| Forum Index > Closed |
|
MuR)Ernu
Finland768 Posts
And two parents will do it better right? If the gay parents just teach the children even from an early age that "some boys like boys and some like girls" etc. There should be no problem. Not all kinds raised by straight parents are straight. Gays should be able to marry. There is no real reason to NOT allow it. | ||
|
Cali
139 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On May 30 2009 22:43 HeadBangaa wrote: The people overwhelmingly voted for prop 8, should it be overturned by a judge? 1. They didn't vote for it overwhelmingly 2. Judicial deference is a shitty philosophy that leads to unproper laws. If prop 8 had been determined to be a revision then yes the judges would have had no choice but to overturn it. Everytime gay marriage goes before a popular vote, the people vote it down. The people have a right to self-determination above all else. Would you really trade democracy for oligarchy in order to win on a single issue? That is absolutely fucking retarded. Prop 8/gay marriage brings out the stupidity and ignorance of the populace with respect to knowledge of government, like nothing I've ever seen. If you really favor a small group of judges overturning an overwhelmingly popularly-voted piece of legislation, you are indeed subverting our democracy in favor of your single-issue obsession. Just remember, don't complain when the pendulum swings the other way, and democracy is subverted against your favorite political stance. Self-determination is the most important liberty. Respect it or lose it, Socrates became overwhelmingly disliked in Athens. They made him drink hemlock. Yay for democracy and self-determination...? | ||
RaGe
Belgium9949 Posts
On May 30 2009 22:43 HeadBangaa wrote: The people have spoken. Look beyond the particular issue. The people overwhelmingly voted for prop 8, should it be overturned by a judge? Everytime gay marriage goes before a popular vote, the people vote it down. The people have a right to self-determination above all else. Would you really trade democracy for oligarchy in order to win on a single issue? That is absolutely fucking retarded. Prop 8/gay marriage brings out the stupidity and ignorance of the populace with respect to knowledge of government, like nothing I've ever seen. If you really favor a small group of judges overturning an overwhelmingly popularly-voted piece of legislation, you are indeed subverting our democracy in favor of your single-issue obsession. Just remember, don't complain when the pendulum swings the other way, and democracy is subverted against your favorite political stance. Self-determination is the most important liberty. Respect it or lose it, .... Are you retarded? So you think if California had a ballot right now wether or not to make all black people slaves again and it would win, it would be a fair decision? Remember, democracy was made to protect the rights of the people, not to give the people a way to violate other people's rights. Majority rules, but shouldn't be able to dominate the minority no matter what. Direct democracy fails in a lot of aspects, that's why most political systems were built in a complex way to prevent abuse like this. | ||
|
hubfub
Australia352 Posts
On May 30 2009 07:29 Fontong wrote: This is just funny...OP banned before even the 3rd response. However, I am against prop 8. I just don't get why people are so concerned that the institution of marriage will somehow be corrupted if people of the same gender are allowed to marry. Luckily, in the future California should only become more liberal as the conservative christians become old and die off. how can u tell some1 has been banned? | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
Look at the history of the gay marriage issue in Canada: it was exclusively about the word marriage and not the legal status of the couples. That said, I don't really see why people are fighting for strong families; the institution itself has been obliterated in the past 40 years for economic reasons. Government needs to step out of the marriage arena completely. | ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
I believe the nuke icon indicates that  On May 30 2009 23:18 Cali wrote: Court upheld it on the grounds of the lawsuit; that the voters have a right to change the Cali Constitution though a prop, which the lawsuits aimed at prop 8 was about. Doesn't mean they upheld anti-gay marriage, doesn't mean prop 8 can still be upheld, only means prop 8 stands against that lawsuit. Also means it can be changed by another prop in the future, also means the prop can be overturned in another lawsuit that doesn't aim at revisions of the constitution though props. This thread is pointless to that extent as that it talks nothing about that. This is typical of a TL thread about gay marriage. The Europeans come in bitching at why they "think gay marriage is acceptable and America is stupid for not allowing it" and then people come in trying to explain why gay's can raise children like single parents can, and then someone brings up the sacrament of marriage and it gets challenged by predating events, and then the discussion goes absolutely nowhere, and then the state goes against every "valid" argument posted in this thread as to why gay marriage is acceptable and upholds current policy or makes slight adjustments to accommodate gay marriage, without actually calling it that, or in some cases inhibiting abilities to obtain gay marriage rights. Here's a cool little timeline about gay marriage around the world if people want to view it: (looks like it dates from last Tuesday to the 1960's, as well as one entry from 1885) http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/05/26/f-same-sex-timeline.html | ||
|
Diomedes
464 Posts
| ||
|
Culture
Canada488 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9633 Posts
On May 31 2009 00:13 Diomedes wrote: But the US constitution prevents the refusal of gay marriage. It's not about Europeans bitching. It's about Americans violating their 'holy' constitution. yeah i dont really see where equal protection to citizens is ambiguous. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On May 31 2009 02:46 Culture wrote: Twenty years from now the absurdity of the validness of gay marriage will seem as silly as a discussion about interracial marriage would seem now. It really is. If you have an grandparent from the south ask them what it was like living with segregation. Youll be surprised at how similar the thinking was to anti-gay marriage rhetoric. It wasnt that they hated blacks it was just that this was how it had always been done and if you integrated there might be adverse consequences. Turns out integrating blacks did not lead to the destruction of American society. It is hopeful to think that there was a time when a black president was as far fetched an idea as a gay president is now. Im betting I will live to see it happen. | ||
jkillashark
United States5262 Posts
Personally, I don't feel the need to bash gay people. I do have a few friends who are gay and I do respect them. Yes, they are people too. Yet I do not understand why they need to use marriage as the official term between their partner? I feel that it's like WASP people going to a Islamic mosque and having a Muslim wedding? How would those in the mosque feel? Yeah, it would be okay for them if they lead a Muslim lifestyle afterward, but if they know they're just abusing the culture and religion obviously the Muslims are gonna have a problem with that? I feel that it's the same way for me. I as a Christian, maybe a very selfish Christian, feel that marriage was and still is a Christian way of expressing a union between a man and a woman. I'm totally fine if gay people would like to register their partnership or union, but stay away from my freaking religion and come up with your own damn term for a union. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On May 31 2009 03:14 jkillashark wrote: Why do gay people need to use a Biblical term (marriage) for a union for something so un-Biblical (Bible says homosexuality is an abomination)? Did you read the 11 times this has aready been addressed in this thread. A) Civil union and marriage are not the same thing in terms of federal benifits, state recognition, health insurance etc.. B) Even if they were exactly the same it would still be seperate but equal which as we all know is not equal. C) Marriage is not a biblical term "The word 'marriage' originates from 1297, from Old French mariage (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *maritaticum, from Latin maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage". " Source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081003094736AAOmExq D) Bible says allot of things. Anyway you dice it two people loving each other is the farthest thing you can have from an abomination. | ||
|
brian
United States9633 Posts
or it seems never was sweet lol separate but equal. how apropros | ||
|
brian
United States9633 Posts
Is it going to rely on the fact that sexual orientation is not a protected class? | ||
|
Idle
Korea (South)124 Posts
On May 31 2009 03:14 jkillashark wrote: I as a Christian, maybe a very selfish Christian, feel that marriage was and still is a Christian way of expressing a union between a man and a woman. I'm curious how you would account for the fact that non-christian cultures all over the world have marriages. Not to mention if your argument is for the word itself, it did not even have christian origins. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On May 31 2009 03:25 Gene wrote: can someone break down to me unbiasedly the argument that this is not blatantly legalized discrmination? Is it going to rely on the fact that sexual orientation is not a protected class? The only real argument against same sex marriage is that there are a lot of people who think its wrong, many of those church goers with lot of influence, the worst group to buy a political beef with because they are zealots, and they think their enemies are the enemies of god. | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
| ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On May 31 2009 04:24 Archerofaiur wrote: Someone should start a religion founded on the tenets of love and acceptancing others. Spiritualism - Background Spiritualism in its modern incarnation started in the mid-19th century in the United States, a syncretic adjunct of largely Christian population. It is often described as Christian due to an essentially Christian moral system, a perceived belief in the Judeo-Christian God and an afterlife similar to the concept of Heaven. Liturgical practices such as Sunday services and the singing of hymns are also evidence of a largely Christian influence. Traditional Spiritualists state that they are not necessarily Christians. While they view Jesus as a great teacher and likely a medium, they do not see belief in his teachings as required in order to enter the afterlife. (I kinda disagree on that he, but yea you necessarily need to treat him as something outwordly) Traditional Spiritualist beliefs are not generally viewed as orthodox Christian, and many people from other traditions and religions take the title Spiritualist. In the United Kingdom there are many Spiritualist Churches that are non-denominational and welcome anyone from any religion. However, Spiritualism is distinct from Spiritism and its offshoots, New Age movements that practise otherwise similar mediumship as channeling, and the broader concept of spirituality. Spiritualism also draws from the spiritual sects of Islam (Sufi), Judaism (Kabbalah) and Buddism. Some Spiritualists follow one distinct religion's practices while others pull elements from any or all of the three religions in addition to Buddism to formulate their beliefs. Some Spiritualist believe in the idea of the universe as the creator, and don't necessarily follow any specific religion. In any case, meditation usually play a large role in practices' of Spiritualists. Another major belief is that of spiritual guides that help the Spiritualist live a more moral life as well as to make everyday decisions. The guides are not necessarily angels though sometimes angels may be consulted, generally the guide is believed to be someone that was once human at least once and is now on the other side. The Kabbalists use the term maggid which means "teacher." The related word "Spiritism" has various usages: * Kardecist Spiritism — the specific body of spiritualist beliefs, especially significant in Brazil, originated by Allan Kardec * a pejorative synonym for Spiritualism used by its opponents such as some Christian churches * a largely archaic general term for belief systems involving In any aspect of Spiritualism, there is the core tenets of charity, accepting others and love. Science is also very much respected inside this philosophy as many of its practicioners and the founder are scientists | ||
|
DrTJEckleburg
United States1080 Posts
Strangely enough, the Romans, Greeks, and Sumerians even had marriage practices before the advent of Christianity. | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
OSC
IPSL
Dewalt vs Bonyth
OSC
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
Patches Events
|
|
|
EPT
