CA's Prop 8, FL's amendment 2 and Arizona's prop 102/ Defining marriage, Surprised this never got mentioned here. Rating Options

[Blaqheartedstar]

Surprised this never got mentioned here. CA's Prop 8, FL's amendment 2 and Arizona's prop 102, and the whole defining gay marriage. With election coming up pretty soon, Prop 8 has been a big issue.

The argument is that Prop 8, amendment 2 and prop 102 will define that marriage between a man and a woman will be the only legal kind of marriage in California for prop 8, Florida for amendment 2, and Arizona with prop 102.

Some people argue that it has nothing to do with gay rights, or about gays in general
yet mention that if it doesn't pass parental rights, and religious freedom gets taken away.

Others mention that it does (take away gay rights), If the law passes Same sex couples will not be able to
1. Marry the person they love.
2. Those who are already married will lose the rights that come with it.


There is also the argument that Marriage is about love regardless of gender (Love is Blind).
yet others strongly believe that marriage is a religious, spiritual union between a man and a women.

To start a discussion here are several questions
1. what do you feel will happen if these laws passes and soon spreads to other states?
2. What do you feel marriage is, and should the idea of same sex marriage be allowed?
3. What do you think will happen to the children whose parents happen to be both male or female, If these laws passes what do you think will happen to the children?

[*paperplane*]

Does my public school teach me about the creation of the world by God's design or evolution? Evolution. Who even has a say about it? No one. In the same way, why should marraige be taught in such a liberal way, when the creation of earth itself is not?

I don't want MY little brother going on a field trip to a gay marraige. I don't want MY little brother being exposed to contraversial things as a young kid. I don't believe in gay marriage because I believe that those relationships are a sin in God's eyes. That is exactly what the Bible says.

Why does everyone INSIST upon going against nature?

The first part doesn't make sense. And why in the hell would anyone go on a field trip to a gay marriage? Why would any wedding be a field trip? Talk about pulling things out of your ass. That is not exactly what the bible says, because you couldn't even be bothered to quote the bible. But I challenge you to do so.

Bible =/= nature. Not even a little.

and another thing is that a few people I have heard on the radio and on websites have actually compared being gay in America to being black and that is absolutely ridiculous. a person is BORN black never gay.

Most studies disagree with you.


Ummm I typed responses to more posts, but I lost them...and this is all I was willing to redo.

I will say, though, that the reason "liberals" take issue with people who base their opinions off a literal interpretation of the bible is that a lot of us have no reason to care what it says. The law does not either, given the separation of church and state. I actually think that marriage as a religious ceremony needs to be completely separated from its legal ramifications. Every couple that wishes to be united should get a civil union, and then those who are religious can get an actual marriage if they so choose. But to prevent devoted partners from getting visitation rights at the hospital (or anything along those lines) because they are not legally related is wrong. Social conservatism may stall progress, but it will ultimately lose. Abstract morals change over time, so it's utterly ridiculous to say that something is wrong now because people thought it was any amount of years ago.
Polygamy actually used to be common place. But also it used to be acceptable to stone women to death for getting married out of wedlock. Profanity may be a lot more prevalent on tv now, but oral sex between two consenting adults used to be banned by sodomy laws. So I guess you can attempt to make the argument that compromising out morality is destroying society, but personally I'd prefer to take that risk and have as much freedom as possible.

[Blaqheartedstar]

The first part doesn't make sense. And why in the hell would anyone go on a field trip to a gay marriage? Why would any wedding be a field trip? Talk about pulling things out of your ass. That is not exactly what the bible says, because you couldn't even be bothered to quote the bible. But I challenge you to do so.

Bible =/= nature. Not even a little.

^ nicely put. Religion shouldn't even be taught in public schools. So a field trip to any marriage ceremony wouldn't even be a thought.

i also agree that Joss-eh-lime is quick to say its against the bible yet fails to quote any of it.

I will say, though, that the reason "liberals" take issue with people who base their opinions off a literal interpretation of the bible is that a lot of us have no reason to care what it says. The law does not either, given the separation of church and state. I actually think that marriage as a religious ceremony needs to be completely separated from its legal ramifications. Every couple that wishes to be united should get a civil union, and then those who are religious can get an actual marriage if they so choose. But to prevent devoted partners from getting visitation rights at the hospital (or anything along those lines) because they are not legally related is wrong. Social conservatism may stall progress, but it will ultimately lose. Abstract morals change over time, so it's utterly ridiculous to say that something is wrong now because people thought it was any amount of years ago.

^ amazing. Exactly what i was thinking. Makes complete sense.