Crap. Yeah. Gawsh, why are people stupid? Just... Discuss... Looks like we're back down to two states.

McKenna Is yes on prop. 8. 8:17pm

Shane Wilkey at 8:21pm October 20
Agreed!

Perry Fein at 8:27pm October 20
you can't vote.

Jason Wanyoike at 8:30pm October 20
what perry said

Perry Fein at 8:32pm October 20
and even if you could vote, close-minded, saddleback church-going orange county suburbanites don't mean Sage in the end. you're way outnumbered by the more accepting urban populations of LA and San Francisco. California is a liberal state and always will be. don't believe me? when's the last time a republican presidential candidate has won the majority? ipso facto your vote doesn't matter...this is if you could vote in the first place.

Shane Wilkey at 9:37pm October 20
Lol. Who cares whthere we can vote or not. We can still support it. Haha. And ur just assuming everyone in this areais close minded. I just want to protect traditional marriage as it states in the bible/

Perry Fein at 9:39pm October 20
What happened to separation of church and state?

Shane Wilkey at 9:44pm October 20
There has always been a seperation but the state is violating the church by trying to let prop 8 pass

Perry Fein at 9:45pm October 20
First of all, you want prop 8 to pass...didn't think i'd have to help you keep your own facts straight here. anyways the state is not violating the church in any way as the church has no say in legal matters.

Shane Wilkey at 9:47pm October 20
God I hate when I get all the damned props mixed up and it's a violation to God and the bible.

Perry Fein at 9:47pm October 20
GOD AND THE BIBLE PLAY NO ROLE IN THE US GOVERNMENT.

Shane Wilkey at 9:49pm October 20
It doesn't matter. And if it doesnt pass then it gives gay couples full right Azalea parents.

Shane Wilkey at 9:49pm October 20
as*

Perry Fein at 9:50pm October 20
they already have full rights as parents.

Shane Wilkey at 9:51pm October 20
There's a Foxglove up then because they shouldnt. They shouldnt even be recognized as a couple. Traditional marriage is between a woman and a man. Not between 2 men or 2 women.

Perry Fein at 9:53pm October 20
traditional to what?? the bible?? like i already have stated separation of church and state exists to keep fundamentalist christian beliefs out of government. remember john adams? one of the key figures in the founding of this country? well turns out he said, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." you need to realize that.

Shane Wilkey at 9:57pm October 20
Whethere it's in the bible or not 2 men and 2 women should not be allowed to marry. Every since before christianity or any other major religion marriage has always been the same.

Perry Fein at 10:00pm October 20
It doesn't matter. I'm Jewish and my holy book is the old testament as well. I understand that it condemns marriage between members of the same sex but that's irrelevant. What IS relevant is that the Bible and Religion as a whole play no part in the constitution or the government. You're avoiding that inevitable fact.

Shane Wilkey at 10:02pm October 20
Not avoiding. I understand church and state are seperated. It still doesn't matter. It goes against everything to let a man and a man marry.

Perry Fein at 10:03pm October 20
define everything.

Shane Wilkey at 10:04pm October 20
Parental rights, marital rights, the right to do anything. Its unatural and unwanted.

Perry Fein at 10:06pm October 20
Actually that's a lie. It doesn't go against parental or marital rights. Or as you so articulately put it "the right to do anything." Now please, after your done cycling through the slogans that you've been force-fed by your pastor/parents, such as "protecting the sanctity of marriage" and "traditional marriage", please explain how letting gays marry could really harm the country...

Shane Wilkey at 10:14pm October 20
Actually my Mom is for it and I don't go to church every sunday so I havn't heard a thing on in it from them I just know that its not right for a man to marry a man.

Perry Fein at 10:14pm October 20
and why is it not right?

Shane Wilkey at 10:15pm October 20
Its just weird.

Perry Fein at 10:17pm October 20
And with that we end our debate. Thank you mckenna for hosting this and i apologize for all the notifications you must have been sent. But I think it's important to realize that when it comes down to it, the vast majority of people who support prop 8, like shane here, support it because being gay "is just weird". the definition of homophobia.

Shane Wilkey at 10:19pm October 20
I'm not afraid of gays. I just think well that they shouldnt have certain rights because what they do is wrong and immoral.

Perry Fein at 10:19pm October 20
Shane we're done. You've made your point.


Just ignore the names. AN old school friend of mine and someone else are the arguers.

I guess one major question I also have is what the community of Runecrypt has to say about this... I went through the thread on gay marriage and it seems that it's a divide down the "time on the forum" line.

I was surprised when california of all states banned it. What is this world coming to? Meh, marriage is over rated anyways.

It'll be overturned.

Their legislature wont turn over for another 2 years (if then...) - until then I don't think there's much chance at a directly contradictory bill getting passed.

wtf?
needz moar explaining.

Proposition 8 was a proposition to get gay marriage banned, or legalized, don't remember which one.
But anyway. The state of California legalized gay marriage a few months ago. And they just voted to ban it again.
It is ridiculous.

Prop 8 proposed to put a definition of marriage as the union between a man and woman into the Cali constitution.

It's rediculous a state can legalize it, then ban it.
What is wrong with gay marriage, just want to know.

Nothing's wrong with gay marriage. People are stupid. They just are.

It is, but thats how the government is set up. 4 judges legalized it, but there wasn't a vote on the matter so when it came to November 4th (Election day as well as voting-for-a-lot-of-other-stuff day) the people of Cali voted to add the amendment

Supreme Court yo.

Exactly my point.

The whole concept of banning gay marriage is more then alittle disturbing. I've always felt that it should be the specific churches decision if they want to marry same sex couples or not.

With that type of policy Christian churches that are against gay married for whatever reason will still be able to uphold their own beliefs while churches and religions that aren't as narrow minded can marry couples as they wish.

About 50 years ago it was illegal in some stats for a black and white couple to be married. If you think about that now it seems very racist and it would be absurd to think that any sort of law banning the marriage of a black and white couple could exist in todays society, so why should it be any different for gay/lesbian couples. I find the law to be hypocritical, elitist, oppressive, and tyrannical at best.

Also, weird, I remember there were more gay bashers. There were on the other thread...


Oh, also, on the bright side, when Conneticut legalized gay marriage, they did so by deeming the ban in violation to the constitution. Fabulous!

I don't get why people won't allow gay marriage. What's the problem?

Oh, and we had amendment put in place for florida, two thirds of people wanted marriage to be between a man and a woman :/.

Honestly, if we want anything done everyone in support of gay marriage should just go storm congress until we get what we want. It's our government, they don't listen to us, so we'll make them...of course people are afraid, so it'll never happen.

I suppose I'm just one of the few people who doesn't want homosexual marriage. Just going to state that yes, I am a Christian, and yes, I do follow the Bible, and I just believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's all I'm going to say and won't go any further than this because it may lead into my views as a Christian which may spark something that may get into a debate about my religion. I don't want that to happen since this is strictly about homosexual marriage, not people's religions and so forth. Um..Yea.

Sorry hun, but the U.S. is supposed to be secular.

Penis + Vagina = Babies
Penis + Penis = ???

It's not science, it's not Christianity. Certain things are on this earth for a purpose, god or not. This is just what I believe.

Penis + Vagina + Catholicism = Babies
Penis + Vagina + Condom = No babies
Penis + Penis = SWORDFIGHT111

Therefore, contraception goes against purpose and gays are like pirates - pros at plundering yarharhar.

Vagina + Vagina = ?

edit - to stay on topic a little bit, I really don't care, as long as gays don't act gay I could really care less

HAHAHA
Sometimes condoms break though, I think I'm going to patent "titanium condoms". Safest sex you can imagine.


Um... what?

Marriage is fundamentally a Christian act. According to Christian doctrine homosexuals can not get married. Therefore, by letting homosexuals get married it is obviously going against Christian belief - which shows the road that the government is going down, and if you didn't know already, it's secularity, my friend.

I propose that the governments of the world should create a secular form of marriage, without the pompous ceremony (which is fundamentally Christian) and mainly focus on the legal side of it, which is one of the most important reasons why homosexuals want to become partners. They want legal safety.





Even though I am not Christian I do agree with homosexual marriage. I can see very clearly both sides of the argument - and frankly - anybody who argues that the Catholic church is discriminating against homosexuals is just plain silly. If fundamental theological teaching about the rules of marriage is over-turned and disregarded one can easily see this as discrimination against Catholic teaching.

If the homosexuals don't get what they want, they will be unhappy. If the Church's doctrine is desecrated, they will be unhappy. Obviously, there is no easy answer for this situation, or is there?

I am all for a balance between religion and secularity in society.

Like I said before I would like to see a non-Christian form of marriage introduced which is purely legal and allows for homosexuals to enjoy the legal benefits that come from having a partner. I would also hope that the Church would allow this because it will not be a unification of two homosexuals in the eyes of God, nor will it be any sort of reflection of the proper ceremony. The process shall stand alone as purely secular.

I beg to differ.


http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

But I'm a catholic .

I don't know why people quote wikipedia so much.



That says it all, really. ^^


Furthermore, there is a strong undercurrent of Christian beliefs which the American way of life has developed on. As such, most ceremonies reflect the Christian/Catholic form of marriage (or have... up until recent years) as such I took it for granted that the marriage ceremonies would then fall under the Christian/Catholic doctrinal laws.




What?

Row, following your logic any none-Christians regardless of their sexuality should not be allowed to marry. Thats just silly.

I can easily see why homosexual marriage in a christen church would wrong - the church has the right to exercise their anti-homosexual beliefs within their own premise.

I have yet to see any argument worth listening too (Or any argument at all for that matter) explaining why a homosexual couple could not marry in a non-Christian institution. Again - I will compare this instance to the same case 50-70 years ago when by law a black and white couple could not marry. This is unjust tyranny at best.

As far as the scientific side of it goes - yes, a homosexual couple can not reproduce. However there are MANY reported and studied cases of homosexuality among many species of animal - not all of which are ranked high as far as intellect goes - meaning instinct rather then emotion is causing them to engage in a homosexual act. As far as I know most scientists speculate that it is done as a show of dominance - which seems perfectly natural to me.

http://thearabobserver.blogspot.com/2007/0...f-marriage.html
^ Only because someone pointed out wiki as a flawed source - a proper source making it obvious that marriage exists well outside the bounds of Christianity. (Which should be common sence to any none-zealous none-elitist Christian.)

Matt are you drunk/stoned/or anything else which might make you dumb? You made some weird typos and you made a tried to argue a point which doesn't make sense.

I obviously made a suggestion as to how none-Christians should get married o_O. Read over my post again. If you fail to see it, I'll point it out, lol.

How is it instinct? If it's a scientific explanation it's simply that in a male's case, that it has too much estrogen.

Would you therefore suggest that we give homosexuals testosterone injections to 'cure' them of their homosexuality?

You know, like you screen a baby for severe disabilities, should we screen for high levels of oestrogen and then just pump them full of testosterone?


And as for the argument that marriage is a Christian thing? Oh dear. So Abraham didn't have several wives? Mary and Joseph (Jews) weren't married? Marriage far pre-dates Christianity. It's only in Western Christian countries that people fail to remember that upon marriage in a church you also need to register yourself as married with the registry office. And apply for a name chance with national records. Infact, marriage in a church is only a symbolic act whereas the actual marriage is undertaken and accepted by the state.

I'd also like to point out that the Anglican Church in California (Epicostlian or something?) campaigned and voted against proposition 8.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are proposing something of a none-religious civil union - which is basically the legal status of marriage without all of the bells and whistles of the ceremony. I agree that this should be possible, however that is sort of like saying "Sure, you can ride in the same bus, but only in the last 3 rows in the back".

My whole point is that it should be the individual churches decision if they want to allow homosexual marriage. It would be unjust to force a Christian church to marry a same sex couple under god however it is just as unjust to outlaw ANY church or establishment from being allowed to marry a homosexual couple.

No.

Pity. I shall chalk that up for a further victory to reductio ad absurdum then.

Just because something can be explained by science doesn't make it any less instinctive.

You can explain who a woman is more likely to find attractive at different periods of the month; it doesn't mean they don't find those people attractive.

LAAAAAAWWWWWWWLLL

But you make a good point. I guess instinct could be expressed through science, anyway, which makes my point pretty futile.

land of hope and freedom

Er, what? Why would they find those people unattractive when you just said that they find them attractive at different times of the month?

Many mammal's females indicate when their in heat, and the peak of it is when most males are usually wanting to mate (hence they find them more attractive). Humans are an exception though, since you can't tell whether or not a female is in heat by pure sight, so males find them equally attractive at all times of the month (look wise).

I know what he was getting at, but no idea where he was going.

Ohhhhhhhhk Maybe I am just retarted. Coz when I read what Rob said the second part sounds contradictory (or even totally disconnected from the first sentence). Because he is talking about women finding certain men more attractive at different times of the month (which makes sense as you explained) but then the second part, "it doesn't mean they don't find those people attractive" - This confused me. Why would the women find the men (who Rob just said are attractive to the women at certain times of the month) unattractive?

Basically, just before a woman starts her period, she's more attracted to men who're more heavy set. This is due to human genetic psychology because when a woman reaches the point where her body wants to have children, she's instinctively attracted to those who appear more fertile and better able to protect any children.

After their period, women usually find men who look better more attractive, because people tend to try and be with people they find attractive.

You can explain all the biological reasons for it, but the fact of the matter is that they're still attracted to them.

What the hell?

We were talking about a proposition trying to get rid of gay marriage, and we're talking about what a women thinks who's attractive during ovulation now?

Just wanted to point that out .

Oh, and no to proposition 8!

Way to go against your church Kevin

Marriage is fundamentally a Christian act? First look up fundamentalism and then get back to me. I do, however, know what you are trying to say and I think that you should still rework your argument. You just claimed exclusive ownership of the act of sacred union between two people, is that not a bit big-headed to say "This is our ritual", even though it was common thousands of years before Christianity existed (Don't believe me? Look at the practices of almost any ancient civilization)? Pompous, also, is the statement that a government should follow the doctrines of a specific religion. What happened last time a major global super-power tried to take that route? Oh right, wasn't there that little thing called the USSR? And what about the Nazi's? Find me an instance where forcing a religion on the citizens of your country ended happily. Now I know what you are going to say, no one is having a religion forced on them, we are free to practice however we like... right? To an extent. That is, we can do whatever we like except marry someone of the same gender. Odd.

By the way, it's "secularization", my friend.


Thank you for telling gay's what they want. I think they can have their own beliefs though without you telling them that they just "want legal safety".


Do you mean to say "I don't agree with homosexual marriage"? Oh wait.. I know... Row are you drunk/stoned/or anything else which might make you dumb? You made some weird typos and you made a tried to argue a point which doesn't make sense.


How 'bout this for a solution, the government of the nation of quality stops passing laws giving gays and straight people "different but equal" rights. Keep it simple, give them the same fucking rights. I feel no obligation to include the teachings of a religion we claim not to favor in our legal system. The Church can whine, but demanding a country to drop their founding beliefs to take on their own, seems, once again, a bit egotistical. Desecration does not include a country calmly being neutral. Please, explain how letting people - who in all likelihood do not belong to your religion - get married is desecrating that religions doctrines... unless everyone is truly part of that religion regardless of what they believe? If you want to argue that, I give up.


The "proper ceremony". Kay cool, you're the Church with a capital C, therefore you have the right to tell everyone what is "proper" and what is not. I am glad you hope the Church would "allow" this though. I mean, it's not like we are "allowed" to pass laws without checking with the big P over in Vatican city, right? Thanks for permission, my friend.

/kills self

ps. I know I didn't make myself clear - but I was talking about homosexuals who regard themselves as Christians.

Church is overrated.



If I needed someone to argue for me, in any situation, I got dibs on Rob. He's amazing.

Argue for yourself and quite posting Sage in the debate room. Make a statement, back yourself up, or get out. I'm tired of this crap posted in the debate room.

"Oh, I'm not good at debating, so I will just post a sentence, and then tell that person that a smarter, older, and more mature person will debate for me since I am a suggestible idiot!"

TBH, Proposition 8 is total BS.

Christian or not, people need to learn tolerance. Proposition 8 is like the Spanish marching in and forcing all the Aztecs to be Christian and then killing them, only for gays.

Marriage is NOT a fundamentally Christian act. Chinese people get married. We were around before white people knew what Christianity was.

Oh... I should restart this thread.

Go penises.

Also, general gay discussion go.
One thing that bothers me: Gay as a synonym for stupid. Seriously?