California approves same-sex marriage bill; governor expected to veto

[danarhea]

So, what about gay marriage? Here are my thoughts on it, first, from a "traditional" Christian perspective, then morphing into a Constitutional perspective.

The Gay Marriage Issue for Dummies

An Argument For Gay Marriage in 16 Simple Steps:

1) Marriage is, essentially, a religious ceremony - A rite, as it were. A commitment between 2 people who want to commit their lives to each other.

2) The traditional Christian church sees gay marriage as a sin.

3) However, according to the Bible, we have ALL sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

4) Never does a year go by without everyone in the whole world doing something that is against what the Bible teaches.

5) According to the Bible, Jesus came to give everlasting life to sinners - Not the self-righteous.

6) According to the Bible, a gay man or woman is not any worse of a sinner than someone who is NOT gay.

7) Actually, a gay man or woman is less of a sinner than a hypocrite, who Jesus said there is a special place in hell reserved for.

8) According to the Bible, Jesus loves everybody, even hypocrites.

9) There ARE gay churches in the United States.

11) There are more traditional churches in the United States than there are gay churches.

10) In denying gays the right to marry, the state is essentially promoting the views of traditional churches over the views of gay churches. Therefore, the state is promoting the establishment of a religion, which is unconstitutional.

11) What about state-issued marriage licenses themselves? In olden days, licenses were granted by a government only for the purpose of legalizing what would otherwise be illegal (a man marrying his sister, for instance). NOTE: George Washington never obtained a marriage license.

12) In the 1800's, intermarriage between blacks and whites was illegal in almost all states, so states began issuing marriage licenses, thus taking upon themselves the right to legislate who could get married and who couldn't.

13) What the states began has turned into the usurpation by the states of something that belongs to God. In essence, the religious establishment is now married to the state. This is an abomination unto God, according to the Bible.

14) Those who seek permission from the state to marry are committing a sin.

15) What should gays do? In short, they should be doing what everyone else should be doing.......

Getting married and giving the government a big, fat middle finger.

16) Gay or straight, live long and prosper, and be proud to be an American.

Article is here.

 

[Cold Highway]

Very well put. I though the Governator said he wouldnt veto a bill that involved same-sex marriage or was that civil unions.

 

[The Baron]

“1) Marriage is, essentially, a religious ceremony - A rite, as it were. A commitment between 2 people who want to commit their lives to each other.” – danarhea

And has always been between men and women.

“2) The traditional Christian church sees gay marriage as a sin.” – danarhea

This is true.

“3) However, according to the Bible, we have ALL sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” – danarhea

Also, quite true.

“4) Never does a year go by without everyone in the whole world doing something that is against what the Bible teaches.” – danarhea

Why do I feel like we are all about to be set-up?

“5) According to the Bible, Jesus came to give everlasting life to sinners - Not the self-righteous” – danarhea

Actually, it was everybody including the self-righteous.

They’re sinners too, ya know.

“6) According to the Bible, a gay man or woman is not any worse of a sinner than someone who is NOT gay.” - danarhea

Actually the Bible does not say that explicitly, but the “spirit” of your statement is true.

“7) Actually, a gay man or woman is less of a sinner than a hypocrite, who Jesus said there is a special place in hell reserved for.” – danarhea

Okay, I’m always willing to learn something new. Please give book, chapter and verse.

“8) According to the Bible, Jesus loves everybody, even hypocrites.” – danarhea

Also true…

“9) There ARE gay churches in the United States.” – danarhea

Yes, and such churches would be considered “spiritually dead” as they go against the clear teaching of Scripture.

“11) There are more traditional churches in the United States than there are gay churches.” – danarhea

I don’t know what the numbers are but I suspect that you’re right.

“10) In denying gays the right to marry, the state is essentially promoting the views of traditional churches over the views of gay churches. Therefore, the state is promoting the establishment of a religion, which is unconstitutional.” - danarhea

First off, you got your numbering all out of sequence.

Secondly, by not sanctioning the perversion of marriage known as "gay marriage" the government simply respects the covenant of marriage which has always existed between men and women across time, cultures and location.

This is not promoting anything. If the state mandated that everyone had to go to a Baptist Church on Sunday mornings--that would be promoting a religion.

Not falling for the fallacies of the gay agenda no more promotes Christianity than it does Islam, Buddhist, Taoist, etc.

“11) What about state-issued marriage licenses themselves? In olden days, licenses were granted by a government only for the purpose of legalizing what would otherwise be illegal (a man marrying his sister, for instance). NOTE: George Washington never obtained a marriage license.” – danarhea

What about state marriage licenses? They are still utilized to ensure that some redneck doesn’t marry his sister.

And who cares if George Washington didn’t have a “marriage license”? What difference does it make?

“12) In the 1800's, intermarriage between blacks and whites was illegal in almost all states, so states began issuing marriage licenses, thus taking upon themselves the right to legislate who could get married and who couldn't.” – danarhea

And unconscionable and unconstitutional act that was corrected by the courts. However, those cases didn’t change what marriage was as it still remained an institution between men and women regardless of their race.

“13) What the states began has turned into the usurpation by the states of something that belongs to God. In essence, the religious establishment is now married to the state. This is an abomination unto God, according to the Bible.” – danarhea

No it’s not. Read Romans 13: 1-3

“14) Those who seek permission from the state to marry are committing a sin.” – Danarhea

No, they are not. Read Romans 13: 1-3

“15) What should gays do? In short, they should be doing what everyone else should be doing....... Getting married and giving the government a big, fat middle finger.” – danarhea

Why? There is no Biblical precedence for it. There is no historical precedence for it. There is no cultural precedence for it.

So why should gays be getting married?

 

[Kandahar]

Yes, and such churches would be considered “spiritually dead” as they go against the clear teaching of Scripture.

I hope you've never eaten shellfish, or worn garments made of two different fabrics. Otherwise you're "spiritually dead," as you go against the clear teaching of scripture. :roll:

Why? There is no Biblical precedence for it. There is no historical precedence for it. There is no cultural precedence for it.

In other words, discrimination is OK because that's the way it's always been. How ridiculous.

So why should gays be getting married?

Because they are entitled to equal rights under the law, and should not be discriminated against based on their gender.

 

[Binary_Digit]

The government needs to get the hell out of "marriage" altogether. Declare them both civil unions with identical rights and benefits, and let the churches argue over the stupid definition.

In essence, the religious establishment is now married to the state. This is an abomination unto God, according to the Bible.

Where does it say that?

 

[Binary_Digit]

Why? There is no Biblical precedence for it. There is no historical precedence for it. There is no cultural precedence for it.

So why should gays be getting married?

Same reason heterosexuals get married. Because they want to. :2wave:

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

10) In denying gays the right to marry, the state is essentially promoting the views of traditional churches over the views of gay churches. Therefore, the state is promoting the establishment of a religion, which is unconstitutional.

Quoted For Truth! The state needs to get its gods-damned hands the ****in' hell out of religious matters. Anyone who justifies this **** by bringing up the sanctity of marriage needs to have a copy of the Bill of Rights rammed so far up their nose that the content bypasses their thick skull and permanently lodge in their brain.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Quoted For Truth! The state needs to get its gods-damned hands the ****in' hell out of religious matters. Anyone who justifies this **** by bringing up the sanctity of marriage needs to have a copy of the Bill of Rights rammed so far up their nose that the content bypasses their thick skull and permanently lodge in their brain.

:rofl And they need to redirect their crusade at dysfunctional marriage and divorce, which are bigger threats to the "sanctity" of marriage than gay marriage ever was.

 

[rhinefire]

I can think of no more repulsive sight than two males turning to each other and kissing in church after being pronounced degenerate and degenerate by a preacher. How pathetic.

 

[Binary_Digit]

I can think of no more repulsive sight than two males turning to each other and kissing in church after being pronounced degenerate and degenerate by a preacher. How pathetic.

Me neither! I also think it's repulsive when fat people wear spandex in public. But I'm not special, so I don't expect the law to infringe on other people's rights in order to protect me from what I find repulsive but is otherwise completely harmless.

 

[rhinefire]

Me neither! I also think it's repulsive when fat people wear spandex in public. But I'm not special, so I don't expect the law to infringe on other people's rights in order to protect me from what I find repulsive but is otherwise completely harmless.

That's where we part differ. I fully expect rules to minimize if not iliminate the repulsive and lurid from public viewing and that is why we have such laws, rules and ordinances in our society now.

 

[Binary_Digit]

That's where we part differ. I fully expect rules to minimize if not iliminate the repulsive and lurid from public viewing and that is why we have such laws, rules and ordinances in our society now.

I find your posts repulsive, therefore it should be illegal for you to post here. Do you really want that kind of stupidity? Where do you draw the line?

 

[rhinefire]

I find your posts repulsive, therefore it should be illegal for you to post here. Do you really want that kind of stupidity? Where do you draw the line?

But you protect my right to post as you CLAIM to protect the rights of what appears obscene to some. I expect YOU to fight any such idea as your own stupid idea that my posts should be illegal. It's my opinion and Nazi's like you make yourself out to be by banning freedom of expression should be in cages. So which is it? Opinions that don't match your permissible or banned? @O

 

[Binary_Digit]

But you protect my right to post as you CLAIM to protect the rights of what appears obscene to some. I expect YOU to fight any such idea as your own stupid idea that my posts should be illegal. It's my opinion and Nazi's like you make yourself out to be by banning freedom of expression should be in cages. So which is it? Opinions that don't match your permissible or banned? @O

Your sarcasm detector needs a calibration. :2razz: I don't find your posts repulsive, I was making a point.

If you don't think your posts should be illegal just because I find them repulsive, then why do you think gay marriage should be illegal just because you find them repulsive?

 

[rhinefire]

Your sarcasm detector needs a calibration. :2razz: I don't find your posts repulsive, I was making a point.

If you don't think your posts should be illegal just because I find them repulsive, then why do you think gay marriage should be illegal just because you find them repulsive?

Ask half the country that agrees with me. It is my RIGHT to choose to feel as I do as long as I dont bother them. Got it now?!

 

[Kandahar]

Ask half the country that agrees with me. It is my RIGHT to choose to feel as I do as long as I dont bother them. Got it now?!

Umm you ARE bothering them by denying them equality under the law based on their gender.

 

[Cold Highway]

Ask half the country that agrees with me. It is my RIGHT to choose to feel as I do as long as I dont bother them. Got it now?!

I get it but then one of your previous posts on how gays marriying is somehow disgusting and effects you personaly. How does Steve and John marrying affect you personaly? Ill be interested to hear your answer and please dont be like Baron who just posts Bible quotes for his argument.

 

[rhinefire]

I get it but then one of your previous posts on how gays marriying is somehow disgusting and effects you personaly. How does Steve and John marrying affect you personaly? Ill be interested to hear your answer and please dont be like Baron who just posts Bible quotes for his argument.

In the same avenue that ANY unnatural act repulses me. The laws of my country affect me as they do all citizens that care about it. The morality of my society and cultrual norms and morays are what make up my country. That is, I THOUGHT clear to everyone. I don't read the bible. Homosexuality is a genetic disorder, period. Granted this form of human life has been in existance since day one. It is now as it was then a "defect" in the human makeup. Making this deviation legal changes nothing. Now should anyone here care to pursue this, I am hoping you are certain my position is unchangeable as probably is yours. So put it on the table and I will respond and nothing will ever change. Good luck, you'll need it.

 

[The silenced majority]

After the LEFTIST radicals get their way and destroy another traditional institution in this country, does anyone care to venture a guess as to where they will set their sights next?

 

[The silenced majority]

In the same avenue that ANY unnatural act repulses me. The laws of my country affect me as they do all citizens that care about it. The morality of my society and cultrual norms and morays are what make up my country. That is, I THOUGHT clear to everyone. I don't read the bible. Homosexuality is a genetic disorder, period. Granted this form of human life has been in existance since day one. It is now as it was then a "defect" in the human makeup. Making this deviation legal changes nothing. Now should anyone here care to pursue this, I am hoping you are certain my position is unchangeable as probably is yours. So put it on the table and I will respond and nothing will ever change. Good luck, you'll need it.

Homosexuality is NOT genetic; unless they've discovered the elusive gay gene.

Homosexuality IS a deviation, abnormality, un-natural etc...

A bunch of rat-pinko gay-activists forced the removal of Homosexuality from the DSM II in 1973. Science had absolutely nothing to do with it's removal.

Don't get me wrong, however, two people with disorders should be able to get married; homosexuals included.

 

[Binary_Digit]

In the same avenue that ANY unnatural act repulses me.

How do you define unnatural? Do you think using use soap and toothpaste is repulsive because it's unnatural? Do you assert any other blanket standards that don't hold up under the most basic scrutiny? Do you realize that homosexuality has been observed in the wild in almost 1500 different animal species?

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061024_gay-animals.htm

The morality of my society and cultrual norms and morays are what make up my country. That is, I THOUGHT clear to everyone.

What's also clear is that you believe the compliance of every last cultural norm and moray in American society should be enforced by law, and I couldn't disagree more.

Homosexuality is a genetic disorder, period. Granted this form of human life has been in existance since day one. It is now as it was then a "defect" in the human makeup.

And that's a good reason to discriminate against homosexuals because??

Making this deviation legal changes nothing.

One thing I've read is that gay couples can't establish power of attourney over relatives in case of emergency, while hetero couples can because they can get married. There are other benefits that the government only provides to married people, but since gay marriages aren't legally recognized then that's inequality and needs to be changed.

I am hoping you are certain my position is unchangeable

It's also indefensible unless you intend to admit that there are no good reasons for you to support forcing your position onto others via laws.

After the LEFTIST radicals get their way and destroy another traditional institution in this country, does anyone care to venture a guess as to where they will set their sights next?

Bestiality and kiddy pr0n of course. It's the natural progression since gay sex is so similar.

(that was sarcasm, don't flog me)

 

[Cold Highway]

A bunch of rat-pinko gay-activists forced the removal of Homosexuality from the DSM II in 1973. Science had absolutely nothing to do with it's removal.

Since when does the right acknowledge anything that has to do with Science?

Don't get me wrong, however, two people with disorders should be able to get married; homosexuals included.

Again how is it a disorder? Disorders are definded as diseases which states the following:

an abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions

Last time I checked homosexuals arent all of a sudden criples from when the come out of the cloest.

After the LEFTIST radicals get their way and destroy another traditional institution in this country, does anyone care to venture a guess as to where they will set their sights next?

Gee care to explain the 40% divorce rate? I love how you and others equate on letting homosexuals marry is going to open the flood gates for pedophiles, people marrying animals and other sick behavior. I hope you realize marriage is also jointly defined as a contract and last time I checked minors and animals cannot and I repeat cannot enter a legally binding contract. Then again you and your lot made the same argument when people were for getting rid of the ban on inter-racial marriage. Your lot was saying that was going to destroy the "traditional" institution.

 

[Thinker]

A bunch of rat-pinko gay-activists forced the removal of Homosexuality from the DSM II in 1973. Science had absolutely nothing to do with it's removal.

This canard is repeatedly reproduced by people who are either ignorant of the
facts or who are happy to see them blatantly distorted to support their own
extreme views.

For the truth of the matter, try reading here:
Traditional Values Coalition's Dishonest Re-Writing of APA History

 

[The silenced majority]

Since when does the right acknowledge anything that has to do with Science?

Is that the best you can do?

Probably.

Again how is it a disorder? Disorders are definded as diseases which states the following:

an abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions

Last time I checked homosexuals arent all of a sudden criples from when the come out of the cloest.

The same would then hold true for pedophiles and zoophiles.

Do you agree?

Sexual organs primary role is for pro-creation. Any deviation from the reproductive organs *primary function would thereby be a disorder.

Then again, I'm not a physiologist or a psychologist for that matter. It wasn't my position to use threats and intimidation to trump science either.

Gee care to explain the 40% divorce rate?

No fault divorce.

I love how you and others equate on letting homosexuals marry is going to open the flood gates for pedophiles, people marrying animals and other sick behavior.

On what grounds would you prevent a man from marrying his horse?
Why do you feel the need to demean certain disorders yet extend specific rights to others?

I hope you realize marriage is also jointly defined as a contract and last time I checked minors and animals cannot and I repeat cannot enter a legally binding contract.

Children can't; animals have no rights in this regard, because they are the property of their owner.

Then again you and your lot made the same argument when people were for getting rid of the ban on inter-racial marriage. Your lot was saying that was going to destroy the "traditional" institution.

Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke’s reminder of the necessity for prudent change is in the mind of the conservative. But necessary change, conservatives argue, ought to he gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once.

Inter-racial marriage was a correct and prudent change measured against tradition. The society for the most part as a whole wanted it. The same is most certainly not true for homosexual marriage which has been widely rejected by a very substantial portion of society ever where it has been tried.

I'm not against gay-marriage as much as I'm against the presentation of homosexuality as perfectly normal lifestyle on par with heterosexuality. People who have disorders should not be deprived of rights. That would make us the third Reich. Using the constitutionality of one particular issue to mainstream homosexuality will however continue to be rejected by many.

 

[Thinker]

IHomosexuality is a genetic disorder, period.

It's good to known that someone has evidence that allows them to make such
a definitive statement. Please share this evidence with us.

Granted this form of human life has been in existance since day one. It is now as it was then a "defect" in the human makeup.

Please explain why it is a defect.

Now should anyone here care to pursue this, I am hoping you are certain my position is unchangeable as probably is yours. So put it on the table and I will respond and nothing will ever change. Good luck, you'll need it.

Clearly you are someone who is so certain of his facts that he believes all
evidence to the contrary can be safely dismissed. Luckily most people aren't
that foolish. If this weren't so, doctors would still be carrying out autopsies on
women who died in childbirth, wiping their bloody hands on their aprons, and
then going to "help" other women give birth. Many such doctors had closed
minds like you and ignored the plain evidence they were shown that proper
washing would reduce infection dramatically. Because of their stupidity,
women continued to die through ignorance for many years.

Your attitude would have left us in caves, assuming it hadn't made us extinct
long before those times.

I can understand someone having strong views, but you seem to have the
bizarre belief that a closed mind is a virtue. It's not; it is a dangerous thing.