Tera253
Gran Gran
In Soviet Russia, post writes you
Posts: 588
|
Post by Tera253 on Nov 8, 2008 4:40:39 GMT -5
the protests seemed quite exaggerated...
anyways, I personally think that trying to force people to "Accept" something they don't want to accept is just as bad as trying to get people to see something as "vile" and "2nd-class". either way, this will be a "war" that will always be fought, and lies will always be told on either side. I saw a commercial that rallied against Prop 8 that told lies about the Mormons (being Mormon, I know what they do and don't do). so in other words, it's not just the people FOR prop 8 that were making the lies, but the groups against it as well. it really DOES take two to tango.
personally though, I think that now that Prop 8 is over that America needs to scrap any further arguing about it for the time being and worry abnout more important things. ~Azula~
|
|
|
Post by Blind Bandit on Nov 8, 2008 8:32:59 GMT -5
the protests seemed quite exaggerated... anyways, I personally think that trying to force people to "Accept" something they don't want to accept is just as bad as trying to get people to see something as "vile" and "2nd-class". either way, this will be a "war" that will always be fought, and lies will always be told on either side. I saw a commercial that rallied against Prop 8 that told lies about the Mormons (being Mormon, I know what they do and don't do). so in other words, it's not just the people FOR prop 8 that were making the lies, but the groups against it as well. it really DOES take two to tango. personally though, I think that now that Prop 8 is over that America needs to scrap any further arguing about it for the time being and worry abnout more important things. ~Azula~ Gay marriage, is certainly not about acceptance. Someone being allowed to pursue happiness and there for individual rights is tolerance. I personally feel gay marriage is something that we should be past by now. To me its just as important as any other law or problem. People need to grew up and deal with it. Its to me at least on the level any case of inequality and is not easily dismissed.
|
|
historyman12
Fugitive Iroh
IS IT JULY 14TH YET?
Posts: 4,822
|
Post by historyman12 on Nov 8, 2008 8:57:15 GMT -5
I totally agree with your first statements, BB. It's really no one's business. I've had so many people quote the Bible at me and how "God destroyed a village because of the gays, blah blah blah." Well, I can quite easily quote a COMMANDMENT - "Thou shalt not judge less ye be judged." It's irritating. Seperation of church and state. People need to remember that. Religious nerd time. You're both wrong. God didn't destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of the gays, He destroyed them because they homosexually gang-raped male travelers and what pushed God over the edge was when they tried to rape three angels. Further, "Judge not lest ye be judged" is not a commandment, nor does it pertain to judging against evil at all, only against the judgemental and hypocritical attitudes commonly held by the Pharisees and other Jewish religious leaders of the time. On my views personally: I personally think it's fine if gay marriage is allowed, but I have two objections (one nitpicking, the other major) 1. The term marriage, the word in particular m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e be reserved for straight couples. Gays can have all the rights of heterosexual couples. 2. No Catholic or otherwise private and religious adoption center be forced to allow gay couples to adopt children.
|
|
|
Post by Blind Bandit on Nov 8, 2008 9:07:06 GMT -5
I totally agree with your first statements, BB. It's really no one's business. I've had so many people quote the Bible at me and how "God destroyed a village because of the gays, blah blah blah." Well, I can quite easily quote a COMMANDMENT - "Thou shalt not judge less ye be judged." It's irritating. Seperation of church and state. People need to remember that. Religious nerd time. You're both wrong. God didn't destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of the gays, He destroyed them because they homosexually gang-raped male travelers and what pushed God over the edge was when they tried to rape three angels. Further, "Judge not lest ye be judged" is not a commandment, nor does it pertain to judging against evil at all, only against the judgemental and hypocritical attitudes commonly held by the Pharisees and other Jewish religious leaders of the time. On my views personally: I personally think it's fine if gay marriage is allowed, but I have two objections (one nitpicking, the other major) 1. The term marriage, the word in particular m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e be reserved for straight couples. Gays can have all the rights of heterosexual couples. 2. No Catholic or otherwise private and religious adoption center be forced to allow gay couples to adopt children. Just a through this thread is more appropriate for CT. But HM your wrong people have been married in some way long before Christianity tried to stake a claim to the word marriage. Marriage is not reserved for someone of the christian faith.
|
|
|
Post by Kohana on Nov 8, 2008 9:45:14 GMT -5
Agreed. This thread has turned into a debate about whether or not Prop 8 should have been passed.
*moving*
|
|
historyman12
Fugitive Iroh
IS IT JULY 14TH YET?
Posts: 4,822
|
Post by historyman12 on Nov 8, 2008 11:10:17 GMT -5
Religious nerd time. You're both wrong. God didn't destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of the gays, He destroyed them because they homosexually gang-raped male travelers and what pushed God over the edge was when they tried to rape three angels. Further, "Judge not lest ye be judged" is not a commandment, nor does it pertain to judging against evil at all, only against the judgemental and hypocritical attitudes commonly held by the Pharisees and other Jewish religious leaders of the time. On my views personally: I personally think it's fine if gay marriage is allowed, but I have two objections (one nitpicking, the other major) 1. The term marriage, the word in particular m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e be reserved for straight couples. Gays can have all the rights of heterosexual couples. 2. No Catholic or otherwise private and religious adoption center be forced to allow gay couples to adopt children. Just a through this thread is more appropriate for CT. But HM your wrong people have been married in some way long before Christianity tried to stake a claim to the word marriage. Marriage is not reserved for someone of the christian faith. But I never said that marriage was only a Christian institution. I never said that the rights should be different from any other marriage. I only said that the word be reserved for straight couples of any religion.
|
|
o8jedi
Jet
Please, call me "o8"
Posts: 364
|
Post by o8jedi on Nov 8, 2008 13:06:27 GMT -5
But I never said that marriage was only a Christian institution. I never said that the rights should be different from any other marriage. I only said that the word be reserved for straight couples of any religion. For the sake of argument, what about the nonreligious? All it takes is a series of trips to the courthouse and they've got a marriage. Sidestep the whole church thing completely. On another note, I'd like to share my thoughts on the whole gay marriage issue by showing a couple videos that perfectly articulates what I think of. And thank you, Jon Stewart, for making these remarks on my (and possibly others') behalf: Part 1: www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=110278&title=bill-bennet-pt.-1Part 2: www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=127075&title=bill-bennet-pt.-2
|
|
|
Post by goten0040 on Nov 8, 2008 15:02:09 GMT -5
If people want to scream out that homosexuality is ruining the religious term of marriage, they might as well throw out the term 'divorce' too, because technically, marriage is supposed to be "until death do ye part". But divorce isn't mentioned because most politicians that are opposed to gay marriage actually have had divorce.
|
|
|
Post by mike1921 on Nov 8, 2008 15:18:04 GMT -5
The only point in that is discrimination though. Yes they should be if they have no other (valid) complaint against them. Just like they shouldn't be allowed to not allow inter-racial couples to adopt children. Why?
|
|
Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Nov 8, 2008 15:18:45 GMT -5
Q: Doesn't marriage originate from religion, so the religious should be able to decide who gets married or not? A: Marriage in it's most original form was a technique to ensure the survival of offspring by guaranteeing protection by a male and female. It wasn't called "marriage" because it's origin is before human beings arose into anything resembling the civilization there is today. However if you want to ignore that and argue semantics then what "religion" does marriage belong to. There are religions that allow gay marriage, and there are some that actually preform castrations and make their most holy figures lives lives as female when they were born male, etc. If you're trying to claim a unique Judeo-Christian monopoly on marriage the facts disagree with you. Q: But I don't want my first graders exposed to gay marriage, like when that class went to a City Hall and attended a gay marriage. A: As far as I know field trips require parental permission and beyond that technicality gay marriage has nothing to do with schooling. The only real argument against this is that the school made a mistake, there is nothing to do with the legitimacy of gay marriage. Prop 8 had nothing to do with schools or children. It simply banned gay marriage. It's supporters tried to pass it off as a measure that protects children when it had nothing to do with children and simply restricted the rights of consenting adults. Q: But Civil Unions have the same rights, so why do gays need marriage? No they don't have the same rights. And besides the United States has attempted to make "separate but equal" work before and it never has in the history of the Civil Rights movement. Delegating another word for an entire portion of the population simply forms another second class.
|
|
historyman12
Fugitive Iroh
IS IT JULY 14TH YET?
Posts: 4,822
|
Post by historyman12 on Nov 8, 2008 15:33:38 GMT -5
The only point in that is discrimination though. Yes they should be if they have no other (valid) complaint against them. Just like they shouldn't be allowed to not allow inter-racial couples to adopt children. Why? Changing the word isn't discrimination. It's changing the conditions that's discrimination. And, no, no they shouldn't. If an institution is private, non-governmentally funded, they should not be forced to do anything. EDIT: Grandi, where did you get that from? And if civil unions have different rights than marriage, then it ought to be changed that they are the same.
|
|
Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Nov 8, 2008 15:38:09 GMT -5
Where did I get what from? The link?
|
|
o8jedi
Jet
Please, call me "o8"
Posts: 364
|
Post by o8jedi on Nov 8, 2008 15:42:47 GMT -5
If an institution is private, non-governmentally funded, they should not be forced to do anything. That's just it, it is based in government. When my older brother got married, he had to sign a marriage license for the state of Michigan. Not an agreement to share belongings and insurance, not a pact to pledge mutual love and protection, a marriage license. I should know. I signed it as his witness and best man. The whole issue about the word marriage is really one of semantics. The way I see it, on a purely legal level, either grant marriages to all or grant civil unions to all and let the definition rest there.
|
|
historyman12
Fugitive Iroh
IS IT JULY 14TH YET?
Posts: 4,822
|
Post by historyman12 on Nov 8, 2008 17:17:32 GMT -5
Where did I get what from? The link? Where did you get that Q&A thing from. If an institution is private, non-governmentally funded, they should not be forced to do anything. That's just it, it is based in government. When my older brother got married, he had to sign a marriage license for the state of Michigan. Not an agreement to share belongings and insurance, not a pact to pledge mutual love and protection, a marriage license. I should know. I signed it as his witness and best man. The whole issue about the word marriage is really one of semantics. The way I see it, on a purely legal level, either grant marriages to all or grant civil unions to all and let the definition rest there. I don't mean marriage isn't based in government, I only said private institutions shouldn't be forced to do things by the government. And, now that I think about it, perhaps all governments should grant is a civil union, and religious institutions grant marriages.
|
|
Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Nov 8, 2008 17:32:50 GMT -5
Where did I get what from? The link? Where did you get that Q&A thing from. I wrote it lulz That's sort of my position except that any private institution can grant whatever they want. It'd just be symbolic anyways.
|
|