Same sex marriage now legal in California

cvrefugee said:
Here's a short response paper I wrote regarding the discussion of the Flood Story:

Genesis: A Living Conversation Response
One panelist explained God could have been in an early stage of development as a deity and that this was a time of maturation. Either way, the fact still remains that almost all of humanity was wiped from the face of the earth, the humanity that God himself created.
Click to expand...

I don't understand that part, was the first time around just a practice round?
 
Again it shows got to be dynamic. Maturation means that god is fallible, and thus not omnipotent or omnipresent.
 
He could simply choose to reveal himself in dynamic ways.

It's also important to note that (regardless of whether or not the Old Testament is intended to be interpreted literally) every time in the Bible where God brought judgment, it seems that he would give the people advance notice and the option to change their ways to avoid the judgment. When people are given freedom there's always the chance that they will choose to do the wrong thing, but I guess that's the risk you take when you give people the opportunity to make their own decisions.

But yeah, this discussion has gone WAY off topic, lol :lol:
 
I like my tangent! Leave the tangent alone!

So the argument is that God is infallible, ineffable, omnipotent and omnipresent, but just decided to act like a raging douchebag for 4,000 years for the good of mankind, culminating in destroying all but a handful of us.


.... right. That makes perfect sense.
 
Last edited:
Nah, I'm not arguing anything really. Not even arguing that those stories really happened. I'm just saying that in those stories he gave people ample warning and opportunity to turn from whatever "evil" they were doing, but they ignored it and didn't want it. When laws are broken, justice will eventually be served. Same goes for God's laws. So I don't see it with the "raging douchebag" slant that you do.

But anyway, I've kind of moved away from debating theological topics on a car forum like I once did...... discussions like this usually just go round and round :)

But back on topic: Yay California :D
 
Back on topic: Sulu is getting married! :D
 
Lupin_IV said:
The supreme court determined the electoral votes of one state to be the man who had the most votes according to the first three counts. Get over it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I said in that post that it was a joke, but it was modified. I also wrote a long essay about the legal basis of the arguments as I am a law student, professional and observer. Clearly long-winded posts aren't appreciated here.

Easy newb mistake to make, I guess.
 
smib said:
Satan, obviously.
Click to expand...
Precisely.

I dont understand why everyone comes here shouthing about civil rights and the like.. Marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman, you cant mix and match here! Homosexuality and same sex marriages are just plain wrong.. The concept of being gay just seems wrong to me somehow, its unnatural..

I really do hope someone else feels the same way about this..:|
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jay
Posmo said:
Precisely.

I dont understand why everyone comes here shouthing about civil rights and the like.. Marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman, you cant mix and match here! Homosexuality and same sex marriages are just plain wrong.. The concept of being gay just seems wrong to me somehow, its unnatural..

I really do hope someone else feels the same way about this..:|
Click to expand...

And, pray tell, why are you so adamant on defining marriage so ruthlessly? Because of archaic notions of marriage that involve a man and a woman, dating back in the Middle Ages when kings were the first to deflower the town virgins? Perhaps the girls at school are still saving themselves for Prince Charming and his parents to pay dowry and cart her off to a life of caring for her 16 children while he goes off to slay dragons?

Nobody, not God, not the Pope, not Jeremiah Wright, not McCain nor Clinton nor that Oklahoma senator who's stuck in the 50s nor Hulk Hogan declared such a definition to be permanent. So why should it be? Marriage is a concept invented by humans, not magically beamed down to us from the heavens, and as humans evolve it evolves with it. If it's "unnatural" or "wrong" or whatever other flimsy straw man argument you have for banning those in love from leading fulfilled lives, then you're just not used to it. People were shocked when Jungle Fever came out, too. But times change.

I suppose you still think "Adam and EVE, not Adam and STEVE" is still a witty mantra worthy of embellishment.

So two people, madly in love, and wanting to spend the rest of their lives together, caring for each other and being together until the end of days, can't reap the same benefits as loveless domestic marriages, only because of this flimsy outdated definition? I suppose it's outrageous that some people think Copernicus was right?

There's nothing wrong with changing and altering definitions of outdated concepts. If we weren't allowed to change anything, there would still be uproars over premarital sex just as there was in the time of the Crusades. And it's that time period for which those who believe that marriage can't possibly be between two of the same species.

Should women vote, too? How about blacks? Hell, they're able to get married...and to EACH OTHER! :shock: But gays, oh no, it might offend the delicate sensibilities of those who impose their morals on others!

What frightens me, of course, is the barring of those civil liberties and rights by governments that have VOWED to uphold the distinct separation of CHURCH, as in said archaic notion, and STATE, the financial compensation in the form of insurance benefits and tax brackets, etc. Sure, God says that Ellen and Portia, Sulu and Mystery Lover can't get married lest they shall burn in the pits of hellfire and brimstone for all eternity, but letting that ban them from the most basic of rights while they're on Earth is disgusting and abhorrent. If it smells like marriage, looks like marriage, tastes like marriage, and feels like marriage, but it's called a "civil union"...is it still marriage?

Sorry, nothing personal, it's just that people who cite their disapproval of gay marriage because they can't fathom it somehow, piss me off. I lump them in the same pit of ignorance as creationists who can't fathom evolution, or Flat Earth theorists who can't fathom this gravity thing. It's not you. :)
 
"Sulu and Mystery lover..." :lol:

Well, if anything, I have to give respect to Posmo. Why? Because he is honest to his beliefs and us.
 
BlaRo said:
There's nothing wrong with changing and altering definitions of outdated concepts.
Click to expand...

There is a problem with writing things off as "outdated" or "archaic" etc. Marriage is archaic. Marriage is a tradition. Marriage is just a silly little belief that we have. A belief that wearing a ring on a certain finger and having a priest declare you married, actually have any real meaning.

The funny thing is how quick people are to cry about things when they don't get their way. Filing lawsuits left and right, blaming others, etc. I have no problem with same-sex marriage, but marriage is a tradition and some people still respect the concept of marriage, the traditions it entails, and what it means. If they honestly believe it's between a man and a woman, and that it's for life, then that's their belief and they need not justify it to anyone. The moment you start slashing the traditions in marriage is the moment marriage begins to lose meaning.

Imagine if we still lived in the days when divorce was illegal. How many people do you think would be standing at the alter? It's sad enough that marriage is such a joke nowadays with our 50+% divorce rates.

What I'm most curious about is if anyone thinks the concept of marriage being limited to just 2 people is archaic and outdated? There are societies that allow people to take multiple spouses, are they more progressive then us? More "free" then we are? Do people only possess the ability to love a single person, to spend their whole lives with a single person?

Point is, Marriage is an archaic tradition that has been legislated and now we are bitching about civil rights issues. :rolleyes:
 
Sexual preference should not be a civil rights issue, but it is because of the whole "gay gene" belief.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TC
Ok, you just don't get it.

Just because you hold the opinion that it's not a civil rights issue does not make it true. It is a civil rights issue, the courts have ruled that it is. Get over it. Gay rights is not about a "gay gene," it's about rights for all people. Circumstantial evidence points towards a genetic cause, possibly triggered by environmental stressors (AKA, life experience). It doesn't matter what the cause is.

If heterosexual people would spend half as much energy worrying about their own relationships instead of other people's then maybe the divorce rate would drop back below 50%. There is no reason to continue the ban on gay marriage. Not one. There is only prejudice and discrimination based on ignorance and fear. The more you argue against it the more scared and ignorant you appear. You are now repeating your previously stated opinions as facts simply because you have no evidence to support your opinion. I reject your arguments because you have made it clear that you wish to discriminate and persecute homosexuals based on your own insecurities and bigotry. You have yet to make a single rational argument or offer a shred of evidence to support your opinion. Six pages of discussion and you have contributed precisely dick.
 
Wouldn't any rules for marriage discriminate against someone or another?
 
I think the whole God argument is null and void. Anyone who's read the bible or even attended church a couple times knows it teaches, grace, kindness, and to love your neighbor. It also says it is not our place to judge other people, that's the big mans job. And it's not like they're forcing churches to marry gays, that decision still remains in the hands of the church.

I'll admit too, I'm about one of the most homophobic people out there. Don't think I've ever met a homo I liked. And just the other day I was talking on the phone with my mom and she was telling me our old next door neighbor was gay. Now I hadn't seen this guy since I was 9 years old, but now I remember the rainbow flag, and his Saab 900. And my mom said he really wanted a Miata when they first came out. His roommate, or so I thought. It kinda all came together. I also remember that he gave me my favorite stuffed animal when I was little. My parents trusted him to watch me when there was an emergency and they had to leave. She also said he would bring her dinner when she was pregnant and my dad was out of town on business. All this time I thought Mitch was a great guy not knowing he was gay. Why should I persecute him now because of one little choice? Let's judge people by their character, not by their sexual preference.
 
Blind_Io said:
Ok, you just don't get it.

Just because you hold the opinion that it's not a civil rights issue does not make it true. It is a civil rights issue, the courts have ruled that it is. Get over it. Gay rights is not about a "gay gene," it's about rights for all people. Circumstantial evidence points towards a genetic cause, possibly triggered by environmental stressors (AKA, life experience). It doesn't matter what the cause is.

If heterosexual people would spend half as much energy worrying about their own relationships instead of other people's then maybe the divorce rate would drop back below 50%. There is no reason to continue the ban on gay marriage. Not one. There is only prejudice and discrimination based on ignorance and fear. The more you argue against it the more scared and ignorant you appear. You are now repeating your previously stated opinions as facts simply because you have no evidence to support your opinion. I reject your arguments because you have made it clear that you wish to discriminate and persecute homosexuals based on your own insecurities and bigotry. You have yet to make a single rational argument or offer a shred of evidence to support your opinion. Six pages of discussion and you have contributed precisely dick.
Click to expand...

The gay rights movement is so ridiculous because it hinges on sexual preference, nothing more or nothing less. So if I like to fuck stuffed animals, and that harms no one, then I demand the same rights as people who fuck people. What? A stuffed animal is an inanimate object and has no rights as a living person? That's only because you believe in outdated norms and beliefs, fuck you! Stuffed animals have a soul too! See how ridiculous that sounds? But that's exactly the issue: it's all about sexual preference. That's why I brought up other types, whether you liked it or not, that may eventually gain more support, just like homosexuality.

They can marry, a judge ruled, there's nothing I can do to overturn the judgment, so be it. I'm sorry if you disagree with my logic but that's how I see the entire issue.

TomCat said:
Wouldn't any rules for marriage discriminate against someone or another?
Click to expand...

Of course it would...but don't tell Blind because he only believes hetero and homo couples should be allowed to marry...according to HIS BELIEFS WHICH ARE BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE'S!
 
Last edited:
BlaRo said:
And, pray tell, why are you so adamant on defining marriage so ruthlessly? Because of archaic notions of marriage that involve a man and a woman, dating back in the Middle Ages when kings were the first to deflower the town virgins? Perhaps the girls at school are still saving themselves for Prince Charming and his parents to pay dowry and cart her off to a life of caring for her 16 children while he goes off to slay dragons?

Nobody, not God, not the Pope, not Jeremiah Wright, not McCain nor Clinton nor that Oklahoma senator who's stuck in the 50s nor Hulk Hogan declared such a definition to be permanent. So why should it be? Marriage is a concept invented by humans, not magically beamed down to us from the heavens, and as humans evolve it evolves with it. If it's "unnatural" or "wrong" or whatever other flimsy straw man argument you have for banning those in love from leading fulfilled lives, then you're just not used to it. People were shocked when Jungle Fever came out, too. But times change.

I suppose you still think "Adam and EVE, not Adam and STEVE" is still a witty mantra worthy of embellishment.

So two people, madly in love, and wanting to spend the rest of their lives together, caring for each other and being together until the end of days, can't reap the same benefits as loveless domestic marriages, only because of this flimsy outdated definition? I suppose it's outrageous that some people think Copernicus was right?

There's nothing wrong with changing and altering definitions of outdated concepts. If we weren't allowed to change anything, there would still be uproars over premarital sex just as there was in the time of the Crusades. And it's that time period for which those who believe that marriage can't possibly be between two of the same species.

Should women vote, too? How about blacks? Hell, they're able to get married...and to EACH OTHER! :shock: But gays, oh no, it might offend the delicate sensibilities of those who impose their morals on others!

What frightens me, of course, is the barring of those civil liberties and rights by governments that have VOWED to uphold the distinct separation of CHURCH, as in said archaic notion, and STATE, the financial compensation in the form of insurance benefits and tax brackets, etc. Sure, God says that Ellen and Portia, Sulu and Mystery Lover can't get married lest they shall burn in the pits of hellfire and brimstone for all eternity, but letting that ban them from the most basic of rights while they're on Earth is disgusting and abhorrent. If it smells like marriage, looks like marriage, tastes like marriage, and feels like marriage, but it's called a "civil union"...is it still marriage?

Sorry, nothing personal, it's just that people who cite their disapproval of gay marriage because they can't fathom it somehow, piss me off. I lump them in the same pit of ignorance as creationists who can't fathom evolution, or Flat Earth theorists who can't fathom this gravity thing. It's not you. :)
Click to expand...

Alright, good points, but you got me a little wrong. I do have a problem with same sex marriages, I admit, but the real problem is same sex relationships. Ofcourse you can gun me down with your superior skills in english argumentation, but thats not the point. I just see it as "wrong", no idea why.. That's why I was hoping someone would share my opinion, because, for once I'm not completely sure mine is the correct one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top