Teaching gay marriage in school..

[toyotaboy]

yea i phrased that a little funky... the concept of what the change would entail is what i was stating as junk...

[Rocksurfer]

I don't see it as a right in the 1st place, marraige is and has been between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or woman to a woman. If we're going to go that deep then multiple marraiges should also be allowed. Dang I should marry my dog too.

[BLACKDOG]

Bottom line is you want to take the rights away from other people you will be voting yes, if not your voting no. The whole teaching thing is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo to further the removing rights agenda

wrong.  If the decision to allow gay marriage is upheld, then rights will be removed from anyone who is religious.  If gay marriage is upheld, then religious leaders will not be allowed to deny a gay marriage in their church, and if homosexuality is mentioned as a sin, they can be charged with a hate crime.  the gay marriage bill (from last year?) isn't just about the right to marry. 

[Brandon]

whatever it is is already in place and I don't see any issues?

[Brandon]

I should marry my dog too.

True that..

[*FFC*]

wrong.  If the decision to allow gay marriage is upheld, then rights will be removed from anyone who is religious.  If gay marriage is upheld, then religious leaders will not be allowed to deny a gay marriage in their church, and if homosexuality is mentioned as a sin, they can be charged with a hate crime.  the gay marriage bill (from last year?) isn't just about the right to marry. 

Sorry to bump this, but I gotta respond to this.

Jason, you're right.  It's a catch-22 for religious leaders.  Either they uphold their religious standards and go to jail, or they uphold the worldy laws placed on them and break the religious standards they try so hard to uphold. 

What the hell ever happened to the whole 'separation of church and state' anyway? 

[Brandon]

Someone find some facts here, now why would a pastor be required to wed a gay person (or any person)? Not saying it isn't true but just looking for some proof. I don't see anything here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

I mean, there is the gay thing but the same thing could be said for straight people that don't fit the mold so to speak..

[*FFC*]

Someone find some facts here, no why would a pastor be required to wed a gay person (or any person)? Not saying it isn't true but just looking for some proof. I don't see anything here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

It's like Jason said - it could be considered a hate crime.  Just like saying "No, I'm not going to marry you because you're black", but in this instance, it would be gay.

[Brandon]

"could be"?

Sounds like a bunch of excuses for nothing..

[Rocksurfer]

I may be mistaken but I believe that this is to fix the laws that are already on the books that now exposed would have forced churches/religions to marry gays or be forced with litigation and possible hate crime violations. Prop 8 does not make gay marraige illegal but changes the constitution making the original law banning gay marraige within the state legal.

[Brandon]

fix? LOL

Yes, it is to change status quo so someone show me all the examples of all these issues since that is how it is NOW..

I actually think it reduces the hypocracy. So many gays fought to be able to be wed and then..

Barely any did it, but now they can't complain. Shoot, legalize gambling too..

[Rocksurfer]

I went and read the text of Prop. 8 figured I'd find the usual 15 pages of it, wrong guess it's a pretty simple issue.

PROPOSITION 8
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by
adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are
printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage
Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.

[Brandon]

I guess the question is what is wrong with how it is now, need to see the last enacted law or whatever that made this change before then.

Voting that change is simply done on the basis of removing rights of others, I see no benefit or loss to "non gays"

[Rocksurfer]

I have a feeling it is the overall constitution that will make not marrying same sex people that is going to get churches in trouble legally since it can be considered discrimination. As to teaching it again the discrimination of omitting it will come into play.

[Rocksurfer]

Maybe there should be an amendment that excludes people/churches/religions from preforming a gay ceremony due to personal beliefs, or have to be involved with anything that they don't believe in. Oh no couldn't do that it wouldn't be politically correct.

[Brandon]

I have seen no proof it is an issue, like I said it is no different to exclude that gay than excluding a child molestor or something else..

I see the point (descrimination) but isn't that what churches are all about? If your not protestant then you can't come, if your not...

[Rocksurfer]

Not true, I've attended all types of churches (I'm Christan) been to Buddhist, Jewish, Christan, LDS, etc. etc and have been welcomed to attend.

[*FFC*]

Not true, I've attended all types of churches (I'm Christan) been to Buddhist, Jewish, Christan, LDS, etc. etc and have been welcomed to attend.

True...

[Brandon]

that's not always the case though..

Now how is that different, if your views are different yet you go but if a gay person goes..

[Rocksurfer]

I agree that there is currently no proof of pushing the discrimination issue but as the Mayor of SF has stated the "door is wide open" and they are coming through "there is nothing to stop it now". I think this is the fear of the whole issue. Personally I could careless if gays get "married" but it should be left at the civil level and not be allowed as a religious ceremony. I don't see an issue if they were "married" by a judge but it bothers me if a religious organization is forced to preform them, and I'm not very religious. Give them their union, just don't force those that don't believe in something that I feel is wrong to be forced to commit a sin in their world.

[*FFC*]

that's not always the case though..

Now how is that different, if your views are different yet you go but if a gay person goes..

The difference is that there are religious principles that churches are to follow - not by the law of men, but the law of their God.  One of those principles is that marriage is to be between a man and a woman.  There is no religious law that says that you can't welcome people from a different religious belief, but performing a ceremony that is against religious principles.  Welcoming someone from another religion into the church and performing a gay marriage are two completely different things.  There is no comparison as far as I'm concerned.

It's also not a matter of whether or not a gay person is allowed in the church, it's a matter of whether or not the pastor/minister/father should/could perform the ceremony.

[Rocksurfer]

The difference is that there are religious principles that churches are to follow - not by the law of men, but the law of their God.  One of those principles is that marriage is to be between a man and a woman.  There is no religious law that says that you can't welcome people from a different religious belief, but performing a ceremony that is against religious principles.  Welcoming someone from another religion into the church and performing a gay marriage are two completely different things.  There is no comparison as far as I'm concerned.

I bow to your beliefs and insight on religion. No one should be forced to do what they do not want to do. That would be socialism, oh wait that's the way we are currently headed.

[*FFC*]

No one should be forced to do what they do not want to do. That would be socialism, oh wait that's the way we are currently headed.

Especially if it is against their religious code of conduct!

[Rocksurfer]

Especially if it is against their religious code of conduct!

Especially when it has been century's that it has been their code of conduct and not just the political ball of the day.

[Brandon]

and that is the only thing that is against the code of conduct? I doubt that, there are other reasons to deny people..

[Brandon]

I bow to your beliefs and insight on religion. No one should be forced to do what they do not want to do. That would be socialism, oh wait that's the way we are currently headed.

No, that would be communisim - big difference

[*FFC*]

and that is the only thing that is against the code of conduct? I doubt that, there are other reasons to deny people..

You already stated that you're not religious.  I wouldn't expect you to understand.  I grew up in the church, hence why this is so important to me.

[Brandon]

I did too, doesn't make me religious..

[*FFC*]

I did too, doesn't make me religious..

I apologize, maybe I should rephrase that.  I grew up in the church and am still religious. 

[BLACKDOG]

and that is the only thing that is against the code of conduct? I doubt that, there are other reasons to deny people..

No one said that is the only thing, thats just simply the topic of conversation.


The pastor of the church I used to go to in Vacaville won't marry anyone who is living with their S.O.  prior to getting married, due to the beliefs the church is based on, so yeah, there are other reasons to deny people.