• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Same-sex marriage blocked in Washington

Status
Not open for further replies.

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
20
Years
  • Anyone can get married in church and understand they are not legally married, so unless I am completely ignorant of the intelligence of religious people, I think that point is moot.
    Can you getting married in a church and not be legally married at the same time?

    I thought they went hand-in-hand. o.o You require a marriage license in order to get married, be it a civil ceremony or in a church. And then you are given a marriage certificate, stating the "legally binding agreement", by the person who ordained the ceremony - so, the priest (or at least some staff at the church the ceremony was held at).

    Unless I misunderstood o.o
     

    Klippy

    L E G E N D of
    16,405
    Posts
    18
    Years

  • Can you getting married in a church and not be legally married at the same time?

    I thought they went hand-in-hand. o.o You require a marriage license in order to get married, be it a civil ceremony or in a church. And then you are given a marriage certificate, stating the "legally binding agreement", by the person who ordained the ceremony - so, the priest (or at least some staff at the church the ceremony was held at).

    Unless I misunderstood o.o

    Nah, I think you understood. I just didn't use proper terms.

    For clarity, I meant to say you can have a commitment ceremony for your religious purposes to signify a unity between the couple and God. Gay and straight couples can do this and there is no legally binding "wedding" of the couple.

    So I should have said...

    Klippy said:
    Anyone can get committed in church and understand they are not legally married, so unless I am completely ignorant of the intelligence of religious people, I think that point is moot.
     
    24
    Posts
    11
    Years
    • Seen Jul 3, 2012
    I think it's okay to hear what the voter's decisions are before the elected officers settle the final decision. One wrong move from them and there might some rebellious acts from the citizens. That would only cause a chaos. Still, the decision is final and might as well look for another place which accepts same sex marriage.
     

    FreakyLocz14

    Conservative Patriot
    3,498
    Posts
    14
    Years
    • Seen Aug 29, 2018
    This isn't a Republicans vs. Democrats issue. It's a cultural issue. While the parties may lean towards one side of issue, the nature of the two party system gives us plenty of differing viewpoints within the same political party.

    Another example is how same-marriage was banned in Mississippi by an 86% to 14% vote. There are more registered Democrats than there are Republicans in Mississippi, but the area's large African-American population and the old conservative Dixiecrats make up most Southern Democrats. At the same time, Republicans in the West and Northeast tend to be of more moderate and libertarian flavors, which is evidenced by the New Hampshire GOP.

    Exit poll on MS vote, with 75% of Democrats supporting the ban:
    https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004//pages/results/states/MS/I/01/epolls.0.html
     
    Last edited:

    Aureol

    Kanto/Electric-Type Enthusiast
    422
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • I feel too often people ascribe pro-family ideals to simple religion. While my religion does condemn homosexuality, that is not the basis for my grounds against it. I do not adhere to one religious commandment unless I see an actual effect (and not just some vague post-mortal reward).

    I vote against homosexual marriages because I feel it is an unfit place to raise children. Do all children raised in homosexual homes turn out wrong? No, but more often they will, as would single-parent homes (if I had my way, I would find a way to give all single-parent homes the missing father/mother also). It's not because the homosexual partners are necessarily bad people, but there is something missing when either a father or a mother is absent, psychologically speaking.

    As for the "bigoted religious" aspect, I theorize most tenets in religion (not all, mind you) do not cause "obscure" moral values, but rather after experience of what works best we discover those methods translated into religion (i.e. traditional marriages came before religion taught traditional marriages, not vice-versa). Looking at some of the other principles generally found in religion (not including off-color cultish beliefs), is honesty wrong? Fidelity? The sanctity of life? Loving your neighbor? Abstaining from harmful substances? Helping your family?

    Lastly, I do not hate homosexual people. I recently discovered I had a gay brother. I still treat him the exact same as I did before. And to elaborate more, while I disagree with it, I would allow homosexual, er, relations; I just feel it is hazardous for children to be raised in such a setting.

    EDIT: I just noticed the irony in this post. Talk about intolerance condemning intolerance...
    Please don't talk about controversial political and social issues in bright neon pink. It only makes your bigoted, intolerant ideals sound dumber.
     
    14,092
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • ...I vote against homosexual marriages because I feel it is an unfit place to raise children. Do all children raised in homosexual homes turn out wrong? No, but more often they will...

    There's nothing to suggest that. Now, divorced, single parent households where the parents of a child hate each other, that's a bad place to raise a child. And that's all traditional marriage's fault there. And if they do happen turn out 'wrong' as you say, it's from the stigma and restrictions placed on them by hateful religeous bigots.

    Children turn out 'wrong' from bad parenting, something that has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
     

    Illuminaughty

    The Graceful Idiot
    95
    Posts
    11
    Years
    • Seen Jun 21, 2012
    I feel too often people ascribe pro-family ideals to simple religion. While my religion does condemn homosexuality, that is not the basis for my grounds against it. I do not adhere to one religious commandment unless I see an actual effect (and not just some vague post-mortal reward).

    I vote against homosexual marriages because I feel it is an unfit place to raise children. Do all children raised in homosexual homes turn out wrong? No, but more often they will, as would single-parent homes (if I had my way, I would find a way to give all single-parent homes the missing father/mother also). It's not because the homosexual partners are necessarily bad people, but there is something missing when either a father or a mother is absent, psychologically speaking.

    As for the "bigoted religious" aspect, I theorize most tenets in religion (not all, mind you) do not cause "obscure" moral values, but rather after experience of what works best we discover those methods translated into religion (i.e. traditional marriages came before religion taught traditional marriages, not vice-versa). Looking at some of the other principles generally found in religion (not including off-color cultish beliefs), is honesty wrong? Fidelity? The sanctity of life? Loving your neighbor? Abstaining from harmful substances? Helping your family?

    Lastly, I do not hate homosexual people. I recently discovered I had a gay brother. I still treat him the exact same as I did before. And to elaborate more, while I disagree with it, I would allow homosexual, er, relations; I just feel it is hazardous for children to be raised in such a setting.

    EDIT: I just noticed the irony in this post. Talk about intolerance condemning intolerance...

    Show some proof before making sweeping generalizations.
    Being misinformed = being ignorant.

    Ignorant comment: "It's not because the homosexual partners are necessarily bad people, but there is something missing when either a father or a mother is absent, psychologically speaking."
    The American Psychological Association (APA) among other health organizations "have concluded that there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation." So, "psychologically speaking", the above generalization is not factual.

    The scientific community has dismissed the claim that gay parents < straight parents. These conservative interest groups have a bias opinion, using traditional values and religious belief influence their research and results.
    If you do present a study, please don't use out-dated or skewed research like the family research council.

    An example of this was a study conducted by U of Texas, Question: What do the following all have in common?

    • A heterosexually married female prostitute who on rare occasion services women
    • A long-term gay couple who adopt special-needs children
    • A never-married straight male prison inmate who sometimes seeks sexual release with other male inmates
    • A woman who comes out of the closet, divorces her husband, and has a same-sex relationship at age 55, after her children are grown
    • Ted Haggard, the disgraced evangelical pastor who was caught having drug fueled-trysts with a male prostitute over a period of several years
    • A lesbian who conceives via donor insemination and raises several children with her long-term female partner

    They are all gay fathers or gay mothers! Really, all of these people would fall under this category together according to the study. This study received a $695,000 grant from the Witherspoon Institute which also donates money to the Family Research Council to skew information to favor a preconceived conclusion.

    Anyway, what if the results said that gay parenting was better; would we have to ban heterosexual marriages?

    What if we compared black and white parents, 36% of black people are impoverished and only 14% of white people are impoverished in the United States. With this factor, a research center might deem that white parents have a higher success rate than black parents. Regardless of what the results would yield, should comparative studies on parenting by different demographics disqualify certain groups from marrying or having children? Absolutely not, with this mentality we would be cutting the group of people eligible to marry to a select elite.

    People with gay relatives that are against gay marriage should be especially ashamed of themselves for condemning their right to marry someone of the same sex with absolutely no reason besides ignorance and misinformation.
     
    532
    Posts
    13
    Years
  • EDIT: I just noticed the irony in this post. Talk about intolerance condemning intolerance...


    Like I said before, we have every right not to be for same sex marriage as long as we don't shove it down people's throats. Because of what I was taught, that's why I personally don't support the definition of marriage being changed.

    That said, I don't support an issue like same sex marriage in the hands of the government.
     
    Last edited:

    Sydian

    fake your death.
    33,379
    Posts
    16
    Years
  • There's really no right or wrong way of raising kids.

    That's not entirely true. I wouldn't think beating your children, intentionally not feeding them, being Casey Anthony, etc would ever be considered the "right" way to raise your children. There isn't a definite right way, but there are definitely wrong ways. But I digress.

    I just feel it is hazardous for children to be raised in such a setting.

    I've never understood the "it's wrong for children to be raised by gay parents" argument. Why is it wrong? What's wrong about having loving and caring parents? Would you rather the child risk having to stay in an orphanage for the rest of their lives? Or stay in a home with heterosexual married parents that fight constantly and abuse their children? I will gladly argue to the bone if someone tries to tell me an abusive heterosexual parent home is more detrimental than a home with a good, caring homosexual couple. There just isn't logic in that. I know that's not what you were saying, but it just bothers me how people can think those settings are bad. You're not raised to be gay. In a sense, I think most of us are raised to be straight. That's another topic for another day though.

    Children turn out 'wrong' from bad parenting, something that has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

    This basically. And heck, this applies to dogs. There's no bad breed of dog, there are only bad owners.

    Every same-sex marriage topic gets away from the original purpose, lol. Wasn't this about politics? Ooops.
     
    532
    Posts
    13
    Years
  • sorry but as a catholic i dont think they should have done that i belive that civil unions are ok marrage is man and women sorry and please don't hate im not sayin anything but my opinion

    Same religion, same ideas but civil unions are okay but they don't give full partner rights. Why is this issue in the hands of the national government anyway? Let the states decide.
     
    10,769
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • Please pardon my previous confrontational tone when I asked for Republicans who are for same-sex marriage. I'm glad you had some examples. It gives me a sliver of hope. I just wish more of the examples where from currently sitting politicians (i.e., Republicans in leadership positions), not former vice presidents and former governors who only speak out after they leave office, and that some of these examples weren't people who believe it should be up to states to decide (because then they would support all the bans that are already in place) or are only okay with civil unions and not marriage.

    Same religion, same ideas but civil unions are okay but they don't give full partner rights. Why is this issue in the hands of the national government anyway? Let the states decide.
    Why is letting states decide better than the federal government deciding? Why not let each county decide? Each city?
     
    532
    Posts
    13
    Years
  • Why is letting states decide better than the federal government deciding? Why not let each county decide? Each city?

    I think of it this way: the states have their own laws. But if they were all to be effective in all states, then people will have an uproar about it. Same with gay marriage. If the government forces everyone to accept it, then know that there's going to be a fight.
     

    FreakyLocz14

    Conservative Patriot
    3,498
    Posts
    14
    Years
    • Seen Aug 29, 2018
    States deciding isn't an answer. You don't get a uniform, unified stance on a major issue by letting 50 different state governments choose.

    There shouldn't be a uniform definition of marriage under federal law.

    There shouldn't be any government definition of marriage at all, state or federal, IMO.
     

    Illuminaughty

    The Graceful Idiot
    95
    Posts
    11
    Years
    • Seen Jun 21, 2012
    I think of it this way: the states have their own laws. But if they were all to be effective in all states, then people will have an uproar about it. Same with gay marriage. If the government forces everyone to accept it, then know that there's going to be a fight.

    All other types of laws are not synonymous with civil rights laws. The states should be able to determine many statutory issues on their own; however, they should not be able to take away or impede upon a certain demographics civil rights.

    People were in uproar when the Supreme Court overruled the constitutionality of state laws including anti-sodomy and anti-interracial marriage laws. Uproar or public opinion is not pertinent to whether something is unconstitutional. These laws should not have existed in the first place. Government intrusion into our personal lives should never exist unless our actions directly cause harm to others.
     

    TRIFORCE89

    Guide of Darkness
    8,123
    Posts
    20
    Years
  • sorry but as a catholic i dont think they should have done that i belive that civil unions are ok marrage is man and women sorry and please don't hate im not sayin anything but my opinion
    I'm Catholic too. I don't hate you.

    That is marriage as defined in our religion. However, the legal definition can be different. And if they are different, and if gay people can legally get marriage - it absolutely would not effect the ceremony and sacrament of Catholic marriage. In the Church, it would still only be one man and one women.
     

    Oryx

    CoquettishCat
    13,184
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Jan 30, 2015
    I think of it this way: the states have their own laws. But if they were all to be effective in all states, then people will have an uproar about it. Same with gay marriage. If the government forces everyone to accept it, then know that there's going to be a fight.

    That doesn't really answer why it would be a state issue and not, with your argument in mind, a city issue.

    The legal argument for this would be the tenth amendment:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    So if the Constitution doesn't mention it, then it's either the states or the people. That's why it's argued as a state issue.
     
    14,092
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • There shouldn't be a uniform definition of marriage under federal law.

    There shouldn't be any government definition of marriage at all, state or federal, IMO.

    That's not what I advocated with that post. There shouldn't be a uniform definition or description of marriage in law, at all. And that goes for the states passing same sex marriage bans.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Back
    Top