Great. Its about damn time they are allowed to be married. Im not homosexual, but i still dont think treating those who are like 2nd citizens is right.
However, Come on. I want this to be passed, but if the price is constitutional ammendments, and stonewalling (which i heard on NPR the mass. legislature is seriously considering) then maybe it should wait till the supreme court unavoidably rules on this.
Discuss amoungst yourselves…
EDIT-Stonewalling=Legislature not doing ANYTHING at all to avoid passing a certain ammendment.
That’s enough Bush bashing for now children…:enguard:
Personally, I feel the same as Dev. If they want to get married, let them get married sheesh! Until they die and find themselves in Hell, they won’t worry about it being looked down upon. It shouldn’t be any way.
Good lord, it’s embarrassing that this is still going on. This is going to be one of those issues we look back upon years from now that will seem simply ridiculous.
And Ahkeeyuu and GG, if you don’t have anything to add except the same tired old “OMG Bush is dumb” comments, it’s perfectly acceptable not to post.
Originally posted by BahamutXero Personally, I feel the same as Dev. If they want to get married, let them get married sheesh! Until they die and find themselves in Hell, they won’t worry about it being looked down upon. It shouldn’t be any way.
I doubt Dev is basing his agreement solely on religious excerpts
Meh…I have nothing against homosexuals, but I do believe same sex “marriages” sullies the good name of marriage. I too believe it should only be between a man and a woman, because well, a lot of marriages are based on religious beliefs between couples, and well…you get what I mean.
I am by NO MEANS saying “omg gay people sux0rs”, but I believe they should have another name for this type of union, bringing two lovers of the same sex together, other than “marriage”.
When two people get married on non religious beliefs…what is that called again? I can’t remember…but that’s kind of like an example of what I mean. It’s bringing two people together by law, and not by the church.
If they’re happy…good for them. But I can see both sides.
EDIT: But it kinda seems like people will pick at ANYTHING to bash Bush and the government:hahaha;
Originally posted by Cless Alvein I doubt Dev is basing his agreement solely on religious excerpts
I didn’t think he was. I was just giving my opinion on the matter.
D’oh! Dev, beat me to it. Yeah, gay couples are joined in “civil union” by the courts. If I’m not mistaken though, many states still don’t recognize couples in a civil union. That or they have less rights than a married couple.
They don’t recognize them thanks to a bill partly spearheaded by Bob Barr (who now works for the ACLU) back when Hawaii had same sex marriages. It was a way of declaring that the part of the Constitution requiring all states to recognize another state’s marriage as legally binding (Full Faith and Credit Clause, I think) did not apply in the case of same sex marriages.
Originally posted by BahamutXero
[b]That’s enough Bush bashing for now children…:enguard:
Personally, I feel the same as Dev. If they want to get married, let them get married sheesh! Until they die and find themselves in Hell, they won’t worry about it being looked down upon. It shouldn’t be any way. [/b] I’d just like to say that the bible also forbids crossdressing. And at the time it was “written” I don’t believe that most women would be seen wearing “men’s garments”. So if you were to take the meaning literally from that time, every woman who wears jeans and doesn’t repent is going to hell. <i>Oh, but that’s silly, that would never happen, times have changed.</i>
Needless to say, I don’t take much stock in religious text.
Originally posted by ahkeeyuu Jesus didn’t write the Bible.
Yes, but the bible is technically centered around what he said and taught. And Jesus himself never said anything about homosexuality, at least from what I understand.
The notion of homosexuality being a sin comes from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. I’m not sure on all of the specifics, so I won’t even try, but that is where it comes first and foremost. There might be some other notions of it being a sin in the Old Testament, but the S&G one is by far the most famous.
And Gallo, there’s alot that Jesus did not speak on, yet they have been called a sin in the past and present. Jesus was more on the “don’t judge others” spiel than “gays gonna burn!” spiel.
As for the Bible and its authors, that can’t be argued between Christians (or Jews or Muslims with respect to their holy books). For the most part, it is considered part of their faith that they were written by “inspired” authors (although there are some different interpretations such as God literally taking over the body, just moving the author to write what was proper, to not inspired but basically saying what God wanted), people whom God moved to write the words that He wanted. Christians usually take this to include the choosing of which books were to be a part of the New Testament and which were not (leading to the creation of the Apocrypha, books recognized by the early, Roman Catholic, and some Anglican churches as being not inspired but still conveying for the most part how to be a good Christian, etc).
Anyway, that backdrop is needed because this a crucial part of their beliefs. An atheist can just come up and say they weren’t inspired, but they do not believe in God. You have a clashing of paradigms. One believes in God and (usually) inspired works; the other believes there is no deity figure and that there cannot be inspired works. Arguing over this point is fruitless as both sides are die hard in their beliefs, and they cannot refute the other with facts and figures.
Originally posted by Megaman984
[b]The notion of homosexuality being a sin comes from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. I’m not sure on all of the specifics, so I won’t even try, but that is where it comes first and foremost. There might be some other notions of it being a sin in the Old Testament, but the S&G one is by far the most famous.
And Gallo, there’s alot that Jesus did not speak on, yet they have been called a sin in the past and present. Jesus was more on the “don’t judge others” spiel than “gays gonna burn!” spiel.
As for the Bible and its authors, that can’t be argued between Christians (or Jews or Muslims with respect to their holy books). For the most part, it is considered part of their faith that they were written by “inspired” authors (although there are some different interpretations such as God literally taking over the body, just moving the author to write what was proper, to not inspired but basically saying what God wanted), people whom God moved to write the words that He wanted. Christians usually take this to include the choosing of which books were to be a part of the New Testament and which were not (leading to the creation of the Apocrypha, books recognized by the early, Roman Catholic, and some Anglican churches as being not inspired but still conveying for the most part how to be a good Christian, etc).
Anyway, that backdrop is needed because this a crucial part of their beliefs. An atheist can just come up and say they weren’t inspired, but they do not believe in God. You have a clashing of paradigms. One believes in God and (usually) inspired works; the other believes there is no deity figure and that there cannot be inspired works. Arguing over this point is fruitless as both sides are die hard in their beliefs, and they cannot refute the other with facts and figures. [/b]
This doesn’t have anything to do with religion though, its a civil union reconized by the state, mostly for tax reasons.
Leave it to an accounting major to bring this up. Seriously don’t these anti-gay laws violate something like a right to privacy? That would be my arguement. Or maybe they did do that.
I’d just like to say that the bible also forbids crossdressing. And at the time it was “written” I don’t believe that most women would be seen wearing “men’s garments”. So if you were to take the meaning literally from that time, every woman who wears jeans and doesn’t repent is going to hell. <i>Oh, but that’s silly, that would never happen, times have changed.</i>