California gay weddings face veto

[FightingFat]

The issue of gay marriage has taken hold across the US
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has confirmed he will veto a bill endorsing gay marriages.
State legislators voted on Tuesday to allow same-sex marriage in California, but the governor said the decision flew in the face of public opinion.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4224832.stm

 

[vluvski]

I don’t always stand with Arnold on things, but let’s offer some prayers up for him that he will follow through on this promised veto.

 

[Zachary]

Is not marriage a religious institution? What does “sexual preference” have to do with a sacrement?

 

[FightingFat]

Well, I’d say if two people love each other, they may desire to commit to each other the same way for homosexual people as for hetrosexual people.

 

[catsrus]

Here in The Bay Area of CA, that is a brave stance. I hope Ahnold sticks to his guns on this.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

FightingFat:

Well, I’d say

What does the Church say?

FightingFat:

if two people love each other, they may desire to commit to each other the same way for homosexual people as for hetrosexual people.

Ah! But in underlining the charity which may exist between any two human beings, you omit the Gospel of Life in its entirety. This is cherrypicking.

 

[st.jerome]

Ani Ibi:

This is cherrypicking.

Cherrypicking is a call center practice of choosing the next call based on personal preferences. How does this relate to expressing a point of view on a message board?

 

[soulspeak23]

Zachary:

Is not marriage a religious institution? What does “sexual preference” have to do with a sacrement?

If marriage were simply and ONLY a religious institution, then why are married couples afforded over 1000 federal rights having nothing to do with religion? Marriage may have been a religious institution once upon a time, but things have changed.

 

[condan]

soulspeak23:

If marriage were simply and ONLY a religious institution, then why are married couples afforded over 1000 federal rights having nothing to do with religion? Marriage may have been a religious institution once upon a time, but things have changed.

Married people are afforded “special rights”, as you call it, to encourage the formation of a stable home with a mother and father living together in which children can be raised. Two mothers can never substitute for a mother and a father. Nor can two men. People of the same sex cannot form a family so they, therefore, aren’t entitled to the protections, priveledges and “special rights” that are associated with marriage.

 

[fix]

st.jerome:

Cherrypicking is a call center practice of choosing the next call based on personal preferences. How does this relate to expressing a point of view on a message board?

It relates in that the poster seems to have picked the parts of the faith he prefers and leaves the rest of the faith he does not prefer.

 

[soulspeak23]

condan:

Married people are afforded “special rights”, as you call it, to encourage the formation of a stable home with a mother and father living together in which children can be raised. Two mothers can never substitute for a mother and a father. Nor can two men. People of the same sex cannot form a family so they, therefore, aren’t entitled to the protections, priveledges and “special rights” that are associated with marriage.

Nowhere did I call them “special rights”. I called them Federal rights, as in government issued and not religiously issued. I just think that the government has to recognize that there are many religions in this country, not just catholics, and that some people may have no problem with same-sex couples. What difference does it make to you anyway, what goes on behind your neighbors closed doors?

 

[condan]

soulspeak23:

Nowhere did I call them “special rights”. I called them Federal rights, as in government issued and not religiously issued. I just think that the government has to recognize that there are many religions in this country, not just catholics, and that some people may have no problem with same-sex couples. What difference does it make to you anyway, what goes on behind your neighbors closed doors?

The “rights” you mention are, as I stated before, protections saved for marriage that are used to foster and preserve the family.

Your second sentence is not clear. These protections are given to married couples of all (or no) faiths.

What goes on behind closed doors makes a great deal of difference as it impacts society as a whole. One of the greatest problems that we face is our false sense of individualism. The devastation of Katrina shows us that we need to work together, and not alone, to succeed. To reiterate, it matters a great deal to me what goes on behind my neighbors’ closed doors, both metaphorically and actually. For example, a methamphetamine lab inside someone’s home is illegal because its use has a negative impact on society. What goes on behind our neighbors’ closed doors should matter to all of us. There are some things that are (gasp!) morally wrong and we should not be ashamed to call them so.

To argue that “same-sex” marriage is simply a private matter is false as it has a profound impact on how society views the most basic of all institutions. If marriage is open to any configuration, then why bother at all? As it is, we have an illegitimacy rate in excess of 35% with disastrous results (1 of 4 children live in poverty). Do we want to devalue marriage to the point where no one does it and our children are left to be raised without the guidance of both a mother and a father? Or is gender but an antiquated idea that is now, in our post-modern world, interchangeable?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st.jerome:

Cherrypicking is a call center practice of choosing the next call based on personal preferences.

Is it? Well that’s me told. Do you think ‘cherrypicking’ might have other meanings? Do you thing one of those other meanings might be the one in current usage in the times to describe the idea of cafeteria catholicism?

st.jerome:

How does this relate to expressing a point of view on a message board?

Does it relate? To which antecedent is ‘it’ the referent?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

soulspeak23:

Marriage may have been a religious institution once upon a time, but things have changed.

Things have changed. Marriage has not.

 

[condan]

soulspeak23:

What difference does it make to you anyway, what goes on behind your neighbors closed doors?

The notion of an unlimited right to privacy is also false. “Privacy” does not make something legal, moral, ethical or contributing to the greater good.

E pluribus unum.

 

[Jeffrey]

:clapping:

Hear hear… time to promote the Culture of Life!

condan:

Married people are afforded “special rights”, as you call it, to encourage the formation of a stable home with a mother and father living together in which children can be raised. Two mothers can never substitute for a mother and a father. Nor can two men. People of the same sex cannot form a family so they, therefore, aren’t entitled to the protections, priveledges and “special rights” that are associated with marriage.