Calif. gay marriage foes want donors anonymous

---

Ha!Sorry, I'll try to do worse.

to quote my grandad; "fight, ya buggers, I hate piece!!"now, not to intentionally disrupt the conciliatory nature of this thread but I do have an issue with the general discussion of the "traditional definition of marriage".which tradition are we referring too?!!I don't mean to sound disrespectful but I don't understand this argument. There is much polygamy in the bible and various Muslim and Christian sects still practice it. So, in the name of tradition, shouldn't we all?The tradition of arranged marriages... we should do that?The laws against interacial marrieges... we should respect that tradition?People used to marry their cousins to keep families close... what's wrong with that tradition?Girls have in the past and still to this day been married off in their very early teens and younger... there's another fine tradition.So, someone, ANYONE, please present a clear and sensible reason as to why two adults, in love, cannot get married!

Originally Posted By: damien Originally Posted By: NtroducingMyselfWell see I understand what you are saying and can even agree to a point. But at the same time, these people took the risk of supporting the cause.A risk that shouldn't exist.It's as much a hate crime to harass folks who don't believe as you do as it is for any other reason. The opponents of Prop 8 don't seem to be able to see it that way, though. I guess it's only a hate crime if it's against their cause. (Ahhh...the liberal mind-set! )

Leave it to you Thor to come in a thread and ramble bull. Try reading the whole thread before you spout off please.

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedSo, someone, ANYONE, please present a clear and sensible reason as to why two adults, in love, cannot get married!Traditionally, it's always been between a man and a woman. Says so in the Bible...and long before most countries on the face of the earth have even existed. If you try to change it to be between two adults of any gender, you have altered the definition, and, therefor, the meaning of what a marriage is. If the definition of a marriage has no meaning to you, fine...so be it. But it definitely does have meaing to many others AS IT IS!!! By changing the definition, you take away the meaning of what it has meant to many folks for thousands of years.Again...if you can't understand any of this, fine. But you should at least be able to accept it. Much as you expect me, I presume, to accept homosexuality...something that I, personally, can't understand. You can't expect from others that which you are unwilling to do yourself.

The definition of marriage has been ruined 10 fold. Something like 45% of marriages end in divorce, which is against the bible as well... should that be outlawed?Again you want to claim the word marriage as a Christian sanctioned idea than keep it within the Church and remove it form the Government side of things. Give Civil Unions to everyone else that your limited ideas of marriage does not cover.

"which tradition are we referring too?!!"The Anglo-American tradition. Ya know, man, woman, 2.3 kids. I guess there's nothing wrong with defending that tradition, personally I don't see the reasoning behind defending it at the expense of somebody else's happiness, but that's me. The problem with the argument being made by those who appose same sex marriage is that what they're using for defending the Anglo-American tradition is fraught with holes. As you point out, in Christianity alone there are different traditions and texts are certainly open to interpretation.For myself, I don't think the biblical argument for man and women marriage holds much merit. And, neither does trying to equate the Anglo-American concept of marriage with relatively tiny sects of contemporary, or for that matter long ago, Christianity. When the dialog devolves to that state it's become to easy for either side to ignore the feelings of the real human beings that are here now.I'm trying real hard to stretch myself to understand both sides of the argument and so for I'm having a real problem doing that.

Well I am around for a bit today, see what I can do to fuck that all up!

I find this to be very odd.I am in a civil union myself ya know.its nota law in Utah, but some company's do the right thing.I call julie my wife as she is in every aspect, outside of that paper. Her company has decided civil unions are covered in insurance.So now we have lived together for all these years, we share bills, we share food and a house and cars.. and now I am covered onher insurance.SO to say you support that if its for gay people, but not straight, thats a bit fuckered eddie.Whos business is it if we are married or living in 'sin' for ever? we still have the same life, same bills and same goals. Her works policy states not related and living together asa couple and for atleast a year. We meet all those, and it does not state exclusions for gay people, so if there were anyone gay at her work, (there is not as far as I know) they would be included as well.I am OK with turning marriage over to gay couples, go ahead marry your BF, it matters not to me, its all tax and insurance bullshit and nothing more. I never needed a paper to tell me how much I love her or that I was committed to her. Marriage is nothing more than a business deal, and predates the church.

Quote:SO to say you support that if its for gay people, but not straight, thats a bit fuckered eddie. Huh???? When in the hell did I say that? I personally think we should have Civil Unions instead of marriage, and leave marriage to those who wish a church, Christian, sanction. Not sure where you got this idea that I don't think straight people should be allowed to use Civil Unions. If anything of all my posts I ever made about this topic I have always said Civil Unions should be open to everyone regardless of orientation.I agree to a point that marriage is just a piece of paper. But with that piece of paper comes all the benefits like insurance, hospital decisions etc.

Quote: If the Christian Church wishes to claim the word and definition of marriage than they need to remove it from the government setting of the word and use it for the Christian Ceremony only. Meaning only Christian Straight people can get married, leaving Civil Unions for everyone else. That is how that reads, intentional or not.

Perhaps you need to re-read what I wrote again.Leave CHRISTIAN STRAIGHT PEOPLE the word marriage since they define it as between a man and a woman (and state it's a Christian sanction) and give EVERYONE ELSE (Now see this includes everything else who is perhaps non-christian and/or homosexual etc) Civil Unions.Not sure where you read into it that I think Civil Unions should only be for Gay People. If I meant that I wouldn't have said everyone else, I would have said Gay People.

I pay particular attention to language, I have been part of negotiating contracts for a union I was a member of and enforcing contracts, not to mention my own shit contracting.
what you intended to say was they can use marriage and anyone who wants to be together but not be married can have civil unions.
but if you read what you wrote....

Leave CHRISTIAN STRAIGHT PEOPLE the word marriage since they define it as between a man and a woman

THis defines marriage as between a man and woman only.

and give EVERYONE ELSE Civil Unions.
everyone else? to read it it says everyone else that is a not a man and a woman, this can then only mean men and men and women with women.

language is all important, its the difference between will and shall in a contract, its what leaves loopholes for lawyers to dance around in courts, its why you need a lawyer for the slightest bullshit, language defines interpretation.

You knew what ya meant when you wrote it, but it doesnt carry across the way you intended.

BTW, on the original statement...FUck em.I donated to Obamas campaign, and i had to fill out shit loads of well, shit because of laws that stay all donations have to be traceable, my name, where i worked, my address, all sorts of bullshit.those laws exist fora reason, if I have to do it to donate to other causes or campaigns why the fuck should someone who contributes to a more sensitive issue get the right ot remain in the shadows?If its worth fighting for its worth being recognized for fighting for it.Iv been threatened, especially in this state for wearing my obama shirt and the magnet on my car in the time leading up tot eh election, I had to smack a few fucking sweater wearing prissy bitch boys around who told me what a piece of shit I was for supporting that nigger and not a war hero.In any fight in any cause there is risk. If you belive in the cause you take the risk, if you are unwilling to take that risk, maybe you really shouldnt be championing the cause.My dad always told me you have to have the courage of your convictions, if you dont, you need to reexamine the convictions and decide if they are worth being a part of or not.

Quote:Traditionally, it's always been between a man and a woman. Says so in the Bible did you even read my post?... didn't think so

It's not clear to me how the US constitutional prohibition on establishing any religion could be consistent with restriction of benefits, even the benefit of a word, to marriages under one particular religion.Perhaps the government should call everything civil unions, and leave the rest to individual religious traditions.The idea of state regulation of marriages was unknown for most of the Christian era. It's relatively new, and we're still grappling with the consequences."Marriage is a sort of friendship recognised by the police" - attributed to R.L. Stevenson.

that is actually a kick ass idea.noone is married, they are all in civil unions.now if they were married by a church clergy that they were affiliated with, then that church says its marriage, not civil union.all paper shows civil union, and they you get some worhtless shit from teh church that syas int eh name of god, you are married! maybe a nice lightning bolt on each side of the paper.It means nothing, but it upholds marriage, much like any other piece of paper form any church means nothing aside from what it represents to the holder.fanfuckingtastik idea.

Originally Posted By: IneligiblePerhaps the government should call everything civil unions, and leave the rest to individual religious traditions. Isn't that basically what I said?? lol

Quote:CHRISTIAN STRAIGHT PEOPLE perhaps you missed the Christian part of my statement. Leave the word marriage to the straight Christians.  Quote:everyone else? to read it it says everyone else that is a not a man and a woman, this can then only mean men and men and women with women. How does "everyone else" mean only gay people??? In the context of what i wrote it's pretty simple to understand that everyone else would include everyone thats either 1) Non-christian straight people, and 2) Homosexuals. Hell everyone regardless should be allowed to use Civil Union regardless of religion or lack there of. Anyways you get my point. Perhaps I'm just in a pissed mood today... but I strongly feel my posts was specific enough if you read it in the contextit was applied.

How does "everyone else" mean only gay people???first off Eddie, I think we can agree that you are either gay or straight? I mean bi? no such thing, those are just greedy fucking bastards that can not pick one side of the fence to get on.Now if you read what you wrote you said christian straight people. then it said everyone else. if the straight people are straight then everyone else must be gay.fuck the christian part all together. marriage predates christians, its a business arraignment, thats all it wever was or will be. people put emphasis on it and decided that it means more than that, but it doenst, its about MONEY.besides my personal spin on the christian shit, you stated your a gay christian, that adds a new element to your argument, further seperating straight christians from everybody else.Luckily none of the argument between you and I means shit outside of curious language peculiars.