Gay marriage bill approved in California

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='track2004' date='Sep 7 2005, 12:16 AM']Yes!
[right][snapback]714067[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

why do homosexuals want to get married? no really.. why?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Sirklawd' date='Sep 7 2005, 10:20 AM']why do homosexuals want to get married? no really.. why?
[right][snapback]714270[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

To legitimize their relationship and take on the guise of normality.

[Didacus]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 7 2005, 09:22 AM']To legitimize their relationship and take on the guise of normality.
[right][snapback]714274[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Because they desperately want to convince themselves of being normal?

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 7 2005, 09:22 AM']To legitimize their relationship and take on the guise of normality.
[right][snapback]714274[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

i agree. there can be no other reason than this. but im more than open to efforts to come up with some other reason. (i just dont think there is any.)

[cmotherofpirl]

I really think thats the real reason.

[Ash Wednesday]

What is ironic is the argument for people supporting gay marriage is that christians, orthodox jews, or muslims are told that they shouldn't legislate or force their beliefs on other people. But the truth is we all legislate our beliefs (or lack of) on others whether we like to admit it or not. We could have an average joe congressman who believes in God and doesn't think that God cares about whether or not Adam wants to marry Steve, or another that doesn't believe in God or religion at all. Whether they want to admit it or not, they are voting a personal creed. That's why it strikes me as being so ridiculous when a Catholic is personally opposed to something but won't vote against it. It's like a militant gay atheist voting to ban gay marriage out of respect for Christians that don't support it. It's completely impossible to achieve some happy-clappy level playing field where everyone can be happy, contrary to the beliefs of the far left.

Until people's hearts are converted there will be no turnaround, so none of this surprises me. Even if Ahnold vetos the bill, it will only be a matter of time before it's legal unless hearts are convinced otherwise. It all starts with statewide recognition of shared benefits and some sort of civil union recognition -- and eventually that paves the way for gay marriage. That's why it's silly for a so called conservative or Christian to support "unions" but not gay marriage.

Why am I saying all this? I don't know. Just what I'm thinking. I suppose I'm preaching to the choir here, so I'm gonna get back to work.

[Sirklawd]

lol, "happy clappy" is the best phrase ever. but i completely agree.

[Didacus]

From what I read there is a genuine good chance the Arnold will veto.

Bill 22 was decided by the people with a strong majority of over 65%, and thus voting in favor of preserving the definition of marraige as 'between a man and a woman'. Some of arnold's opinions have already been expressed on this issue.

Time will tell, but if any of you can write to Arnold (I won't even try to spell his last name), now is the time to do it. (just make sure to spell his last name right... just a piece of advice. I think it would be a good thing)

Good luck...

[kateri05]

sigh.... that's my state. or the state i'm currently living in anyways, unfortuntely i HAVE to claim residency.

just a note: how come none of the Church in CA is making a stink over this, calling on the faithful to stand up for the sacred institution of marriage?

oh that's right.

archdiocese of LOS ANGELES.

silly me. i forgot.

[MC Just]

what else is new.

[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.