[bale002]

Originally Posted by Wild Style

Marriage, my friend, is a religious union. The rituals practiced during marriage ceremonies are religious based. So to separate religion from marriage is sort of impossible. Well that is unless you want to go around making stuff up. Now, if you want to make it a CIVIL matter (your emphasis not mine). Then have a civil union and be done with it.



We citizens were asked to vote on the matter based on our beliefs/opinions/views of whether or not marriage should be classified in such a manner. The key thing in this matter is, people are voting on what they FEEL is right.

The way out is compromise on the terminology.

Grow up and case closed.

[MiamiGringo]

Wild Style: "The key thing in this matter is, people are voting on what they FEEL is right."

There's your problem right there - you were not dialing a 800 number for "American Idol." Your opinion does not carry the weight of reason or law.

As a voter and as an American, you have a responsibility to understand the implications of your vote and to consider their effect on others.

As far as marriage as religious institution, would you oppose the state marrying atheists? (of different genders, of course.) Or do you think your opinion should override those marriages too?

Where else do you think your opinion should have the force of law?

[Wild Style]

Originally Posted by MiamiGringo

Wild Style: "The key thing in this matter is, people are voting on what they FEEL is right."

There's your problem right there - you were not dialing a 800 number for "American Idol." Your opinion does not carry the weight of reason or law.

As a voter and as an American, you have a responsibility to understand the implications of your vote and to consider their effect on others.

As far as marriage as religious institution, would you oppose the state marrying atheists? (of different genders, of course.) Or do you think your opinion should override those marriages too?

Where else do you think your opinion should have the force of law?

Again, people use their OPINIONS to vote. Even judge rulings as related to the law are called OPINIONS, look it up. These opinion are based on the judges understanding of the facts. We now have to distinguish between fact based and non fact based opinion, in this conversation. Fact, no traditional religion on this earth excepts marriage as between men and men or women and women. It is between man and woman. Seeing as how this is a judeo-christian based society we are in (no matter how hard people try to pretend it isn't) we will go by those laws. As such, we know and understand same sex cohabitation can not be classified as a marriage (again basing this on judeo christian law). As far as my consideration on how passing Amendment 2 effects others. I don't agree with homosexuality as stated before. As such I feel there is a morality factor or the degradation of morality upon the greater society should such life styles be made a part of the norm in this society. I based this on religious beliefs and history. You may or may not agree with it, that's ok. You will never change my mind on the issue and I am sure I will never change yours. As bale pointed out many times, civil unions would allow those wishing to cohabit to have protections the same as those bonded through marriage.

[MiamiGringo]

You are of course aware of two things:

1.) Civil Marriage is not a religious institution and carries no religious weight in most religions. It is a civil contract. Only religious institutions can grant religious status.

2.) Amendment 2 bans civil unions.

Your argument fails.

[Wild Style]

Originally Posted by MiamiGringo

You are of course aware of two things:

1.) Civil Marriage is not a religious institution and carries no religious weight in most religions. It is a civil contract. Only religious institutions can grant religious status.

2.) Amendment 2 bans civil unions.

Your argument fails.

its not that it fails, its that you don't seem to grasp what I am saying. Don't worry about it

[TANaples]

Originally Posted by Wild Style

Again, people use their OPINIONS to vote. Even judge rulings as related to the law are called OPINIONS, look it up. These opinion are based on the judges understanding of the facts. We now have to distinguish between fact based and non fact based opinion, in this conversation. Fact, no traditional religion on this earth excepts marriage as between men and men or women and women. It is between man and woman. Seeing as how this is a judeo-christian based society we are in (no matter how hard people try to pretend it isn't) we will go by those laws. As such, we know and understand same sex cohabitation can not be classified as a marriage (again basing this on judeo christian law). As far as my consideration on how passing Amendment 2 effects others. I don't agree with homosexuality as stated before. As such I feel there is a morality factor or the degradation of morality upon the greater society should such life styles be made a part of the norm in this society. I based this on religious beliefs and history. You may or may not agree with it, that's ok. You will never change my mind on the issue and I am sure I will never change yours. As bale pointed out many times, civil unions would allow those wishing to cohabit to have protections the same as those bonded through marriage.

don't you suppose there are an awful lot of straight athiests and agnostics who may not want the "sacred, holy, institution of marriage"? I wonder if they realize they realize this when they go down to the courthouse to sign that contract? Personally, this is why I think government should end "holy marriage" totally for these civil contracts. Issue civil unions for everybody. Leave holy matrimony for churches.

What effect do you suppose Florida's amendment will have on STRAIGHT Seniors from NJ with Domestic Parnerships? Under this amendment, their partnerships won't be recognized either. Did you know that the AARP was against this amendment? Imagine all those old folks just shacking up and living in SIN. lol This amendment was sponsored by the BAPTIST CHURCH. It is religious oriented, both for gays AND for straights. Follow OUR religion, or ELSE.

Practice your religion as you see fit. Don't force others to follow your religion by enacting legistlation.

[planetsurf]

Originally Posted by TANaples

don't you suppose there are an awful lot of straight athiests and agnostics who may not want the "sacred, holy, institution of marriage"? I wonder if they realize they realize this when they go down to the courthouse to sign that contract? Personally, this is why I think government should end "holy marriage" totally for these civil contracts. Issue civil unions for everybody. Leave holy matrimony for churches.

GREAT IDEA. I'd be up for this.

EVERY PERSON that comes the the government for a "marriage" gets a generic civil contract. This gives 100% rights to property, health and parental issues. Straight, gay, young, old, etc. -- if your over 18, no problems. Hell, throw in groups too! Personally, I don't care.

Anything called a "marriage" is handled by religious institutions.

I know an older "couple" -- 2 widowed women -- who share EVERYTHING but sex. (Yes, I'm sure.) I think it would be attractive to people like them too.

Sounds perfect.

[bale002]

Some of you people are truly dense.

Don't mix up the terminology. The amendment in question confused the terminology, it deserved the vote that it received.

The way out is clarity on the terminology then.

Civil unions under state law, marriage under religious bylaws.



End of drivel.

[emi__]

Originally Posted by Wild Style

I voted for Obama, have homosexual and bi sexual work buddies. I also voted for Amendment 2. Homophobia implies I am some how scared of people who practice this lifestyle. I don't fear them and one of my close buddies is gay. However, from a religious standpoint I don't agree with homosexuality and I will not vote for anything that in anyway supports that life style. I don't mean to offend anyone.

Seeing as you're not the one with the homosexual lifestyle, then how would you ever actually support it? Hell, you're not pushing two guys together and telling them to go at it.

[bale002]

Originally Posted by emi__

Seeing as you're not the one with the homosexual lifestyle, then how would you ever actually support it? Hell, you're not pushing two guys together and telling them to go at it.

It's not a question of "supporting" it. It is a question of putting free citizens on solid legal ground.

Again, civil unions under state law, marriage under religious bylaws.

If they write an amendment like that, it will pass in all 50 states, hands down.

End of drivel.