what I don't understand. Does divorce affect your catholic religion? Do people who practice other religions affect your catholic religion?

Evacuation Rules

Religious beliefs are obviously more important than the equal rights of others. Can't you people see that by now?

Mrs.Vedder78

JWBusher wrote:

Because the "bible/religion" reason is just an excuse to be predjudiced. There is no logic involved.

This is absolutely true.

decides2dream

urbanhippie wrote:

Ahh right. Thankyou. I'm glad I live in the UK where those it is an issue for are in the minority. Hopefully this will go the same way as votes for women/black people. Common sense will prevail in the end.

can same sex couples legally marry in the UK? merely curious.

mammasan wrote:

That is not a legal base though, that is religious belief. The Catholic Church has every right to reject gay marriage and to ban same sex couples from getting married in the church, the government does not. As someone stated divorce is also prohibited by God and the Catholic Church so should the government now prohibit divorce because the bible says so. This is simply a case of forcing your morality on others. I respect your religious views and your moral code but as long as I am not inflicting any harm on you or any other being I should be allowed to live by my moral code. So while you state that you are protecting your religion you are in fact infringing on the rights of others solely based on religious dogma.

again, exactly! so well stated.
do so many forget that this country was founded on the principle of RELIGIOUS FREEDOM? and do they actually realize what that MEANS? ALL are free to practice and live by their OWN religion, and not have OTHER's religious dogma inflicted on their life. this also includeds the right to live without religious beliefs, with no harm or infliction to your rights as a citizen. your religious beliefs are....YOUR.....RELIGIOUS.....BELIEFS. NOT necessarily mine or your neighbors, live YOUR life according to your principles and ALLOW ME the same RESPECT. ugh. this issue so annoys/disgusts me. talk about moving backwards. a country formed for religious freedom has morphed into such an opressive, puritanical country instead.

urbanhippie

decides2dream wrote:

can same sex couples legally marry in the UK? merely curious.

Not in church, but yes. It's called a civil partnership and is marriage in all but name.

Mrs.Vedder78

urbanhippie wrote:

Not in church, but yes. It's called a civil partnership and is marriage in all but name.

and that is what gay couples are asking for here too, a civil union that is as legal as marriage between a heterosexual couple, that alllows you every benefit and right and responsability as everyone else.

How that can be denied to anyone is beyond me.
But obviously there is tons of people like the nut that started this thread that will do anything in their power to deny other people what they should rightfully be entitled to do as a member of this supposedly "free and fair" society.

meistereder

I find it funny that the people claiming that their religion dictates their beliefs on marriage apparently have no clue about the history of marriage in the world. It's based in property principles. Marriage is a contract that traditionally was between the ESTATES of a man and a woman to basically exchange the dowry of a woman's estate for the right to take a woman as a wife and have her bear his children. The phrase "to have and to hold" has nothing to do with romantic embraces -- it is a contract term going back centuries to refer to the consideration one receives in exchange for a contractual obligation. You see it in any property transactions, including marriage.

The people who believe that their religion views marriage as some sort of romantic endeavor between a man and a woman have no clue. The romantic notion of marriage is extremely recent, and is not by any means rooted in the Catholic or any other church. Most religions have some form of marriage that is above all else a property transaction between estates. That said, the Catholic church is one of teh wealthiest institutions in the world, in large part because of the institution of marriage, whereby the church itself got percentages of the estates being carved up.

Why does this all matter to me? Not that it should matter, but religious zealots continue to wrongfully claim that they are trying to protect the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman. In history, marriage has very little to do with romance or love, and certainly if teh Catholic church could have gotten rich by taking money from gay marriages, it would have. The ignorance is astounding.

decides2dream

urbanhippie wrote:

Not in church, but yes. It's called a civil partnership and is marriage in all but name.

well i would call that a 'no' then. if it is not called marriage, than marrige is not legal. i understand that the legal rights may well be the same, but it is not the same in name. i know that is one of a few points where obama and i disagree. i believe homosexuals have the right to legal MARRIAGE, and for it to be called such. he believes, or at least supports, just what you say: civil unions with all the benefits, sans the term marriage. it is STILL discriminatory to NOT be able to call it 'marriage'....you could not get away with that for another group, like blacks, italians, jews, etc...so why gays? to me it's about civil rights for ALL consenting adults. anyhoo...that's definitely a solid first step though, no criticism there. i just would like to see FULL equal rights in this arena, meaning: LEGAL MARRIAGE.

meistereder wrote:

I find it funny that the people claiming that their religion dictates their beliefs on marriage apparently have no clue about the history of marriage in the world. It's based in property principles. Marriage is a contract that traditionally was between the ESTATES of a man and a woman to basically exchange the dowry of a woman's estate for the right to take a woman as a wife and have her bear his children. The phrase "to have and to hold" has nothing to do with romantic embraces -- it is a contract term going back centuries to refer to the consideration one receives in exchange for a contractual obligation. You see it in any property transactions, including marriage.

The people who believe that their religion views marriage as some sort of romantic endeavor between a man and a woman have no clue. The romantic notion of marriage is extremely recent, and is not by any means rooted in the Catholic or any other church. Most religions have some form of marriage that is above all else a property transaction between estates. That said, the Catholic church is one of teh wealthiest institutions in the world, in large part because of the institution of marriage, whereby the church itself got percentages of the estates being carved up.

Why does this all matter to me? Not that it should matter, but religious zealots continue to wrongfully claim that they are trying to protect the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman. In history, marriage has very little to do with romance or love, and certainly if teh Catholic church could have gotten rich by taking money from gay marriages, it would have. The ignorance is astounding.

thank you.
we collectively have such short memories.....

mrs. vedder....homosexuals are asking for the rights of MARRIAGE, not just civil unions. they want the SAME EXACT rights as heterosexuals, and rightly so. it's almost like yet another 'seperate but equal' issue. why have to use a different term? for what purpose but to appease others and still show some degree of 'different'....and i for 1 think that's wrong. homosexuals want MARRIAGE.

urbanhippie

Mrs_Vedder78 wrote:

and that is what gay couples are asking for here too, a civil union that is as legal as marriage between a heterosexual couple, that alllows you every benefit and right and responsability as everyone else.

How that can be denied to anyone is beyond me.
But obviously there is tons of people like the nut that started this thread that will do anything in their power to deny other people what they should rightfully be entitled to do as a member of this supposedly "free and fair" society.

Well, like I said, I hope for everyone that common sense will prevail. It's good to know that for once the UK is leading the way on this

mammasan

ReleaseMe and Ninja I can only take your lack of legal base for this decision as you not having one. Your support, as with most supporters of this initiative, is simply based on religious belief which has no place concerning this issue. The state of California, or any state for that matter, is not forcing religious institutions to allow same sex marriage to take place in their halls, churches, chapels, etc… Your religion and it's principles will stay intact so fear not the gay couple down the street will not be the down fall of a 2000 year old institution like the Catholic Church. I would think that strong supporters of family values and marriage would be more concerned about the high divorce rate, child and spousal abuse, negligent parents and dead beat parents who truly erode the core principles of family values than on two people who want to dedicate themselves to each other but just happen to be gay. If anything these people should be embraced for wanted to create a union. Some even want to raise a family and adopt some of the many unwanted children sitting in our nations foster homes and orphanages. Instead their commitment to family is disrespected and they are treated as second class citizens simply because of who they love.

urbanhippie

decides2dream wrote:

well i would call that a 'no' then. if it is not called marriage, than marrige is not legal. i understand that the legal rights may well be the same, but it is not the same in name. i know that is one of a few points where obama and i disagree. i believe homosexuals have the right to legal MARRIAGE, and for it to be called such. he believes, or at least supports, just what you say: civil unions with all the benefits, sans the term marriage. it is STILL discriminatory to NOT be able to call it 'marriage'....you could not get away with that for another group, like blacks, italians, jews, etc...so why gays? to me it's about civil rights for ALL consenting adults. anyhoo...that's definitely a solid first step though, no criticism there. i just would like to see FULL equal rights in this arena, meaning: LEGAL MARRIAGE.

Well I'm no expert, but colloquially it's referred to as a marriage. As far as legal terms go, I have no idea.
I think the main thing is that people are not being prevented from doing what they want to do, although I agree with your stance on the issue.

Mrs.Vedder78

decides2dream wrote:

well i would call that a 'no' then. if it is not called marriage, than marrige is not legal. i understand that the legal rights may well be the same, but it is not the same in name. i know that is one of a few points where obama and i disagree. i believe homosexuals have the right to legal MARRIAGE, and for it to be called such. he believes, or at least supports, just what you say: civil unions with all the benefits, sans the term marriage. it is STILL discriminatory to NOT be able to call it 'marriage'....you could not get away with that for another group, like blacks, italians, jews, etc...so why gays? to me it's about civil rights for ALL consenting adults. anyhoo...that's definitely a solid first step though, no criticism there. i just would like to see FULL equal rights in this arena, meaning: LEGAL MARRIAGE.

getting at least civil unions that give a gay couple the same exact right on everything as a heterosexual couple including adopting children will be great progress, i would probably worry about what they want to call it later...

Evacuation Rules

meistereder wrote:

I find it funny that the people claiming that their religion dictates their beliefs on marriage apparently have no clue about the history of marriage in the world. It's based in property principles. Marriage is a contract that traditionally was between the ESTATES of a man and a woman to basically exchange the dowry of a woman's estate for the right to take a woman as a wife and have her bear his children. The phrase "to have and to hold" has nothing to do with romantic embraces -- it is a contract term going back centuries to refer to the consideration one receives in exchange for a contractual obligation. You see it in any property transactions, including marriage.

The people who believe that their religion views marriage as some sort of romantic endeavor between a man and a woman have no clue. The romantic notion of marriage is extremely recent, and is not by any means rooted in the Catholic or any other church. Most religions have some form of marriage that is above all else a property transaction between estates. That said, the Catholic church is one of teh wealthiest institutions in the world, in large part because of the institution of marriage, whereby the church itself got percentages of the estates being carved up.

Why does this all matter to me? Not that it should matter, but religious zealots continue to wrongfully claim that they are trying to protect the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman. In history, marriage has very little to do with romance or love, and certainly if teh Catholic church could have gotten rich by taking money from gay marriages, it would have. The ignorance is astounding.

mammasan wrote:

ReleaseMe and Ninja I can only take your lack of legal base for this decision as you not having one. Your support, as with most supporters of this initiative, is simply based on religious belief which has no place concerning this issue. The state of California, or any state for that matter, is not forcing religious institutions to allow same sex marriage to take place in their halls, churches, chapels, etc… Your religion and it's principles will stay intact so fear not the gay couple down the street will not be the down fall of a 2000 year old institution like the Catholic Church. I would think that strong supporters of family values and marriage would be more concerned about the high divorce rate, child and spousal abuse, negligent parents and dead beat parents who truly erode the core principles of family values than on two people who want to dedicate themselves to each other but just happen to be gay. If anything these people should be embraced for wanted to create a union. Some even want to raise a family and adopt some of the many unwanted children sitting in our nations foster homes and orphanages. Instead their commitment to family is disrespected and they are treated as second class citizens simply because of who they love.

Very well said, though I doubt it will mean anything to the numbskull who started this thread.

decides2dream

urbanhippie wrote:

Well I'm no expert, but colloquially it's referred to as a marriage. As far as legal terms go, I have no idea.
I think the main thing is that people are not being prevented from doing what they want to do, although I agree with your stance on the issue.

i completely understand.
but colloquialisms are not legal terms. seriously, i get it...and i think it's a solid first step, but i DO 100% support homosexuals quest to have legal marriage, the full benefits, and the actual term. symbolically, i think it's important. so i say if they are going to fight for this right in this country...might as well go for the full impact and fight for legal marriage, not just civil unions.

Mrs_Vedder78 wrote:

getting at least civil unions that give a gay couple the same exact right on everything as a heterosexual couple including adopting children will be great progress, i would probably worry about what they want to call it later...

again, i agree...to a point. however, again...why should gays have to settle? so if they are going to battle for full equal rights, battle for FULL equal rights, which includes the rights of MARRIAGE. if you ask most gays passionate about this issue, they DO want marriage, not just civil unions, b/c it too much symbolizes a seperate but equal stance to accept the watered-down terminology.

jeffbr

ReleaseMe... wrote:

my goal as a Catholic is to protect my religion. things that i have been taught and have studied since basically i was old enough to comprehend. according to this, marriage is between a man and a woman, so they can raise a family, the natural way, the way God intended.

i am a Catholic at my job, while playing sports, and in the voting booth. if the government puts in front of me, a choice of something that will support my religion...i get behind it.

same sex couples can live together, hold hands, whatever they want. marriage is a male and female

let the bashing begin

That is fucking criminal. To use the courts and the force of government to preserve the purity of your particular brand of mythology. You should be ashamed.

I know you (and I) would jump up and down in opposition to sharia law becoming the law of the land, but apparently your double-standard allows your set of beliefs to be forced down our throats.

Kel Varnsen

meistereder wrote:

That said, the Catholic church is one of teh wealthiest institutions in the world, in large part because of the institution of marriage, whereby the church itself got percentages of the estates being carved up.

I have also read that a reason the Catholic Church is so rich is because way back (perhaps in the middle ages) they really got behind the idea that only married couples should have children and pushed anything else as a sin was because it minimized the amount of kids people could have. Which was good for the church because if you died without having kids you were expected to leave them all of your money and property. And remember too that the life expectancy was a lot shorter back then so you had a lot less time to find a wife and have kids.

yosi1

Camouflage Ninja wrote:

I think the unborn baby has the right to be born to a loving mother and father.

So, any parents that are mean should have their babies aborted.
Or, single women shouldn't be allowed to have children because there isn't a loving father.
Single men shouldn't be allowed to adopt because there is no loving mother.
Your logic is twisted.

What's to say that two men won't be more loving than a man and a woman? What about two woman? Why is it assumed that all straight couples will be more loving?

A good parent is a good parent regardless of their sexual orientation, and regardless as to whether or not they are married to someone of the same or opposite sex.

You should go see a shrink about your homophobia.

yosi1

Kel Varnsen wrote:

The thing I never understood about the anti-gay marriage argument is that all of the main arguments used could also be applied to divorce. Divorce is forbidden in the bible, divorce is hard for children to understand and divorce it could be argued cheapens the meaning of marriage. Yet how come no one is calling for a proposition to outlaw divorce?

In the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament, divorce is definitely NOT forbidden.