California Proposition 8 Case Re-Opening Online Petition

[Tristam]

Redefining a strictly Christian concept within this nation at least, is the very opposite of the seperation of church and state. You have to acknowledge that marriage needs to be redefined before you go and change how it behaves (for like the 5th time).

nooooo defining marriage legally according to religious doctrine violates separation of church and state.

[zoobernut]

Redefining a strictly Christian concept within this nation at least, is the very opposite of the seperation of church and state. You have to acknowledge that marriage needs to be redefined before you go and change how it behaves (for like the 5th time).

They are not trying to redefine the christian meaning of marriage. Marriage does not belong to the christian churches or any churches anymore in this country it is everyone's. I am not religious I do not belong to any church, I do not believe in god, I believe that gay marriage should be allowed, and in August I went to a government building got a piece of paper that said I could get married, had a non-religious wedding and was married to my wife. How does that relate in anyway to marriage being Christian?

Marriage as a legal government recognized institution is not yours to defend anymore it belongs to everyone and everyone should have equal rights in the eyes of the GOVERNMENT!

(for the 5th time)

[Charismatic]

Are they afraid that being gay is contagious?

Are you saying it isn't?

[zoobernut]

Except those licenses are for both the state and the church. You conveniently only detailed the state side but you have to understand also that redefining the definition of what these licenses are for would, as a result, redefine what marriage by the state and the church is. The latter being what is in question for the argument, not the former, although arguing the former would make one's side seem so much more correct.


Why would I want to be married under a concept so strongly tied in our nation to a Christian ceremony, a part of a religion which on the whole, very clearly states my way of life is a sin?

No they are not, are you retarded? No where on the license does it say ANYTHING ABOUT NEEDING TO BE A CERTAIN RELIGION OR EVEN RELIGIOUS AT ALL TO GET MARRIED.

It is like people pose a valid argument and you completely ignore it. Religion has no bearing AT ALL on whether you can or can not get married.

[0ni0n]

Are you saying it isn't?

sarcastic? I can't really tell.

[Correction]

Are you saying it isn't?

Watching guys fuck each other makes you want to do the same?

[Aella]

sarcastic? I can't really tell.

What he said.

[Tristam]

They are not trying to redefine the christian meaning of marriage. Marriage does not belong to the christian churches or any churches anymore in this country it is everyone's. I am not religious I do not belong to any church, I do not believe in god, I believe that gay marriage should be allowed, and in August I went to a government building got a piece of paper that said I could get married, had a non-religious wedding and was married to my wife. How does that relate in anyway to marriage being Christian?

Marriage as a legal government recognized institution is not yours to defend anymore it belongs to everyone and everyone should have equal rights in the eyes of the GOVERNMENT!

(for the 5th time)

THIS!

USA =/= theocracy!

[Maguspk]

No they are not are you fucking retarded no where on the license does it say ANYTHING ABOUT NEEDING TO BE A CERTAIN RELIGION OR EVEN RELIGIOUS AT ALL TO GET MARRIED.

It is like people pose a valid argument and you completely ignore it. Religion has no bearing AT ALL on whether you can or can not get married.

First of all, calm down.

Second of all I never said you had to be a certain religion to obtain a license, in fact obtaining a license if free from limitations due to sex, nationality or religion by the 16th article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What I did mention however, is that the church also may issue licenses and by redefining those licenses you redefine what that Church is giving out, it is very much so an invasion of state in church.

Which leads me back to the point I've made multiple times is that we need to first redefine marriage before we go changing what it's overarching definition is.

Also, I love how by arguing against you you become so angry and so caught up you immediately assume I'm of a certain religious affiliation. You know, one can argue something without being a proponent for it. I don't need to be gay to want gay 'marriage' in the eyes of that state anymore than I need to be religious to want a separation of church and state, specifically the Christian church.

[Xenega]

Are you saying it isn't?

I don't know one gay person who didn't know they were gay after a young age.
Most gay people know they are/might be gay in the young-teens.
I knew something was "different" when I was in 4th grade, and I didn't know what the hell "gay" was.

[meson]

Redefining a strictly Christian concept within this nation at least, is the very opposite of the seperation of church and state. You have to acknowledge that marriage needs to be redefined before you go and change how it behaves (for like the 5th time).

I would argue the exact opposite. You're assuming that our state's law is what defines Christian concepts. It was my understanding that the bible does this.

[Aella]

Am I reading you right? "an invasion of church and state"?
The two don't go hand in hand...


<- Church
State ->

[Maguspk]

Am I reading you right? "an invasion of church and state"?
The two don't go hand in hand...


<- Church
State ->

semantics. You know what is meant.

[0ni0n]

Am I reading you right? "an invasion of church and state"?
The two don't go hand in hand...


<- Church
State ->

more like

Church |||| State

[zoobernut]

First of all, calm down.

Second of all I never said you had to be a certain religion to obtain a license, in fact obtaining a license if free from limitations due to sex, nationality or religion by the 16th article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What I did mention however, is that the church also may issue licenses and by redefining those licenses you redefine what that Church is giving out, it is very much so an invasion of church and state.

Which leads me back to the point I've made multiple times is that we need to first redefine marriage before we go changing what it's overarching definition is.

Also, I love how by arguing against you you become so angry and so caught up you immediately assume I'm of a certain religious affiliation. You know, one can argue something without being a proponent for it. I don't need to be gay to want gay 'marriage' in the eyes of that state anymore than I need to be religious to want a separation of church and state, specifically the Christian church.

That was my point though is that marriage in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of the church are two different separate things. And allowing gay marriage in the eyes of the law does not have any connection to marriage in the eyes of the church nor does it force the church to do anything it does not want to do. Heterosexual couples get married in churches all the time and it means nothing in the eyes of the law. You still have to go down to the county clerks office and fill out a piece of paper and have a legal "ceremony" performed to be legally married. The confusion is that often times both parts are done at the same time by the same person but the qualifications for performing both halves of getting married come from different places.

Just because you are a minister and you belong to a church you cannot legally marry people until you get licensed by the government to do so. There for we do not need to redefine marriage because it has already been redefined as soon as it was recognized by the government. Also I did not assume that you belong to any religion I was saying that marriage does not belong to any religion anymore. It belongs to the citizens of this country and as such everyone should have an equal right to it.

[Seraph]

So, whats the problem with changing how the government defines 'marriage' and 'civil union' and leaving the religious aspect alone in all religions?

Everyone seems more content to shouting that either being homosexual is viral, the feds are rerwiting the bible, or that everyone needs to be more comfortable with butt humping.

Side tracked much?

[Penthesilea]

So, whats the problem with changing how the government defines 'marriage' and 'civil union' and leaving the religious aspect alone in all religions?

Everyone seems more content to shouting that either being homosexual is viral, the feds are rerwiting the bible, or that everyone needs to be more comfortable with butt humping.

Side tracked much?

It's no problem for the homosexuals, it's a problem for the religious when they cry that their word is being used by someone else.

[zoobernut]

Ok so you would say that marriage only belongs to religiously affiliated people and everyone else including heterosexual couples would be "unioned"?

[Angelsin]

It’s been said already but I really think that if gays didn’t have such tunnel vision and called their union something other than marriage it would have been passed already.

[Tyche]

Even if it did change to "union", there will be that one gay couple who'll get their panties in a bunch, call discrimination...the stupid ass ACLU will get involved, and the gay community will set themselves back 10 years.