They do in the religious sense of the word, or at least they ought to, based on the separation of church and state.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Fucking ridiculous. Since when do religious institutions have a monopoly on the word "marriage"?
They can keep their religious meaning - and a law allowing marriage isn't changing that religious meaning - to them. Prop 8 had nothing to do with "the religious definition", only the legal term used by government. A church would not get sued for not performing a marriage between two guys. A church doesn't have to recognize that marriage. The proposition was worded to change the legal definition (used by government, not churches) to the union of a man and woman. It is religious zealots imposing their beliefs on government.Ataronchronon wrote:
They do in the religious sense of the word, or at least they ought to, based on the separation of church and state.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Fucking ridiculous. Since when do religious institutions have a monopoly on the word "marriage"?
Marriage, in its religious sense, should not be regulated by the government, only the church. "Civil union" is the more appropriate term for a government regulated union between two partners. However, I suppose the government could borrow the term "marriage" and use it for their own purposes as long as they don't try to impose their definition of marriage on the church's definition of marriage.
Last edited by Schwarzelungen (2008-11-05 13:20:55)
Actually, marriage did start out as a religious concept. It has only been since the 20th century that the government has been involved in this, largely due to changing laws regarding property rights, money, taxes, legal responsibility, etc.Schwarzelungen wrote:
not everyone gets married in a church, or by a pastor/father or whatever.......i dont believe this "its a religious word" hoo ha
its still called marriage if a judge does it.
Usually the state laws provide any recognized member of the clergy (such as a Priest, Minister, Rabbi, Imam, Cantor, Ethical Culture Leader, etc.), or a judge, a court clerk, and justices of the peace have authority to perform a marriage. However in some states even the clergy must be first certified or licensed.
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/un … ndex.shtml
yeah, the religious arguments gone out the window
marriage is marriage. quit getting all wound up cause the gays want something you have. if they wanna be as miserable as everyone else, let 'em
Technically the vote was to define marriage, as being between a man and a woman, within the California constitution. However, the way it is written makes even civil unions impossible, there by removing any legal rights that normally accompany a "married" couple.CameronPoe wrote:
Let me get this straight .... Was this a vote on a religious matter or on civil unions?
If Bill Gates thought along the same lines when developing Windows we would still use 3.11 ...Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Proposition 8, if passed, would ban same sex marriages. Here is my argument in support of it.
The word marriage has existed for at least a thousand years, during which, it's meaning has remained unchanged. The definition of a word cannot simply be changed by a small minority of the population that wishes to impose its will on the majority by restructuring society. There was already a vote on this several years ago, and a clear majority of the population still defined marriage as between a man and a woman. This statewide vote was overturned by California's radical liberal supreme court with very vague justification. This is a case of a powerful minority imposing its will on society. A word that has had the same meaning for such a long time cannot simply be redefined by a small amount of people who do clearly do not represent society. Marriage and Civil Unions are different words with different meanings. The only difference in the meaning is that a marriage is between a man and a woman, and civil unions can be between two people of the same sex or two people of different sex. As long as the majority of people define marriage as an institution that can only be between a man and a woman, it cannot justifiably be changed. It is not a moral issue. If I was gay, I would still define marriage as being between a man and a woman. That is simply its definition to me. We are not discriminating against anyone by maintaining the definition of a word.
If you don't like my first argument:
The issue is not "equal rights". The problem is separation of church and state. Marriage is not a "sacred institution" to me; I'm not a christian. However, it is a religious institution. Any couple can get a civil union, man man, man woman, or woman woman. A marriage is performed in a church, by a pastor, on the bible. The idea that a gay person would marry anyone on a bible is quite simply absurd to me, since they would be essentially desecrating the very book that they are swearing on. In Massachusetts, pastors were fined and even arrested for not marrying gay couples, something that is forbidden by their religion. The government is regulating and interfering with a religion. This is totally in opposition to the separation of church and state.
Now, I would be very pleasantly surprised to have someone prove refute me with some legitimate arguments, since it has not happend yet.
never said it didnt.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Actually, marriage did start out as a religious concept. It has only been since the 20th century that the government has been involved in this, largely due to changing laws regarding property rights, money, taxes, legal responsibility, etc.Schwarzelungen wrote:
not everyone gets married in a church, or by a pastor/father or whatever.......i dont believe this "its a religious word" hoo ha
its still called marriage if a judge does it.
Usually the state laws provide any recognized member of the clergy (such as a Priest, Minister, Rabbi, Imam, Cantor, Ethical Culture Leader, etc.), or a judge, a court clerk, and justices of the peace have authority to perform a marriage. However in some states even the clergy must be first certified or licensed.
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/un … ndex.shtml
yeah, the religious arguments gone out the window
marriage is marriage. quit getting all wound up cause the gays want something you have. if they wanna be as miserable as everyone else, let 'em
You know a lot of gay people are very public about it..Sup wrote:
People can do whatever they want in their personal life unless they are harming someone else while doing it.
I doubt they affect you, and if they do, then you should get some therapy because you're homophobic.The#1Spot wrote:
You know a lot of gay people are very public about it..Sup wrote:
People can do whatever they want in their personal life unless they are harming someone else while doing it.
"We've Got Bigger Problems Now"Hurricane2k9 wrote:
California Uber Alles
Yeah, it's that damned gay agenda.GraphicArtist J wrote:
But of course. I'm sure they don't want to push their gay agenda unto all society and our kids as there is no obvious proof from what we see in everyday life. /sarcasm
*rolls eyes*
Again... There's always Michigan.
'coz God says it's baaaaaaaaaaad!usmarine wrote:
why do people give a fuck who people marry anyway? good grief.
ya well maybe when priests stop fiddling little boys then maybe we should listen to them.Poseidon wrote:
'coz God says it's baaaaaaaaaaad!usmarine wrote:
why do people give a fuck who people marry anyway? good grief.