BF2S Forums Gay Marriage in California

Ataronchronon wrote:

What I said in the last gay marriage thread:

1. The government should provide the same rights for gay couples as straight couples.

2. The government should not recognize any bond between any couple as anything other than a civil union. Marriage is religious, religious things should not have a place in government, nor should government have a place in religious things.

3. What couples call their civil union is up to them. If a gay couple wishes to be married, let them call themselves married, nobody is forcing Christians to recognize their union as marriage.

Basically, the only thing the government needs to be involved with is making sure that all couples receive the same benefit from their unions. What the union is defined as is not a government issue.

specialistx2324 wrote:

well if you are asking if gay marriage is okey? ask a 6 year old kid how he feels about having 2 dads ( in a personal level)? youll find the answer real quick.

TrollmeaT wrote:

The only problem I have with it is they get the benifits. If my taxes don't have to pay for it then fine, do what you want but don't bring my money in it.

Last edited by Icleos (2008-08-24 21:17:08)

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Roc18 wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

/thread

What else is there to say?

Exactly, the people who make this complicated are religous people trying to combine church and state which is clearly causing problems.

You make littel sense.  People are allowed to have opinions.  It doesn't matter where their values come from.  Some people don't like the idea of guys pounding each others ass or girls fisting each other.  Frankly, I get sick to my stomach when I see two guys tongue kissing and would hate to have shit like that be normalized so I would have to endure seeing it on TV, in the Movies, or in real life.  I don't think my kids should have to grow up around such scummy people with little values. 

I would rather be surrounded by religious people than gays.  Too many gays are just perverts that would fuck a monkey if they could catch one and quite a few lesbians aren't lesbians by choice.  The fact of the matter is that many of them have mental disorders and hormone issues.  Don't believe me, go to a gay pride parade and talk to some of them.  Leave your little boy alone with a few random queers and I would bet he gets molested.  Lord knows it isn't women abducting, raping, and killing all the little boys every year.  For gay men being only ~ 5% of the population there is a lot of ass rape in the world.

Now with that being said I judge people individually and groups collectively.  This is my opinion on gays from the 4 or 5 guys I have known that suck cock.  Them guys were real cocksuckers.

xBlackPantherx wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

TrollmeaT wrote:

The only problem I have with it is they get the benifits. If my taxes don't have to pay for it then fine, do what you want but don't bring my money in it.

You get tax money if you get married?  For what?

Pensions?

Lotta_Drool wrote:

I would rather be surrounded by religious people than gays.  Too many gays are just perverts that would fuck a monkey if they could catch one and quite a few lesbians aren't lesbians by choice.  The fact of the matter is that many of them have mental disorders and hormone issues.  Don't believe me, go to a gay pride parade and talk to some of them.  Leave your little boy alone with a few random queers and I would bet he gets molested.  Lord knows it isn't women abducting, raping, and killing all the little boys every year.  For gay men being only ~ 5% of the population there is a lot of ass rape in the world.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

There is a big difference between employing religious values in your judgment and actually having things like "In God We Trust" on currency.  The latter really is a violation of the separation of church and state.

No, it's not. Otherwise, it wouldn't be there, as it would have been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Separation of church and state guarantees primacy of no single religion, not the absence of any religion.

It hasn't been ruled unconstitutional because it's not in the Constitution.  There is no clause for the separation of church and state -- it only covers the freedom of religion.  The separation of church and state is simply a principle that the founding fathers supported.  This is why I support it.

As you said, there is no law barring religion from playing a part in our government.  I'm just saying that we would function better as a society if government was more secular.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. Subsequently, under the incorporation doctrine, certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state governments. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion".

The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Warren Court adopted the "compelling interest" doctrine regarding the clause, holding that a state must show a compelling interest in restricting religion-related activities. Later court decisions retreated from this standard, permitting governmental actions that were neutral to interfere with religion. The Congress attempted to restore this standard by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), the Supreme Court held that such an attempt was unconstitutional regarding state and local government actions (though permissible regarding federal actions).

FEOS wrote:

The use of the phrase "In God We Trust" is vague enough so as not to infringe upon the Establishment Clause, as it does not "prefer one religion to another" nor does it really "prefer religion to irreligion". To say it does would be the same as saying that because an atheist uses the term "Goddammit" when they curse, they are actually acknowledging the existence of a God. If the term used was "In Jesus Christ We Trust" then that would certainly violate both clauses, as it is specific to Christianity.

FEOS wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The use of the phrase "In God We Trust" is vague enough so as not to infringe upon the Establishment Clause, as it does not "prefer one religion to another" nor does it really "prefer religion to irreligion". To say it does would be the same as saying that because an atheist uses the term "Goddammit" when they curse, they are actually acknowledging the existence of a God. If the term used was "In Jesus Christ We Trust" then that would certainly violate both clauses, as it is specific to Christianity.

Don't buy it at all.

How is is God vague at all? It eliminates all religions that are not monotheistic, including atheists and agnostics. Does that phrase really make sense to a Hindu? What about a Muslim, shouldn't at the very least that word be written in the holy tongue, Arabic? The idea of God, though it holds basically true across many religions, is still a very specific idea. Then for the government, by the extension that they printed the money, to place all their trust in that supernatural being...well that could be disturbing even to Christians and Jews.

I don't see how goddammit isn't acknowledging the existence of God. The people that say it might not mean it in that sense, but then when people say "fuck you" I don't see very many people dropping their pants...

What if it was "In the Gods We Trust"? "In the Spirits We Trust"? "In Humanity We Trust"?

It doesn't eliminate multitheistic traditions in any way. It doesn't call out a specific god of those traditions, so it by default includes whichever deity those following a multitheistic religion choose.

So you can pick and choose when and where you will apply the argument? To say "In God We Trust" is acknowledging a specific religion, while using that same deity's (you're the one who said the implication is there) name in vain is NOT acknowledging that deity/religion? How about if someone who is atheistic says "Oh God" or "By God" or invokes that word in any other way? You can't have your cake and eat it to. The logic applies to either situation, whether you like it or not.