No on Prop 8

[Bram Turismo]

Why are gays (or anyone) not content with being boyfriend and boyfriend (or a civil union), unless they want to get married for some religious (or similar) reason.

Because it isn't due to religious reasons.

As I stated earlier, I think more and more people view upon marriage as the ultimate test of their relationship, and to show their dedication and love to each other on a whole new level. Whenever I hear people talk about marriage, they always mention that it's about the ultimate bonding between man and woman, or between two persons of the same sex, and not merely because marriage used to be, or still is, a religious ceremony. As if they were saying to each other "I give you this ring in token of my love for you, and as a sign of my dedication for our partnership" instead of "I give you this ring because it's God will to love you" or something similar...

 

[Sage]

Why are gays (or anyone) not content with being boyfriend and boyfriend (or a civil union), unless they want to get married for some religious (or similar) reason.

Because of these. Many of those are hugely significant reasons.

But that would leave me to ask why they seek to invoke or involve the state in the first place? It would seem that the absence of the state in this matter would quell the conflict entirely, so that any problems can be dealt with by the entity performing the marriage. (the catholic church, a gay church, the jedi temple, etc.)

I would also prefer that the government have nothing to do with marriage. I’m 100% with you and Swift on that point.

However, as long as there is government-sponsored marriage, and as long as we live in a country where there are only like 5 of us who think the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage, the only way at this point to stop discriminating against gay couples is to give them the same rights as straight couples, especially since legislators and courts seem to be insistent on never allowing civil unions to have the same legal standing as marriage. I hate hate hate hate hate not being 100% true to my morality, but I think that it’s more important in this case to fight government-sponsored discrimination (both in name and in legal ramifications) rather than government-sponsored marriage.

For example, let’s say that the government decided that if you worship Xenu, you could only collect 90% of your Social Security check. Now, the proper, true-to-morals thing to do would be to fight against Social Security altogether. However, despite my searing hatred for Social Security, it’s so entrenched into our society that I would rather fight for Xenu-worshippers to be able to collect.

As a separate example, let’s say that Xenu-worshippers could collect 100% of their SS earnings, but their checks were mailed from The US Department of Giving Away Money to Old People. Even though it doesn’t hurt anybody, even though the rights are the same, even though the name might not even be offensive, I would still fight against the discrimination in name (imagine if there were a second US Constitution called “The US Constitution for Factory Workers” that, other than the title, was exactly the same as the regular US Constitution).

Now, combine both of those examples into one, and you get the gay marriage issue, and a doubling of my effort to end the discrimination.

 

[Omnis]

Because of these. Many of those are hugely significant reasons.

I was assuming that marriage and civil union are the same, legally. Thanks for the clarification... another wrong that I agree needs to be righted.

Because it isn't due to religious reasons.

As I stated earlier, I think more and more people view upon marriage as the ultimate test of their relationship, and to show their dedication and love to each other on a whole new level. Whenever I hear people talk about marriage, they always mention that it's about the ultimate bonding between man and woman, or between two persons of the same sex, and not merely because marriage used to be, or still is, a religious ceremony. As if they were saying to each other "I give you this ring in token of my love for you, and as a sign of my dedication for our partnership" instead of "I give you this ring because it's God will to love you" or something similar...

That whole new level is what I'm talking about. What other level could there be besides something that is beyond this world (religious).

 

[mindwise]

What other level could there be besides something that is beyond this world (religious).

How i wish religion was beyond this world, as i think this world should have been beyond religion for quite some time now

On a more general note..
The fact remains that marriage was around long before Judaism, let alone Christianity (estimates of 5000 BC in china).
I'm truly wondering what 'rights' the Christians claim to marriage.

And even if they did have the 'invention rights', has not humanity moved beyond by now. No one holds the copyright i think.

We don't stone a woman to death who marries whilst not a virgin anymore, thank goodness. So why would this be different?

Marriage is above all a social phenomenon (like i would argue religion is)
And we allow sterile couples to marry, so what's the big deal with gays marrying.

Some of the opposers are fending with 'sacred' but i have yet to discover what that actually means. I've not found it to be more then 'emotional value without human origin' and that is subjective. (but i'm still curious, so please do inform this ignoramus)

If anything is sacred to me, it is:
getting as much people happy while at the same time striving for the minimum amount of suffering, that's all that counts.

Letting gays marry makes them happy while there is no actual suffering, so to me that is case closed. (until someone can point to actual harm done by allowing same sex marriage)

it's time to add an extra quote to my signature.

 

[Sniffs]

Zing all you want, people, your not the one on the recieving end of the prejudice. which is why I keep my mouth shut.

over stupid sexy obama (there's been beefcake photos posted all over from his vacation...he looks pretty dang good for pushing fifty), how many of the republican votes were from the leftover "my way or the highway" attitude people? all I know is around here, the necks are pretty dang red.

it's nice to read that people are starting to realize we want the rights that normally go with marriage. the problem with granting those rights is that Gay is not considered a minority, but IS considered a fair target...I guess they keep forgetting all the Women and Minorities that are! they seem to focus on the white males that are (as some guys are to busy fapping at the thought of two girls together...)

sorry for the rantlett, but I just spent three hours running around like a chicken with it's head cut off and couldn't get out of the car.

note to the Duke: hey, Pilgrim...yer icon was missing at post time.

 

[Omnis]

How i wish religion was beyond this world, as i think this world should have been beyond religion for quite some time now

On a more general note..
The fact remains that marriage was around long before Judaism, let alone Christianity (estimates of 5000 BC in china).
I'm truly wondering what 'rights' the Christians claim to marriage.

And even if they did have the 'invention rights', has not humanity moved beyond by now. No one holds the copyright i think.

We don't stone a woman to death who marries whilst not a virgin anymore, thank goodness. So why would this be different?

Marriage is above all a social phenomenon (like i would argue religion is)
And we allow sterile couples to marry, so what's the big deal with gays marrying.

Some of the opposers are fending with 'sacred' but i have yet to discover what that actually means. I've not found it to be more then 'emotional value without human origin' and that is subjective. (but i'm still curious, so please do inform this ignoramus)

If anything is sacred to me, it is:
getting as much people happy while at the same time striving for the minimum amount of suffering, that's all that counts.

Letting gays marry makes them happy while there is no actual suffering, so to me that is case closed. (until someone can point to actual harm done by allowing same sex marriage)

it's time to add an extra quote to my signature.

You say "we allow" as if it were the entire society. See what happens when collectivist mentality takes over a nation (world)? Christians claim no ownership over marriage except what is their own. At least I wouldn't. But how do you know that it wouldn't cause suffering? It's actually deeply insulting and reprehensible to a lot of people. That's why the state wasn't meant for things like this. Because we have to live under the rule of law, there is no sitting out on an issue like this. You can't chose to disassociate yourself or not participate. The only way that is possible is through smaller voluntary organizations.

The solution is plainly to dissolve all of the state's recognition of marriage. If it were even needed-- and it isn't-- all couples should be recognized as a civil/domestic union by whatever government of whatever state. And then that union can be specified by the house which performed it. i.e., Union by marriage by the ____ church; union by marriage by the Las Vegas eloping co.; union by snu-snu by the Amazonians; union of gay-whatever by whomever.