California Senate Votes For Same-Sex Marriage

[AAP]

I disagree. If God made everything, why shouldn't He get to make the rules? And He did make rules btw because since He is alll knowing He knows what is best for His creation.

If God made everything, then who is to tell him that his creation (gays) are wrong? Who is to second guess whether or not God knows what is best?

 

[bluepeter]

All men created equal.

Has that ever been true in the US of A?

Homosexuals should be offered the same opportunities as heterosexuals. The California senate appears to agree which is definitely a good thing. Too bad religion appears to run contrary to treating everyone as human beings.

 

[-SD-]

[Grand Moff Tarkin/] This bickering is pointless! [Grand Moff Tarkin/]

 

[Tiervexx]

Sorry, you misunderstood my point. Im glad since the very idea of homosexual unions did not have to be dragged through the Supreme Court mud.

I understood your point very well. I've heard it often enough, but your point is meaningless.

 

[Tiervexx]

Because he doesnt exist. And even if he did, not everybody wants to follow some rules written in a book by a bunch of homeless guys about 2,000 years ago,

Homeless guys? The major religons where engineered by brilliant kings to serve their purposes.

Don't bet your soul you might not play the fiddle as good as the devil does.

You are also beting your soul on your beliefs. It is unaviodable.

 

[Tiervexx]

As of 7 pages, the only one who even attempted to make some sort of valid argument is Curling, which is pretty sad, considering he is forgetting the 1 cardinal rule of this thread: discounting wacko religious beliefs, why should two men or two females not be allowed to form a legal union?

I addressed that question with:

If a group of individuals choose to get married it is their absolute right to do so.

If a third party (by third party I mean one not involved in the action) decides to get in the way than they are guilty of aggression. Whether that third party is a government agent such as a judge, or legislator, or a crazy hillbilly with a gun is absolutly meaningless.

Obviously this is an argument for, rather than against legal unions but it is still in the direction of your question.

 

[Tiervexx]

Well, if He is all knowing then He would know what was best for you regardless if it made you happy or not. I am sure herion addicts think they are happy right after they shoot up too.

AND THEY ARE!!!

every time you eat a candy bar, or drink alcohol you are in effect trading a little bit of your life's length for more quality, with heroin the trade off is far greater, but what is and is not an acceptable trade is entirely subjective. If everyone only lived for time than the world would really be pointless!

 

[75th]

I addressed that question with:



Obviously this is an argument for, rather than against legal unions but it is still in the direction of your question.

True that. I probably passed over it simply because it actually made sense, unlike 99% of the other posts in this thread.

 

[Austin316]

Im for Civil Unions and benefits and all that I just still can't agree on actual "marriage" thats a religious symbol to me and its a symbol of the union of the two sexes that exist on this earth. Oh well most people could give a shit less about religion or history anywhoo so this point won't matter to many

 

[Tiervexx]

Im for Civil Unions and benefits and all that I just still can't agree on actual "marriage" thats a religious symbol to me and its a symbol of the union of the two sexes that exist on this earth. Oh well most people could give a shit less about religion or history anywhoo so this point won't matter to many

exactly, the "m" word is a religious matter. BUT the state forces it to be a legal matter by producing any legal definition of it. You can not fairly expect anyone to respect your religion unless you honor theirs, and if the state gives up control of marriage all together than everyone can have their way simultaneously (we can marry, and you can continue believing that it does not really count, everybody wins).

Im for Civil Unions and benefits …

Right now these “benefits” are forcing the state to produce a definition of marriage. Not wanting to share these benefits are the only even halfway logical reason social conservatives have for not wanting to legalize gay marriage, but the problem is obviously with these socialist benefits, not gays.