Comments on: Google opposes anti-gay marriage measure
Search giant decides to take a public stand against Proposition 8, which is on the November ballot in California.
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About Digital Media
The Web is now the place to go for news and entertainment. Look here for the latest on blogs, music, video, virtual worlds, social networking and more.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Digital Media topics
On a personal level my company offered my partner and myself domestic partnership benefits. That made the difference between my partner getting health care or us losing everything when he was diagnosed with cancer. My company now has a very dedicated employee.
The Old Testament is full of ignorance and hatred. If you call yourself a Christian, you need to recognize that your book is the NEW Testament. And where in the New Testament does it say that marriage is between a man and a woman?
LOL @ single-issue, hot-button, bigots.
Your god is not my god. So why does your god's law have anything to do with me? Oh no! I shouldn't have said that. I'll have a Crusade on my doorstep forcing me to your beliefs.
I am a heterosexual. I believe homosexuals deserve the same rights I do. EVERYONE does!
Before you go bashing a demographic of society maybe you should turn you God's law towards the ever increasing number of Robes puttin' the moves on altar boys. At least the gay marriages I know don't victimize little children.
NYAH! :P
It is only later, when they are brainwashed by parents and 'society' into thinking that what the priests did to them was 'bad' and 'wrong' that they have problems with it, unless the priest just grabbed them, pulled their pants down, and forcibly raped/sodomized them.
If "love" is the only qualification for marriage, we are in trouble. What if I am in love with a 12-year girl, shouldn't I have the right to marry her? What if I am in "love" with 3 women, shouldn't I have the right to marry all 3? Isn't it discrimination to deny me my right to "love?"
No, we as a society must have boundaries in place for the good of all. Will homosexual marriage advance our society? Not at all. It will only bring more confusion and chaos to our world. Marriage is reserved for one man and one woman. Once we break that formula, it's a slippery slope into all other types of sick practices. Just think!
Period and done with. We do NOT need boundaries for the 'good of all', which is really just a excuse for marginalizing things that you do not like!
Period, done with, over: the above is what it is: an excuse for marginalizing what you do not like, when the fact is that it does NOT harm society at all and does not harm the people who are doing that you do not like, in 99.999999999999% of all cases.
Period and done with. We do NOT need boundaries for the 'good of all', which is really just a excuse for marginalizing things that you do not like!
Period, done with, over: the above is what it is: an excuse for marginalizing what you do not like, when the fact is that it does NOT harm society at all and does not harm the people who are doing that you do not like, in 99.999999999999% of all cases.
Oh, and on another subject: there is no such thing as 'sick' practices. With pedosexuality, homosexuality, etc..... the fact is that you just don't like them. There is NO evidence that they are sick, and since children are born with sexual parts FROM BIRTH.... it kinda makes it apparent that if there is a 'god', he expected children to be having sex from VERY early and since there is no 'force-field' between the genitals of adults and children, that he expected children and adults to be having sex together as well.
Now, what about marrying the person you 'love'. Fine, the test would be, as a straight man, am I guaranteed the 'right' to marry the woman I love? The answer is, NO. I can not marry a first cousin. There are other situations were I can not get a 'state' marriage license to marry someone of the opposite sex. So, marriage of the person you love is NOT guaranteed or provided by these laws. So, again, no discrimination. The laws are applied equally.
Why do we have to teach that the terms mom and dad are bad? Why do we have to teach that boys in the girls room and girls in the boys room is okay? I wish I were still in school today. I would pray in every close. I would read my bible at school. And I would challenge ANYONE who tried to stop me. Clearly, this country has fallen FAR FAR from its foundations and creation. I think our Founding Fathers would leave and try to find a new land to populate again and try again.
Yeah. Ok. In my religious view, physical genders mean nothing. Everyone is the same. So what difference does it make if a man/man, woman/man, woman/woman, man/woman/man, etc decide to marry? It doesn't affect me. It's not my business.
Hatred and narrow mindedness should not be the law of the land. I hope Proposition 8 and any other law that tries to codify discrimination is defeated, wherever it rears its ugly head. Those who oppose gay marriage in no way are effected by it, but sure love to stick their noses into telling others how they should live. This is the 21st century; let's not go back to the 15th.
Yes, they voted to ban gay marriage. Does that make it right? No. You can't vote to take away someone else's rights. That's like having a referendum on the holocaust. It doesn't matter if a large group of people want to do something if it takes away the rights of another group.
Sure, society doesn't gain anything by allowing gay marriage, but does it lose anything? If you're a right wing Christian you may think that it will bring eternal damnation upon anyone who doesn't try to repress such actions, but in things that matter, no it doesn't. These people aren't going to start entering heterosexual marriages because they can't marry the ones they love, they'll just stay unmarried.
If anyone can provide a non-religious reason to ban gay marriage, I'll be impressed.
Get some perspective (and a grip) please.
I like your reasoning skills. You actually think, unlike a lot of people you meet today. You were correct when you said that society doesn't gain anything from allowing it, but you were wrong when you implied that it doesn't lose anything. Sure, if we deny them "the right" to get married they won't change or stop loving the person of their choice. But if we don't, what will they want next? My biggest concern is that they will fight for the right to adopt children. It is true that it is their right to choose who they love, but it should not be their right to force an innocent child into the situation. How would you honestly like to explain to the kids at your school, Oh I have 2 mommy's or daddy's. If you have had to then remember how hard it was or how hard it might be for someone else. I personally know people who have been affected by this. Their lives are a complete mess. They are on drugs because they didn't know how to handle the ridicule their parent's decision put them through. And there are many more cases of the same problem.
If you don't deny them this "right", then what will you? Sometimes you must look at the bigger picture. I would love to hear a response from you, even if you still don't agree with me in this issue.
The Nazi pogroms began by stripping existing rights, not by refusing to invent new ones. They also began by government-sponsored propaganda campaigns designed to instill hatred, and by suppressing any and all dissenting voices. There's no government-sponsored propaganda or suppression of that in this issue.
I realize fully that your presented arguments (like that of many others) are not strong enough to stand without these emotional non-sequitur appeals, but seriously- there are arguments in favor of civil unions that can be made that show at least some logic and intelligence. Try using one, such as:
* The desire to have an equal set of legal conditions for a gay couple that marriage provides - warts and all.
That alone should suffice, without the hysterical bad comparisons, and emotional appeals that cheapen the sacrifices made by millions of real victims by reducing them to fit your particular gripe.
/P
Those who refuse to accept the truth are doomed to experience the wrath of the anti-christ when God removes his hand of grace from a people that practice the worst of abominations.
Oh, and as to the First Amendment: it allows you to hold those views IN PRIVATE. It does not allow you to enshrine them in law or use them in the public arena. That is why we got on the case of people who thought that blacks and whites marrying were against 'god's rules' and made them keep their racist views in private.
Also, infertile couples may (but certainly not in all cases) still be able to produce children in spite of the condition (in vitro, surrogates, etc).
Darwin's Theorems have nothing to do with whether a condition is detectable or not. Simply stated., Darwin's Theory is "survival of the fittest." He never, ever, stated that couples could not have loving and life long relationships with eachother.
"Darwin's Theorems have nothing to do with whether a condition is detectable or not. Simply stated., Darwin's Theory is "survival of the fittest." He never, ever, stated that couples could not have loving and life long relationships with eachother."
This is absolutely correct. The rub lies in the implementation of such a thing to marriage. You stated that infertile couples shouldn't be granted the right to marry under the logic presented... problem is, there's no way to reliably detect infertility in the vast majority of cases where it exists. OTOH, 100% of homosexual couples registering for a marriage license can be safely counted as being unable to produce a child with the combined genetics of both parties, which is what we're looking to do if we are using Darwin's theorems as a yardstick here.
--
Before you pigeonhole me on this issue, know that I have zero problems with a state government granting the right to all the equal legal conditions that marriage provides - including the equal burdens that marriage provides. If a gay or lesbian couple want to hazard a trip through divorce court when things go south, go for it - have a blast. In states with common-law marriages, that condition should also apply just as equally, with the couple in question not being able to weasel out of it by suddenly claiming to be heterosexual when its convenient to (which is why IMHO common-law marriage is a stupid concept in the first place).
/P
I say ... I think your vindictiveness is showing, not your so called christianity. The amendment should read, ?Those with a vindictive spirit can?t get married?.
That said, marriage is not a Christian-only institution.
/P
I want you to understand that I DO NOT TAKE THE BIBLE 100% LITTERALY like most people do. I think most of the stories are metaphors to reach a point & explain what once was unexplainable. But Hard-core Christians do believe every word, and this is what they believe: That, there was no death in the world until Adam and Eve ate the Forbidden Fruit of Knowledge. Once They ate it, death plagued all God's creatures. To counter this, God said "Thou shale be fruitful and multiply."
THIS IS WHY CHRISTIANS HATE THEIR OWN HETEROSEXUALITY, AND THE NAKED HUMAN BODY. To them, it is a constant reminder of paradise lost when Adam and Eve ate The Forbidden Fruit. For a Christian to believe that THIS is how the world was when it was created, you would have to believe that THE FIRST MAN AND WOMAN HAD NO GENITAILIA. Since they were designed to live forever, they had no reason to reproduce, and if they ate fruit from The Tree Of Life, they would have had no need of a complicated digestive system to pump out human waste.
In short, once The Forbidden Fruit was eaten, death plagued the Earth, then God gave all creatures genitals to reproduce so that even though we die, life would always flourish. Now, most reasonable people have accepted that this is all metaphoric nonsense, and the theory of evolution is how life REALLY beggan, but as I said this country is run by hard-core Christians who think the naked human body and sexual reproduction is an evil mutation to counter death, brought on by a lie from the devil who tricked the first man and woman into disobeying God and eatiing the Forbidden Fruit. Christians will never accept hetorosexuality as normal, so they will never accept ANY form of sexuality. It even says in the bible: "For a man to lay down with another man is an abomination to God" I think it says the same thing about lesbians too.
I don't agree with everything Christians say and do, but when it comes to fighting pedophiles, and childporn, looks like I have and entire planet full of sex-hating religious kooks on MY SIDE.
- by KellyVA September 27, 2008 5:35 PM PDT
- ibeetle wrote: No it is not in the bible. The word marriage never appears in the bible.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by ibeetle September 27, 2008 7:32 PM PDT
- You misunderstand. I meant the modern act of marriage never appears in the bible. It is refereed to in reference (usually a way of life set in Moses Law), but the act, or ceremony is never conducted.
- Like this
-
- by KellyVA September 27, 2008 11:51 PM PDT
- Thank you for clarifying. I understand your point.
- Like this
-
Showing 2 of 5 pages (174 Comments)And it is the Christian right that has defined the word to mean between a man and a woman. Dictionaries merely say the joining or union between two people."
It would appear that you may be mis-informed. Here is the link to marriage mentioned in the bible. Most references pertain to son marrying a daughter or man marrying a woman:
http://is.gd/3e0q
Or course today you won't find marriage defined as it was written previously. It's been altered to reflect "persons" generically due to minority tolerance. Check your house dictionaries and they'll read: The state of, or relation between, a man and woman who have become husband and wife. Let me know what you find.