Gay Marriage - poll added

[6thGen]

What, you don't believe that your friends are completely immoral and in violation of God's laws? ;-)

I didn't say "completely". By definition, all of my friends are, as am I.

 

[6thGen]

Wasn't gonna go here again, but........I find it not so disturbing that one would wear a white hood-that blatantly lets u know, but one would "associate with and befriend homosexuals" while drinking haterade..

Does anyone else see the irony in the voices of toleration having such little respect for others' religious views, and those that say that morality is as one defines it are the first to criticize others' views on morality?

 

[scooterbug44]

I have a very high tolerance of other people's religions and religious views.

I have a very low tolerance of other people using their religion to condemn people and draft laws or sway policies that apply to people outside their religion.

 

[lennonsdarlin]

6th gen...sorry, my debate is done

 

[destinscuba]

Ok, I am done here--this thread has now caused this 50 plus year old SoWal gay man and his partner of 14 years to tie the knot! Whew!. Mr "FQ" and I are getting two tickets to San Jose in late August, after 14 years we''ll be "married."

Good to hear it. Let us know if there is anyway we can help with the reception.

OOPS, I guess this thread goes down hill from the posts on the first couple of pages. I hate to hear that.

Yes, as always with this subject. The really "religious" people out there turn it into a discussion about of right and wrong according to their beliefs, but doesn't the church also teach us to love thy neighbor.



I would like to get back to the original topic.

How would a marriage between (SWGB and me) or (hnooe2000 & Mr. "FQ") make YOUR marriage any less important or less meaningful to you?

 

[hnooe]

A female friend of mine married her partner after 10 years in Vermont. The relationship fell apart two years later and now they are permenently married in that state and can do nothing about it. My point - don't do it for political reasons and make sure the marriage doesn't have negative effects on your relationship. If you're happy now, what do you gain? All you succeed in doing is giving California a little tax revenue, which I think is one of the main reasons they pushed for this in the first place.

Thanks I am appreciative--very. I have to confer with some legal experts on this topic as well--I am on a now learning as much as I can and will hopefully be educated enough to be 100% sure by the end of Aug--I will see how things are going down in Cali--it has only been one day now it has been legal!

 

[6thGen]

I have a very high tolerance of other people's religions and religious views.

I have a very low tolerance of other people using their religion to condemn people and draft laws or sway policies that apply to people outside their religion.

Where did I condemn someone? I said homosexuality is immoral, but all are immoral. Also, it's not the religious right drafting laws and swaying policies, it's the reverse. DoMA was a defensive position against court activism. As I've said repeatedly, if gay marriage is accepted, it should be done through through the legislative branch, not the judicial. There is no right to marry addressed in California's constitution, or in the US Constitution.

 

[ASH]

Destinscuba, you reworded the original question, but it does shed a slightly different light on the topic.

My response would be that it doesn't change a thing. It is different as it has not been a norm for society. Time will change that. Your position will never be fully accepted. The KKK still hates blacks and a bunch of other people for some pretty ignorant reasons.

I could likely stir up a few folks by stating that I was never married in the church. 25+ years ago, I did a JP wedding and never looked back. Didn't make freaks out of my kids either as my oldest just got married in a full blown church wedding.

 

[LuciferSam]

No, we don't. We already did. See the preamble to the Constitution. Who did we establish endowed man's rights?

I have trouble interpreting to whom you refer with your pronoun "we". I do not recall the two of us establishing any such thing in the constitution. A quick fact check reveals that neither did our founding fathers engage in such undertaking.

A document exists known as the Declaration of Independence. The establishment of this document does not explicitly pertain to establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. It does use the abstract term Creator however .

That "Creator" reference contained in the Declaration of Independence (not our governing document) of course lends itself to interpretation. A theist might, but not necessarily, interpret the meaning as supreme being, or what some might refer to as "God". A less literal theist or an atheist might view the creator as the biological process and body parts responsible for his existence. Two sweaty humans exchanging bodily fluids for example. Perhaps the creator consists of the mother, her womb, and a measure of everything she ate, drank, smoked, shot or snorted over a nine month period (on average). A geneticist might think about the billions of years of mutated chimp DNA that led to his being. In other words, I could easily say nature or the universe is my creator and let it go at that. Even a theist could push God's role in "creation" way back to the beginning of time and consider him to be irrelevant in the here and now.

The point is, man has rights by virtue of his existence irrespective of his origin. They are not grants or gifts. They can only be taken away by force. Even if one believes this creator mentioned in the DOI is a literal god who grants rights, who's to say he's against gay marriage? After all, he would have created the gays knowing full well that they would want to get married. Is this god some kind of prankster with a warped sense of humor?

See there are no universal truths regarding issues of faith. There is always going to be subjectivity based on one's interpretation and choice of beliefs. This makes a government imposed faith-based morality impossible to implement in this country. It could only be done so by force, that is, by denial of basic human rights. There are too many different subjective belief systems. Clearly no universal definition of creator exists. For these reasons, the Constitution does not tread on this ground.

 

[traderx]

While I fully support gay marriage, I have to defend 6th generation's point about the source of any change. It should come from the legislature and not a court. I am totally against activist courts. A court which "interprets" a constitution instead of applying laws and concepts contained in a constitution, becomes a defacto legislative body. We should all fear that because it subverts the checks and balances of our system.

And while we should have tolerance of gays and others who may not be like us IMHO, that tolerance should extend to 6thGen as well. He is intelligent and has defensible viewpoints. I disagree with him on many social issues I am sure, but will never be intolerant of his views. I believe social change results from a change of our hearts. We will never change hearts through arguments but through civil, thoughtful and considerate dialogue with each other.