|
Post by username on Feb 11, 2009 2:22:35 GMT -5
You know better. -Goten
|
|
|
Post by syarafire on Feb 11, 2009 14:41:50 GMT -5
Regardless of what the Bible really says about homosexuality, that shouldn't really have any bearing on whether or not gay marriage is legalized. I'm sure the majority of us can agree that a standpoint based purely and solely on religion should not be considered to be made into law. What, outside of religious viewpoints, makes you think that gay marriage should not be legalized?
I honestly don't see why it would be such a big deal - even if someone objects to it on a religious or moral basis, why does gay marriage affect them at all? If someone is honestly disturbed or upset by the notion of homosexuality, what difference does it make whether or not the gay people in question are married or not?
|
|
|
Post by goten0040 on Feb 11, 2009 18:38:50 GMT -5
^Exactly. I've never debated another person on this who didn't feel the need to throw the Bible at me. With separation of church and state, that shouldn't even be part of the argument. Marriage is a legally binding act. It is a government document. You don't have to have a religious ceremony, but you have the right to if you want. So to make this document available to others, it shouldn't be considered some abomination.
|
|
|
Post by username on Feb 11, 2009 19:29:14 GMT -5
Saw that edit coming, but really any God like that is a d*ck. Christians opposed primarily to acting on gay tendencies should keep up with the "homosexuality is a choice" thing, take the obsolete science over having your God suck.
But yah, Bible quotes like that prove no point as to whether or not it should be legal. Not whether it's morally right or wrong. If you go about banning anything for the sole reason that you feel it's morally wrong, then it's called fascism. The Bible also said not to worship any other Gods (mind you, that's in the straight up commandments, none of that Biblical fanfiction that somehow ended up in canon like Revelations), so by such logic, it's morally wrong to worship other Gods, and thus such heresy should be outlawed by the US Government.
Don't mind me, I'm just using poor writing style and comparing your beliefs to Hitler.
|
|
|
Post by goten0040 on Feb 11, 2009 19:45:25 GMT -5
People also have to remember that the Bible is simply an interpretation, written by man to be the word of God. Now, I do believe in God (or at least a higher power), but the book is just vague enough to cause riots. There's a reason the Christian church is divided into sections - everyone interprets the Bible a different way. So quoting it is not only pointless in a political discussion, but it may mean something completely different to the person you're quoting to.
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Feb 11, 2009 23:51:10 GMT -5
^Sez you. ;p Seriously though, if religion is not relevant to the current discussion, its better to just leave it at that than to invite or get drawn into an ecclesiastical debate. And, in my view, a pretty low grade one at that .
The matter has been put to California voters twice and they voted both times against same sex marriages. Unless you think that the majority of californian voters are particularly religious people, there may be other perhaps more significant factors at work. From what Ive heard on the net, it seems to be a fear amongst some people that recognising same sex marriages will diminish their authority as parents and their ability to teach their children their family values which do not alllow for same sex marriages. I think this fear is misplaced but should be addressed to keep it from cropping up. On the principle of democracy, I would much rather that Prop 8 is repealed by another ballot than a Court order but it doesnt look like its goinf to go down that way.
|
|
|
Post by mike1921 on Feb 12, 2009 11:01:30 GMT -5
I thought it was because they weren't content just hating every other religions, they want to hate other Christians to. Majority of America is Christians and idiots who voted against prop8 because of those absolutely ridiculous "protecting marriage" commercials. Speaking of which, the majority of America should hate them, not gay people. I can't wait till I hear about a homophobe who started a fight with a gay person and got killed. I think democracy has it's limits. I don't care how much of the country wants it, a law that gives people the death penalty without any kind of trial should never pass. On the same note, I don't care how many people vote against it a law that is doing nothing but giving people equal rights it should always pass.
|
|
|
Post by luthien on Feb 12, 2009 14:01:52 GMT -5
I think basic human rights are one of those categories that should NOT be put up to a standard vote. Rights and liberties of the minority shouldn't be subjected to the will of the majority. Everyone's rights should be ensured. Imagine if the rights of blacks or women to vote, or the desegregation of schools, had been put into the hands of voters. I shudder to think what the outcome might have been. Also, here's a moving video on the human impact of Prop 8, and the attempts to dissolve the marriages that went through before its passage: vimeo.com/3089746
|
|
|
Post by goten0040 on Feb 12, 2009 17:20:59 GMT -5
The matter has been put to California voters twice and they voted both times against same sex marriages. Unless you think that the majority of californian voters are particularly religious people, there may be other perhaps more significant factors at work.. Yes, but there was also a huge religious ad campaign in order to turn the voters against it. So whether they're fully religious or not, there are religious people pulling the strings.
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Feb 12, 2009 20:25:39 GMT -5
^ My point is those ads would not resonate with the people of California purely on reasons of Christian faith and the reasons that those people voted for prop 8 may be more indirect. Majority of America is Christians and idiots who voted against prop8 because of those absolutely ridiculous "protecting marriage" commercials. Lets stick to the California "idiots" under discussion. These are the same "idiots" that also voted for a black President. At the same time, I might add. California has the largest migrant population with a third of the Nation's Asian Americans living there and 41% of California's population made up of non-whites. It has the largest muslim population in America. Besides, I dont think it can even be readily said that the majority of white Californians are Christian. I think democracy has it's limits. I don't care how much of the country wants it, a law that gives people the death penalty without any kind of trial should never pass. On the same note, I don't care how many people vote against it a law that is doing nothing but giving people equal rights it should always pass. Not sure the death penalty example is appropriate here. Unless marriage in of itself is shown as a right guaranteed by the constitution, it will be tough to argue. It will probably be argued that same sex couples have the same rights in California as married couples under Section 297.5 of the California Family Code. In the end of the day though, I think it remains very important what the majority of people think because nobody lives in a court of law and not many people live in the White House. The Emancipation Proclamation didnt end racism in America and a Supreme Court Ruling isnt going to end prejudice against homosexuals. A vote in favour of gay marriages would carry a far stronger moral force than a legal technicality.
|
|
|
Post by mike1921 on Feb 12, 2009 21:55:41 GMT -5
. You're stating they're not idiots? They can't be prejudiced if they don't hate black people? Which most religions seem not to anymore. Which is barely relevant I heard the muslim churches are for prop8 to, from a gay muslim to. Fair enough, but if they're not, what other reason could you not support gay marriage?? Sure, the commercials emphasized"sanctity of marriage", but you only believe homosexuals ruin that if you're religious or an even bigger imbecile than I thought this country can spawn. Just saying that democracy has it's limits. But if you must, the constitution says nothing about beating the ever-loving crap out of people (I think), just imagine I said that instead of the DP. To be honest, I don't care in the slightest. As long as the courts act the same when crimes are committed against homosexuals. The legal technicality is more likely.
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Feb 12, 2009 22:50:59 GMT -5
. You're stating they're not idiots? They can't be prejudiced if they don't hate black people? Which most religions seem not to anymore. . I heard the muslim churches are for prop8 to, from a gay muslim to. The "idiot" title can be used for most if not all people on different occasions so Im not a fan of the term. Anyway, from you own comments, Christianity is hardly the only factor in the equation. Religion doesnt have to be a factor at all. Are you going to say that there are no homophobic atheists? .Fair enough, but if they're not, what other reason could you not support gay marriage?? Sure, the commercials emphasized"sanctity of marriage", but you only believe homosexuals ruin that if you're religious or an even bigger imbecile than I thought this country can spawn. There are some people who find homosexuality to be "unnatural" or "against the order of nature". Those people may not have a religous basis for their views at all. Anyway, when it comes to prejudice, its not a reason; its an excuse which can take just about any form imaginable. . The legal technicality is more likely. Right now, I have to agree with you on that point.
|
|
|
Post by mike1921 on Feb 13, 2009 3:01:23 GMT -5
Fair enough. If that was the official excuse I think the vote would've been closer. There is a certain point where most people aren't willing to debate(and by most people, I think I mean everyone but me, because I'm the only person I've ever met with no ground that is so personal I can't debate it) and the people basically won't let anything change their mind.. The sanctity in marriage one compliments religion, since marriage is done in church and I'm still hearing online about a few churches saying never to get divorced. Most people aren't willing to change their mind on what their religion told them regardless of outside influences.
Good example of what I mean because I think it sounds unclear, the house episode.where he meets a rape victim. She wants to talk to house about anything (still have no idea why) . But when he tries to tell her to abort her rape baby she shouts "it's murder" and "life is sacred", he debates them logically and she responds by basically telling him to F-off (no, not rudely, but just as bluntly). and next time he gets farther but she stops him before he gets too personal by saying "you're trying to convince me there is no god!! why would you do that?". While there are homophobic atheists(if I found something as odd as gay republican atheistic 13 year old who isn't in the closet on the internet, thinking there are not atheistic homophobes is ridiculous), I would be prone to believe they're a vast minority though. I've not once heard an atheist be against homosexuals in a debate/discussion about them. These forums where I discuss (forum-goers are more intelligent than school imbeciles,anyone not from school is going to belittle me because I'm 13, I talk better with a keyboard, and I just like the internet. ), tend to be like 10% Christians and normally they're not devout ones and are perfectly fine with us making threads about how if the Christians are right we'd rather go to hell, and yet every homophobe I've seen has been Christian.
|
|
|
Post by username on Feb 13, 2009 3:31:21 GMT -5
I know it's sort of off topic, but there are probably plenty of homophobic atheists, who are homophobic in a more traditional and semantically accurate sense. Not entirely because of them "knowing for sure that it's wrong" so much as just being grossed out by it and because of social norms.
|
|
|
Post by mike1921 on Feb 13, 2009 3:52:20 GMT -5
I wanted to put that in parenthesis, but I have enough of that in my posts.
|
|