Prop 8, tyranny of the majority? [Archive] - Page 2

Purple Santa

11-06-2008, 04:14 AM

Johan is great to have as a counter balance, but letting him get too involved is bad for everyone.

Know what's bad for everyone? When others start feeling the urge that their opinion needs to be spread and forced upon others. Isn't that what is said about Johan? However, now it seems those who find Johan's view difficult to agree with, it's bad for "everyone" letting him get "too" involved. So now I need protection from Johan. Interesting.

A suggestion to those who don't like Johan's opinion. Don't read them. Or walk away from a thread. If you feel you can't discuss a topic with Johan, then don't. It's called agreeing to disagree. I don't remember this topic being about tyranny of Johan. I can plainly see for myself, as others can, if someone can be engaged in a level headed conversation with someone on this forum. I don't need to be protected.

I often disagree with Johan's opinion. I have seen the threads on EvAv in the P&R and I know what they looked like. I have seen threads in CoG that have gotten heated. So i'm very familiar with Johan and his perspective. I find Johan to be more than a one sided person. In other threads that don't involve speaking about politics or religion, Johan has a great sense of humor with often insightful thoughts on different subjects. If I allowed myself to view only Johan from the P&R type threads, I would of cut myself off from seeing more than one side of a man. That doesn't mean I agree with him or like what he says in the other threads. Just means he's human. We all have sides that others like and don't like. I like to appreciate that in people. My doing that, I have gotten to enjoy Johan in many threads. Attack his ideas, in the appropriate threads. Engage Johan in them if you must. But continuing a conversation ABOUT him is wrong. Discuss the ideas not the person.

I love this forum. I don't want discussion about people to be the norm like it was at EvAv. I think we have a chance to rectify some unhealthy behavior from EvAv.

neutralism

11-06-2008, 04:46 AM

I think he's joking...

No japes here, I'm afraid. I am genuinely befuddled on the legal aspect of all this. :(

Of course on a purely social "common sense" standpoint, I agree that anyone should be able to marry whomever they want. I just wonder if the charge of "rights being stripped" is accurate?

It seems to me that the law applies to all people equally regardless of sexual orientation. So this tells me there must be some language written in the current law that some jerk lawyer always uses to keep things the way they are.

Now if the law is written where it specifically says "Homosexuals cannot marry, period.", then we have a clear cut case of discrimination against a group based on their sexual orientation and that is certainly a "stripping of rights." However, if the law reads "No same-sex marriage, period.", then that applies to everyone.

I find it hard to believe that every elected official or appointed judge is under some conspiracy to specifically target homosexuals. I'd like to believe that the majority are simply interpreting and ruling the law as it is written, as they should.

I know many believe that there is also a religious conspiracy as well, and that is probably true, but if so, why aren't atheists denied the right to marry?

At any rate, in the case of Proposition 8 and others like it, I once again agree with the OP and I really think that putting up any kind of civil rights issue in a voter referendum is the worse way to go.

Khrymsyn

11-06-2008, 06:38 AM

Johan is great to have as a counter balance, but letting him get too involved is bad for everyone.

So you're basically proving the point he was making after he was attacked for him.

It's great he has a different opinion, as long as his opinion doesn't get verbalized (or in this case, typed)? For cryin out loud, don't let an opposing opinion get too involved! Isn't this the same FUD that you (and Banacek and a few others) are trying not to let HIM spread? Oh wait, that's right, it's different. You're opinion is the correct one. I'm sorry.

It's the same damn coin, just different sides. Just because an opinion is unpopular (right or wrong) doesn't mean it can't be discussed. You bring conversation and possible idea changing by bringing people TOGETHER in conversation, not by insulting them and constantly pushing them away. If someone believes seafood is evil and makes people go crazy, you don't convince them it's just fine by calling them ignroant and invalidating them. You show research counterpoint to thier opinion, invite them to try a piece of Sushi, and eat the first piece yourself to prove it's ok.

Johan

11-06-2008, 06:58 AM

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/02/obama_opposes_gay_marriage_ban.html

Obama aides emphasized he has opposed similar state bans in the past. They said the Illinois senator does not support gay marriage, but believes that federal and state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage can also threaten rights that couples have under civil unions and domestic partnerships, which Obama supports.

I suppose Obama is a bigot as well.

I had a few points to make in this thread, and I believe the hostile, hateful responses helped to make them for me as well.

1. The majorities in 30 states do not support gay marriage; 70% of black Californians don't support gay marriage (they must reject the notion that there is a connection between the gay experience in America and the black one, as some have tried to analogize), and even YOUR OWN president, Obama, DOES NOT support gay marriage. I suppose they're ALL bigots. Right.

2. Dialogue cannot occur when people, such as many of you in this thread, approach issues with the attitude that you have a superior position which, quite naturally, should be obvious to all. Apparently, many of you decry the attempt by religious groups to impose a universal morality, while you YOURSELVES do the same by demanding that people convert to your line of thinking or remain a "bigot" who is "prejudiced." Work for your view in the public arena...through political, social, and other avenues. Discuss your differences. Rub elbows with the big, big world out there.

3. Many of you are, frankly, angry, hateful people. I feel badly for you. I'm sorry, but that is true, as evidenced by the Phelpsian responses in this thread. It's the same coin, from a different side.

I have cleared out my account here, and I am done. I wish you the best in your future at CoG. I truly do. I bear no ill-will. I wish you the open-mindedness to discuss your differences without demonizing those who oppose your supposedly sanctified will. I hope you don't turn CoG into an echo-chamber for your own beliefs. I've done my best to be dignified and respectful in this thread. I wish the same for/from you.

Best regards. Goodbye.

itchyeyes

11-06-2008, 07:05 AM

Different site, same old Johan

Blue

11-06-2008, 08:48 AM

Different site, same old Johan

Different site, same old everyone. Way to play superior.

Bone

11-06-2008, 09:16 AM

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/02/obama_opposes_gay_marriage_ban.html

I suppose Obama is a bigot as well.He has an opinion but doesn't want to allow laws to be created that would oppress or limit rights. You really are out of context there.

1. The majorities in 30 states do not support gay marriage; 70% of black Californians don't support gay marriage (they must reject the notion that there is a connection between the gay experience in America and the black one, as some have tried to analogize), and even YOUR OWN president, Obama, DOES NOT support gay marriage. I suppose they're ALL bigots. Right.And for a while, we had a whole country who owned slaves. Popular opinion doesn't make it right.

Best regards. Goodbye.Not this again?

Banacek

11-06-2008, 09:18 AM

Best regards. Goodbye.

More lies. You know you're not going anywhere. :)

roboninja

11-06-2008, 09:21 AM

I vehemently disagree with Johan's position on this matter, and feel it is a bigoted stance. That is not moral superiority talking, those are facts. Taking away rights of a group of people based on nothing more than their sexual oreintation is the very definition of bigotry. And yes, Johan, if you are still reading, that does make 70% of black Californians and Obama bigots.

Having said that, Johan was attacked and demonized, much more so than he deserved to be, IMO. He seems to have a knack for pushing the right buttons of many; he is very good at the passive-aggressive stance, and being a victim seems to come naturally. I am not immune, I have said some pretty vile-filled things to Johan in the past, and this very post is probably none too flattering. Too bad the Lounge area was made to serve as the repository for P&R discussions.

rifter

11-06-2008, 09:24 AM

And for a while, we had a whole country who owned slaves. Popular opinion doesn't make it right.

Oh yes, since owning slaves and attaching the title marriage to a couple is SO similiar to OWNING A PERSON. Give me a friggin break.

Lets ban ALL marriages, and only allow the government give civil unions (which, by as far as I can tell, is what california does). Then, let the churches decide who can get married and not, since it really is a religious institution, not a political one.

All people deseve the PROTECTIONS, RIGHTS and RESPONSIBLITIES that marriage confers. I still believe that marriage itself occurs between a man and a woman. A truely equal civil union allows this, while protecting the sanctity of marriage.

National Kato

11-06-2008, 09:28 AM

And yes, Johan, if you are still reading, that does make 70% of black Californians and Obama bigots.

I think lumping Obama in with those who voted for a ban is unjustified. Obama doesn't support constitutional amendments or bans. He may support the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman, but that doesn't prevent same-sex couples from having equal rights.

DangerousDaze

11-06-2008, 09:30 AM

Goronmon

11-06-2008, 09:32 AM

I usually ignore these US-centric threads because they have no relevance to my life, but why is it that whenever I decide to pop in and take a look I often find that they've devolved into an argument about Johan?Johan doesn't agree with some of the stances that are prevalent on the board. He's pretty strong about his beliefs, which pretty much means that people are going to gang up on him whenever he posts something that goes against what most people on the board believe, since many others are strong about their beliefs as well.

roboninja

11-06-2008, 09:43 AM

I think lumping Obama in with those who voted for a ban is unjustified. Obama doesn't support constitutional amendments or bans. He may support the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman, but that doesn't prevent same-sex couples from having equal rights.

Yeah, that is probably true. It was a poor way to refute Johan's supposition that because Obama was not for the proposition, and 70% of a certain group voted against it, that it cannot be a bigoted stance.

Scaryfaced

11-06-2008, 09:49 AM

It's pretty sad that this thread devolved into a an attempt to either gang up on or psycho analyze Johan. A few of us attempted to have a civilized dicussion on the matter, but I can't particularly blame the guy for packing up and going home. I wouldn't go to that Freeper sight and attempt to discuss the finer points of an Obama victory. It's not worth sifting through the vitrol.
________
LINCOLN MKR PICTURE (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Lincoln_MKR)

Bone

11-06-2008, 09:54 AM

Oh yes, since owning slaves and attaching the title marriage to a couple is SO similiar to OWNING A PERSON. Give me a friggin break.Let's try to stick to the context of the quotes in question. The quotes in which Johan tried to say that because the majority of people held this bigoted notion, that somehow excuses it from being bigoted. In that context, our country's position on racism (as well as women's rights later on) is very relevant, while not equal in scope (which I did not suggest at all).

roboninja

11-06-2008, 09:54 AM

It's pretty sad that this thread devolved into a an attempt to either gang up on or psycho analyze Johan. A few of us attempted to have a civilized dicussion on the matter, but I can't particularly blame the guy for packing up and going home. I wouldn't go to that Freeper sight and attempt to discuss the finer points of an Obama victory. It's not worth sifting through the vitrol.

This I agree with as well. Once the vitriol died down (relatively), the discussion was good (again, relatively :p ) .

Bone

11-06-2008, 09:55 AM

All people deseve the PROTECTIONS, RIGHTS and RESPONSIBLITIES that marriage confers. I still believe that marriage itself occurs between a man and a woman. A truely equal civil union allows this, while protecting the sanctity of marriage.You have the right to believe this, but what "sanctity of marriage" are you talking about? And why do you get to define it when clearly homosexuals want to enjoy the same rights AND symbolism that go with marriage?

Lastly, how does their marriage affect the sanctity of YOUR marriage?

TheFlyingOrc

11-06-2008, 09:59 AM

Lastly, how does their marriage affect the sanctity of YOUR marriage?
Well, anything having to do with sanctity is well outside of the government's jurisdiction, quite frankly. Anytime the government intrudes on the sacred, it's a problem.

I'll say it - the government defining marriage at all is a violation of the principles of church and state.

Bone

11-06-2008, 10:05 AM

TheFlyingOrc

11-06-2008, 10:07 AM

Agreed. I heard somewhere today that 38 states in the 1920's used marriage certificates as a weapon to stop interracial marriages. So we've come full circle on the bigot train, if this is true. Maybe getting rid of the marriage license is the solution, and just let every church decide for themselves who to marry.
I honestly want people to talk about this in the public sphere - unfortunately, either way the government decides right now CANNOT be religiously neutral - they must either condone or condemn a viewpoint to do anything.

ShivaX

11-06-2008, 10:09 AM

Agreed. I heard somewhere today that 38 states in the 1920's used marriage certificates as a weapon to stop interracial marriages. So we've come full circle on the bigot train, if this is true. Maybe getting rid of the marriage license is the solution, and just let every church decide for themselves who to marry.

I'm like a broken record, but I agree.

Civil unions for everyone. Let the churches handle marriage. I'm just waiting for California to banish all marriage because of this. I'm stocking up on a popcorn.

TheFlyingOrc

11-06-2008, 10:09 AM

I'm like a broken record, but I agree.

Civil unions for everyone. Let the churches handle marriage. I'm just waiting for California to banish all marriage because of this. I'm stocking up on a popcorn.

I'm just amazed that this solution hasn't raised its head in the public sphere yet. It's like a super-duper libertarian ideal.

roboninja

11-06-2008, 10:13 AM

I'm like a broken record, but I agree.

Civil unions for everyone. Let the churches handle marriage. I'm just waiting for California to banish all marriage because of this. I'm stocking up on a popcorn.

I am hoping for this as well. You amended your Constitution to prevent same-sex couple from being married. By that very same Constitution, taking rights from one group that is allowed for others is not legal. Hence, nobody can get married now. Send me some popcorn. :D

Generation ABXY

11-06-2008, 10:13 AM

I'm like a broken record, but I agree.

Civil unions for everyone. Let the churches handle marriage. I'm just waiting for California to banish all marriage because of this. I'm stocking up on a popcorn.

I totally support that as a solution, it's a nice middle ground. But, the question is, would we start seeing lawsuits against the churches then?

ShivaX

11-06-2008, 10:15 AM

The question is, would we start seeing lawsuits against the churches then?

Marriage would become a purely religious act. Like commencement or something. Legally it would cease to exist along with all the rights it grants.

Generation ABXY

11-06-2008, 10:17 AM

Marriage would become a purely religious act. Like commencement or something. Legally it would cease to exist along with all the rights it grants.

So, that's a "no" from you, I take it?

Press Ninja

11-06-2008, 10:21 AM

Well, anything having to do with sanctity is well outside of the government's jurisdiction, quite frankly. Anytime the government intrudes on the sacred, it's a problem.

I'll say it - the government defining marriage at all is a violation of the principles of church and state.

This is what I believe.

I mean honestly, the "institution" of marriage was created by religion. To define it, regulate it and interfere with it by governmental standards is breaching the church/state divide. Let the churches/pastors decide.

And seriously, why would someone be so vehemently opposed to someone being married to another? How does this break the sanctity of marrige, how does this even effect you on a personal level, besides pissing you off? There are bigger problems in the world, but people have to make themselves feel better by putting someone down.

Thats pathetic in my opinion.

Khrymsyn

11-06-2008, 10:22 AM

I totally support that as a solution, it's a nice middle ground. But, the question is, would we start seeing lawsuits against the churches then?

We might see some try, but if we take the legal aspect of marriage out of it, it would complete the separation of church and state on this topic, and I believe a lawsuit would fail on this premise.

Kind of like how women still can't be preists in many (most?) denominations out there. A lawsuit does no good as the state cannot change the belief of the church.

ShivaX

11-06-2008, 10:22 AM

So, that's a "no" from you, I take it?

Haha, yeah its a no. It would be like sueing a Catholic for going through confimation. It doesn't have anything to do with laws.

Banacek

11-06-2008, 10:33 AM

rifter

11-06-2008, 10:59 AM

Let's try to stick to the context of the quotes in question. The quotes in which Johan tried to say that because the majority of people held this bigoted notion, that somehow excuses it from being bigoted. In that context, our country's position on racism (as well as women's rights later on) is very relevant, while not equal in scope (which I did not suggest at all).

I did. The piece you quoted from Johan's post, and then your response attempted to make a moral equivalency. That, or you have a difficult time expressing your views, which makes it difficult to communicate well. I am addressing what you wrote, is all.

You have the right to believe this, but what "sanctity of marriage" are you talking about? And why do you get to define it when clearly homosexuals want to enjoy the same rights AND symbolism that go with marriage?

Lastly, how does their marriage affect the sanctity of YOUR marriage?

Since you have trouble quoting effectively, and expressing your views in a coherent manner, I will reiterated what I wrote:

Lets ban ALL marriages, and only allow the government give civil unions (which, by as far as I can tell, is what california does). Then, let the churches decide who can get married and not, since it really is a religious institution, not a political one.

On this page of the discussions, most people are saying to do what I expressed here. Abolish government's involvement in marriage completely, allow the church to do what it wants with the institution, and make government only give out civil unions. The civil union part of a marriage, is the legal agreement between two partners, which confer the rights and responsibility of marriage.

I look at marriage from a religious viewpoint. Most religions I have heard of, do not support gay marriage. Since marriage IS a religious institution, I support the church's view. I also support the LEGAL view that homosexual couples have, that they should have the same rights as married couples. I completely agree. Once again, I am all for civil unions. I have problems labeling it a marriage.

Goronmon

11-06-2008, 11:05 AM

I did. The piece you quoted from Johan's post, and then your response attempted to make a moral equivalency. That, or you have a difficult time expressing your views, which makes it difficult to communicate well. I am addressing what you wrote, is all.I fail to see the attempt at making a moral equivalency. Perhaps your reading comprehension skills are what are lacking in this case.

Or more likely, you are just being difficult because you disagree with his stance. That's where I am leading.

Edit: I'm not sure why I am constantly compelled to turn people's attempts at insults against them. It's like a compulsion.

TurboKinny

11-06-2008, 11:05 AM

J Arcane

11-06-2008, 11:12 AM

Personally, I see the entire legal recognition of marriage as part of what is essentially a discriminiation on the part of the system against single people.

As a single male, when it comes to gov't assistance programs, taxes, insurance, everything, I basically get fucked in the ass.

Get married, pop out a few kids though, and suddenly the handouts are everywhere, and frankly, I find that absurd.

If you don't have the financial support necessary to pay for a wife and kids, then don't get a fucking wife and kids. If anything, you should be punished for popping out a kid without having the scratch to be able to properly care for the thing.

It's ridiculous, and encourages a pretty fucked up value system, especially in lower class areas like the town I live in.

TheFlyingOrc

11-06-2008, 11:15 AM

I wish this solution was embraced on both sides. I personally love it.

The only people who object to this solution are people who want a government mandate on their particular set of morals. This is stupid, as only a childish idiot believes that law = morals.

edit: and I'm talking about BOTH sides of the issue - the reason most homosexuals are enraged about it is not because of taxes, visiting rights, etc.

TheFlyingOrc

11-06-2008, 11:18 AM

Goronmon

11-06-2008, 11:18 AM

So many of us here hold the viewpoint that it should be civil unions granted by the government, marriages granted by the church.Am I the only one that finds it strange that there must be two different terms which essentially mean the same thing?

I mean, it basically sounds like people just want to do a Search and Replace on the word "marriage" in laws/legislation/etc. I guess I don't see why it's important to make the distinction.

J Arcane

11-06-2008, 11:20 AM

rifter

11-06-2008, 11:21 AM

Or more likely, you are just being difficult because you disagree with his stance. That's where I am leading.

Edit: I'm not sure why I am constantly compelled to turn people's attempts at insults against them. It's like a compulsion.

Honestly, he kept cutting up my quotes, and ignoring what I said in the paragraph above, to make a point, that was retarded. I put it all in one place so it was easier to follow, and not take everything I wrote, out of context.

Generation ABXY

11-06-2008, 11:21 AM

Am I the only one that finds it strange that there must be two different terms which essentially mean the same thing?

I mean, it basically sounds like people just want to do a Search and Replace on the word "marriage" in laws/legislation/etc. I guess I don't see why it's important to make the distinction.

Because it'll make both parties shut up, and that's a good enough reason for me at this point. :p

Banacek

11-06-2008, 11:21 AM

Am I the only one that finds it strange that there must be two different terms which essentially mean the same thing?

I mean, it basically sounds like people just want to do a Search and Replace on the word "marriage" in laws/legislation/etc. I guess I don't see why it's important to make the distinction.

If that is what needs to be done to have equal rights and appease the religious right then why not do it? Basically the difference in terms would finally give us the separation of church and state which we're already supposed to have.

TheFlyingOrc

11-06-2008, 11:23 AM

Am I the only one that finds it strange that there must be two different terms which essentially mean the same thing?

I mean, it basically sounds like people just want to do a Search and Replace on the word "marriage" in laws/legislation/etc. I guess I don't see why it's important to make the distinction.

The same reason I don't want the government deciding which churches are legitimate churches. The word marriage is heavily tied to metaphysical concepts - love, sanctity, purity, etc. It is not the place of the government to regulate the metaphysical.

Goronmon

11-06-2008, 11:24 AM

If that is what needs to be done to have equal rights and appease the religious right then why not do it? Basically the difference in terms would finally give us the separation of church and state which we're already supposed to have.Yeah, but it's such a superficial distinction. I mean, I didn't think "separation of church and state" needs to be so absolute that they are not even supposed to have words in common.

Though, like someone else said, if it gets both sides to agree on something, so be it.

J Arcane

11-06-2008, 11:24 AM

If that is what needs to be done to have equal rights and appease the religious right then why not do it? Basically the difference in terms would finally give us the separation of church and state which we're already supposed to have.
Because it's really not equal.

The symbology of marriage is just as important to gay people as it is to the bigots trying to deprive them of it.

It's another lame "compromise" all over again, "seperate but equal", ie. not equal at all.

Bone

11-06-2008, 11:24 AM

I did. The piece you quoted from Johan's post, and then your response attempted to make a moral equivalency. That, or you have a difficult time expressing your views, which makes it difficult to communicate well. I am addressing what you wrote, is all.

Since you have trouble quoting effectively, and expressing your views in a coherent manner, I will reiterated what I wrote:
Instead of arguing, you resort to insults to my intelligence. My intelligence is not the problem here. Enjoy sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "na na na na na"...

TheFlyingOrc

11-06-2008, 11:27 AM

The symbology of marriage is just as important to gay people as it is to the bigots trying to deprive them of it.

It's another lame "compromise" all over again, "seperate but equal", ie. not equal at all.
It is not the government's job to determine that everyone receives equal rights in the public sphere. You're asking the government to effectively proclaim it has the moral authority to say that homosexuality is not amoral behavior. It has no such authority.

Generation ABXY

11-06-2008, 11:28 AM

So many of us here hold the viewpoint that it should be civil unions granted by the government, marriages granted by the church. Now, if we all went out and started talking to other people about this idea, and writing to our legislators, and getting the idea out there....maybe something will change.

We've done such a good job reducing apathy in voting- let's keep the momentum going! Get out there! :)

I mentioned something similar in one of my earlier posts. I didn't want to come of as too mean, but I really I think the passing of Prop. 8 was, in part, a failure of the people who opposed it. If you really wanted to see this fail, they should have been much more active about it. And I don't just mean getting their voices heard - noise isn't everything - but I mean actually getting out there and helping people understand why this thing (in whatever states had it) is, in their eyes, so wrong and why it needed to fail. Yeah, some people are going to vote for it regardless, but I really blame both sides in this.

Goronmon

11-06-2008, 11:28 AM

The same reason I don't want the government deciding which churches are legitimate churches. The word marriage is heavily tied to metaphysical concepts - love, sanctity, purity, etc. It is not the place of the government to regulate the metaphysical.If everyone is allowed to be participate in the concept of "marriage"...where does the "regulation" actually come into play?

Or maybe my point is why they have to be mutually exclusive?

Bone

11-06-2008, 11:29 AM

Honestly, he kept cutting up my quotes, and ignoring what I said in the paragraph above, to make a point, that was retarded. I put it all in one place so it was easier to follow, and not take everything I wrote, out of context.
Kept cutting up your quotes? I separated two points you made, if you want to call the first jab at me a point. How that was related to the following paragraphs is beyond me, but perhaps your superior wit can enlighten me.

Goronmon

11-06-2008, 11:29 AM

You're asking the government to effectively proclaim it has the moral authority to say that homosexuality is not amoral behavior. It has no such authority.It doesn't?

TheFlyingOrc

11-06-2008, 11:30 AM

It doesn't?

No...can you show me where in the constitution that our government claims to have moral authority?

Scaryfaced

11-06-2008, 11:33 AM

I totally support that as a solution, it's a nice middle ground. But, the question is, would we start seeing lawsuits against the churches then?

This topic was raised in my Equity and Diversity class a few weeks ago and a classmate used a great example that held alot of truth in it.

Basically, this girl's family had tried to get their daughter baptized at the local church they attend. Figuring that they were regulars at the church and had been going there for years, they didn't expect there would be a problem. As it turns out, their family didn't live in the right "district" to be baptized at that particular church. So basically, a devote Catholic family was refused a sacrament at their own church that they had attended for years because they weren't within some arbitrary lines drawn by the churches in the area.

My teacher had a related story when she tried to get her grand daughter baptized at her church as well. She had been going to the same church for 30 years, all of her children were baptized there, and was well known in the community. Her son was in another country on buisness, but it was important to the family that the child be baptized immediately. She called ahead to see if the lack of the father would be a problem and they guarenteed her it wouldn't be. Well she took her daughter-in-law to get her new grand daughter baptized and the priest refused her. The reasons? The father wasn't present and the priest didn't like the name they had chosen. I'm drawing a blank, but it was an old scotch family name. They were forced go to another Church and decided not to attend that particular parish anymore.

Basically what I'm saying is that a church can already refuse service to anyone they feel like for whatever silly reason they can come up with. Homosexuals wont have any more say in who the church's sacaments than anyone else.
________
Love Advice Dicussion (http://www.love-help.org/love-advice/)

J Arcane

11-06-2008, 11:34 AM

It is not the government's job to determine that everyone receives equal rights in the public sphere. You're asking the government to effectively proclaim it has the moral authority to say that homosexuality is not amoral behavior. It has no such authority.
As long as the government recognizes marriage as a legal institution, then said institution should be applied fairly to all parties.

Fuck, if the government started a program giving out prostitutes to lonely people, I'd still expect them to be equal opportunity and make sure the option was available to everyone who wanted it and not discriminate.

Sure I think the whole thing is a bad idea to begin with, but while it's in place it should not discriminate, and should not be executed in a fashion as to condone bigotry.

"Civil union" is a nonsense term invented to keep those icky gays from being attached to the term "marriage", and I don't see as how the government should have any part in such idiocy.

"The quality of our thoughts is only as good as the quality of our language." -- George Carlin.

TheFlyingOrc

11-06-2008, 11:37 AM

As long as the government recognizes marriage as a legal institution, then said institution should be applied fairly to all parties.

Fuck, if the government started a program giving out prostitutes to lonely people, I'd still expect them to be equal opportunity and make sure the option was available to everyone who wanted it and not discriminate.

Sure I think the whole thing is a bad idea to begin with, but while it's in place it should not discriminate, and should not be executed in a fashion as to condone bigotry.

"Civil union" is a nonsense term invented to keep those icky gays from being attached to the term "marriage", and I don't see as how the government should have any part in such idiocy.

"The quality of our thoughts is only as good as the quality of our language." -- George Carlin.

Yes, but the way the government words it now, it is effectively claiming authority over a religious institution. There's no reason for it, and there's no reason to ask that it remains 'marriage' while extending it to homosexuals OTHER than trying to get the government to legislate morality.

J Arcane

11-06-2008, 11:40 AM

Yes, but the way the government words it now, it is effectively claiming authority over a religious institution. There's no reason for it, and there's no reason to ask that it remains 'marriage' while extending it to homosexuals OTHER than trying to get the government to legislate morality.
"Marriage" is not a religious institution. It is a concept that exists across all sorts of cultural lines, of which religion is only one.

Or are you saying that atheists don't get married?

Goronmon

11-06-2008, 11:43 AM

There's no reason for it, and there's no reason to ask that it remains 'marriage' while extending it to homosexuals OTHER than trying to get the government to legislate morality.This makes no sense to me. By your logic, the government is already legislating morality by encouraging people to tie themselves to a single partner. Yet, once the term "homosexual" is thrown in the mix, all of a sudden this is a problem?

TheFlyingOrc

11-06-2008, 11:43 AM

"Marriage" is not a religious institution. It is a concept that exists across all sorts of cultural lines, of which religion is only one.

Or are you saying that atheists don't get married?
You're defining religion in a terribly stupid way.

Religion is anything that deals with metaphysical concepts - the meaning of life, the importance of love, the horror of violence, etc. There's no non-metaphysical reason for marriage, therefore, it isn't the state's job.

TheFlyingOrc

11-06-2008, 11:44 AM

This makes no sense to me. By your logic, the government is already legislating morality by encouraging people to tie themselves to a single partner. Yet, once the term "homosexual" is thrown in the mix, all of a sudden this is a problem?
How can you come up with the exact opposite of what I'm saying? I think defining marriage IN THE FIRST PLACE exceeded the government's authority.

Goronmon

11-06-2008, 11:45 AM

Bone

11-06-2008, 11:47 AM

Religion is anything that deals with metaphysical concepts - the meaning of life, the importance of love, the horror of violence, etc. There's no non-metaphysical reason for marriage, therefore, it isn't the state's job.

Interesting, Orc. I hadn't thought of it that way. Although I have no religious beliefs to ascribe my feelings on marriage to, I do believe that it touches on some sort of spiritual agreement with my wife.

And yet there are the state's mandates (like who can be at whom's deathbed in a hospital), so there would be a lot of ramifications to deal with if we got rid of state licensing.

Goronmon

11-06-2008, 11:47 AM

How can you come up with the exact opposite of what I'm saying? I think defining marriage IN THE FIRST PLACE exceeded the government's authority.And my point is that it already exists a definition in law. Might as well just allow it to be applied to any couple. Changing the word at this point just seems superficial and silly. You gain nothing from turning the word "marriage" into "civil union".

Banacek

11-06-2008, 11:50 AM

Because it's really not equal.

The symbology of marriage is just as important to gay people as it is to the bigots trying to deprive them of it.

It's another lame "compromise" all over again, "seperate but equal", ie. not equal at all.

What's stopping, say, Unitarians from performing marriages for gay couples? (I think they might do it now, actually) Gay couples finally can have their marriages in a church like everyone else.

If you want to force Baptists to perform gay marriages then I think we would have to disagree, because that would encroach on their freedom of religion.

TheFlyingOrc

11-06-2008, 11:51 AM

And my point is that it already exists a definition in law. Might as well just allow it to be applied to any couple. Changing the word at this point just seems superficial and silly. You gain nothing from turning the word "marriage" into "civil union".

Except that the government no longer seems to be intruding where it shouldn't, which would shut a lot of people up.

Let's say the government created laws giving two benefits to people who "love" each other, defining it as two people who have sexual intercourse who are both white. The government wouldn't have the right to redefine a word of such cultural importance this way AND it wouldn't be fair to black people - the solution is still 2-fold - switch the name to "doinkers" AND allow black people to participate.

edit: switched to "doinker" because it sounded funnier.

J Arcane

11-06-2008, 11:52 AM

You're defining religion in a terribly stupid way.

Religion is anything that deals with metaphysical concepts - the meaning of life, the importance of love, the horror of violence, etc. There's no non-metaphysical reason for marriage, therefore, it isn't the state's job.
You realize that the entire concept of human rights that our whole bloody government was founded on is essentially a metaphysical concept, right?

Look, I think the entire concept of marriage/civil union/whatever we're calling it, is nothing more than a gov't subsidy that shouldn't exist at all, but if we're going to have it, then I see no reason why we should invent new words for it just to keep from offending a bunch of bigoted jackasses.

Goronmon

11-06-2008, 11:54 AM

Let's say the government created laws giving two benefits to people who "love" each other, defining it as two people who have sexual intercourse who are both white. The government wouldn't have the right to redefine a word of such cultural importance this way AND it wouldn't be fair to black people - the solution is still 2-fold - switch the name to "doinkers" AND allow black people to participate.Again, the switch is superficial and as silly as you term you used as an example. Not to mention a lot more difficult than just tweaking the definition to include everyone.

Bone

11-06-2008, 11:54 AM

Look, I think the entire concept of marriage/civil union/whatever we're calling it, is nothing more than a gov't subsidy that shouldn't exist at all, but if we're going to have it, then I see no reason why we should invent new words for it just to keep from offending a bunch of bigoted jackasses.I agree with you here, that if marriage remains, it needs to be marriage for gays too. Not a "new" word, like queeriage or gayriage. Or homarriage. The word has social meaning, and that meaning should boil down to "two people loving each other forever". Unfortunately we as a society attached a lot of other baggage to that simple concept.

TheFlyingOrc

11-06-2008, 11:55 AM

Look, I think the entire concept of marriage/civil union/whatever we're calling it, is nothing more than a gov't subsidy that shouldn't exist at all, but if we're going to have it, then I see no reason why we should invent new words for it just to keep from offending a bunch of bigoted jackasses.
I think homosexuality is morally wrong, both from my faith's scripture and a little bit of Kantian ethics. I'd appreciate if you didn't presume to call me a bigot when you don't freaking know me.

J Arcane

11-06-2008, 11:56 AM

What's stopping, say, Unitarians from performing marriages for gay couples? (I think they might do it now, actually) Gay couples finally can have their marriages in a church like everyone else.

If you want to force Baptists to perform gay marriages then I think we would have to disagree, because that would encroach on their freedom of religion.
I'm talking legal terms here. The churches can do whatever they fucking feel like, that's a private religious ceremony, and the principle of church and state is supposed to ensure the two do not encroach upon the other.

but when you go down to the courthouse and get a marriage license, that's another matter, and something the churches shouldh ave no say in at all, frankly.

Goronmon

11-06-2008, 11:56 AM

J Arcane

11-06-2008, 11:58 AM

I think homosexuality is morally wrong, both from my faith's scripture and a little bit of Kantian ethics. I'd appreciate if you didn't presume to call me a bigot when you don't freaking know me.
I'm sorry you have chosen to twist your faith to support hating others, but that doesn't give you the right to force the government to bow to your will and start switching terms around just because you personally find it icky.

And yes, you're a bigot. congratulations. I hope the Creator is more forgiving of that fault than I would be.

Bone

11-06-2008, 11:59 AM

J Arcane

11-06-2008, 12:02 PM

How is it morally wrong? Who does it hurt? I really want to know this.
In Levitical terms it's about as "morally wrong" as eating fish on the wrong day of the week or not washing your vegetables properly.

Paul was pretty mean about it, but he was mostly just pissed at the Greeks and all their orgies. It wasn't so much the homosexuality specifically, as it was that it tended to be one facet of the big perverted hedonistic mess that was some aspects of upper class Greek culture of the era.

Generation ABXY

11-06-2008, 12:03 PM

This topic was raised in my Equity and Diversity class a few weeks ago and a classmate used a great example that held alot of truth in it.

Basically, this girl's family had tried to get their daughter baptized at the local church they attend. Figuring that they were regulars at the church and had been going there for years, they didn't expect there would be a problem. As it turns out, their family didn't live in the right "district" to be baptized at that particular church. So basically, a devote Catholic family was refused a sacrament at their own church that they had attended for years because they weren't within some arbitrary lines drawn by the churches in the area.

My teacher had a related story when she tried to get her grand daughter baptized at her church as well. She had been going to the same church for 30 years, all of her children were baptized there, and was well known in the community. Her son was in another country on buisness, but it was important to the family that the child be baptized immediately. She called ahead to see if the lack of the father would be a problem and they guarenteed her it wouldn't be. Well she took her daughter-in-law to get her new grand daughter baptized and the priest refused her. The reasons? The father wasn't present and the priest didn't like the name they had chosen. I'm drawing a blank, but it was an old scotch family name. They were forced go to another Church and decided not to attend that particular parish anymore.

Basically what I'm saying is that a church can already refuse service to anyone they feel like for whatever silly reason they can come up with. Homosexuals wont have any more say in who the church's sacaments than anyone else.

Oh, I’m very familiar with the idiocy of the church; hell, it is probably more responsible for my life today than anything else (mind you, this year aside, l have no cause to complain). You see, despite having been pretty much a lifelong member of it, my church told me the day before my Confirmation that I couldn’t do it, and the preacher actually asked me to not come back until I could be sure of my faith. And their reason for it? My mother married a Muslim.

Bone

11-06-2008, 12:06 PM

In Levitical terms it's about as "morally wrong" as eating fish on the wrong day of the week or not washing your vegetables properly.

Paul was pretty mean about it, but he was mostly just pissed at the Greeks and all their orgies. It wasn't so much the homosexuality specifically, as it was that it tended to be one facet of the big perverted hedonistic mess that was some aspects of upper class Greek culture of the era.
Yeah, everything I read about the Old God makes me think he was a real cranky dick. Luckily having a son mellowed him out and changed his New Testament to one of love for all mankind (except fags, apparently).

Banacek

11-06-2008, 12:08 PM

In Levitical terms it's about as "morally wrong" as eating fish on the wrong day of the week or not washing your vegetables properly.

Paul was pretty mean about it, but he was mostly just pissed at the Greeks and all their orgies. It wasn't so much the homosexuality specifically, as it was that it tended to be one facet of the big perverted hedonistic mess that was some aspects of upper class Greek culture of the era.

It's a shame that you are so right about what you wrote, but Christians are too blind to see the truth in your words. Their blind devotion to Paul and his teachings, teaching that go against the words and actions of their Messiah, has causes too much grief.

TheFlyingOrc

11-06-2008, 12:12 PM

I'm sorry you have chosen to twist your faith to support hating others, but that doesn't give you the right to force the government to bow to your will and start switching terms around just because you personally find it icky.

And yes, you're a bigot. congratulations. I hope the Creator is more forgiving of that fault than I would be.
No. I can think something is wrong without value judging them as a person, and I really don't feel like getting into a huge apologetic argument over the minutia of old testament law.

Dictionary.com - Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

I highly tolerate the behavior, I just heavily disagree with it. Your definition of bigotry is worthless as to define me as a bigot casts a moral judgement on me because I hold a different opinion than your own. I have had homosexual friends and I NEVER BROUGHT THE TOPIC UP. I do not believe that all homosexuals are instantly doomed to hell. You. Don't. Know. Me.

TheFlyingOrc

11-06-2008, 12:15 PM

In Levitical terms it's about as "morally wrong" as eating fish on the wrong day of the week or not washing your vegetables properly.

Paul was pretty mean about it, but he was mostly just pissed at the Greeks and all their orgies. It wasn't so much the homosexuality specifically, as it was that it tended to be one facet of the big perverted hedonistic mess that was some aspects of upper class Greek culture of the era.

Objective proof of both of these claims, please.

The first is a rebuttal to a particularly poor attack on homosexuality - it uses "abomination" to attempt to show how abhorrent the behavior it is. The weakness of the argument is the same term is used to condemn the eating of shellfish. I'm familiar with it.

Proof that you know exactly what Paul's motivations were, though.

5y1v4r

11-06-2008, 12:40 PM

Objective proof of both of these claims, please.

The first is a rebuttal to a particularly poor attack on homosexuality - it uses "abomination" to attempt to show how abhorrent the behavior it is. The weakness of the argument is the same term is used to condemn the eating of shellfish. I'm familiar with it.

Proof that you know exactly what Paul's motivations were, though.
Ah, but your personal views are not really important here. You are welcome to believe that gays and lesbians are morally wrong and while I personally couldn't agree with you less, that's your opinion (though I imagine you probably touched off another flamewar in this already volatile thread, congrats) The problem lies where people with beliefs such as yours attempt to legislate their personal morality so that it impinges on the rights of others. That is what we are seeing with Proposition 8, and that is far more morally wrong than anything else.

Banacek

11-06-2008, 12:43 PM

Proof that you know exactly what Paul's motivations were, though.

The argument about Paul is a classic one. One could easily ask you to prove that his intent wasn't about the decadent lifestyles that was found in Rome at the time. It's odd that he would mention homosexuality to the Romans and not to the Greeks, isn't it? Anyway, Paul's letters we never meant to be cannon, as they clearly weren't written with that intention. It was only later that they were added by the church.

Basically, my position is that if you are going to damn a certain group of people to Hell (not you, but others), you should be clear about it. As it stands Jesus loved ALL outcasts, including prostitutes and other morally "wrong" people. I just don't see that love of Christ coming out of Paul's writings.

TheFlyingOrc

11-06-2008, 12:51 PM

Ah, but your personal views are not really important here. You are welcome to believe that gays and lesbians are morally wrong and while I personally couldn't agree with you less, that's your opinion (though I imagine you probably touched off another flamewar in this already volatile thread, congrats) The problem lies where people with beliefs such as yours attempt to legislate their personal morality so that it impinges on the rights of others. That is what we are seeing with Proposition 8, and that is far more morally wrong than anything else.
I agree. I think the solution that fixes the problem is taking marriage out of the equation.

Scaryfaced

11-06-2008, 12:55 PM

It's easy to speculate about Paul. I think anyone with a christian background know's his past. Keeping that in mind, it's much easier to see some of the tinge of his past in his letters and assertions. Much like the rest of the Bible, you can completely ignore the historical significance and backgrounds of the various writers if you wish. However, the whole book reads alot differently when you realize that the John who wrote the Gospel wasn't the same man as John the Apostille, and that Paul was a former Roman tax collector, biting the hand that fed him, or that at the time of it's writing, Romans were throwing christians to lions or roasting them in giant ovens for public entertainment.

The Bible can be read a variety of different ways. It's up to you to decide which you believe in more. Being a history nerd myself, I tend to look at the stories in historical context. However, if you believe the Bible is the actual "word of God", dictated by the Lord, you probably don't give two shits about context.
________
Shemale strokers (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/974/strokers/videos/1)

ClannerDelta

11-06-2008, 01:05 PM

So you're basically proving the point he was making after he was attacked for him.

It's great he has a different opinion, as long as his opinion doesn't get verbalized (or in this case, typed)? For cryin out loud, don't let an opposing opinion get too involved! Isn't this the same FUD that you (and Banacek and a few others) are trying not to let HIM spread? Oh wait, that's right, it's different. You're opinion is the correct one. I'm sorry.

Feel free to ignore everything and cherry pick a single sentence, it's amazing how easy it is to make someone look the monster while doing that.

Johan is a great poster when he brings up his opinions about the topic at hand. Read his responses though, most of them revolve around petty little attempts to avoid any and all discourse based on a few people attacking him.

You disagree with me, that's all dandy, but the past is on my side. And don't misrepresent what I'm saying. I'll take it as a kindness.

I never sided with or against Johan's beliefs. Only the way he was destroying discourse at the time. Try to get your facts right please.

TheFlyingOrc

11-06-2008, 01:07 PM

The argument about Paul is a classic one. One could easily ask you to prove that his intent wasn't about the decadent lifestyles that was found in Rome at the time.

J Arcane was basically calling everyone stupid who didn't agree with this particular interpretation of Paul's writings. That is a possible interpretation of what Paul was saying there, but it is by no means definitive. I rarely argue that my beliefs are superior to someone else's, I'm simply defending my right to have them.

It's odd that he would mention homosexuality to the Romans and not to the Greeks, isn't it?

Not sure where you're getting this. Homosexuality is specifically mentioned in Romans and Corinthians (which is in Greece)

Anyway, Paul's letters we never meant to be cannon, as they clearly weren't written with that intention. It was only later that they were added by the church.

Very few non-history bible books were meant to be religious canon. Honestly, if you were writing a book that you thought was worthy of being called the word of God, you're kind of an arrogant prick. They were considered authoritative, if not scriptural.

Basically, my position is that if you are going to damn a certain group of people to Hell (not you, but others), you should be clear about it. As it stands Jesus loved ALL outcasts, including prostitutes and other morally "wrong" people. I just don't see that love of Christ coming out of Paul's writings.
I can't find a place where he grants them special condemnation - the Romans passage talks about homosexuality along with other things, and claims that God let them reap what they had sown, rather than talking about specialized punishment. They are also in a huge list including "liars" in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1st Timothy Chapter 1. I see him saying practicing such behavior is wrong, not that feeling such inclination is wrong. I see no inherent contradiction between Paul and Christ.

TheFlyingOrc

11-06-2008, 01:10 PM

It's easy to speculate about Paul. I think anyone with a christian background know's his past. Keeping that in mind, it's much easier to see some of the tinge of his past in his letters and assertions. Much like the rest of the Bible, you can completely ignore the historical significance and backgrounds of the various writers if you wish. However, the whole book reads alot differently when you realize that the John who wrote the Gospel wasn't the same man as John the Apostille, and that Paul was a former Roman tax collector, biting the hand that fed him, or that at the time of it's writing, Romans were throwing christians to lions or roasting them in giant ovens for public entertainment.

I think you're confused. The writer of John unabashedly claims to be John the apostle, and Paul was a former Pharisee, not a Roman. He had roman citizenship, but many of his letters were written before any Roman persecution of Christians had begun.

itchyeyes

11-06-2008, 01:13 PM

J Arcane was basically calling everyone stupid who didn't agree with this particular interpretation of Paul's writings. That is a possible interpretation of what Paul was saying there, but it is by no means definitive. I rarely argue that my beliefs are superior to someone else's, I'm simply defending my right to have them.
It is implicit in the act of having beliefs at all that we believe them to be superior to known contrasting beliefs. For if we did not believe them to be superior, it would be irrational for us to continue holding such beliefs. ;)

TheFlyingOrc

11-06-2008, 01:16 PM

It is implicit in the act of having beliefs at all that we believe them to be superior to known contrasting beliefs. For if we did not believe them to be superior, it would be irrational for us to continue holding such beliefs. ;)
Huh. I attempt to say that they're superior to the best of my knowledge, but I think a healthy level of self-doubt is important, and one simply cannot assume that all others who do not know what you know are foolish.

Scaryfaced

11-06-2008, 03:22 PM

I think you're confused. The writer of John unabashedly claims to be John the apostle, and Paul was a former Pharisee, not a Roman. He had roman citizenship, but many of his letters were written before any Roman persecution of Christians had begun.

John could claim to be whoever he wanted, that doesn't necessarily make it true. Most modern historians believe the book of John was written anonymously by a christian follower around 90-100 AD. While I'm not saying this is definitive, nothing in history ever is, I reject the idea that John the Apostle is also John the Gospel writer.

It's also historically accepted that Paul never actually met Jesus. He was converted by a vision of the resurrected Christ after his death. Of course, I guess meeting the resurrected Jesus, in his shiney, golden glory could be considered "meeting" the guy. You'll have to excuse me if I don't entirely buy into his version of what Christianity is all about.
________
Pornstars jewish (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/871/jewish/videos/1)

rinichanraar

11-06-2008, 03:22 PM

Ah, but your personal views are not really important here. You are welcome to believe that gays and lesbians are morally wrong and while I personally couldn't agree with you less, that's your opinion (though I imagine you probably touched off another flamewar in this already volatile thread, congrats) The problem lies where people with beliefs such as yours attempt to legislate their personal morality so that it impinges on the rights of others. That is what we are seeing with Proposition 8, and that is far more morally wrong than anything else.

Very well said. (Cue slowclap.gif.)

(And with that, I'm fleeing from this thread.)

5y1v4r

11-06-2008, 03:41 PM

Very well said. (Cue slowclap.gif.)

(And with that, I'm fleeing from this thread.)
Yeah you and me both, I think just about everything useful has already been said here and now we're just bringing up the same points over and over.

That said, a new thread debating the finer points of Christianity would probably be interesting.

ShivaX

11-06-2008, 04:22 PM

I'm with TheFlyingOrc on this to an extent. Heres the issues I have with how this is going.

I'm in favor of government getting out of the "Marriage" business. Marriage should be a purely religious act. The government should work with "civil unions" because it has no religious connotations and more of a legal term.

The problem is that states are passing laws banning marriage for gays. Marriage shouldn't be in the realm of things the government can regulate. They can't regulate baptisms, they shouldn't be allowed to regulate any other religious act (like say marriage).

People are jumping all over Orc when what he is saying is the only way things will work. As long as its called "marriage" there is a direct link to religion (which is why everyone is freaking out about it in the first place). Civil unions are essentially legal constructions. Everyone should be in a civil union in the eyes of the government. The government doesn't care if you're baptised, they don't care if you took Communion, they shouldn't care if you got married. In that vein, the government cannot regulate a religious act, so they can't ban gay marriage. If a gay couple can find a Church willing to do it for them, then they can get married. My cat can get "married" to another cat for that matter, just don't expect the government to acknowledge it in any way.

MagGnome

11-06-2008, 05:57 PM

I'd really like to leave this post, but I've decided that the new direction the thread has gone in is worth taking this out. Hopefully no one saw it. :p

MagGnome

11-06-2008, 06:06 PM

edit: and I'm talking about BOTH sides of the issue - the reason most homosexuals are enraged about it is not because of taxes, visiting rights, etc.

Really? Since when do you speak for "most homosexuals"?

Blue

11-06-2008, 06:11 PM

To compare what ANYONE in this thread has said to the rhetoric of Fred Phelps and his ilk is ridiculous.

Calling someone a bigot is the same as picketing Matthew Sheppherd's funeral and holding up signs saying all gays should die of AIDs?

Give me a fucking break.

How many times are you going to quit this thread anyway?

I think it's how bigot keeps getting used here. It's lost all meaning. If a person here is opposed to gay marriage and they say so, they're written off as ignorant and a bigot. No one cares why, they're just automatically given a scarlet "B" and the people for gay marriage are the enlightened who crap gold.

I think that's what Johan was driving at not that both are equal in gravity. I honestly don't think people realize that they do the exact same thing in these threads that they demonize others for and claim to have the moral high ground and have seen the light. That's a croc. No one's opinion in these are right and wrong. If you're opposed to gay marriage you're not the bad guy and if you're for gay marriage you're not the bad guy.

People really need to grow up and stop using so wide a brush to define people. This isn't remotely a black and white issue and scoffing at people who disagree with you and stooping to personal attacks in any manner is not the way to make a point. Ever.

Edit: Sorry Gnomey :) My fingers are lightning fast. Cough.

Banacek

11-06-2008, 06:22 PM

If you're opposed to gay marriage you're not the bad guy and if you're for gay marriage you're not the bad guy.

Couldn't disagree more. Replace gay with interracial and see how you feel about that sentence.

MagGnome

11-06-2008, 06:25 PM

Damnit Blue, I erased that post. :p

I stand by my point though. Equating someone who uses the term "bigot" to Phelps and co. is ludicrous. Might as well invoke Godwin's law at that point.

Blue

11-06-2008, 06:30 PM

Couldn't disagree more. Replace gay with interracial and see how you feel about that sentence.

Still the same. The minute I start slinging around names makes me no better than the person I disagree with. I absolutely feel that everyone is entitled to their own opinion no matter how much I do not agree. So yes, I still feel the same and it's not my place to attack someone else nor call them a name for it.

Blue

11-06-2008, 06:32 PM

Damnit Blue, I erased that post. :p

I stand by my point though. Equating someone who uses the term "bigot" to Phelps and co. is ludicrous. Might as well invoke Godwin's law at that point.

I'll erase mine if you want to. Just say the word yo. And I agree with you on the fact that there are levels, but I still disagree that anyone should mudsling and toss around the world bigot so casually. Have an actual dialogue without trying to have a superior attitude (not you Gnome, just threads like these in general).

MagGnome

11-06-2008, 06:38 PM

I'll erase mine if you want to. Just say the word yo. And I agree with you on the fact that there are levels, but I still disagree that anyone should mudsling and toss around the world bigot so casually. Have an actual dialogue without trying to have a superior attitude (not you Gnome, just threads like these in general).

You can leave it up there; I really don't mind.

It would be nice to have an actual dialogue on this issue. Unfortunately that only happened in a small portion of this thread.

mister slim

11-06-2008, 06:39 PM

Marriage would become a purely religious act. Like commencement or something. Legally it would cease to exist along with all the rights it grants.

Well, it wouldn't be purely religious, it would just be extra-legal (by which I mean it would exist outside law). At which point churches would be free to choose whether or not to perform these legally meaningless marriage ceremonies for different types of couples. There would certainly be some churches marrying gay couples, though I doubt it would matter, since the commonly used term for anyone with a civil union would be 'married'. And since 'marriage' would no longer defined in any legal sense, anyone would be able to say they were married. I doubt there would be lawsuits, though there would be problems while hetero and homo couples sorted out what rights they received from other countries still using the term 'marriage'.

Heresyte

11-07-2008, 12:12 AM

I understand that a lot of people are arguing that the government should drop the term "marriage" simply as a means of making things easier, but the argument that it's wrong for the government to use the term is ridiculous.

There are as many different definitions of the word marriage as there are cultures, and the only commonality between them is that they're some sort of formal relationship between people. One particular culture or religion does not have the right to claim a monopoly on the word. It does not infringe on the rights of christians (or any other group) for "non-christian" (or non-whatever) marriages to be referred to as marriages. Since everyone else uses the term "marriage" to refer to their version of a formal relationship between people, there's no good reason why the government can't as well.

And on that note, I don't think there's a good reason why they should avoid the term either. Instead of making things easier, trying to arbitrarily change a term that has been in use for so long and become so ingrained in people's vocabularies (and legal documents) will be an extremely complicated mess.

Also, despite any reasons that people are coming up with to try and justify a name change, the fact remains that the real reason why this is being discussed (and thus the real reason why the name would be changed) is because people want to discriminate against gays. The government has been giving marriages to couples that don't fit the "christian" definition of marriage for a long time without there being any public outrage (again, I'm not singling out christians or implying that all christians are the same, just using them as the example because it is a fact that that is where the majority of the discrimination is coming from). The only reason why christians are bitching about it now is because they refuse to allow gays to have equal rights, and there is no way to escape from this reality. So changing the name now will still single out gays and imply that they are second class citizens (i.e. other "non-christian" couples were able to get "married" without issue, but when the gays wanted to as well, society stops using the term so that the gays can't have it).

Generation ABXY

11-07-2008, 12:21 AM

W - T
A O E
L F X
L - T

And, I rest my case. Even if we do change the term, and open that up to everyone, it seems like the battle will rage on. :(

EDIT: Mind you, I'm not slamming you, Herestyle, just pointing out that we'll probably here similar arguements later.

MagGnome

11-07-2008, 05:36 AM

Heresyte makes a great point.

This has little to do with the "sanctity" of marriage and everything to do with discrimination against homosexuals.

KingGorilla

11-07-2008, 06:10 AM

Is it an argument so much of anillustration of how other countries handle domestic partnership?

The German and Spanish systems are elegant in their simplicity.

Khrymsyn

11-07-2008, 08:01 AM

Heresyte makes a great point.

This has little to do with the "sanctity" of marriage and everything to do with discrimination against homosexuals.

I agree with that. My thinking in the state no longer honoring "marriage" and calling it something different eliminates the currently convienient excuse of gays being "married" ruining the "sanctity" since it wouldn't be called a "marriage" anymore...

But here's the REAL question, that I am kind of shocked hasn't been asked...

Mag (and anyone else who is DIRECTLY affected, i.e. gay or lesbian), how do YOU feel about the concept of the word "marriage" not being used by the state, and keeping the state sanctioned/honored "union" separate from the religious connotation of "marriage"? (i.e. no one, straight or gay can get "married" by the state, but all can become part of a "union" with the exact same rights and privaleges?)

TurboKinny

11-07-2008, 08:18 AM

wyeast

11-07-2008, 08:58 AM

Does civil unions carry the same interstate recognition as marriage? People get married in one state, it's presumptive that they enjoy the same legal benefits/rights anywhere else they happen to move to later in life.

Considering how frequently I hear about how one locale threatening not to recognize if a gay couple fled to another state to get a "legal union" I'm guessing that's not the case. If so, it is an inequality issue, even if it appears to be equal just in one state.

Sorry if that's just a repost - I could only wade so far into the massive wall of text from the last two days. :o

ShivaX

11-07-2008, 11:10 AM

Does civil unions carry the same interstate recognition as marriage?

I doubt it. I'm willing to bet most states wouldn't acknowledge a gay marriage either, though. Which might be why so many are trying to get a definition of "a man and a woman" on the books. Then when a gay couple comes in from MA or something they can say they aren't married and, thus, don't get any of the rights associated while in that state.

Generation ABXY

11-07-2008, 11:52 AM

Heresyte makes a great point.

This has little to do with the "sanctity" of marriage and everything to do with discrimination against homosexuals.

Except for the fact that there are plenty of religious people who find homosexuality to be an abomination, and that allowing them to marry (at least in the religious sense) does indeed destroy the sanctity of marriage.

TurboKinny

11-07-2008, 11:53 AM

I doubt it. I'm willing to bet most states wouldn't acknowledge a gay marriage either, though. Which might be why so many are trying to get a definition of "a man and a woman" on the books. Then when a gay couple comes in from MA or something they can say they aren't married and, thus, don't get any of the rights associated while in that state.You're correct here. The DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) signed by Clinton says that all states must recognize marriages performed in all other states, but excludes same-sex marriages. Therefore, a marriage performed in California before the ban, for example, would be recognized in Massachusetts but not in Texas.

Young Al Capone

11-07-2008, 12:14 PM

Except for the fact that there are plenty of religious people who find homosexuality to be an abomination, and that allowing them to marry (at least in the religious sense) does indeed destroy the sanctity of marriage.

Did you even read what Heresyte wrote? It was more about the semantics concerning the usage of the term 'marriage' than about the sanctity of the religous sacrament.

Generation ABXY

11-07-2008, 12:25 PM

Did you even read what Heresyte wrote? It was more about the semantics concerning the usage of the term 'marriage' than about the sanctity of the religous sacrament.

I did, but it was late and I've likely forgotten most of it. I'll give it another look.

Young Al Capone

11-07-2008, 12:26 PM

I did, but it was late and I've likely forgotten most of it. I'll give it another look.

Please do, as I really think you missed his point.

11-07-2008, 02:08 PM

Does civil unions carry the same interstate recognition as marriage? People get married in one state, it's presumptive that they enjoy the same legal benefits/rights anywhere else they happen to move to later in life.
It depends. Some states, like New York, recognize same-sex civil unions for many purposes even though they don't have civil-union laws themselves. Likewise, people who get married in one state won't necessarily have the same rights in other states if the marriage is considered "against public policy." For example, in some states it's legal for first cousins to marry, but if they move to a different state, that state may not recognize their union.

JayK47

11-07-2008, 03:22 PM

Best regards. Goodbye.

Way to get too fucking involved in a forum discussion. This could have very well be a discussion between Xbox 360 and PS3. Damn, if people were to leave every time there was a disagreement, I would be talking to myself. And this is also why we don't have a politics/religion forum on this site. Some of you take this shit WAY to personally. Lighten up, this is a gaming forum. Talk about games. This reminds me of why I do NOT want to know what actors think. I just want to enjoy the movies they are in. And this goes for music as well. For instance, it is still hard for me to like Metallica based on how they reacted to file sharing. I just don't want to know. And for that reason, I don't want to know how you guys feel bout gay marriage, if you are gay yourself, black or white, democrat or republican. I just want to discuss games with you. Is that so fucking hard?

ShivaX

11-07-2008, 03:56 PM

I just want to discuss games with you. Is that so fucking hard?

I'd recommend sticking to the game forums. This forum will be general discussion about non-game things. I'm not sure why you'd come to the non-game forum and expect talking about games.

I understand where you are coming from, but consider the nature of this forum. Everything in this forum is going to be about "other stuff" be that stuff politics, religion, sex or what have you. If you don't want to know how Mags feels about waffles and only care about his opinion on Farcry2, then this is the wrong forum to spend much time looking at. Coming into the forum and complaining that its not about games and you don't want to know it doesn't make sense.

I think part of what you were trying to say is along the lines of "why can't we all just get along and talk about video games?" In that regard I wont disagree, but I've always been one able to insulate other discussions from gaming discussions. Back on EvAv I passionately hated Ryctor in the P&R forum, but that didn't impact how much he liked a game one bit. The same goes for anyone really. Hell I have a tendency to not hold anything against anyone, every thread starts with a clean slate as far as I'm concerned.

MagGnome

11-07-2008, 04:14 PM

But here's the REAL question, that I am kind of shocked hasn't been asked...

Mag (and anyone else who is DIRECTLY affected, i.e. gay or lesbian), how do YOU feel about the concept of the word "marriage" not being used by the state, and keeping the state sanctioned/honored "union" separate from the religious connotation of "marriage"? (i.e. no one, straight or gay can get "married" by the state, but all can become part of a "union" with the exact same rights and privaleges?)

I think calling it another name misses the point. People are still going to refer to themselves as "married". Bill and I are "unionized" carries quite a different definition. :p

I fail to see why the Christian church suddenly has a monopoly on the word "marriage". Marriage started long before the church was around, and people the world over who are NOT Christian get married.

The real point though is that this isn't about marriage. Fundamentalists hate the very idea of gay people. They want us to not exist, period. Marriage is merely where the battle is now, but they'd like to push us completely back into the closet. Obviously I don't speak for every fundie, but it's pretty obvious that many of them would rather live in a world where homosexuals were either non-existant or subject to similar treatment as those unfortunate enough to be gay in countries like Iran.

I know that last statement will be controversial, but I've heard it from enough fundies to know that many of them believe just that.

MagGnome

11-07-2008, 04:15 PM

I doubt it. I'm willing to bet most states wouldn't acknowledge a gay marriage either, though. Which might be why so many are trying to get a definition of "a man and a woman" on the books. Then when a gay couple comes in from MA or something they can say they aren't married and, thus, don't get any of the rights associated while in that state.

This has already happened on an international level. Canadian couples have been denied entry to the United States because they were legally wed in Canada. It happens across state lines as well, although obviously in most cases couples are not denied entry/residence, but their married becomes legally meaningless.

For the record, I haven't had a good waffle in ages, although I prefer mine with fruit on time and a light amount of syrup. As for Farcry 2, I don't have much interest in the title. Hopefully that clears things up a bit. ;)

Heresyte

11-07-2008, 04:26 PM

There's one thing that doesn't get brought up very much, and that is it's very easy to prove that outlawing same-sex marriage is gender discrimination (personally I find this to be the clearest and most compelling argument).

If men have the right to marry women, then women deserve the right to marry women, and if women have the right to marry men, then men deserve the right to marry men. To suggest that men can marry women but women can't is clearly discriminating against women, and to suggest that women can marry men but men can't is clearly discriminating against men.

Sometimes people express confusion over why outlawing same-sex marriage is discrimination, since technically it isn't making it illegal for homosexuals to marry in general (i.e. heterosexual men and homosexual men have the same exact right: the right to marry women). I think my prior argument is the clearest way of showing that this is the wrong way of looking at the issue (it avoids having to deal with abstract concepts).

Banacek

11-07-2008, 04:30 PM

I think calling it another name misses the point. People are still going to refer to themselves as "married". Bill and I are "unionized" carries quite a different definition. :p

I fail to see why the Christian church suddenly has a monopoly on the word "marriage". Marriage started long before the church was around, and people the world over who are NOT Christian get married.

The real point though is that this isn't about marriage. Fundamentalists hate the very idea of gay people. They want us to not exist, period. Marriage is merely where the battle is now, but they'd like to push us completely back into the closet. Obviously I don't speak for every fundie, but it's pretty obvious that many of them would rather live in a world where homosexuals were either non-existant or subject to similar treatment as those unfortunate enough to be gay in countries like Iran.

I know that last statement will be controversial, but I've heard it from enough fundies to know that many of them believe just that.

I would assume that most fundies think of gays as part of that evil empire that is out to destroy Christianity, along with Satanists, the Illuminati, and the Atheists. I wish I was joking. They love to fantasize about being persecuted. I never understood it. (I'm not saying all Christians are like this, just the fundies)

Purple Santa

11-07-2008, 04:35 PM

Something I read with interest tonight that made me think of this thread. I read how Obama had a high amount of young evangelicals vote for him. Many of them were not interested in what many of their parents or their faith leaders thought were or are issues. If change is to come from groups that oppose gay marriage, it begins from within. From those whose beliefs are a bit more malleable. How that is done is not with rhetoric thrown at them but honest discussion. Those reasons within groups that they oppose gay marriage are reasonable to the belief holder. However, that doesn't mean it can't be changed. It's part education, it's part face to face discussion. I have read more research through the years on how face to face interactions begin to melt inaccurate beliefs about groups or individuals. Obama reached groups of people that no one thought possible. I believe that can be done on so many other issues. But it's done with respect, discussion and education about each others views. What is needed is more face to face discussion. How that begins, i'm not sure. But If I was group organizers, this is a path that I would be seeking out.

ShivaX

11-07-2008, 04:36 PM

They love to fantasize about being persecuted. I never understood it.

They don't want to accept that they are now the Romans.

Heresyte

11-07-2008, 04:41 PM

Generation ABXY

11-07-2008, 05:38 PM

I think calling it another name misses the point. People are still going to refer to themselves as "married". Bill and I are "unionized" carries quite a different definition. :p

I fail to see why the Christian church suddenly has a monopoly on the word "marriage". Marriage started long before the church was around, and people the world over who are NOT Christian get married.

The real point though is that this isn't about marriage. Fundamentalists hate the very idea of gay people. They want us to not exist, period. Marriage is merely where the battle is now, but they'd like to push us completely back into the closet. Obviously I don't speak for every fundie, but it's pretty obvious that many of them would rather live in a world where homosexuals were either non-existant or subject to similar treatment as those unfortunate enough to be gay in countries like Iran.

I know that last statement will be controversial, but I've heard it from enough fundies to know that many of them believe just that.

Okay, now hold-up. Perhaps I just read that wrong, but it seems to me you didn't really answer the question (or, at the very least, I have a different question). So, as a homosexual, would you okay with the term civil union, even if it has all the rights usually applied to a marriage?

MagGnome

11-07-2008, 05:40 PM

MagGnome

11-07-2008, 05:46 PM

Okay, now hold-up. Perhaps I just read that wrong, but it seems to me you didn't really answer the question (or, at the very least, I have a different question). So, as a homosexual, would you okay with the term civil union, even if it has all the rights usually applied to a marriage?

Not really. I view civil unions as being very equivalent to the "separate but equal" argument.

As I said previously, I think it skirts around the issue rather than facing it head on, and I don't see how it solves the problem.

Is allowing me to form a "civil union" with another man going to make the fundies stop coming after me and trying to take away my rights? I just don't see it.

mister slim

11-07-2008, 05:49 PM

I would assume that most fundies think of gays as part of that evil empire that is out to destroy Christianity, along with Satanists, the Illuminati, and the Atheists. I wish I was joking. They love to fantasize about being persecuted. I never understood it. (I'm not saying all Christians are like this, just the fundies)

Oregon libraries have a central database of all the requests to remove materials from the library, including the specific book, the patron's reason, and the decision of the library. Luckily the vast majority of the time books are not removed. Anyway, skimming it the other day I noticed someone had requested multiple Golden Book adaptations of classic Disney animations be removed, due to it encouraging the reader's interest in the "occult/satanism".

Okay, now hold-up. Perhaps I just read that wrong, but it seems to me you didn't really answer the question (or, at the very least, I have a different question). So, as a homosexual, would you okay with the term civil union, even if it has all the rights usually applied to a marriage?

Are we talking 'separate but equal' or 'everyone's marriage is a civil union now'?

MagGnome

11-07-2008, 06:05 PM

Would fundamentalist Christians actually drop the issue if everyone was granted a civil union and marriage was taken away as a legal term? I have a hard time believing that that would be the end of the argument.

Gay men and women are not trying to argue that we should be allowed to get married in any church we want to. A church is the LAST place I would ever want to get married, in fact. The only ones being infringed on here in any way are the homosexual men and women who's rights are being denied by a bunch of people who think we live in a theocracy, or would like to create one.

wyeast

11-07-2008, 06:18 PM

Not really. I view civil unions as being very equivalent to the "separate but equal" argument.
Yeah, I can't say I'd be terribly Sunshine and Happiness if I was only allowed an interracial "civil union".

*finger twirl*

Inspector Fowler

11-07-2008, 06:42 PM

Scaryfaced

11-07-2008, 07:07 PM

Is over 50% of your state "fundamentalist Christians"?

If not, why did the proposition pass?

While I feel I could make a pretty good argument about why "fundys" feel so strongly about marriage, there isn't much point - I'm not about to get involved in the Johan games.

But this kind of intellectual superiority complex is what drives people away from seeing it your way. Instead of complaing about how the "fundys" are so awful, start thinking of ways to rationally present your arguments to the people that those dreaded Christians have been mind-controlling all these years.

Rationally presented arguements such as equality and fair treatment under the law or are we talking about better arguement? Proove that gays can make babies and then we'll talk!

Frankly, rational arguements have been presented over and over again. A few can even be found in this very thready. People against gay marriage just don't seem to care about the reasons presented. How is it irrational to expect equal rights applied to all people?
________
Rehab Help (http://www.rehab-forum.com/)

ShivaX

11-07-2008, 07:10 PM

Would fundamentalist Christians actually drop the issue if everyone was granted a civil union and marriage was taken away as a legal term? I have a hard time believing that that would be the end of the argument.
The fundies? No, but they're still trying to stop people from buying metal albums, so don't expect much from them. The people that will stop doing anything are the run of the mill religious people who don't really care but see things in the light of homosexuals trying to push their "agenda" on them. Even Palin supposedly supports civil unions.

mister slim

11-07-2008, 07:15 PM

But this kind of intellectual superiority complex is what drives people away from seeing it your way. Instead of complaing about how the "fundys" are so awful, start thinking of ways to rationally present your arguments to the people that those dreaded Christians have been mind-controlling all these years.

I think Prop 8 demonstrates that it's hard to present rational arguments when your opponents both claim the moral high ground and lie at top volume.

Inspector Fowler

11-07-2008, 07:55 PM

I'm not trying to say who is right and who is wrong here.

I love CoG, and I love you guys. I really do, even though this thread obviously gets my blood boiling. I just don't get how you don't understand that insulting people really doesn't get your point across.

The point I made in the original post is that (especially in California), the "religious right" is NOT 50% of the voters. If that small percentage was able to sway the voters, you can too - but not by whining or insulting them, or making them feel dumb - the very title of this thread indicates that you feel that the majority of voters are tyrants. Not a good attitude to have.

The "opposition" isn't really the religious right - they will always vote against gays, you can't sway them in the ballot booth. You need to think of this as a war to win the voters who can be swayed. Unfortunately, the anti-Prop 8 crowd has focused on villianizing the religious right instead of actually speaking to the voters. Bad move.

Now that it's up to lawsuits, you've already lost the public perception war. The voters will feel like a small group of gay rights activists are doing an "end run" around them and using the (often liberal) California Supreme Court to overturn the "will of the people". It gives the religious right more ammunition to illustrate how "special interest groups" don't care about the "majority rights" and seek only their own benefit. :(

And once again, don't assume I stand anywhere on this issue. I'm a straight married Christian whose two absolute best friends at work are both lesbians who are, for all purposes but legally, married. I have another friend who just completed gender reassignment surgery. I'm just saying that when you insult people, it's really easy for them to feel victimized and distanced from your position, and it doesn't get you anywhere in the long run.

ClannerDelta

11-07-2008, 08:47 PM

the very title of this thread indicates that you feel that the majority of voters are tyrants. Not a good attitude to have.

This is the only part I disagree with. It is tyranny of the majority to impose certain belief structures on others through the law. That's why we are very specifically a Republic and not a Democracy.

Scaryfaced

11-07-2008, 08:50 PM

If your at all curious why Prop 8 passed in California, I might be able to lend some perspective. Its silly to say that the "religious right" is to blame for the prop's sucess, it's a false demonization. It's obvious that California doesn't have a controling majority of religious republicans, they're just another demographic within the group of people who voted against gay marriage. A larger demographic than many might expect, actually. It may be suprising to the rest of the country, but California isn't all Liberals and homos.:D

While it's obvious that members of the religious right had something to do with the prop's success, there's alot more to it than that. Religion, in general, had alot to do with it, sans the politics involved. At risk of sounding like a racist, Hispanics and Blacks played a big part in it as well. Hispanics, by large, are devout Catholics. It's a fact, so I don't feel bad using broad strokes here. Devout Catholics, by large, won't vote for gay marriage. Catholic priests across the state have been railing in favor of the prop from the pulpit since it made it's way onto the ballot. I consider that illegal, but most don't seem to care. The increased black voter turnout this year didn't help either. California has a HUGE black population, the majority of which were voting for the first time and were voting Democrat. As an exit poll eariler in the thread illustrated, the majority of black citizens voted yes on 8. These two factors had a big impact, probably more so that what we keep refering to as the "religious right".

On top of all this, a huge smear campaign has raged on California television for the last month or so. Both the Mormon church and the Knights of Columbus sunk millions of dollars worth of ad time on every network, airing commercials filled with lies and scare tactics. Most of this money is from out of state, which I personally find rediculous. Basically, the commercials talked about homosexuality being taught to kindergarteners, children forced to attend gay marriages, the idea that gays could sue churches and a host of other crap. All of these issues are complete crocks of shit, but that doesn't matter when your running political ads. I think the preceived threat to their children influenced a large number of Californians as well.

Considering all the groups working against it, the prop was bound to pass. However, even with all that effort and money spent, it narrowly made it. In my opinion, it's an inevitability. We'll see how long religious organizations can keep it up.
________
Digital vaporizers (http://digitalvaporizers.info)

Generation ABXY

11-07-2008, 08:58 PM

Not really. I view civil unions as being very equivalent to the "separate but equal" argument.

As I said previously, I think it skirts around the issue rather than facing it head on, and I don't see how it solves the problem.

Is allowing me to form a "civil union" with another man going to make the fundies stop coming after me and trying to take away my rights? I just don't see it.

I haven’t gone back to check, so correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t you one of the people who has been saying that all you want is to have the same rights as “married couples?” What a lot of people are proposing seems to do just that: the government offers civil unions (with all the tax, insurance, etc. benefits of current marriages) to everyone, and let churches decide who they want to “marry” (with no legal benefit, regardless). Now, after all that, it sounds as though you do indeed arguing over a word.

To help make things more clear, what if the church made up a new term for it, say, “Holy Flibbertigibbet.” Now, this has no legal ramifications to the government – it means nothing to them...you could marry a garden tool if the church allowed it, and the government wouldn’t give you a single cent in tax breaks – would you, as a gay person, still be looking to be allowed to joined in a Holy Flibbertigibbet?

I realize this may seem similar to my last question, but I only ask it this way because, if this is indeed the case, it sounds like you want to force the church to accept homosexuals. And, quite frankly, that is impossible...

EDIT:

Okay, I found a quote...

This is the kind of thing that makes me realize that there are a lot of fucked up, hateful people out there that have nothing better to do with their time than take away my rights and worry about what I'm doing in my private life. Who gives a shit about poverty or homelessness or underfunded schools or healthcare when the gays are getting married, right?

...and that, along with several other quotes mentioning "gay rights," sound like you want the benefits of marriage. People are offering up just that, and I still hear a complaint that you're "separate, but equal." That may be, but you are separate from one group: those that believe your lifestyle is forbidden by their god. At this point - and I don't want to get into a pissing match of Bible quotes - it seems more like you are trying to impose yourself on someone else's religion.

Banacek

11-07-2008, 09:14 PM

Oregon libraries have a central database of all the requests to remove materials from the library, including the specific book, the patron's reason, and the decision of the library. Luckily the vast majority of the time books are not removed. Anyway, skimming it the other day I noticed someone had requested multiple Golden Book adaptations of classic Disney animations be removed, due to it encouraging the reader's interest in the "occult/satanism".

Oh, they find paganism in EVERYTHING (except for things like Christmas and Easter, which are based on pagan rituals). The best was when I was younger, I used to have to read books about satanic things such as heavy metal and D&D. I remember saying to my Mom, 'Why do I need to read about secret backwards messages when I don't even own a record player?' Those books were so entertaining. I loved reading about Judas Priest and how D&D players have been dying all over the country performing witchcraft. If you've ever read any Chick tracks then you have a good idea of what my upbringing was like.

mister slim

11-07-2008, 09:42 PM

I haven’t gone back to check, so correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t you one of the people who has been saying that all you want is to have the same rights as “married couples?” What a lot of people are proposing seems to do just that: the government offers civil unions (with all the tax, insurance, etc. benefits of current marriages) to everyone, and let churches decide who they want to “marry” (with no legal benefit, regardless). Now, after all that, it sounds as though you do indeed arguing over a word.

To help make things more clear, what if the church made up a new term for it, say, “Holy Flibbertigibbet.” Now, this has no legal ramifications to the government – it means nothing to them...you could marry a garden tool if the church allowed it, and the government wouldn’t give you a single cent in tax breaks – would you, as a gay person, still be looking to be allowed to joined in a Holy Flibbertigibbet?

I realize this may seem similar to my last question, but I only ask it this way because, if this is indeed the case, it sounds like you want to force the church to accept homosexuals. And, quite frankly, that is impossible...

EDIT:

Okay, I found a quote...

...and that, along with several other quotes mentioning "gay rights," sound like you want the benefits of marriage. People are offering up just that, and I still hear a complaint that you're "separate, but equal." That may be, but you are separate from one group: those that believe your lifestyle is forbidden by their god. At this point - and I don't want to get into a pissing match of Bible quotes - it seems more like you are trying to impose yourself on someone else's religion.

You need to clarify what you're offering before you go on the attack. Are you asking about a hypothetical 'civil union' that would replace the word marriage in all civil law? Or are you talking about the type of civil union or domestic partnership we currently have in place in various states and countries, which pretends to be equal but is not?

As imposing on religion, what of the religions that would happily marry gay couples but cannot due to current law?

Banacek

11-07-2008, 09:44 PM

As imposing on religion, what of the religions that would happily marry gay couples but cannot due to current law?

Unitarians, for one. Progressive Jews for another.

Heresyte

11-07-2008, 09:45 PM

...and that, along with several other quotes mentioning "gay rights," sound like you want the benefits of marriage. People are offering up just that, and I still hear a complaint that you're "separate, but equal." That may be, but you are separate from one group: those that believe your lifestyle is forbidden by their god. At this point - and I don't want to get into a pissing match of Bible quotes - it seems more like you are trying to impose yourself on someone else's religion.
I wanted to keep this a secret, but my undying devotion to the holy one demands that I share this with the world. Women are an abomination in the eyes of god, the one true god, the only god that's not a fake god like all the other gods. All women need to be rounded up by the government and forced to live in caves underground, anything else would be a violation of the first amendment and my religious rights. I refuse to allow women to impose themselves on my religion by existing.

mister slim

11-07-2008, 09:46 PM

Oh, they find paganism in EVERYTHING (except for things like Christmas and Easter, which are based on pagan rituals). The best was when I was younger, I used to have to read books about satanic things such as heavy metal and D&D. I remember saying to my Mom, 'Why do I need to read about secret backwards messages when I don't even own a record player?' Those books were so entertaining. I loved reading about Judas Priest and how D&D players have been dying all over the country performing witchcraft. If you've ever read any Chick tracks then you have a good idea of what my upbringing was like.

Your avatar makes more sense now. I still enjoy reading a certain amount of crazy conspiracy theories. Conservapedia is my favorite source right now. Apparently Barack Obama is responsible for the deaths of Jennifer Hudson's family.

Generation ABXY

11-07-2008, 09:48 PM

You need to clarify what you're offering before you go on the attack. Are you asking about a hypothetical 'civil union' that would replace the word marriage in all civil law? Or are you talking about the type of civil union or domestic partnership we currently have in place in various states and countries, which pretends to be equal but is not?

I am indeed talking about a hypothetical replacement of government-recognized marriage with government-recognized civil unions (for all). We have been, after all, talking about the gay communities reaction to a potential compromise.

As imposing on religion, what of the religions that would happily marry gay couples but cannot due to current law?

Under the hypothetical compromise, any church that wants to offer (the then beneficially meaningless) marriage to homosexuals can - but, if you ever want to see real change and acceptance of the lifestyle, it has to be something the churches decide for themselves, not something mandated by law.

Generation ABXY

11-07-2008, 09:57 PM

I wanted to keep this a secret, but my undying devotion to the holy one demands that I share this with the world. Women are an abomination in the eyes of god, the one true god, the only god that's not a fake god like all the other gods. All women need to be rounded up by the government and forced to live in caves underground, anything else would be a violation of the first amendment and my religious rights. I refuse to allow women to impose themselves on my religion by existing.

That’s it, jump to the most ridiculous argument around.

In the compromise being discussed, no one is being oppressed; we are simply talking about instance where churches – not the government – are refusing to "marry" people, and even those who are married get no benefit except for basically having a nod from their god (in the church's eyes). No one is being told to sit at the back of the bus, drink from a separate fountain or rounded up and tossed in fucking caves.

I am simply trying to express that you cannot force people to believe something – you can force them to accept gays in the church, but you will never be able to make them accept them as people so long as they believe it is a sin. The same thing applies to racism; you can tell people they can’t use slurs anymore, but that does nothing to affect they underlying hate that exists there...I dare say you’d even make it worse.

Heresyte

11-07-2008, 10:10 PM

That’s it, jump to the most ridiculous argument around.

In the compromise being discussed, no one is being oppressed; we are simply talking about instance where churches – not the government – are refusing to "marry" people, and even those who are married get no benefit except for basically having a nod from their god (in the church's eyes). No one is being told to sit at the back of the bus, drink from a separate fountain or rounded up and tossed in fucking caves.

I am simply trying to express that you cannot force people to believe something – you can force them to accept gays in the church, but you will never be able to make them accept them as people so long as they believe it is a sin. The same thing applies to racism; you can tell people they can’t use slurs anymore, but that does nothing to affect they underlying hate that exists there...I dare say you’d even make it worse.
Churches can do whatever the hell they want - nobody is suggesting otherwise. People can believe whatever the hell they want - nobody is suggesting otherwise - but they cannot impose that belief on others. If I wanted to, I would be free to believe that interracial marriage is an abomination and a disgrace to whatever sky-genie I believe in, but that would not give me the right to outlaw interracial marriage. If interracial couples wanted to marry, that would not mean they are trying to impose themselves on my religion, and if the government allowed interracial couples to marry, that would not be a violation of my religious freedoms.

The existence of same-sex marriage would not in any way impose on the religious freedoms of anybody.

Since you're so annoyed that your ridiculous assertion got a ridiculous response, here's a more direct analogy: There's a large group of muslims that believe very strongly that it's unacceptable for women to go outside without wearing a fucking circus tent and being escorted by a male relative. Does that mean that by allowing women to go outside on their own wearing normal clothes, the government is infringing on their religion? NO.

Generation ABXY

11-07-2008, 10:39 PM

Churches can do whatever the hell they want - nobody is suggesting otherwise. People can believe whatever the hell they want - nobody is suggesting otherwise - but they cannot impose that belief on others. If I wanted to, I would be free to believe that interracial marriage is an abomination and a disgrace to whatever sky-genie I believe in, but that would not give me the right to outlaw interracial marriage. If interracial couples wanted to marry, that would not mean they are trying to impose themselves on my religion, and if the government allowed interracial couples to marry, that would not be a violation of my religious freedoms.

The existence of same-sex marriage would not in any way impose on the religious freedoms of anybody.

I can’t tell if you’re being deliberately obtuse about this or if there is a genuine disconnect on this. So, I’ll lay it out as plain as I can.

There is a hypothetical future in which the government can, through a civil union, “marry” anyone who asks. Churches, on the other hand, have an entirely ceremonial “marriage” called Holy Flibbertigibbet that is only available to those partnerships their religion approves of. While a civil union “marriage” grants couples all the benefits we’ve come to expect from our present day marriage (tax and insurance benefits and all the others), Holy Flibbertigibbet offers nothing, except for a church official saying, “Hey, our god recognizes that your spirits are now joined!”

Now, if the government comes into the church and says, “You have to provide a Holy Flibbertigibbet to homosexual couples, despite the fact that your religion views it as a sin,” then, yes, the government has overstepped its boundaries as they are viewed by a separation of church and state. Just one more time, to be clear, this is a HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE and this is a POTENTIAL COMPROMISE, not present day and not with the current situation we are facing.

Since you're so annoyed that your ridiculous assertion got a ridiculous response, here's a more direct analogy: There's a large group of muslims that believe very strongly that it's unacceptable for women to go outside without wearing a fucking circus tent and being escorted by a male relative. Does that mean that by allowing women to go outside on their own wearing normal clothes, the government is infringing on their religion? NO.

That’s a little different there because, to my knowledge, there is no clear separation of church and state in most Middle Eastern countries; we have that here. But, over here, we have faced similar circumstances, and their religion took precedent; Muslim woman can wear head scarves when getting a photo ID. But, in your case, the government would indeed be infringing on their rights if their was some sort of nation-wide Casual Friday or something. If the women decided to wear plain clothes out in public just for the hell of it, whether or not there was a law saying that, if they wanted to, they could, it would still have been their decision and not the government's.

Heresyte

11-07-2008, 10:56 PM

I can’t tell if you’re being deliberately obtuse about this or if there is a genuine disconnect on this. So, I’ll lay it out as plain as I can.

There is a hypothetical future in which the government can, through a civil union, “marry” anyone who asks. Churches, on the other hand, have an entirely ceremonial “marriage” called Holy Flibbertigibbet that is only available to those partnerships their religion approves of. While a civil union “marriage” grants couples all the benefits we’ve come to expect from our present day marriage (tax and insurance benefits and all the others), Holy Flibbertigibbet offers nothing, except for a church official saying, “Hey, our god recognizes that your spirits are now joined!”

Now, if the government comes into the church and says, “You have to provide a Holy Flibbertigibbet to homosexual couples, despite the fact that your religion views it as a sin,” then, yes, the government has overstepped its boundaries as they are viewed by a separation of church and state. Just one more time, to be clear, this is a HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE and this is a POTENTIAL COMPROMISE, not present day and not with the current situation we are facing.
That sounds like you're suggesting that christians give up the word marriage and switch to using a different word so that their term will be different from the one gays use (if that is what you have been arguing all along, I completely misunderstood what you were saying). They would be free to do that - it would be a dick move, but the right to dickery is one of our most cherished rights here in america. If the governement made same-sex marriage legal, it would be perfectly within the rights of religious groups to rename their relationship and say "no gays allowed", and I doubt you would find many people who suggest otherwise. (This would be analogous to parents removing their kids from desegregated schools - it's perfectly within their rights to avoid black people, but it's not ok for them to force blacks away)

What is not acceptable is for the people to force the government to come up with a new term, just as a last ditch effort to prevent gays from being able to use the word "marriage". As it has already been suggested, nobody has a monopoly on the word, it has a million different definitions, and the fact that governments have been using it in a non-religious way for so long proves that it isn't even an inherently religous term either. Getting rid of it just so that the gays can't have it would be discrimination (and an unnecessary mess).

That’s a little different there because, to my knowledge, there is no clear separation of church and state in most Middle Eastern countries; we have that here. But, over here, we have faced similar circumstances, and their religion took precedent; Muslim woman can wear head scarves when getting a photo ID. But, in your case, the government would indeed be infringing on their rights if their was some sort of nation-wide Casual Friday or something. If the women decided to wear plain clothes out in public just for the hell of it, whether or not there was a law saying that, if they wanted to, they could, it would still have been their decision and not the government's.
I'm not talking about the Middle East; the location is irrelevant. The situation is this: some people think it's unacceptable for women to go outside wearing a t-shirt (just as some people find it unacceptable for gays to marry). By going outside wearing a t-shirt, women are not imposing themselves on the religion of those who disagree with it (just as gays who get married are not imposing themselves on the religions of those who disagree with it). The situations you bring up are the opposite - they are the government forcing things on people. But with gay marriage we are talking about the government allowing people to do something, not forcing anything on anyone.

Generation ABXY

11-07-2008, 11:15 PM

That sounds like you're suggesting that christians give up the word marriage and switch to using a different word so that their term will be different from the one gays use (if that is what you have been arguing all along, I completely misunderstood what you were saying). They would be free to do that - it would be a dick move, but the right to dickery is one of our most cherished rights here in america. If the governement made same-sex marriage legal, it would be perfectly within the rights of religious groups to rename their relationship and say "no gays allowed", and I doubt you would find many people who suggest otherwise. (This would be analogous to parents removing their kids from desegregated schools - it's perfectly within their rights to avoid black people, but it's no ok for them to force blacks away)

What is not acceptable is for the people to force the government to come up with a new term, just as a last ditch effort to prevent gays from being able to use the word "marriage". As it has already been suggested, nobody has a monopoly on the word, it has a million different definitions, and the fact that governments have been using it in a non-religious way for so long proves that it isn't even an inherently religous term either. Getting rid of it just so that the gays can't have it would be discrimination (and an unnecessary mess).

Well, I proposed that in order to directly confront the issue of whether it is just “gay rights” people are searching for, or whether – as this “separate, but equal” thing being prattled on about seems to suggest – certain people are actually looking to force churches to recognize their lifestyle. It was a question specifically presented to one person to help me clarify a point on which I was a little hazy. I really wasn’t looking to make a discussion out of it, just get a few qualifiers. Either way, we – at least ostensibly – understand one another.

I'm not talking about the Middle East; the location is irrelevant. The situation is this: some people think it's unacceptable for women to go outside wearing a t-shirt (just as some people find it unacceptable for gays to marry). By going outside wearing a t-shirt, women are not imposing themselves on the religion of those who disagree with it (just as gays who get married are not imposing themselves on the religions of those who disagree with it). The situations you bring up are the opposite - they are the government forcing things on people. But with gay marriage we are talking about the government allowing people to do something, not forcing anything on anyone.

Ah, I misunderstood your question than; I'll reconsider it, and then edit back in a response as soon as I can.

EDIT: Okay, I have only really one thing to add. That is, while many of us (whatever our feelings on the lifestyle itself) may support gay marriage, it is clear that getting the road paved to a place where it is socially and, perhaps, even morally acceptable is going to take a long time. Simply creating legislation that says the government now recognizes a marriage between any two, consenting adults is, of course, the most immediate way to do that. Unfortunately, if it is going to have any chance of sticking, it is going to have to be a bi-partisan effort, and with the religious right so entrenched in the Republican Party – not to mention all those Democrats who also apparently don’t support it, including millions of voters on Tuesday and (as I recall from the debates) our new president-elect – that is not going to be an easy task. People have taken great pleasure in calling this the civil rights issue of our day, comparing it to the long struggle African Americans had with equality. If that’s the case, then you also have to realize that that took time. So too will this – you have to crawl before you can walk, the old saying goes. If you try and thrust the issue right to its ultimate goal, you better believe it is going to get smacked down time and time again. If you want to see it ever get to that point and last, than I suggest all advocates realize it is likely going to happen only through a series of small gains, small gains like many of us having been discussing in this forum.

Bingley Joe

11-08-2008, 01:34 AM

How does religion even logically enter into a discussion about this in the first place? Why don't religious people just go about their business practicing their beliefs amongst themselves, and stop worrying about what the rest of the world is up to?

If what they're doing is so great, surely people will naturally join in without the need for them to impose aspects of their unique view of the world into the laws that govern the rest of us.

The fact is that no religion has a monopoly on the act of marriage; religions only borrow the term. Two people joining their lives together ceremonially is simply a human activity, regardless of what beliefs those two people may hold. It's been stated numerous times in this thread already, and yet people still seem to be so hung up on the notion that this debate is in any way religious. It's not. It's a human rights issue.

Furthermore, (to the best of my knowledge) no church is ever compelled to grant their brand of marriage to any two people for whom they deem that union inappropriate. Never mind what those people's sexual orientation might be, churches can and will refuse to marry a couple for all kinds of reasons. No religious rights are being impinged upon by the mere act of the government allowing two people who share the same gender to marry. None.

But human rights are being impinged upon. Human beings - the ones who have been marrying one another regardless of their religious beliefs or cultural heritage for millennia - enjoy being married. MARRIED. That's the term we use. If what the government chooses to call it for legal purposes is a "civil union", people will still say "hey -- save the date, we're getting MARRIED in June!"

If they're human, the government needs to provide them with that right. PERIOD. All humans under the care of a government need to be granted the same basic rights. This is so completely elementary, I honestly can't understand how this situation has been allowed to go on for so long when people would be appalled if women or visible minorities were being stigmatized this way.

The very terms "same-sex marriage", or "gay marriage" are already stigma enough -- gay people are just people like anyone else, and there's no need for a unique terminology for their union. Furthermore, religious people need to deal with their inability to accept and/or tolerate homosexuality in their own spheres. That is a challenge they have created for themselves, and it has no place in the laws of the broader nation where there are homosexuals aplenty.

MARRIAGE, by any other name, is a completely normal human activity, and there is absolutely NO justification for any government to deny it to any group for any reason.

ShivaX

11-08-2008, 12:06 PM

How does religion even logically enter into a discussion about this in the first place?

Because, ultimately, marriage is a religious institute. So trying to redefine what most people see a purely religious institution through government is going to be heavily resisted. The problem, of course, is that marriage is NOT a purely religious institute and it grants a laundry list of rights to the people involved. Rights that can not be given in any other way.

The civil union argument is that "marriage" shouldn't be a legal term anymore than "baptism" is. Once you take the religion out of it then very few people have issue with it. Even evangelicals largely don't care, they object to what they see as a religious institute, marriage, being forced to do something by the government. The reality is that "marriage" in the eyes of the law involves a piece of paper and two people and thats about it. "Marriage" in the eyes of religion involves a hell of a lot more. Its time we took a term with religious overtones out of the law.

J Arcane

11-08-2008, 12:08 PM

Those religious overtones are not share by everyone, not even by all religious people.

Removing it from the law is ultimately just pandering to select group of people's personal bigotries.

ShivaX

11-08-2008, 12:16 PM

Those religious overtones are not share by everyone, not even by all religious people.

Removing it from the law is ultimately just pandering to select group of people's personal bigotries.

I see it as a seperation of church and state myself.

And those overtones are extremely prevelant. When you ask people if gays should have the rights inferred by marriage, they almost universally agree they should. When you ask them if they should be able to be married, those same people will oppose it.

Look at Palin as an example. Shes opposed to gay marriage, but thinks they should be able to get the same rights. Legally having two terms that mean the "same" thing doesn't work, because invariably something happens that makes them not equal. So change the terminology and apply it to everyone regarding the law. The reality is that no matter what it's legal term is people will call it marriage anyway.

J Arcane

11-08-2008, 12:18 PM

I see it as a seperation of church and state myself.

Except for the part where that's irrelevant because it's not solely a religious institution, right?

Or are we back to the "atheists must not get married" argument again?

If anything, the only church and state issue is allowing this select group of religious individuals to define what terms the gov't is allowed to use.

ShivaX

11-08-2008, 12:24 PM

Except for the part where that's irrelevant because it's not solely a religious institution, right?
If its even a partially religious institution it has no place in secular government.

Or are we back to the "atheists must not get married" argument again?

If anything, the only church and state issue is allowing this select group of religious individuals to define what terms the gov't is allowed to use.

That doesn't even make sense. Its these kinds of arguments and rationales that turn people against gay rights. That we have people supporting equal rights for everyone and getting browbeaten for trying to compromise in a way that works for everyone and gets religious terms out of secular government says a lot.

Bingley Joe

11-08-2008, 12:27 PM

Because, ultimately, marriage is a religious institute.

See, but that's actually not the case at all. Marriage is only a religious institute to religious people.

So trying to redefine what most people see a purely religious institution through government is going to be heavily resisted.

There are millions upon millions of people who don't view it as religious in the slightest though (because it's not strictly religious), and the religious people have no place in the conversation frankly, because no one is asking them to do anything different. This is about human rights, not religious ones.

The problem, of course, is that marriage is NOT a purely religious institute and it grants a laundry list of rights to the people involved. Rights that can not be given in any other way.

I guess we're back in agreement here :)

The civil union argument is that "marriage" shouldn't be a legal term anymore than "baptism" is. Once you take the religion out of it then very few people have issue with it. Even evangelicals largely don't care, they object to what they see as a religious institute, marriage, being forced to do something by the government. The reality is that "marriage" in the eyes of the law involves a piece of paper and two people and thats about it. "Marriage" in the eyes of religion involves a hell of a lot more. Its time we took a term with religious overtones out of the law.

Again (and I think we're ultimately saying the same thing), there is no reason to involve religion in the discussion at all. They can view 'marriage' any way the choose, and no one is asking them to change that here.

The fact that certain religions are intolerant of homosexuality is completely separate from the fact that the government MUST provide the same rights to all people regardless of their sexual orientation. That religious intolerance CANNOT be allowed to permeate our laws any more, since there are millions and millions of people for whom those beliefs have absolutely no relevance.

J Arcane

11-08-2008, 12:29 PM

ShivaX

11-08-2008, 12:32 PM

The fact that certain religions are intolerant of homosexuality is completely separate from the fact that the government MUST provide the same rights to all people regardless of their sexual orientation. That religious intolerance CANNOT be allowed to permeate our laws any more, since there are millions and millions of people for whom those beliefs have absolutely no relevance.

See we agree.

The only place people seem to be disagreeing on is what we call it. We could call it "Happy Naked Time Status" and it doesn't matter. As long as everyone gets the same rights. The whole "civil union" thing is just a neutral definition that has no links to any religion, which is how our laws should be. Most people would likely call it marriage.

ShivaX

11-08-2008, 12:35 PM

Somethings shouldn't be compromised. "Compromise" is how we ended up with "seperate but equal", 2/3 of a person, and the Missouri Compromise. When this kind of legislation is involved, the so-called "compromise" tends to end with the minority party still getting the shaft.

And lots of things are "partially" religious. Should gov't workers not be allowed to take Christmas off as a holiday because religious people celebrate it too?

Civil unions with marriage still on the books is that kind of compromise. EVERYONE having civil unions is only a "compromise" in that it takes a term that has meanings well beyond that of law out of the realm of legal terms.

In fact changing the wording for EVERYONE to civil unions gives the "shaft" the religious people who oppose gay marriage. It makes their marriage legally identical to the civil union of two gay men.

J Arcane

11-08-2008, 12:50 PM

Civil unions with marriage still on the books is that kind of compromise. EVERYONE having civil unions is only a "compromise" in that it takes a term that has meanings well beyond that of law out of the realm of legal terms.

In fact changing the wording for EVERYONE to civil unions gives the "shaft" the religious people who oppose gay marriage. It makes their marriage legally identical to the civil union of two gay men.
Except the only real reason to change the name is because certain people are all offended at certain people being allowed to use the original terminology.

Not to mention that, as MagGnome pointed out, do you really think they're going to happy with just a name change?

ShivaX

11-08-2008, 12:59 PM

Except the only real reason to change the name is because certain people are all offended at certain people being allowed to use the original terminology.

Not to mention that, as MagGnome pointed out, do you really think they're going to happy with just a name change?

Do I think they'll be happy? No, not really, but it takes their argument out at the knees and shows what their real agenda is. I'd rather everyone have the same rights immediately instead of waiting decades because of semantics.

The whole "sanctity of marriage" argument dies once you take the word marriage out of the equation. At that point they either agree to everyone having the same rights or they just come out and say "I hate queers," or the like and lose all their credibility.

I also think theres a lot of people who don't understand the real issues and are easily swayed by the sanctity argument. Once they realize its purely an equal rights issue and has absolutely nothing to do with religion they'd support it.

J Arcane

11-08-2008, 01:06 PM

I see no reason why the government should be in the business of altering terminology to avoid offending bigots and hatemongers.

What about all those people who scream terrorist at the very site of someone with olive skin and a head scarf, should we start refusing citizenship to Muslims and Pakistanis and Hindus just because some paranoid racists see red at their mere presence? Maybe invent some special new term for Middle Eastern immigrants so that regular citizens don't have to be offended because they share the same legal term?

ShivaX

11-08-2008, 01:18 PM

I see no reason why the government should be in the business of altering terminology to avoid offending bigots and hatemongers.
Terminology gets altered all the time. Its not even a matter of offending people as much as it is a term that has both secular and religious meanings. Take the religion out of the legal right.

What about all those people who scream terrorist at the very site of someone with olive skin and a head scarf, should we start refusing citizenship to Muslims and Pakistanis and Hindus just because some paranoid racists see red at their mere presence? Maybe invent some special new term for Middle Eastern immigrants so that regular citizens don't have to be offended because they share the same legal term?

That doesn't even make sense in any way, shape or form.

Edit: As far as "offending terms" find me a current legal document that calls black people "Negros". Why did stop using Negro and start using African-American? Idiot was a scientific and legal term for a long time. Terminology changes all the time to avoid being offensive to people.

Generation ABXY

11-08-2008, 01:27 PM

Without taking the time to look up specific numbers, let’s just say it is believed to be a religious practice by most churches, now let’s say most people attend churches, and now let’s say most politicians are, in fact, people (it’s hard to believe, I know, but go with me on this). If we hold all that to be true, if only for the purpose of this demonstration, than it stands to reason that you’re going to have a very hard time convincing a needed majority they are in the wrong when their God – the force they credit with their very existence – says they are right. Whether you have the facts to back it up or not, history has shown us that it matters not when confronting another’s religious beliefs.

When you have to cross a canyon, most people would go down through it and come out the other side, not just try to jump across it. It may take longer, but you’re assured to get there eventually.

Just to be clear, I support gay marriage. However, I also seem to be one of the few people here who realize it isn’t going to happen overnight (ShivaX appears to be another). Not long ago, someone once again compared this to “separate, but equal” and other unjust laws, but you have to realize that those were important milestones in African American civil rights, and they could have never been overturned in favor of current law if they hadn’t been laid down to begin with. If this issue is ever to be resolved, we have to find a common ground on which to build a new foundation. Any thoughts to the contrary are, in my opinion, unreasonable and unrealistic.

J Arcane

11-08-2008, 01:30 PM

As far as "offending terms" find me a current legal document that calls black people "Negros". Why did stop using Negro and start using African-American? Idiot was a scientific and legal term for a long time. Terminology changes all the time to avoid being offensive to people.

Everyone of those examples is pretty much the exact opposite circumstance to what we are describing here.

Bingley Joe

11-08-2008, 02:18 PM

The whole "sanctity of marriage" argument dies once you take the word marriage out of the equation. At that point they either agree to everyone having the same rights or they just come out and say "I hate queers," or the like and lose all their credibility.

The sanctity argument also dies the minute the government stops discussing this issue with religious groups. A secular government simply has no business allowing the views of any religious groups to determine the rights and freedoms of its citizenry. The conversation should be stupidly simple:

Government: Hey, let's amend the marriage laws to allow marriages between couples of the same gender.

Religious group: You can't do that! It goes against our beliefs!

Government: No it doesn't because you don't represent everyone, while we do. Allowing them to be married in one of your ceremonies goes against your beliefs, but we're not talking about making a law that allows them to be married in one of your ceremonies. In fact, your right to disallow that is already protected.

Religious group: But it's an abomination! Marriage is sacred and holy!

Government: Says you. Not everyone feels that way, and we just noticed that an entire sector of society is being unfairly excluded from some basic rights we grant to everyone else. That needs to be corrected.

I know it may seem cold and callous of me to say so, but seriously -- who cares what religious people think on this issue? A law like this is none of their business.

Generation ABXY

11-08-2008, 02:32 PM

The sanctity argument also dies the minute the government stops discussing this issue with religious groups. A secular government simply has no business allowing the views of any religious groups to determine the rights and freedoms of its citizenry. The conversation should be stupidly simple:

Government: Hey, let's amend the marriage laws to allow marriages between couples of the same gender.

Religious group: You can't do that! It goes against our beliefs!

Government: No it doesn't because you don't represent everyone, while we do. Allowing them to be married in one of your ceremonies goes against your beliefs, but we're not talking about making a law that allows them to be married in one of your ceremonies. In fact, your right to disallow that is already protected.

Religious group: But it's an abomination! Marriage is sacred and holy!

Government: Says you. Not everyone feels that way, and we just noticed that an entire sector of society is being unfairly excluded from some basic rights we grant to everyone else. That needs to be corrected.

I know it may seem cold and callous of me to say so, but seriously -- who cares what religious people think on this issue? A law like this is none of their business.

The government isn’t some strange, sentient structure. It is made of people...people who have beliefs...beliefs that may factor – either consciously or unconsciously – into their decisions. And those decisions make up the law of the land. There is no clearly defined political boundary here (that is to say, even if you cut out the Republican party, bastion of religion, you would still face opposition), so the very people you disagree with are the ones who you are asking to change the law.

MagGnome

11-08-2008, 02:49 PM

words

I guess I don't see why we need a new term just because gay people want to "get involved" so to speak. No one is forcing churches to do anything. Like I said before, a church is the last place I want to get married, especially a church full of people who think I'm going to "hell".

As another poster pointed out, civil unions so far have been a poor means of placating homosexuals. I guess going through all the laws and replacing the word "marriage" with "civil union" for everyone might work, but it seems a little silly.

As an aside, do you really think I'm trying to "impose" myself on conservative Christians? The fact that this large, powerful group feels "threatened" by gay people is laughable.

Bingley Joe

11-08-2008, 02:50 PM

The government isn’t some strange, sentient structure. It is made of people...people who have beliefs...beliefs that may factor – either consciously or unconsciously – into their decisions. And those decisions make up the law of the land. There is no clearly defined political boundary here (that is to say, even if you cut out the Republican party, bastion of religion, you would still face opposition), so the very people you disagree with are the ones who you are asking to change the law.

I understand that, but those people do in fact have a duty to check their religious beliefs at the door when determining laws that affect their citizenry, no matter how hard that may be.

Any public servant with any integrity at all should be able to recognize that they represent a public with a vast array of beliefs and ideals, and the basic principle that MUST guide them all is that each person out there deserves the same rights as all the others.

Otherwise, they have to just come out and admit that they are not, in fact, secular, and let people know whose belief system they are going to be integrating into their legislation.

They can't have it both ways.

J Arcane

11-08-2008, 02:50 PM

MagGnome

11-08-2008, 02:53 PM

Now, if the government comes into the church and says, “You have to provide a Holy Flibbertigibbet to homosexual couples, despite the fact that your religion views it as a sin,” then, yes, the government has overstepped its boundaries as they are viewed by a separation of church and state. Just one more time, to be clear, this is a HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE and this is a POTENTIAL COMPROMISE, not present day and not with the current situation we are facing.

See, you are trying to make an analogy here that just doesn't apply to the situation. The government hasn't mandated and will not mandate that churches marry gay men and women. This was one of the big lies spread by the Mormon church to drum up fear about this Proposition.

Generation ABXY

11-08-2008, 03:04 PM

I guess I don't see why we need a new term just because gay people want to "get involved" so to speak. No one is forcing churches to do anything. Like I said before, a church is the last place I want to get married, especially a church full of people who think I'm going to "hell".

As another poster pointed out, civil unions so far have been a poor means of placating homosexuals. I guess going through all the laws and replacing the word "marriage" with "civil union" for everyone might work, but it seems a little silly.

As an aside, do you really think I'm trying to "impose" myself on conservative Christians? The fact that this large, powerful group feels "threatened" by gay people is laughable.

See, you are trying to make an analogy here that just doesn't apply to the situation. The government hasn't mandated and will not mandate that churches marry gay men and women. This was one of the big lies spread by the Mormon church to drum up fear about this Proposition.

Oh, I was only trying to figure out exactly what you wanted. You're saying you do not want the churches to "marry you," regardless of the term; you want to be "married." That was a point I became confused after a series of responses, and I am now no longer confused. (This response is to both of your comments.)

Yes there is, it's called "the separation of church and state", and it's a pretty damn well defined political boundary.

As I tried to clarify, I meant political boundary as in party lines. There is opposition to gay marriage from both Republicans and Democrats. That should have been clear.

I understand that, but those people do in fact have a duty to check their religious beliefs at the door when determining laws that affect their citizenry, no matter how hard that may be.

Any public servant with any integrity at all should be able to recognize that they represent a public with a vast array of beliefs and ideals, and the basic principle that MUST guide them all is that each person out there deserves the same rights as all the others.

Otherwise, they have to just come out and admit that they are not, in fact, secular, and let people know whose belief system they are going to be integrating into their legislation.

They can't have it both ways.

Oh, trust me, I'd LOVE if they would do that. But, so far, both parties have failed to elect a majority number of politicians who seem capable of doing that. There's blame enough to go around here.

EDIT: Sorry I keep editing in all these responses, but I don't want to clutter the thread with multiple posts and still respond to everyone.

11-08-2008, 03:07 PM

Yes there is, it's called "the separation of church and state", and it's a pretty damn well defined political boundary.
It may be separation of church and state, but I can assure you: that boundary is anything but well-defined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#Lemon_test). It's basically incomprehensible even to experts, which arguably results in substantial chilling of religious speech and expression.

MagGnome

11-08-2008, 03:08 PM

MARRIAGE, by any other name, is a completely normal human activity, and there is absolutely NO justification for any government to deny it to any group for any reason.

I wanted to thank you for contributing so much to this thread. You are much more eloquent than myself, and I agree with everything you said in your post.

I'm glad that there are people like you here to apply logic and reason to this debate. I tend to just ramble or rant. :o

MagGnome

11-08-2008, 03:19 PM

Oh, I was only trying to figure out exactly what you wanted. You're saying you do not want the churches to "marry you," regardless of the term; you want to be "married." That was a point I became confused after a series of responses, and I am now no longer confused. (This response is to both of your comments.)

Well I'm glad we cleared that up. I was confused as well, because I thought I already made my position clear in an earlier post, and then you came back and asked me again. :p

Gormanimal

11-08-2008, 03:27 PM

It may be separation of church and state, but I can assure you: that boundary is anything but well-defined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#Lemon_test). It's basically incomprehensible even to experts, which arguably results in substantial chilling of religious speech and expression.
QFT. The division of church and state has been a problem in a number of areas outside of marriage. There's some interesting history here (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02E6D61131F935A35754C0A9649C8B 63).

Khrymsyn

11-08-2008, 05:21 PM

Bingley Joe

11-08-2008, 05:54 PM

I wanted to thank you for contributing so much to this thread. You are much more eloquent than myself, and I agree with everything you said in your post.

I'm glad that there are people like you here to apply logic and reason to this debate. I tend to just ramble or rant. :o

Sure thing, Mags! I was actually tempted to let my 'contribution' stand on my first two posts from a few days back, but that was just pure bile, and since the conversation seems to have taken a dramatic turn toward the reasonable, I thought I'd get a few other things off my chest.. Glad to know I'm making sense to someone :o

Oh, trust me, I'd LOVE if they would do that. But, so far, both parties have failed to elect a majority number of politicians who seem capable of doing that. There's blame enough to go around here.

You and me both, man :)

Unfortunately it really is that cut-and-dried for me; I really think there's no other option than for the government to simply come to its senses, recognize that they have been treating a huge sector of society unfairly, stand up tall, and afford those people equal rights. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. Equal rights for all. Full stop.

They cannot allow themselves to be swayed by religious opinion here, they must recognize the diversity of their nation when setting legislation that affects their citizens: not everyone out there thinks marriage is religious. Nor would it change anything for those citizens who do.

Now, I completely understand that those lawmakers may be conflicted about doing that because they may hold those same religious notions that has allowed this situation to go on unchecked for so long, but that simply is not a good enough excuse for me.

It truly saddens me that I'm not sure I'll ever live long enough to see something like that happen.. but I can always hope. :)

MagGnome

11-08-2008, 07:52 PM

Mag and TK, just wanted to give a thanks for answering my direct question.

It's often easy to discuss a situation and think you have a solution or a compromise or even a gameplan, when you aren't directly related to it, so trying to understand from a more "outside" point of view needs every little bit of help. =)

Mag, I logically can understand how you feel about how it's silly to discuss over a name change, and how it doesn't resolve the core problem. A thought of mine that makes me wonder.. and that is... what would be better? Get a semantics change into the books so that from a LEGAL standpoint it could possibly easier to push through and confer the proper rights quicker, or to attempt to fix the root cause which may take a lot longer? My concern is that that waiting for the 2nd part may not happen for quite some time. Then again, I never thought I'd see an African American president in my lifetime.

Hey, no problem! As for the bulk of your post, you pose a very good question. Of course I'd like to see equal rights granted as soon as possible, and I understand that going at the root cause of this is going to take quite some time. I hope that this whole situation improves with time, just as many other things have as society slowly becomes more liberally socially. Of course we've also seen a huge backlash to this slow left-movement, and I'm afraid that this backlash could result in far more than marriage being withheld. We've already seen many states pass anti-adoption laws, what's next?

MagGnome

11-08-2008, 07:54 PM

Sure thing, Mags! I was actually tempted to let my 'contribution' stand on my first two posts from a few days back, but that was just pure bile, and since the conversation seems to have taken a dramatic turn toward the reasonable, I thought I'd get a few other things off my chest.. Glad to know I'm making sense to someone :o

I'm definitely glad that you came back then!

I'm also glad that this thread took a dramatic turn towards the reasonable. It's nice to have discussion about this without things getting so heated.

LongStepMantis

11-08-2008, 07:57 PM

We've already seen many states pass anti-adoption laws, what's next?

I noticed something that seemed odd with the "Gays can't adopt children" law in Arkansas on the ballots. The law itself stated that any unmarried person can't adopt children. Given that they don't allow gays to marry there, it makes sense technically...but why label the law specifically towards gays when gays weren't even indicated in the proposal? It clearly stated that an unmarried straight couple couldn't adopt either.

Then it hit me...by pointing out the gay aspect right in the title, it was far easier to pass it. What a sad ploy.

KingGorilla

11-08-2008, 10:28 PM

These states already let the negro situation get out of hand, they need to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

Bingley Joe

11-09-2008, 12:01 AM

These states already let the negro situation get out of hand, they need to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

Says the man from Motown.. tell that to Martha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandellas#Epilogue) ;)

AniAko

11-11-2008, 08:59 AM

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/02/obama_opposes_gay_marriage_ban.html

I suppose Obama is a bigot as well.

I had a few points to make in this thread, and I believe the hostile, hateful responses helped to make them for me as well.

[Removed whining about people being mean to a conceited stuck up jerk]

I have cleared out my account here, and I am done. I wish you the best in your future at CoG. I truly do. I bear no ill-will. I wish you the open-mindedness to discuss your differences without demonizing those who oppose your supposedly sanctified will. I hope you don't turn CoG into an echo-chamber for your own beliefs. I've done my best to be dignified and respectful in this thread. I wish the same for/from you.

Best regards. Goodbye.

Good riddance. You only bear ignorance and intolerance for anyone who disagrees with you. As far as I'm concerned, you're not welcome here.

Ghostbear

11-11-2008, 09:19 AM

I have cleared out my account here, and I am done. I wish you the best in your future at CoG. I truly do. I bear no ill-will. I wish you the open-mindedness to discuss your differences without demonizing those who oppose your supposedly sanctified will. I hope you don't turn CoG into an echo-chamber for your own beliefs. I've done my best to be dignified and respectful in this thread. I wish the same for/from you.

Best regards. Goodbye.

Cya, though I doubt you'll be gone long.
Good riddance. You only bear ignorance and intolerance for anyone who disagrees with you. As far as I'm concerned, you're not welcome here.
Agreed.

Schnoogs

11-11-2008, 09:21 AM

It's being said that Obama's victory proves that America has evolved and joined the 21st century.

I got a good laugh out of this one :p

Schnoogs

11-11-2008, 09:24 AM

The government should get out of the business of recognizing marriages of any sort

/national debate

Schnoogs

11-11-2008, 09:29 AM

Crying about name calling when someone points out that you are a bigot is just ridiculous.

Try being called faggot, cocksucker, fudge packer, or virus breeder. Try being told that you should be killed or die of AIDs. Try having someone threaten to hang you from a tree just because you are different.

Try dealing with all of that on a regular basis, and then come crying to me about being called a bigot.

I know you have me on your ignore list but I was moved by your post...for anyone to suggest that there is any level of parity between the suffering of the bigot and those that they target is absurd. :(

We might not be friends Mag but it truly pains me when I see bogotry like this. You can always count on my support and I would gladly take your side in this argument.

California dropped the ball big time.

Shjinta

11-11-2008, 09:38 AM

So basically California won't allow same sex marriages.. Wow those people are fucked up. Don't want their children to be tained by the "gay" people (No ofense to anyone) Well don't teach them American fucking history then either. I watch this world everyday and It makes me wonder why we are all still alive.

Oh and what the fuck happened to Johan.. This is turning into EvAv all over again. Obviously you children can't have political topics on these forums look what fucking happens.. Ani and Bear.. good god so much fucking evil.. For what? and Ani you speak like you own this site.. do you? I thought this was a site built by the community. Johan is perfectly welcome here..

Man...I thought things were going to be different. Guess not.

Schnoogs

11-11-2008, 09:39 AM

Good riddance. You only bear ignorance and intolerance for anyone who disagrees with you. As far as I'm concerned, you're not welcome here.

I wouldn't trade 1 Johan for 100 of you. Maybe you disagree with him on this topic but he's smart guy and he contributes a lot.

Shjinta

11-11-2008, 09:43 AM

I wouldn't trade 1 Johan for 100 of you. Maybe you disagree with him on this topic but he's smart guy and he contributes a lot.

Hence why Political topics are never usually a good idea on forums.. Lots of bad things happen because people cannot control their feelings and emotions.

Words can hurt verbally and writen.

Young Al Capone

11-11-2008, 09:49 AM

Man...I thought things were going to be different. Guess not.

I keep hearing people say this and I wonder, why? It is the same community supplanted into a new environment sans the tyrannical leader.

What did you expect to change? I mean, besides the unexplained bannings and censorship?

Schnoogs

11-11-2008, 09:54 AM

besides the unexplained bannings

Thats still going on :o

Young Al Capone

11-11-2008, 09:55 AM

Hence why Political topics are never usually a good idea on forums.. Lots of bad things happen because people cannot control their feelings and emotions.

Words can hurt verbally and writen.

People take things peronally, and that leads to people acting irrationally. This has happened before, and there are plenty of people who can post in the political and religious forums without resorting to acting a fool.

Johan already knew that coming into these threads was a bad call, as they had been his downfall at EvAv before. I like the guy just fine, but when he goes on the defensive he really does just shut down and stop conversing, and that is hard to deal with.

Thats still going on :o

Oh, well that I can't account for and it really shouldn't still be happening.

Bone

11-11-2008, 10:24 AM

I wouldn't trade 1 Johan for 100 of you. Maybe you disagree with him on this topic but he's smart guy and he contributes a lot.
Says the laff.gif guy? Give AniAko some credit, he's also a smart guy who contributes a lot. Like others have said, this is a heated issue and things get out of hand. I definitely don't think you responded any better to AniAko than he did to Johan.

And Schnoogs, I have to say I really respect the post you made to Mags above, even if he never sees it.

Schnoogs

11-11-2008, 10:33 AM

Says the laff.gif guy?

People love that damn picture!

Schnoogs

11-11-2008, 10:35 AM

And Schnoogs, I have to say I really respect the post you made to Mags above, even if he never sees it.

People can knock me all they want for being rude and immature...but one thing I'm not is a bigot. I've always been very outspoken in my support for people of all lifestyles. If I had my way I would end all government recognition of marriage and let it remain a personal matter between consenting adults.

Bone

11-11-2008, 10:44 AM

I think I had made some assumptions about you Schnoogs, that were definitely wrong. It's easy to take a few posts from someone and build them up into the personality you think they are.

As for AniAko, I know him personally and would have his back in a fight in a second. This is why I wish you would have come to PAX- meeting a lot of ex-EvAvers really changed the way I looked at these forum threads.

Generation ABXY

11-11-2008, 10:47 AM

This is why I wish you would have come to PAX- meeting a lot of ex-EvAvers really changed the way I looked at these forum threads.

I'd have been disappointed if he looked anything less than identical to that damn laff.gif puppet.

MagGnome

11-11-2008, 10:49 AM

I'm reading COG on my lunch at work. I wasn't logged in, so I saw your post, Schnoogs. I'm really touched by what you had to say, and I respect you a lot for saying that you stand up against bigotry.

This doesn't mean that I don't think you are often a collosal jerk, but I will take you off ignore. :p

squirrelTactics

11-11-2008, 10:58 AM

MagGnome

11-11-2008, 11:12 AM

I don't really know Mag that well (or...at all), but I hope he doesn't mind me referring to him in this post.

I often wonder how many people who are against gay marriage would be willing to state their views to a gay person. For example, would Johan be willing to turn to Mag and say "You cannot get married."?

It seems to me people love to tout their views from a distance.

I've had plenty of people over the years tell me to my face that I'm going to hell, I'm a sinner, I'm sick, etc. There are plenty of people who have no problem saying that kind of stuff to another person right in front of them, unfortunately.

Oh, and just to take away fromt the seriousness of this post - you are never allowed to refer to me in a post ever again. :p (Obviously I'm joking)

LordDon

11-11-2008, 11:17 AM

I've had plenty of people over the years tell me to my face that I'm going to hell, I'm a sinner, I'm sick, etc. There are plenty of people who have no problem saying that kind of stuff to another person right in front of them, unfortunately.

There were some nutty evangelicals standing outside the park where the Salt Lake City protest was gathering, calling everyone sodomites and telling us we were going to hell. We told him we'd see him there. ;)

National Kato

11-11-2008, 11:27 AM

Keith Olbermann on MSNBC addresses Prop 8 (http://crooksandliars.com/node/23996) - and the overall issue itself - in his latest comment. Transcript and video at the link [via C&L].

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage.

If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal... in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness -- this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness -- share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

squirrelTactics

11-11-2008, 11:28 AM

Oh, and just to take away fromt the seriousness of this post - you are never allowed to refer to me in a post ever again. :p (Obviously I'm joking)

I'm sorry, who are you? :p

aVaKus

11-11-2008, 11:39 AM

Bone

11-11-2008, 11:50 AM

Wow, Olbermann said it really well. Bravo, sir!

TheFlyingOrc

11-11-2008, 12:05 PM

Keith Olbermann on MSNBC addresses Prop 8 (http://crooksandliars.com/node/23996) - and the overall issue itself - in his latest comment. Transcript and video at the link [via C&L].

A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?
This is really jumping around with his argument - the government doesn't actually have the authority to stop them from "being in love" or "getting married" in a non-legal sense. The main reason I want the word marriage off the books is so people will stop being so stupid and thinking the government gets to decide if they're in love, no matter what side of the issue they're on.

Personally, if the government told me tomorrow that I couldn't marry, I'd say "that sucks, I wanted the tax breaks". It wouldn't make me love my wife less or something.

TheFlyingOrc

11-11-2008, 12:10 PM

Mags, I just wanted you to know -
I'm going to hell
No more than anyone else.

I'm a sinner
Me too! High Five!

I'm sick.
I can't definitively say no to this one, because homosexuality is clearly abnormal psychology - however, if you're sick, my faith compels me to love you more, not less.

What I'm trying to say is why I may disagree with your lifestyle, it's really only a very minor area of the person I think you are, and I think that overall you're pretty swell.

J Arcane

11-11-2008, 12:21 PM

TheFlyingOrc

11-11-2008, 12:28 PM

I'm always stunned out how some Christians can manage to get by in normal society and yet still think something like that is any more than patronizing at best, or even consider it an acceptable thing to say to someone.

"I've got nothing against you, I just think you're sick." Really?

http://forums.dieselstation.com/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif
Explain to me how it's not a evolutionary aberration, please. It's clearly not beneficial to the survival of the genes of the organism possessing the trait. I know this blows your mind, but someone who disagrees with you actually has thought critically and quite a lot about this.

Also, I never specifically stated that he was sick. I simply don't find the argument that it is clearly NOT a disease compelling. It was declassified without reason, and it comes down to "what is the definition of disease" not anything else.

J Arcane

11-11-2008, 12:30 PM

Explain to me how it's not a evolutionary aberration, please. It's clearly not beneficial to the survival of the genes of the organism possessing the trait. I know this blows your mind, but someone who disagrees with you actually has thought critically and quite a lot about this.

Also, I never specifically stated that he was sick. I simply don't find the argument that it is clearly NOT a disease compelling. It was declassified without reason, and it comes down to "what is the definition of disease" not anything else.
So you don't think it the least bit gauche to discuss, in front of someone, how they are an "evolutionary aberration"?

TheFlyingOrc

11-11-2008, 12:32 PM

So you don't think it the least bit gauche to discuss, in front of someone, how they are an "evolutionary aberration"?
It's a trait that decreases your chances of having your genes passed on. Explain to me how that isn't a wrench in natural selection.

Schnoogs

11-11-2008, 12:33 PM

There's no such thing as evolutionary aberration. It either impacts the species or it doesn't. Now adays being gay is meaningless in terms of evolution and surivival of the species. Just because a colony of them would die out that doesn't somehow make the individual useless. I know a lot of heterosexuals whom are useless!

J Arcane

11-11-2008, 12:34 PM

It's a trait that decreases your chances of having your genes passed on. Explain to me how that isn't a wrench in natural selection.
I really don't think you're getting the point I'm trying to make here.

Gormanimal

11-11-2008, 12:34 PM

National Kato

11-11-2008, 12:37 PM

Is this the point in the thread where science and evolutionary history are used to overshadow the simple fact that people want equal rights under the law? 'Cause that would be unfortunate.

ShivaX

11-11-2008, 12:39 PM

So you don't think it the least bit gauche to discuss, in front of someone, how they are an "evolutionary aberration"?

Well everyone with glasses is an "evolutionary aberration" as well. So is anyone with any sort of physical abnormality or mental illness. As a species, we've left evolution behind a long time ago. Being evolutionarily untenable doesn't mean anything to us anymore. Technology and society trump evolution.

ShivaX

11-11-2008, 12:40 PM

Is this the point in the thread where science and evolutionary history are used to overshadow the simple fact that people want equal rights under the law? 'Cause that would be unfortunate.

That's not what he said at all.

Schnoogs

11-11-2008, 12:40 PM

It's a trait that decreases your chances of having your genes passed on. Explain to me how that isn't a wrench in natural selection.

Yet ironically this discussion is about gay marriage so clearly despite not being able to reproduce gay men and women have no problems finding mates.

Our species will continue on just fine with only a small portion of us being able to reproduce...did it ever dawn on you that this is a GOOD thing for our species and planet.

Being able to reproduce doesn't somehow equal "evolutionary advantage". It's only an advantage in hindsight and I think we're doing just fine with a small portion being gay.

Plus being gay isn't even hereditary.

National Kato

11-11-2008, 12:40 PM

That's not what he said at all.

No, I know. I'd just hate for the thread to diverge into a discussion about 'what makes a homosexual.'

TheFlyingOrc

11-11-2008, 12:41 PM

I really don't think you're getting the point I'm trying to make here.
Fine then - No, I don't think it's a problem.

I think it's personally and morally destructive behavior. If I knew someone with alcoholism, I would say the same thing. They also might disagree with me, and the populous might disagree with my assessment of that person, but the most loving thing I can do with someone who I believe is doing something wrong is what I did above. The only other possibility is for me to lie about what my views are.

Schnoogs

11-11-2008, 12:43 PM

I think it's personally and morally destructive behavior.

People said the same thing about interracial marriages.

I like how you equate being gay to a disease...like it's the result of a lifestyle decision. They were born gay...that is their frame of mind...how can that be immoral? :confused:

ShivaX

11-11-2008, 12:43 PM

No, I know. I'd just hate for the thread to diverge into a discussion about 'what makes a homosexual.'

Well since scientists haven't nailed it down yet any speculation on our part probably wouldn't get far either. Its about as relevant as my eye sight being shitty. It doesn't mean anything when it comes to questions of rights or anything else.

Of course someone could ride in and suggest we "cure" it with treatment or something equally stupid, so I can see the concern there.

Blue

11-11-2008, 12:44 PM

Good riddance. You only bear ignorance and intolerance for anyone who disagrees with you. As far as I'm concerned, you're not welcome here.

Good to see you're not above doing the same thing.

J Arcane

11-11-2008, 12:44 PM

Fine then - No, I don't think it's a problem.

I think it's personally and morally destructive behavior. If I knew someone with alcoholism, I would say the same thing. They also might disagree with me, and the populous might disagree with my assessment of that person, but the most loving thing I can do with someone who I believe is doing something wrong is what I did above. The only other possibility is for me to lie about what my views are.
I'm sure Mags will be oh so comforted by your concern. http://forums.dieselstation.com/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

TheFlyingOrc

11-11-2008, 12:45 PM

Yet ironically this discussion is about gay marriage so clearly despite not being able to reproduce gay men and women have no problems finding mates.

Our species will continue on just fine with only a small portion of us being able to reproduce...did it ever dawn on you that this is a GOOD thing for our species and planet.

Being able to reproduce doesn't somehow equal "evolutionary advantage". It's only an advantage in hindsight and I think we're doing just fine with a small portion being gay.

Plus being gay isn't even hereditary.

I'm not arguing that homosexuality, in terms of negative selection, impacts the species as a whole, I'm arguing that it's difficult to not call it a disease from nature's viewpoint, much like infertility.

ShivaX

11-11-2008, 12:46 PM

People said the same thing about interracial marriages.

I like how you equate being gay to a disease...like it's the result of a lifestyle decision. They were born gay...that is their frame of mind...how can that be immoral? :confused:

While I strongly disagree with him, its what he believes. The important point is that he isn't out there saying we should deny people rights based on his personal ideology. He says the exact opposite, in fact. If anything he probably represents the majority of Americans on the subject as far as how he feels. Unfortunately he probably doesn't represent the majority when it comes to what should be done about things.

TheFlyingOrc

11-11-2008, 12:48 PM

People said the same thing about interracial marriages.

That's fine. You'll see, earlier in the thread, that I more or less want what you want legally - government out of marriage AT ALL.

I like how you equate being gay to a disease...like it's the result of a lifestyle decision. They were born gay...that is their frame of mind...how can that be immoral? :confused:
I appeal to alcoholism. Whether or not you choose a mindset has no impact on its moral correctness.

VerseD

11-11-2008, 12:53 PM

I don't think Prop 8 goes far enough. Yes, I'm talking about a ban on old people marriage.

Post-menopausal women can't have kids anymore, which is a clear sign from God and Darwin that their sex is immoral and personally destructive. Plus, thinking about old people having sex is really gross.

Also old people smell so they make bad parents. Which is why we should not allow them to get married. Oh, and any old people who are married should be unmarried.

roboninja

11-11-2008, 12:58 PM

Fine then - No, I don't think it's a problem.

I think it's personally and morally destructive behavior. If I knew someone with alcoholism, I would say the same thing. They also might disagree with me, and the populous might disagree with my assessment of that person, but the most loving thing I can do with someone who I believe is doing something wrong is what I did above. The only other possibility is for me to lie about what my views are.

Or change those views to something logical, not based on imaginary men in the sky. Whichever works for you.

Young Al Capone

11-11-2008, 01:00 PM

Or change those views to something logical, not based on imaginary men in the sky. Whichever works for you.

Attacking his faith doesn't help move the conversation forward at all.

He is morally opposed but still not trying to limit other's rights. I completely and utterly disagree with equating homosexuality to alcoholism, but I see the point he is trying to make. I completely disagree with his point, but attacking his beliefs doesn't prove anything.

TheFlyingOrc

11-11-2008, 01:01 PM

Or change those views to something logical, not based on imaginary men in the sky. Whichever works for you.
Since I have almost no problem with sinking to someone else's level, I'll choose my viewpoint over your believing that our causal universe came about from an explosion with no cause, thanks.

edit: Or your belief that humans, which are nothing more than a very interesting collection of atoms, have inherent rights at all.

ShivaX

11-11-2008, 01:03 PM

Or change those views to something logical, not based on imaginary men in the sky. Whichever works for you.

Thats basically an assault on all religions though. I mean I'm down for that, but don't expect to get anywhere or make many friends trying it. Demanding that someone change their core beliefs to what you believe is asking a lot, especially when they're willing to support something that opposes those beliefs.

This is turning from a matter of people's rights to some sort of thought police scenario.

Karmakin

11-11-2008, 01:06 PM

The real question here, what it ALL comes down to, is how and what we perceive morality to be.

To myself, morality to me means a judgment on how our actions affect other people. In fact, I very strongly believe this, to a point where I'm iffy on people who don't see things this way.

So looking at homosexuality from this lens...who does it hurt? Does it hurt society at large? Well, no. We have no shortage of people as it is right now, and there won't be in the foreseeable future. In fact, it's quite the opposite. There's probably too many people for our planet. So people, wither by nature or by choice, getting into emotional relationships with those of the same sex (or other non-reproductive relationships), quite frankly is a good thing. We're not even talking about a moral bad right now. On the whole, homosexuality as it stands is good for our society...for our race. (meaning human race)

I know that's going to give me flak. A whole lot of it. But that's how I feel...no, it's more than that. I don't see an opposing logic here. I really don't. I don't see how people really could think anything different, unless it's just a matter of being contrary. (Quite frankly, a large part of the modern conservative tradition is just about being contrary for its own sake...which is how the conservative movement is in the mess its currently in)

Now, if someone wants to give an alternative argument to why homosexuality is immoral Be my guess. But frankly, I've never heard an argument that I've found even in the least to be credible. (And nope. Slippery slope arguments are not credible.)

ClannerDelta

11-11-2008, 01:09 PM

The real question here, what it ALL comes down to, is how and what we perceive morality to be.

No, the real question is...

The penis, how can people find it attractive. :p /tongue & cheek

squirrelTactics

11-11-2008, 01:11 PM

I'm arguing that it's difficult to not call it a disease from nature's viewpoint, much like infertility.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but couldn't one also argue that from a humanistic standpoint gays are not "sick" ?

It is entirely possible, and actually not any less likely, for a gay person to live a long, healthy, happy life.

Orc, I understand your views and think that you have put them forth in a very intelligent manner, and deserve some kudos for being able to do so--I just tend to disagree with you here.

TheFlyingOrc

11-11-2008, 01:12 PM

To myself, morality to me means a judgment on how our actions affect other people. In fact, I very strongly believe this, to a point where I'm iffy on people who don't see things this way.

You can't state something is your opinion and then force people to fight on that turf. If the universe is naturalistic, you are completely correct (although I would argue that morality is foolish if one believes in naturalism)

So looking at homosexuality from this lens...who does it hurt? Does it hurt society at large? Well, no. We have no shortage of people as it is right now, and there won't be in the foreseeable future. In fact, it's quite the opposite. There's probably too many people for our planet. So people, wither by nature or by choice, getting into emotional relationships with those of the same sex (or other non-reproductive relationships), quite frankly is a good thing. We're not even talking about a moral bad right now. On the whole, homosexuality as it stands is good for our society...for our race. (meaning human race)

Overpopulation is not a huge problem. Current estimates have the population capping at about 9 billion somewhere around the year 2075. The biggest factor in this is improved standard of living, homosexuality isn't even a blip on the radar.

I know that's going to give me flak. A whole lot of it. But that's how I feel...no, it's more than that. I don't see an opposing logic here. I really don't. I don't see how people really could think anything different, unless it's just a matter of being contrary. (Quite frankly, a large part of the modern conservative tradition is just about being contrary for its own sake...which is how the conservative movement is in the mess its currently in)

Now, if someone wants to give an alternative argument to why homosexuality is immoral Be my guess. But frankly, I've never heard an argument that I've found even in the least to be credible. (And nope. Slippery slope arguments are not credible.)
Within your framework lacking the supernatural being non-existant, I agree. However, throw in a creator god who defines morality, and you don't even have an argument.

Smoof

11-11-2008, 01:14 PM

Since I have almost no problem with sinking to someone else's level, I'll choose my viewpoint over your believing that our causal universe came about from an explosion with no cause, thanks.

As opposed to something that just exists with no cause, eh? ;)

TheFlyingOrc

11-11-2008, 01:16 PM

Orc, I understand your views and think that you have put them forth in a very intelligent manner, and deserve some kudos for being able to do so--I just tend to disagree with you here.
I am perfectly OK with that. I believe my views to be right, and will argue fervently, but I do not demand that you accept them.

Again, I'll agree that you are completely right within the realm of humanism and we accept that happiness is the highest goal - but we're arguing big picture stuff here, and I believe that pleasing my God is the highest goal, not my personal happiness.

Of course, you then get to the point where you realize that "happiness" is pretty difficult to define, let alone measure. If I offer up the phrase "homosexuals only claim to be happy when surveyed because they refuse to admit that their lifestyle is making them unhappy" (I am not making this claim, merely using it as an example) - there's absolutely no way to prove or disprove what I just said.