Gay marriage bill approved in California

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='cappie' date='Sep 6 2005, 11:43 PM']"Make sure all California families will have the same protection under the law."
[right][snapback]713996[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree completely...but what does that have to do with gays?

[Theoketos]

This is just another step toward a tyrannical state, which defines for it self what is good and what is evil.

btw much love and sympathy for those who have homosexual tendancies.

Still I am begining to fear for the health of this country's immediate future.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='cappie' date='Sep 6 2005, 10:43 PM'][i]Wasn't it the Beach Boys who sang "I wish they all could be California Boys." ??[/i]
[right][snapback]713996[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually, it was "California girls"....

[Didacus]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Sep 7 2005, 10:44 AM']what else is new.
[right][snapback]714354[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There is nothing new under the sun my friend.

[track2004]

[quote name='Sirklawd' date='Sep 7 2005, 09:20 AM']why do homosexuals want to get married? no really.. why?
[right][snapback]714270[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

same reasons straight people want to.

[zabbazooey]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='track2004' date='Sep 7 2005, 02:09 PM']same reasons straight people want to.
[right][snapback]714491[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So they can share themselves in their whole lives, most notably in a physical and spiritual union reflective of God's total, complimentary self-gift which bubbles over to form new life?

Oh...I see...you meant the thing that demeans the humanity of the persons involved...got it...

Yeah...I don't plan on getting married so that I can enslave my soul to my body...and I'm straight...is there something I'm not getting?

[track2004]

No I meant the first part. And as the Catholic stance says, marriage must be open to having kids, and while two people of the same gender can't have kids together that doesn't mean they can't adopt or bring in kids from previous relationships. Many Catholics (heterosexual Catholics) are unable to procreate for various reasons, but the Church doesn't not let them marry because of it.

I also think it's kinda funny that you'll say you're straight but won't allow for 'homosexuals', though I did use the word first. Still funny though.

edit: i can't spell...

Edited September 7, 2005 by track2004

[prose]

There were two straight guys in Ontario that just got "married" a few weeks ago for the tax benefits and to prove that the law hadn't been thought through..

[quote]Commentary: Two Canadian Straight Men Will ‘Marry’ – It’s a Hoot!
By John Jalsevac

Two self-professed straight (that is, heterosexual) Canadian men have made public their decision to get ‘married’ to one another. It was only a matter of time of course.

The Ottawa citizen reported on Sunday that, while sitting in a bar last week it occurred to Bill Dalrymple, 56, and Bryan Pinn, 65, that what with both of them being single, apparently without any serious opposite-sex marriage prospects on the line, it wouldn’t be such a bad tax-saving idea to get hitched…to each other. Thanks to the newly instated civil marriage act, extending “marriage” rights to same-sex couples, that’s not a problem. And since the new act doesn’t include any discriminatory restrictions on ‘sexual preference’ (as if that could be measured anyway) the two thoroughly straight men seem to have a clear path to the altar.

“I think it’s a hoot,” said Bryan Pinn. And you can’t help agree that really, it is, as he says, ‘a hoot’. In fact, what’s really amazing is that in the context of new legislation it all makes a whole lot of sense, and that proves to be the funniest thing of all.

After some reflection, what is actually offensive is not that two straight men have decided to make use of the legislation and get married to one another, but that Bruce Walker, a Toronto area gay and lesbian rights activist, has dared to criticize them. “Generally speaking, marriage should be for love,” he said. “People who don’t marry for love will find themselves in trouble.” He continued, calling Dalrymple and Pinn’s plan “foolish”.

It is offensive that Walker has the gall to imply that just because the two men don’t want to have sex with one another that their relationship is devoid of love; it is typical of the homosexual mind to believe that erotic love is the only love. ‘Old’ marriage vows mentioned sexuality insofar as a couple agreed to accept and rear children as a gifts from God; but Canada’s new marriage vows don’t say anything about sexual attraction or intercourse and who’s to say that they should? Certainly not Bruce Walker.

“Marriage”, now, as Canada has defined it and the pro-gay activists have consistently defended it, has absolutely nothing to do with copulation or sexuality or procreation and everything to do with ‘love’—not erotic love, just…love, of whatever kind.

And therefore, under the new federal legislation it is undeniable Dalrymple and Pinn have as much of a right as anybody else to publicly declare their intention before a justice of the peace to love the other until death do them part, and they have just as much of a right to be given a federal pat on the back for their admirable act. The liberal government has chosen, however foolishly, to grant special privileges to those who do exactly that, and by all accounts Canada is going to have to live with this reality, no matter where it leads.

Of course, some will ask in light of the impending marriage of Dalrymple and Pinn, where will it lead? And the answer, it is no secret, is quite ludicrously far.

Add to the story about Dalrymple and Pinn that of the Californian lesbian couple who desired to be recognized as legitimately married by the golf club one of them belongs to, so that the other could reap the spousal benefits the club offers, and you’ll get an idea of how far it will go. They won the case of course, before the Supreme Court, and now the one without the club membership can golf for free.

Free golf. What better reason could there be to get married? Maybe with that kind of a draw gay men will actually start taking advantage of the new federal legislation and contract the new pretend ‘marriage’.

Of course, it is doubtful that Dalrymple and Pinn’s decision to get married has anything to do with their love for one another. After all, Pinn came straight out criticized the same-sex “marriage” decision, pointing out that “there are significant tax implications that we don’t think the government has thought through;” tax implications that the pair are willing to exploit to make their point while saving a few bucks.

It is also doubtful that the farcical “marriage” of Dalrymple and Pinn will do anything to change Ottawa’s mind about same-sex “marriage”. At the most, all it does is gives pro-family activists a reason to sit back for a moment and have a good chuckle at the ridiculousness of the ideological fort that their opponents are guarding so stubbornly. And that, perhaps, is a good enough reason. [/quote]

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='track2004' date='Sep 7 2005, 02:37 PM']No I meant the first part.  And as the Catholic stance says, marriage must be open to having kids, and while two people of the same gender can't have kids together that doesn't mean they can't adopt or bring in kids from previous relationships.  Many Catholics (heterosexual Catholics) are unable to procreate for various reasons, but the Church doesn't not let them marry because of it.

I also think it's kinda funny that you'll say you're straight but won't allow for 'homosexuals', though I did use the word first.  Still funny though.

edit:  i can't spell...
[right][snapback]714556[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

theres a difference between having working parts and choosing not using them for their purpose, and having parts that dont work. For all anyone knows the couple that cant procreate might infact succeed one day with the Grace of God.

track, i am REALLY curious as to why homosexuals want to get married so bad. if its for some "connection", why do you need marraige for that connection? is this love not genuine without it? it seems to me that for the homosexual, who by acting on their homosexuality is a non-religious/non-christian, marraige is nothing more than a empty title.

[track2004]

Aight, I'll try to answer this question, but since I personally don't really want to get married (at least yet, I'm only 19) it may be a bit off.

First off, people want to get married as a public announcement of their love for each other. The culture is such that marriage is that. Also, without being married, no couple can share their lives as fully as possible. For instance, if I was living with (but not married to) someone I would not be allowed to have any say in their care in the hospital nor would I be able to see them in ICU. I would also not automatically have things like inheritance rights, own a home with them, or share children and income with them. This is a concern, albeit very secular, these are the benifits of civil marriage. It joins two people into one entinity and allows one's spouse to have say in thier life and death.

Along with the more spiritual aspects of marriage, marriage is about uniting two people in a union before God. You're remarks that homosexuals are not religious or Christians is false. Most of my gay friends are in fact Christians, and they struggle to fit their sexuality with their religion, but they know that Christ was sent here to save us. They belive all the tenants of their religion, but find fault in the teachings about homosexuality. A man named John J McNeill wrote a book called "The Church and the Homosexual", in it he describes very well the plight of gay people to come to an understanding of their homosexuality in the context of Catholicism. He says that many feel as if God made them this way, or let them be this way, and as such they have to decide if a) God just wanted to make them miserable or b) the teachings they hear are flawed. In marriage homosexuals desire happiness they feel called to, but that society is denying them.

If you want to know more PM me because I don't really want to start a Catholic vs. Cathoilc debate and cause some scandal (I cause enough already...)

-track

[track2004]

[quote name='prose' date='Sep 7 2005, 03:04 PM']There were two straight guys in Ontario that just got "married" a few weeks ago for the tax benefits and to prove that the law hadn't been thought through..
[right][snapback]714592[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

People do all sorts of that in the States for similar reasons. People marry aliens so the alien can stay in the states. A gay man can marry a lesbian to get the tax benefits. The courts don't really care if you're in love or if you want to procreate, to them it is merely a legal contract.

[Didacus]

[quote name='track2004' date='Sep 7 2005, 03:50 PM']People do all sorts of that in the States for similar reasons.  People marry aliens so the alien can stay in the states.  A gay man can marry a lesbian to get the tax benefits.  [b]The courts don't really care if you're in love or if you want to procreate, to them it is merely a legal contract.[/b][right][snapback]714622[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And that is exactly why the laws of gay marriage exist!

And one of the leading reasons why so many gays/lesbians want marriage, because the contract gives financial benefits.

[track2004]

Yeah it gives financial benefits, but it also gives spousal benefits. Any couple wants the benefits that marriage entails, straight or gay. The benefits are there to solidify the oneness of the couple in the eyes of the state.

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='track2004' date='Sep 7 2005, 04:00 PM']Yeah it gives financial benefits, but it also gives spousal benefits.  Any couple wants the benefits that marriage entails, straight or gay.  The benefits are there to solidify the oneness of the couple in the [b]eyes of the state[/b].
[right][snapback]714635[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

what about in the eyes of God???

what about his divine plan??