Forumwarz is the first "Massively Single-Player" online RPG completely built around Internet culture.

You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.

You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.

Log in or Learn about Forumwarz

Civil Discussion
Switch to Role-Playing Civil Discussion
Gay The latest in CA - the Prop 8 debacle

Keakealani

Avatar: 183276 Sun May 31 19:53:42 -0400 2009

Level 35 Emo Kid

“Cutty Cutterson”

It didn’t look like anyone had posted about this yet, and at risk of being trolled, I was actually wondering, what are your thoughts on the decision in California and generally same-sex marriage rights?

Personally, I think the decision they made in CA is just plain silly – so it’s illegal for same sex couples to get married now, but it was fine when the other people did it before Prop 8, and it’s a protection of people’s right to equal protection under the law to say that two legally indistinguishable relationships would have different rights? I’m not even sure how that makes sense, and I really can’t see how this makes either side happy. If you’re one of those “homosexuality is an abomination” people, wouldn’t having thousands of legal gay marriages still **** you off? And clearly it’s no win for those who support equality…

As for the general subject, I’m obviously very pro-gay-marriage… I see no reason why two consenting adults shouldn’t be able to have the exact same rights as two other consenting adults. The way I see it, telling someone they can’t do something solely because he is a man or because she is a woman – in any other context, that’s discrimination. I don’t see why it is not also discrimination in marriage. That being said, I think the original concept of marriage is somewhat obsolete, and that the state should divorce itself somewhat (pun intended) from the concept of marriage as it is portrayed in any religion or religious text, in order to greater emphasize the separation of Church and State.

So yeah. I know this is contentious and I fully expect people to disagree. But I would also like to contribute something to this forum, so here’s my first attempt? Please do be civil, though, as that little bar on top says.

batgrenade24-
42

Avatar: Skeleton Smoking
4

Level 64 Troll

“Flame Retarded”

I have gay and bi friends that I’ve known forever and am really close to so when I hear **** like this it just disgusts me that people can still make laws based on hate. And that’s all it is. It’s no better than when interracial marriage was illegal.

Sergeant Cid

MODERATOR
Avatar: 167814 2011-07-31 00:46:27 -0400

[The Airship]

Level 35 Re-Re

Scientifically Proven Terrible fabulous person..... Evidence shows mbumive build up of semen deposit in bum.

Religious wedding ceremonies are not required for a legal marriage. No specific religion or religious tenets are required for a legally binding marriage to occur. Religion & Marriage are already technically separate. Anyone trying to use religion as a reason to prohibit civil unions/marriages between two consenting adults is simply using their religion as both a weapon and a justification to propagate their particular agenda, and usually to conceal their own bigotry.

Every major argument against gay marriage can be easily countered. The only reason that side still has any momentum or relevance is due to vast amounts of public ignorance.

Samildanach

Avatar: 143751 Tue May 19 21:18:21 -0400 2009
11

Level 34 Hacker

“43 4f 44 45 20 4d 41 53 54 45 52”

it’s a protection of people’s right to equal protection under the law to say that two legally indistinguishable relationships would have different rights? I’m not even sure how that makes sense, and I really can’t see how this makes either side happy.

They aren’t indistinguishable. The marriages that took place before prop 8 was pbumed were legal when they took place. Prop 8 altered the constitution such that any further gay marriages would no longer be legal. From a purely legal standpoint, they were valid. The job of a judge isn’t to make people happy: It’s to adjudicate the law as written as fairly as possible.

Personally, I’m entirely in favor of gay marriage, and have never seen an argument against it that didn’t fundamentally rely on “God says teh gays are ebil” or “I think homosexuality is disgusting and therefore I shouldn’t have to ever think about it or risk my children knowing it exists”*, neither of which are sufficient counterarguments to me.

* – And more often than not, the former is really just an excuse for the latter.

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

Marriage is, at its heart, a religious ceremony. As a Christian, I firmly believe the desires of the sponsoring religion be upheld.

THAT BEING SAID, I also strongly think that marriage as far as the public is concerned (meaning tax benefits, etc.) should be re-worked into being called Civil Unions. Remove all semblance of religion from the legal side of marriages, and you’ll alleviate reasons to prohibit it.

If gays want to civilly unionize to get tax benefits and share their lives together, I’m all for it. But it’s not the religious ritual known as marriage and it shouldn’t be called as such. No one tells other religions how to undergo their rituals and traditions; it’s just that in America some aspects of Christianity are so ingrained into the culture that we forget that there are alternatives that leave everyone happy.

tl;dr = Re-define all marriages as civil unions as far as government is concerned for tax purposes, let Christians still call their civil unions marriages and undergo the religious/ritualistic aspects as they please.

Samildanach

Avatar: 143751 Tue May 19 21:18:21 -0400 2009
11

Level 34 Hacker

“43 4f 44 45 20 4d 41 53 54 45 52”

Shii Posted:

let Christians still call their civil unions marriages and undergo the religious/ritualistic aspects as they please.

This is the part of your post I find summarizes the problem with what you propose. So, Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and Wiccans and Native Americans can’t call their lifelong unions “marriages” because “marriage” is going to be redefined as solely the result of a Christian ceremony? Can we narrow it down while we’re at it? Maybe only the Catholics can “marry.”

For most of history, marriage was pretty much an arrangement between families who wanted to create kinship anyway – nothing like the modern concept. Christianity made it into a liturgical rite, but the English word “marriage” extends far beyond that. We use it to describe what the ancient Greeks had, we use it describe Norse “marriages” in the pre-Christian age and Comanche “marriages” and no one ever complained about that.

“Letting” some people call their lifelong committed union a “marriage” and not “letting” others is ridiculous, and will always be a bone of contention about discrimination.

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

Samildanach Posted:

This is the part of your post I find summarizes the problem with what you propose. So, Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and Wiccans and Native Americans can’t call their lifelong unions “marriages” because “marriage” is going to be redefined as solely the result of a Christian ceremony? Can we narrow it down while we’re at it? Maybe only the Catholics can “marry.”

For most of history, marriage was pretty much an arrangement between families who wanted to create kinship anyway – nothing like the modern concept. Christianity made it into a liturgical rite, but the English word “marriage” extends far beyond that. We use it to describe what the ancient Greeks had, we use it describe Norse “marriages” in the pre-Christian age and Comanche “marriages” and no one ever complained about that.

“Letting” some people call their lifelong committed union a “marriage” and not “letting” others is ridiculous, and will always be a bone of contention about discrimination.

This entire post is basically the definition of “semantics.”

Call the rituals what you want, I’m talking about splitting up “marriage” into legal and religious sides. Right now the controversy is erupting because gov’t is trying to legislate something that is a religious ritual at its heart, and has government tax benefits at the side. Make something overarching to handle the tax and government parts and let them define that however they want; then let the religious do whatever they want with THEIR half of it.

plk

Avatar: 9972 2010-01-24 16:28:42 -0500
65

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Emo Kid

“The Infinite Sadness”

Shii Posted:

This entire post is basically the definition of “semantics.”

Call the rituals what you want, I’m talking about splitting up “marriage” into legal and religious sides. Right now the controversy is erupting because gov’t is trying to legislate something that is a religious ritual at its heart, and has government tax benefits at the side. Make something overarching to handle the tax and government parts and let them define that however they want; then let the religious do whatever they want with THEIR half of it.

Um, why do you bumume that marriage is a religious ritual at its heart? It may be religious from your perspective, but it really isn’t to everybody and hasn’t always been.

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

plk Posted:

Um, why do you bumume that marriage is a religious ritual at its heart? It may be religious from your perspective, but it really isn’t to everybody and hasn’t always been.

Because marriage has been religious a lot longer than it has been secular. It’s obvious in the very nature of the words used by the officiating person, who is almost unanimously a priest, done at a church.

Seems like a p religious ritual to me.

plk

Avatar: 9972 2010-01-24 16:28:42 -0500
65

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Emo Kid

“The Infinite Sadness”

Shii Posted:

Because marriage has been religious a lot longer than it has been secular. It’s obvious in the very nature of the words used by the officiating person, who is almost unanimously a priest, done at a church.

Seems like a p religious ritual to me.

I would suggest taking some cultural anthro clbumes if you think that’s really the case. And if you get married in a religious ceremony by a priest, of course it is religious, but many people avoid having any sort of religious language in their ceremonies and would find it to be rather repulsive to be married in a church.

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

plk Posted:

I would suggest taking some cultural anthro clbumes if you think that’s really the case. And if you get married in a religious ceremony by a priest, of course it is religious, but many people avoid having any sort of religious language in their ceremonies and would find it to be rather repulsive to be married in a church.

I’m bumuming by “many people” you mean yourself, and that’s fine. Just for the record, I was an anthropology major for two years, so I’m not as woefully un-schooled in this topic as you think.

I’m also fairly sure that most would agree with me that marriage started with religious language and drifted to the secular side rather than the opposite way around.

plk

Avatar: 9972 2010-01-24 16:28:42 -0500
65

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Emo Kid

“The Infinite Sadness”

Shii Posted:

I’m bumuming by “many people” you mean yourself, and that’s fine. Just for the record, I was an anthropology major for two years, so I’m not as woefully un-schooled in this topic as you think.

I’m also fairly sure that most would agree with me that marriage started with religious language and drifted to the secular side rather than the opposite way around.

Actually, by “many people,” I really mean “many people.”

I’m also pretty unimpressed by your two years of cultural anthro if that’s the message you came away with. I don’t agree that ancient marriage ceremonies were always about religion, per se. It has, however, always been a cultural ceremony which has had many functions for the individuals and families involved.

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

plk Posted:

Actually, by “many people,” I really mean “many people.”

I’m also pretty unimpressed by your two years of cultural anthro if that’s the message you came away with. I don’t agree that ancient marriage ceremonies were always about religion, per se. It has, however, always been a cultural ceremony which has had many functions for the individuals and families involved.

No, I understand that. Would you disagree with the statement that culture is heavily influenced by the dominant religion of that region?

I’m trying to come up with compromises that satisfy both parties; the fact is that a very large number of people in this country see marriage as religious, and will staunchly refuse and oppose every measure to let gays marry.

To my knowledge, gays want equal representation as far as taxes go and whatnot; that’s their primary argument for why gay marriage should be allowed. If that’s the real case, then declaring the legal side of marriage a Civil Union and giving them the equal rights they want should take care of that, while letting the staunchly opposed still retain the sanctity of their ritual.

Samildanach

Avatar: 143751 Tue May 19 21:18:21 -0400 2009
11

Level 34 Hacker

“43 4f 44 45 20 4d 41 53 54 45 52”

Shii Posted:

I’m bumuming by “many people” you mean yourself, and that’s fine. Just for the record, I was an anthropology major for two years, so I’m not as woefully un-schooled in this topic as you think.

I’m also fairly sure that most would agree with me that marriage started with religious language and drifted to the secular side rather than the opposite way around.

Wow, your bumumptions are arrogant and condescending. By many people, he means “many people.” I know quite a few who had civil ceremonies, I know one couple who were ****ed they even had to have a justice of the peace say the words, after they’d already signed all the dogreat timesents with witnesses.

To move on, though, since marriage was an arrangement between the parents of a bride and groom to exchange land and bind their families together even longer than it has been what you want to be, can I say that only arranged, loveless marriages should qualify for the name?

Since marriage isn’t solely a Western European phenomenon, more or less a solely “Christian” one, could you perhaps recognize that “Christians” don’t have a monopoly on it? And could you respond to my point about narrowing the definition of who gets to be married? Because plenty of the people who want to keep marriage between a man and a woman will also tell you that a lot of people who claim to be Christian aren’t really Christian.

The only people who consider marriage “religious at its heart” are people who do so out of their personal religious belief. Erroneous beliefs, IMO, since marriage predates Christianity. In the US, your religious beliefs don’t get to define legislation on another person’s life.

No one is forcing a Christian church to have a marriage ceremony for a gay couple; no one is forcing a church to recognize gay marriage. That’s where religious freedom ends: The government can and should define marriage in a way that acknowledges human rights and equality, and preferably maintains governmental power at a reasonable, understood level. Gay marriage is the most conservative way to proceed. We know what marriage is, and we have a lengthy history of legal precedents about it. Creating something new just so that “Christians” can be comfortable/smug knowing that they’re the only ones who get to “marry” is not a reasonable solution for a secular nation.

And lets not pretend for a moment that renaming the the legal half something else will mollify “Christians”. There have been protests in California because the legal dogreat timesents for marriage didn’t say “BRIDE” and “GROOM” on them, but rather “1st Party” and “2nd Party”. Y’know, like a legally binding contract. In essence, the same people who oppose gay marriage now will be ****ed that marriage is still being diluted somehow, and gay couples STILL won’t get to tell their families they’re getting “married.”

No matter what else, the power of language to discriminate cannot be overlooked. To get back to your reply to me: Of course it’s semantics. Semantics matter.

Saying “Mom, mom! Bobby just asked me to civilly unionize him!” will never be as satisfying as “Bobby and I are getting married!” It will always be lesser than the former, and it will always be a more awkward thing to say – and by your approach, gay couples would have to say it, and straight couples wouldn’t.

Words have power. We didn’t need a new word for letting people of two different races marry in this country, and we don’t need a new word for letting people of the same physical sex marry in this country. It’s not fair to the couple, and it won’t satisfy the objectors anyway.

Samildanach edited this message on 06/02/2009 9:47PM

plk

Avatar: 9972 2010-01-24 16:28:42 -0500
65

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Emo Kid

“The Infinite Sadness”

Shii Posted:

No, I understand that. Would you disagree with the statement that culture is heavily influenced by the dominant religion of that region?

I’m trying to come up with compromises that satisfy both parties; the fact is that a very large number of people in this country see marriage as religious, and will staunchly refuse and oppose every measure to let gays marry.

To my knowledge, gays want equal representation as far as taxes go and whatnot; that’s their primary argument for why gay marriage should be allowed. If that’s the real case, then declaring the legal side of marriage a Civil Union and giving them the equal rights they want should take care of that, while letting the staunchly opposed still retain the sanctity of their ritual.

I would say that religions are heavily influenced by the dominant culture.

I know that there are many who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, but the fact is that we don’t let particular religious sects or even the dominant religion dictate other civil policies, and they certainly shouldn’t have as much sway as they do with marriage.

And as for letting religious people maintain the sanctity of their ritual — there are religious gays and lesbians, too. So they can’t get a religious marriage in the churches they belong to because other churches oppose it? This makes no sense. And for those who aren’t religious anyway — they’re not trying to get married in churches and be sanctified by religious officials anyway. What is the problem with calling all these unions marriages? IMO it is no different than saying that interracial couples shouldn’t be marrying (or should call their marriages something else) because some religious groups oppose it.

plk edited this message on 06/02/2009 9:56PM

Samildanach

Avatar: 143751 Tue May 19 21:18:21 -0400 2009
11

Level 34 Hacker

“43 4f 44 45 20 4d 41 53 54 45 52”

Shii Posted:

To my knowledge, gays want equal representation as far as taxes go and whatnot; that’s their primary argument for why gay marriage should be allowed. If that’s the real case, then declaring the legal side of marriage a Civil Union and giving them the equal rights they want should take care of that, while letting the staunchly opposed still retain the sanctity of their ritual.

OK, there we go – that’s your error. Gays don’t want “equal representation as far as taxes go and whatnot”. They want equal recognition in their right to exist as individuals and couples. Which they won’t get with a special clbum of “not-marriage” to cover them, while straight couple can continue to have the traditional “marriage.”

Imagine if I said “For most of our history, a ‘voter’ was a white male with significant property. Therefore, we need to keep that tradition. So, while everyone else gets to take part in the electoral process, from now on, only white men will be able to describe themselves as ‘voters’, and only white men will be able to say they ‘voted.’ Women and minorities need not fear, though – the legal language will be ‘electoral engagement’ and everyone will be able to ‘electorally engage’. It’s just that you can only ‘electorally engage’, while white men can choose to describe it as either ‘electoral engagement’ or the traditional ‘voting’ – they get the choice, and you don’t.”

It sets a pretty solid line of inferiority.

Edit – Christ, my head is stuck in HTML mode. Damn BBCode.

Samildanach edited this message on 06/02/2009 9:54PM

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

samildanach Posted:

No one is forcing a Christian church to have a marriage ceremony for a gay couple; no one is forcing a church to recognize gay marriage. That’s where religious freedom ends: The government can and should define marriage in a way that acknowledges human rights and equality, and preferably maintains governmental power at a reasonable, understood level. Gay marriage is the most conservative way to proceed. We know what marriage is, and we have a lengthy history of legal precedents about it. Creating something new just so that “Christians” can be comfortable/smug knowing that they’re the only ones who get to “marry” is not a reasonable solution for a secular nation.

Except that’s exactly what they are trying to do. While it hasn’t gained acceptance, they’re trying to force churches to be unable to reject gay couples for marriage.

If they allow gay marriage, then the gays will protest against the church for not letting them marry in a place like most others do. It’s not a slippery slope, it’s just how protests work.

I’m aware that the government should give people equality and equal rights. That’s why I’m pushing for civil unions with equal tax rights.

Your points about “marriage” predating Christianity are moot, by nature of the fact that the rituals accompanying such unions were not Christian in nature, and shared very little beyond the outcome of man + woman together. I’m talking about Christian marriage, and that alone. I know other religions aren’t as strict about homosexuality all the time, compared to Christianity, and if they want to have bonding/marriage ceremonies, go for it.

Just don’t tell the churches how to handle their own rituals, and who to allow to be married.

markchd

Avatar: 12369 2010-01-24 16:26:11 -0500
18

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Camwhore

Craves Power like it's Crystal Pepsi

”It doesn’t matter, because it’s coming.” I said. “Our kids’ generation will see to that. The only choice you or anybody else has is whether, while this issue is being hashed out, you talk and behave in a way that will make you proud when all the dust has settled.”

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/28/gay-marriage-only-a-matter-of-time/

I’m not saying it’s inappropriate to advocate your position. I need to behave myself on this topic; I get too worked up by it.

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

Samildanach Posted:

Imagine if I said “For most of our history, a ‘voter’ was a white male with significant property. Therefore, we need to keep that tradition. So, while everyone else gets to take part in the electoral process, from now on, only white men will be able to describe themselves as ‘voters’, and only white men will be able to say they ‘voted.’ Women and minorities need not fear, though – the legal language will be ‘electoral engagement’ and everyone will be able to ‘electorally engage’. It’s just that you can only ‘electorally engage’, while white men can choose to describe it as either ‘electoral engagement’ or the traditional ‘voting’ – they get the choice, and you don’t.”

Except you’re comparing apples and oranges. That is purely a governmental issue with no bearing in any religious organization or worldview whatsoever.

You can’t make that comparison because the parties affected are not the same and wouldn’t respond the same. No one is being compromised by more people being allowed to vote, whereas the opposite is true for forcing religions to change their marriage rituals.

DarkDespair5

Avatar: 77864 Thu Jun 04 08:28:46 -0400 2009

Level 56 Hacker

“Logic Bomber”

“Civil unions” is a code term for “Almost equal rights”. Churches should be able to allow or deny whoever the hell they want, but marriage is a civil term as well. Therefore, the same term should be used for same-sex couples as for straight couples.

*feels like a grammar Nazi*

Internet Delay Chat
Have fun playing!
To chat with other players, you must Join Forumwarz or Log In now!