BF2S Forums Gay Marriage in California

Go ahead.

mtb0minime wrote:

Yes, let them get married. I have gay and bi friends and it sucks that they can't marry the people they love. I'm sick of everyone bringing religion into it and saying it's not natural and all that. Gays are people too and deserve the same rights. It's only a matter of time before it's allowed everywhere. I bet back in the day there was a huge debate about whether blacks and whites should be able to marry, and nowadays the answer is obviously "duh!". Times have changed, now it's time for the laws to change.

Exactly. Times have changed just as they have for many many other issues. Fucking deal with it you religious douches.

I can't really answer this without religion.

I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I don't agree same sex marriage, however I don't have a problem with, say, a gay couple who are in love. I do believe in God and I do believe that same sex marriage should be prohibited. Why? I think it's a sacred act that should be done only in its purest form.

mtb0minime wrote:

Yes, let them get married. I have gay and bi friends and it sucks that they can't marry the people they love. I'm sick of everyone bringing religion into it and saying it's not natural and all that. Gays are people too and deserve the same rights. It's only a matter of time before it's allowed everywhere. I bet back in the day there was a huge debate about whether blacks and whites should be able to marry, and nowadays the answer is obviously "duh!". Times have changed, now it's time for the laws to change.

I respect your opinion. But here where I live there are countless Gay Pride parades and people claiming for rights when they already have them. They say they don't want to be targeted but then start a parade. I just don't get that. Just because times have changed does not mean law should change. E will still equal MC^2 in hundreds of years I'm sure. Just because it is old, doesn't mean it should change.

Oh, and fyi, I do have gay friends also.

kylef wrote:

I can't really answer this without religion.
I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

kylef wrote:

mtb0minime wrote:

Yes, let them get married. I have gay and bi friends and it sucks that they can't marry the people they love. I'm sick of everyone bringing religion into it and saying it's not natural and all that. Gays are people too and deserve the same rights. It's only a matter of time before it's allowed everywhere. I bet back in the day there was a huge debate about whether blacks and whites should be able to marry, and nowadays the answer is obviously "duh!". Times have changed, now it's time for the laws to change.

I respect your opinion. But here where I live there are countless Gay Pride parades and people claiming for rights when they already have them. They say they don't want to be targeted but then start a parade. I just don't get that. Just because times have changed does not mean law should change. E will still equal MC^2 in hundreds of years I'm sure. Just because it is old, doesn't mean it should change.

Oh, and fyi, I do have gay friends also.

Laws of science are different than laws of man. Laws of science are absolute. Laws of man are different throughout all variations of society and are subject to change and interpretation.


Oooh, and to comment on your other post (hehe, sorry, not trying to attack you and I don't have anything against you )

kylef wrote:

huh? Marriage was first a religious act, not a civil act.

Like I said earlier, times have changed. Yes back in the day it was a religious act. But now that the government has got involved and added benefits and such to marriage (instead of sticking with good ol' separation of church and state), it has evolved into a civil act.

Last edited by mtb0minime (2008-08-24 02:43:03)

mikkel wrote:

kylef wrote:

mikkel wrote:

If he wants to stick to reason and sense, and disregard superstition, then yes, he can request that people don't voice religious ideas, and no, it isn't "pretty stupid" to consider the merits of a law outside the scope of religion. Religion works through rhetoric that does not change, and will not ever change, so what would be "pretty stupid" is for religion to even come into the picture, because the outcome would be determined before the discussion even started.

huh? Marriage was first a religious act, not a civil act.

I don't see how that changes any part of what I just said.

Religion was the fundamental basis for marriage - so how can it be asked to disregard it in this subject? "Reason and sense" can't justify everything (nor can religion, for that matter) but the basis of at least my view on marriage is religion. How can I debate it otherwise?

mtb0minime wrote:

kylef wrote:

mtb0minime wrote:

Yes, let them get married. I have gay and bi friends and it sucks that they can't marry the people they love. I'm sick of everyone bringing religion into it and saying it's not natural and all that. Gays are people too and deserve the same rights. It's only a matter of time before it's allowed everywhere. I bet back in the day there was a huge debate about whether blacks and whites should be able to marry, and nowadays the answer is obviously "duh!". Times have changed, now it's time for the laws to change.

I respect your opinion. But here where I live there are countless Gay Pride parades and people claiming for rights when they already have them. They say they don't want to be targeted but then start a parade. I just don't get that. Just because times have changed does not mean law should change. E will still equal MC^2 in hundreds of years I'm sure. Just because it is old, doesn't mean it should change.

Oh, and fyi, I do have gay friends also.

Laws of science are different than laws of man. Laws of science are absolute. Laws of man are different throughout all variations of society and are subject to change and interpretation.


Oooh, and to comment on your other post (hehe, sorry, not trying to attack you and I don't have anything against you )

kylef wrote:

huh? Marriage was first a religious act, not a civil act.

Like I said earlier, times have changed. Yes back in the day it was a religious act. But now that the government has got involved and added benefits and such to marriage (instead of sticking with good ol' separation of church and state), it has evolved into a civil act.

You can't really say that "laws of science are absolute". At one point we thought the world was flat, everything revolved around the world and there's still a Greek theory floating around that the world is held up by four giant pillars.  But, this is a separate debate in its own right so I'll get back to the subject in hand heh. I admit that the laws of men will change, yes, but some (not all) of these laws were built on the grounds of religion and while they may be changed there will still be people who will not accept it.

I believe that its involvement, at least to a certain extent, was a bad thing. Now people marry for the sake of green cards etc and this is just total abuse of the system. There is no easy way to combat it, in fact, I'd be willing to go as far as saying that it will never be fixed.

kylef wrote:

mikkel wrote:

kylef wrote:

huh? Marriage was first a religious act, not a civil act.

I don't see how that changes any part of what I just said.

Religion was the fundamental basis for marriage - so how can it be asked to disregard it in this subject? "Reason and sense" can't justify everything (nor can religion, for that matter) but the basis of at least my view on marriage is religion. How can I debate it otherwise?

Because we're talking about law, not religion. Church and state are supposed to be separate, meaning that religion and law are supposed to be separate. That means that when arguing the legal aspects of a concept, religion is moot and irrelevant, and when arguing the religious aspects of a concept, law is irrelevant. In this case, as far as I can tell, we're discussing the legal aspects.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-08-24 03:11:06)

Yes, why not.  If they want to have it on paper let them.

lowing wrote:

Yes I agree with gay marriage. Gay marriage does nothing to hinder everyone else's rights to life liberty and happiness. It also can not tarnish an institution that has a 70% failure rate already. I say more power to them, as long as special privileges and "rights" do not go along with it that is not afforded to everyone else.

Not to mention the fact that it is none of anyone elses business

Agreed 100%.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You can't start a gay thread and "not allow" religion. It is a fundamental aspect of our society, and many of our laws are based off of judeo-christian values. It's like talking about sodomy without a penis. You can do it....it's pretty stupid though.

I'm not sure about US Law but isn't Marriage (as in, official marriage) not a religious thing? You don't go to a Church and do all that, that's just the religious ceremony. As for officially getting married, it's not a religious ceremony. You just sign the documents in the registry office and say a few things (well that's how it is here)

Saying that, If gay people want to get married. It doesn't have anything to do with me, they can do what they want. If gay people want to get married and do a Christian Wedding ceremony (stand in a Church etc..), then that's when it's upto the religion to say whether they want that or not. As for whether gay people want to get married but don't want to do the Religious wedding ceremony, what has that got to do with religion? Separation of Church and state.

Marriage is NOT a religious thing. It CAN be. And many people choose to tie their religion with their marriage. But it's not religious.

In this day and age I'm talking about, not fucking thousands of years ago in some middle eastern shithole.

Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-08-24 05:27:56)

I don't care about the supposed sanctity of marriage in a religious sense, I believe marriage in terms of the tax advantages it allows should be available to same sex couples.

sergeriver wrote:

.Sup wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Yes, why not.  If they want to have it on paper let them.

I'm gonna marry Serge.

I'll ask my wife.

I already did. She happily agreed.