|
On July 28 2012 02:34 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 02:30 Joedaddy wrote:On July 28 2012 02:13 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote:
First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread.
My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. It's great that you don't hate gay people, but the fact that your opinion is that gays shouldn't be able to marry the person they love is actually a vile and outdated sentiment which is a source of inequality. If homosexuals want something inoffensive, how do you justify not giving it to them unless you JUDGE that there's something wrong with what they want? Why would you say no to gay marriage unless you think it's so wrong that it stains straight marriages? Most if not all arguments against gay marriage can be traced back to the dislike or hatred of homosexuals. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. "The Christian Faith" as you put it is one strange thing to talk about because of how many versions of it there are. There are a bunch of sects, and a bunch of people in those sects who have different views. There are Christians who take the Bible literally (including the rape, slavery, stoning of homosexuals, stoning of disobedient teenagers) and the Christians, presumably like yourself, who prefer not to take the Bible literally, and conveniently ignore entire sequences - which presumably allows you to see homosexuals as people even though your holy book essentially dictates that homosexuals are subhumans. I just want to point out that there is a new and old testament. Saying that I ignore entire sequences is a bit irresponsible. To elaborate, Jesus' death on the cross created a new covenant between man and God. The old testament talks about animal sacrifices to gain forgiveness. No one I know believes that we should continue sacrificing animals because the old testament says so.... and no one believes that stoning disobedient teenagers is God's will...... There is so much wrong with so much of what you have said that I don't even know where to start. In the interest of not derailing the thread any more than we already have I will end by saying that there are a lot of great resources that explain the old testament is more of a historical account, while the new testament is the literal foundation of the Christian faith, beliefs, and principles. I'll try to keep this religion talk to a minimum. Yes it is true that many people ignore the old testament, but let's not forget that many Christians still don't - and a shitload of them actually pick up some nasty shit from there and live their life by those standards. Also, let's not pretend that the New Testament is all fluffy. There's some seriously crazy stuff in there, and it's a good thing that a vast majority of Christians pick and choose their favorite parts, and ignore most of the despicable things. It's easy as a Christian to stand up and say "well I don't believe x and y in the Bible and therefore Christianity is like this". You're not your religion though. And you're definitely not your religion's average.
So basically you have a problem with people who call themselves Christians but really aren't? Real Christians have a problem with them too.
|
On July 28 2012 02:34 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 02:30 Joedaddy wrote:On July 28 2012 02:13 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote:
First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread.
My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. It's great that you don't hate gay people, but the fact that your opinion is that gays shouldn't be able to marry the person they love is actually a vile and outdated sentiment which is a source of inequality. If homosexuals want something inoffensive, how do you justify not giving it to them unless you JUDGE that there's something wrong with what they want? Why would you say no to gay marriage unless you think it's so wrong that it stains straight marriages? Most if not all arguments against gay marriage can be traced back to the dislike or hatred of homosexuals. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. "The Christian Faith" as you put it is one strange thing to talk about because of how many versions of it there are. There are a bunch of sects, and a bunch of people in those sects who have different views. There are Christians who take the Bible literally (including the rape, slavery, stoning of homosexuals, stoning of disobedient teenagers) and the Christians, presumably like yourself, who prefer not to take the Bible literally, and conveniently ignore entire sequences - which presumably allows you to see homosexuals as people even though your holy book essentially dictates that homosexuals are subhumans. I just want to point out that there is a new and old testament. Saying that I ignore entire sequences is a bit irresponsible. To elaborate, Jesus' death on the cross created a new covenant between man and God. The old testament talks about animal sacrifices to gain forgiveness. No one I know believes that we should continue sacrificing animals because the old testament says so.... and no one believes that stoning disobedient teenagers is God's will...... There is so much wrong with so much of what you have said that I don't even know where to start. In the interest of not derailing the thread any more than we already have I will end by saying that there are a lot of great resources that explain the old testament is more of a historical account, while the new testament is the literal foundation of the Christian faith, beliefs, and principles. I'll try to keep this religion talk to a minimum. Yes it is true that many people ignore the old testament, but let's not forget that many Christians still don't - and a shitload of them actually pick up some nasty shit from there and live their life by those standards. Also, let's not pretend that the New Testament is all fluffy. There's some seriously crazy stuff in there, and it's a good thing that a vast majority of Christians pick and choose their favorite parts, and ignore most of the despicable things. It's easy as a Christian to stand up and say "well I don't believe x and y in the Bible and therefore Christianity is like this". You're not your religion though. And you're definitely not your religion's average.
I admit that I'm not well versed in every religious sect that falls under the umbrella of Christianity. I do know there are some really nasty and hateful groups who call themselves Christians though (like that Westboro(?) church). Aside from the very few and far between crazies like them though, what main stream Christian sect are you referring to? Because honestly, I don't know of a single mainstream Christian sect that is anything like what you have described.
|
As far as I know, there is no precedent for such an action, meaning that this decision, if allowed to stand, could instigate a wave of imitators. Bloomberg has already said that such a ban is immoral but there are others supporting it. Keeping all this in mind, we then have to decide if such an action is justifiable, and, in my eyes, it is definitely not.
Although I do support gay marriage, the mayor and the city cannot be allowed to discriminate based on belief. If they had moved to ban Chick Fil-A because it supported gay marriage, would this conversation still be happening? Allowing zoning restrictions based on personal belief goes against our convictions against free speech. If the mayor wants to support gay marriage, he can aid and abet a boycott of the stores or speak out publicly but this is going to far. Democracy thrives on dissent and the people's ability to choose for themselves. We cannot eliminate choices for others just because it goes against our personal grain.
edit: Apparently San Francisco, along which the previously mentioned Chicago, are also supporting this ban. Chick Fil-A should sue.
|
On July 28 2012 02:38 jacosajh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 02:34 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:30 Joedaddy wrote:On July 28 2012 02:13 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote:
First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread.
My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. It's great that you don't hate gay people, but the fact that your opinion is that gays shouldn't be able to marry the person they love is actually a vile and outdated sentiment which is a source of inequality. If homosexuals want something inoffensive, how do you justify not giving it to them unless you JUDGE that there's something wrong with what they want? Why would you say no to gay marriage unless you think it's so wrong that it stains straight marriages? Most if not all arguments against gay marriage can be traced back to the dislike or hatred of homosexuals. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. "The Christian Faith" as you put it is one strange thing to talk about because of how many versions of it there are. There are a bunch of sects, and a bunch of people in those sects who have different views. There are Christians who take the Bible literally (including the rape, slavery, stoning of homosexuals, stoning of disobedient teenagers) and the Christians, presumably like yourself, who prefer not to take the Bible literally, and conveniently ignore entire sequences - which presumably allows you to see homosexuals as people even though your holy book essentially dictates that homosexuals are subhumans. I just want to point out that there is a new and old testament. Saying that I ignore entire sequences is a bit irresponsible. To elaborate, Jesus' death on the cross created a new covenant between man and God. The old testament talks about animal sacrifices to gain forgiveness. No one I know believes that we should continue sacrificing animals because the old testament says so.... and no one believes that stoning disobedient teenagers is God's will...... There is so much wrong with so much of what you have said that I don't even know where to start. In the interest of not derailing the thread any more than we already have I will end by saying that there are a lot of great resources that explain the old testament is more of a historical account, while the new testament is the literal foundation of the Christian faith, beliefs, and principles. I'll try to keep this religion talk to a minimum. Yes it is true that many people ignore the old testament, but let's not forget that many Christians still don't - and a shitload of them actually pick up some nasty shit from there and live their life by those standards. Also, let's not pretend that the New Testament is all fluffy. There's some seriously crazy stuff in there, and it's a good thing that a vast majority of Christians pick and choose their favorite parts, and ignore most of the despicable things. It's easy as a Christian to stand up and say "well I don't believe x and y in the Bible and therefore Christianity is like this". You're not your religion though. And you're definitely not your religion's average. So basically you have a problem with people who call themselves Christians but really aren't? Real Christians have a problem with them too. '
Oh man... internet high five for you sir/mam. i can't thank you enough for this post. Its everything I've been trying to say but couldn't. Thanks 10000 times over.
I agree 100%.
|
If i were Chic-fil-A I would sue the City of Boston. There is no legal reason Chic-fil-A can be barred from doing business in a city. Could make some money out of it and shut up politicians making PR moves during election time.
On a side note, I doubt Chic-fil-A gives a shit. They are a huge chain and they make some damn good chicken. There business model does not rely on having Boston as a place of business.
|
On July 28 2012 02:47 Jisall wrote:
If i were Chic-fil-A I would sue the City of Boston. There is no legal reason Chic-fil-A can be barred from doing business in a city. Could make some money out of it and shut up politicians making PR moves during election time.
On a side note, I doubt Chic-fil-A gives a shit. They are a huge chain and they make some damn good chicken. There business model does not rely on having Boston as a place of business.
The thing is, the majority of the population tends to be 'pragmatic' when it comes to issues like this. It would probably not be a good move for CFA to make a big deal out of this - the 'public' (esp. in say Boston) would tend to side with the mayor as they will tend to enjoy seeing a view they detest bashed, regardless of whether the threats he made are technically legal (NB: I know he retracted his statements).
The political/media atmosphere is also such that the new big/cool thing to do is for businesses to come out supporting gay marriage (Google, Muppets, Oreos, etc. following) so CFA makes a sour contrast to that bright & bubbly atmosphere. It also wouldn't help them that the details behind/accompanying CFA's position and monetary contributions fall in a minority subset of those opposing gay marriage and wouldn't have mainstream appeal.
|
On July 28 2012 02:26 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 02:18 MooseyFate wrote:On July 28 2012 01:55 Smat wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 28 2012 01:39 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 23:02 KwarK wrote:On July 27 2012 20:43 Cel.erity wrote:On July 27 2012 19:09 Arunu wrote:
This returning discussion is hard not to get worked up about.
Marriage predates christianity by a large margin, it is NOT a religious construct. While I'm definitely on your side in this argument, my devil's advocate (and unfortunate childhood in a Christian school) requires me to point out a couple of things: 1. For a religious person, nothing predates religion, since God created the world we live in and everything unfolds according to his will. 2. Even though historically I'm sure you are correct, marriage has always traditionally been between a man and a woman, so it's not like Christianity changed any of that. It's changing now, and that scares fundamentalists. Of course, I'd say that if God invented marriage, that means he also invented gays, and he'd want them to have all the same rights that we have, but hey. Marriage has traditionally been a contract between a man and a woman's father for the transfer of property (the woman). People were upset when that one got changed too. Marriage only predates Christianity in the sense of Christianity emerging as a brand new "religion." But, that was not the case. There was only further revelation of existing truth. Because Christ was "new" in the sense that he had now walked the earth and revealed himself, the followers started calling themselves "Christians." If you intend to be honest, you cannot choose a specific timeline of wrong or generally unacceptable behavior and retrospectively apply it to all other times to suit your needs. It's just dishonest and misleading. The very first marriage was between Adam and Eve. No one was sold; there was no transfer of property. People certainly twisted what was intended, but that has consistently been done throughout history on every subject imaginable. Marriage was never intended to be merely such as described. Why is he being dishonest? He is showing how Christians changed the definition of marriage over and over and over again. But suddenly, today, its sacred and can't be changed? Most religions/societies/civilizations have changed the definition of marriage, not just Christians. Currently some fundamentalist Christians (as well as most other major religions) don't support homosexual relationships and therefore don't support homosexual marriage. It's not that they don't want to change the definition of marriage, it's that they don't want to change it to include something they don't agree with, especially not because of pressure from the outside. Reason and understanding, from BOTH sides, needs to be used to resolve the issue, not bullying. Neither side is innocent of bullying the other at this time. The problem is that homosexuals ARE being bullied by Christians in the US, so a popular response against secular people like myself is to attack this organization which takes a stand which in direct opposition to equality. It's hard for me to be gentle with a group of people which lobbies so aggressively AGAINST an entire subset of people. Can I really be expected to have an intellectual discourse with a person who thinks that "faggots" are lesser humans? They can't even throw together one argument that actually makes sense, so they're immune to proper reasoning in the first place.
I've put in bold the part in my last post that says exactly what you said in your first sentence. Both sides are bullying.
The problem is that homosexuals ARE being bullied by Christians in the US
They are being bullied by people hiding under the banner of Christianity, let's not paint broad strokes over an entire faith with hateful stereotypes. I know plenty of Christians that fully support marriage for all consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation. You may say they aren't the 'average Christian' but I have a feeling you get your 'average' from the media/internet where only the crazies are shown. Every religion/political party/country in the world has extremist; that does not mean every member of that religion/political party/country shares their views and beliefs.
This isn't a Christian bashing thread, it's suppose to discuss the actions between a fast food company and the Mayor of Boston. If your personal bias doesn't allow you to contribute without getting angry, take a break from this thread.
It's hard for me to be gentle with a group of people which lobbies so aggressively AGAINST an entire subset of people. Can I really be expected to have an intellectual discourse with a person who thinks that "faggots" are lesser humans?
If you are unable to have an intellectual discourse with someone who's opinion is drastically different than your own, then maybe you shouldn't engage them until you are able to do so.
|
On July 28 2012 02:41 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 02:38 jacosajh wrote:On July 28 2012 02:34 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:30 Joedaddy wrote:On July 28 2012 02:13 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote:
First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread.
My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. It's great that you don't hate gay people, but the fact that your opinion is that gays shouldn't be able to marry the person they love is actually a vile and outdated sentiment which is a source of inequality. If homosexuals want something inoffensive, how do you justify not giving it to them unless you JUDGE that there's something wrong with what they want? Why would you say no to gay marriage unless you think it's so wrong that it stains straight marriages? Most if not all arguments against gay marriage can be traced back to the dislike or hatred of homosexuals. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. "The Christian Faith" as you put it is one strange thing to talk about because of how many versions of it there are. There are a bunch of sects, and a bunch of people in those sects who have different views. There are Christians who take the Bible literally (including the rape, slavery, stoning of homosexuals, stoning of disobedient teenagers) and the Christians, presumably like yourself, who prefer not to take the Bible literally, and conveniently ignore entire sequences - which presumably allows you to see homosexuals as people even though your holy book essentially dictates that homosexuals are subhumans. I just want to point out that there is a new and old testament. Saying that I ignore entire sequences is a bit irresponsible. To elaborate, Jesus' death on the cross created a new covenant between man and God. The old testament talks about animal sacrifices to gain forgiveness. No one I know believes that we should continue sacrificing animals because the old testament says so.... and no one believes that stoning disobedient teenagers is God's will...... There is so much wrong with so much of what you have said that I don't even know where to start. In the interest of not derailing the thread any more than we already have I will end by saying that there are a lot of great resources that explain the old testament is more of a historical account, while the new testament is the literal foundation of the Christian faith, beliefs, and principles. I'll try to keep this religion talk to a minimum. Yes it is true that many people ignore the old testament, but let's not forget that many Christians still don't - and a shitload of them actually pick up some nasty shit from there and live their life by those standards. Also, let's not pretend that the New Testament is all fluffy. There's some seriously crazy stuff in there, and it's a good thing that a vast majority of Christians pick and choose their favorite parts, and ignore most of the despicable things. It's easy as a Christian to stand up and say "well I don't believe x and y in the Bible and therefore Christianity is like this". You're not your religion though. And you're definitely not your religion's average. So basically you have a problem with people who call themselves Christians but really aren't? Real Christians have a problem with them too. ' Oh man... internet high five for you sir/mam. i can't thank you enough for this post. Its everything I've been trying to say but couldn't. Thanks 10000 times over. I agree 100%.
Haha, ya we only have problem with the "fake Christians". You guys figured it out.
|
On July 28 2012 03:03 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 02:41 Joedaddy wrote:On July 28 2012 02:38 jacosajh wrote:On July 28 2012 02:34 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:30 Joedaddy wrote:On July 28 2012 02:13 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote:
First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread.
My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. It's great that you don't hate gay people, but the fact that your opinion is that gays shouldn't be able to marry the person they love is actually a vile and outdated sentiment which is a source of inequality. If homosexuals want something inoffensive, how do you justify not giving it to them unless you JUDGE that there's something wrong with what they want? Why would you say no to gay marriage unless you think it's so wrong that it stains straight marriages? Most if not all arguments against gay marriage can be traced back to the dislike or hatred of homosexuals. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. "The Christian Faith" as you put it is one strange thing to talk about because of how many versions of it there are. There are a bunch of sects, and a bunch of people in those sects who have different views. There are Christians who take the Bible literally (including the rape, slavery, stoning of homosexuals, stoning of disobedient teenagers) and the Christians, presumably like yourself, who prefer not to take the Bible literally, and conveniently ignore entire sequences - which presumably allows you to see homosexuals as people even though your holy book essentially dictates that homosexuals are subhumans. I just want to point out that there is a new and old testament. Saying that I ignore entire sequences is a bit irresponsible. To elaborate, Jesus' death on the cross created a new covenant between man and God. The old testament talks about animal sacrifices to gain forgiveness. No one I know believes that we should continue sacrificing animals because the old testament says so.... and no one believes that stoning disobedient teenagers is God's will...... There is so much wrong with so much of what you have said that I don't even know where to start. In the interest of not derailing the thread any more than we already have I will end by saying that there are a lot of great resources that explain the old testament is more of a historical account, while the new testament is the literal foundation of the Christian faith, beliefs, and principles. I'll try to keep this religion talk to a minimum. Yes it is true that many people ignore the old testament, but let's not forget that many Christians still don't - and a shitload of them actually pick up some nasty shit from there and live their life by those standards. Also, let's not pretend that the New Testament is all fluffy. There's some seriously crazy stuff in there, and it's a good thing that a vast majority of Christians pick and choose their favorite parts, and ignore most of the despicable things. It's easy as a Christian to stand up and say "well I don't believe x and y in the Bible and therefore Christianity is like this". You're not your religion though. And you're definitely not your religion's average. So basically you have a problem with people who call themselves Christians but really aren't? Real Christians have a problem with them too. ' Oh man... internet high five for you sir/mam. i can't thank you enough for this post. Its everything I've been trying to say but couldn't. Thanks 10000 times over. I agree 100%. Haha, ya we only have problem with the "fake Christians". You guys figured it out.
Instead of 'we' and 'you guys' could you just say Me/I and Christians, you are not speaking for everyone and all Christians are not the same. I'm sure you find problems in just about every person, problem with that though is that you are just another person, equally wrong from someone elses perspective. haha....i guess.
|
On July 28 2012 02:58 MooseyFate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 02:26 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:18 MooseyFate wrote:On July 28 2012 01:55 Smat wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 28 2012 01:39 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 23:02 KwarK wrote:On July 27 2012 20:43 Cel.erity wrote:On July 27 2012 19:09 Arunu wrote:
This returning discussion is hard not to get worked up about.
Marriage predates christianity by a large margin, it is NOT a religious construct. While I'm definitely on your side in this argument, my devil's advocate (and unfortunate childhood in a Christian school) requires me to point out a couple of things: 1. For a religious person, nothing predates religion, since God created the world we live in and everything unfolds according to his will. 2. Even though historically I'm sure you are correct, marriage has always traditionally been between a man and a woman, so it's not like Christianity changed any of that. It's changing now, and that scares fundamentalists. Of course, I'd say that if God invented marriage, that means he also invented gays, and he'd want them to have all the same rights that we have, but hey. Marriage has traditionally been a contract between a man and a woman's father for the transfer of property (the woman). People were upset when that one got changed too. Marriage only predates Christianity in the sense of Christianity emerging as a brand new "religion." But, that was not the case. There was only further revelation of existing truth. Because Christ was "new" in the sense that he had now walked the earth and revealed himself, the followers started calling themselves "Christians." If you intend to be honest, you cannot choose a specific timeline of wrong or generally unacceptable behavior and retrospectively apply it to all other times to suit your needs. It's just dishonest and misleading. The very first marriage was between Adam and Eve. No one was sold; there was no transfer of property. People certainly twisted what was intended, but that has consistently been done throughout history on every subject imaginable. Marriage was never intended to be merely such as described. Why is he being dishonest? He is showing how Christians changed the definition of marriage over and over and over again. But suddenly, today, its sacred and can't be changed? Most religions/societies/civilizations have changed the definition of marriage, not just Christians. Currently some fundamentalist Christians (as well as most other major religions) don't support homosexual relationships and therefore don't support homosexual marriage. It's not that they don't want to change the definition of marriage, it's that they don't want to change it to include something they don't agree with, especially not because of pressure from the outside. Reason and understanding, from BOTH sides, needs to be used to resolve the issue, not bullying. Neither side is innocent of bullying the other at this time. The problem is that homosexuals ARE being bullied by Christians in the US, so a popular response against secular people like myself is to attack this organization which takes a stand which in direct opposition to equality. It's hard for me to be gentle with a group of people which lobbies so aggressively AGAINST an entire subset of people. Can I really be expected to have an intellectual discourse with a person who thinks that "faggots" are lesser humans? They can't even throw together one argument that actually makes sense, so they're immune to proper reasoning in the first place. I've put in bold the part in my last post that says exactly what you said in your first sentence. Both sides are bullying. They are being bullied by people hiding under the banner of Christianity, let's not paint broad strokes over an entire faith with hateful stereotypes. I know plenty of Christians that fully support marriage for all consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation. You may say they aren't the 'average Christian' but I have a feeling you get your 'average' from the media/internet where only the crazies are shown. Every religion/political party/country in the world has extremist; that does not mean every member of that religion/political party/country shares their views and beliefs. This isn't a Christian bashing thread, it's suppose to discuss the actions between a fast food company and the Mayor of Boston. If your personal bias doesn't allow you to contribute without getting angry, take a break from this thread. Show nested quote +It's hard for me to be gentle with a group of people which lobbies so aggressively AGAINST an entire subset of people. Can I really be expected to have an intellectual discourse with a person who thinks that "faggots" are lesser humans? If you are unable to have an intellectual discourse with someone who's opinion is drastically different than your own, then maybe you shouldn't engage them until you are able to do so.
Indeed. If you assume the person with whom you are arguing purposefully holds an evil opinion, you have guaranteed that your dialogue will be a failure. Especially if you make unjustified leaps like equating 'opposing gay marriage' with 'actively considering homosexuals to be subhuman'.
|
On July 28 2012 02:55 Ryalnos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 02:47 Jisall wrote:
If i were Chic-fil-A I would sue the City of Boston. There is no legal reason Chic-fil-A can be barred from doing business in a city. Could make some money out of it and shut up politicians making PR moves during election time.
On a side note, I doubt Chic-fil-A gives a shit. They are a huge chain and they make some damn good chicken. There business model does not rely on having Boston as a place of business. The thing is, the majority of the population tends to be 'pragmatic' when it comes to issues like this. It would probably not be a good move for CFA to make a big deal out of this - the 'public' (esp. in say Boston) would tend to side with the mayor as they will tend to enjoy seeing a view they detest bashed, regardless of whether the threats he made are technically legal (NB: I know he retracted his statements). The political/media atmosphere is also such that the new big/cool thing to do is for businesses to come out supporting gay marriage (Google, Muppets, Oreos, etc. following) so CFA makes a sour contrast to that bright & bubbly atmosphere. It also wouldn't help them that the details behind/accompanying CFA's position and monetary contributions fall in a minority subset of those opposing gay marriage and wouldn't have mainstream appeal.
If the mayor retracted his statement I would not sue (not sure if that is what you meant by NB).
|
On July 28 2012 02:55 Ryalnos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 02:47 Jisall wrote:
If i were Chic-fil-A I would sue the City of Boston. There is no legal reason Chic-fil-A can be barred from doing business in a city. Could make some money out of it and shut up politicians making PR moves during election time.
On a side note, I doubt Chic-fil-A gives a shit. They are a huge chain and they make some damn good chicken. There business model does not rely on having Boston as a place of business. The thing is, the majority of the population tends to be 'pragmatic' when it comes to issues like this. It would probably not be a good move for CFA to make a big deal out of this - the 'public' (esp. in say Boston) would tend to side with the mayor as they will tend to enjoy seeing a view they detest bashed, regardless of whether the threats he made are technically legal (NB: I know he retracted his statements). The political/media atmosphere is also such that the new big/cool thing to do is for businesses to come out supporting gay marriage (Google, Muppets, Oreos, etc. following) so CFA makes a sour contrast to that bright & bubbly atmosphere. It also wouldn't help them that the details behind/accompanying CFA's position and monetary contributions fall in a minority subset of those opposing gay marriage and wouldn't have mainstream appeal.
I can imagine that CFA loses A LOT of potential business by being closed on Sundays. After all, isn't that when most "Christians" (real or not) are ready to go out and eat? I think anyone who knows anything about Christians and CFA understands this. So you can already see a trend where CFA is willing to forego profits so they can "stand up for what they believe in."
+ Show Spoiler +On July 28 2012 03:03 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 02:41 Joedaddy wrote:On July 28 2012 02:38 jacosajh wrote:On July 28 2012 02:34 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:30 Joedaddy wrote:On July 28 2012 02:13 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote:
First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread.
My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. It's great that you don't hate gay people, but the fact that your opinion is that gays shouldn't be able to marry the person they love is actually a vile and outdated sentiment which is a source of inequality. If homosexuals want something inoffensive, how do you justify not giving it to them unless you JUDGE that there's something wrong with what they want? Why would you say no to gay marriage unless you think it's so wrong that it stains straight marriages? Most if not all arguments against gay marriage can be traced back to the dislike or hatred of homosexuals. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. "The Christian Faith" as you put it is one strange thing to talk about because of how many versions of it there are. There are a bunch of sects, and a bunch of people in those sects who have different views. There are Christians who take the Bible literally (including the rape, slavery, stoning of homosexuals, stoning of disobedient teenagers) and the Christians, presumably like yourself, who prefer not to take the Bible literally, and conveniently ignore entire sequences - which presumably allows you to see homosexuals as people even though your holy book essentially dictates that homosexuals are subhumans. I just want to point out that there is a new and old testament. Saying that I ignore entire sequences is a bit irresponsible. To elaborate, Jesus' death on the cross created a new covenant between man and God. The old testament talks about animal sacrifices to gain forgiveness. No one I know believes that we should continue sacrificing animals because the old testament says so.... and no one believes that stoning disobedient teenagers is God's will...... There is so much wrong with so much of what you have said that I don't even know where to start. In the interest of not derailing the thread any more than we already have I will end by saying that there are a lot of great resources that explain the old testament is more of a historical account, while the new testament is the literal foundation of the Christian faith, beliefs, and principles. I'll try to keep this religion talk to a minimum. Yes it is true that many people ignore the old testament, but let's not forget that many Christians still don't - and a shitload of them actually pick up some nasty shit from there and live their life by those standards. Also, let's not pretend that the New Testament is all fluffy. There's some seriously crazy stuff in there, and it's a good thing that a vast majority of Christians pick and choose their favorite parts, and ignore most of the despicable things. It's easy as a Christian to stand up and say "well I don't believe x and y in the Bible and therefore Christianity is like this". You're not your religion though. And you're definitely not your religion's average. So basically you have a problem with people who call themselves Christians but really aren't? Real Christians have a problem with them too. ' Oh man... internet high five for you sir/mam. i can't thank you enough for this post. Its everything I've been trying to say but couldn't. Thanks 10000 times over. I agree 100%. Haha, ya we only have problem with the "fake Christians". You guys figured it out.
A smartass response that does absolutely nothing to further discussion. Why am I not surprised? This is the internet after all.
|
On July 28 2012 03:16 jacosajh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 02:55 Ryalnos wrote:On July 28 2012 02:47 Jisall wrote:
If i were Chic-fil-A I would sue the City of Boston. There is no legal reason Chic-fil-A can be barred from doing business in a city. Could make some money out of it and shut up politicians making PR moves during election time.
On a side note, I doubt Chic-fil-A gives a shit. They are a huge chain and they make some damn good chicken. There business model does not rely on having Boston as a place of business. The thing is, the majority of the population tends to be 'pragmatic' when it comes to issues like this. It would probably not be a good move for CFA to make a big deal out of this - the 'public' (esp. in say Boston) would tend to side with the mayor as they will tend to enjoy seeing a view they detest bashed, regardless of whether the threats he made are technically legal (NB: I know he retracted his statements). The political/media atmosphere is also such that the new big/cool thing to do is for businesses to come out supporting gay marriage (Google, Muppets, Oreos, etc. following) so CFA makes a sour contrast to that bright & bubbly atmosphere. It also wouldn't help them that the details behind/accompanying CFA's position and monetary contributions fall in a minority subset of those opposing gay marriage and wouldn't have mainstream appeal. I can imagine that CFA loses A LOT of potential business by being closed on Sundays. After all, isn't that when most "Christians" (real or not) are ready to go out and eat? I think anyone who knows anything about Christians and CFA understands this. So you can already see a trend where CFA is willing to forego profits so they can "stand up for what they believe in."
I was a little unclear I guess - I meant to say that it wouldn't really shut up politicians, because their constituencies (the voters) would probably be emotionally behind them even if they lost the lawsuit.
I also don't think using the media here would be an effective way for CFA to 'stand up for what they believe in' - it's very hard to control the narrative and choose who your viewpoint is presented when the atmosphere is running the opposite way.
Just in case, NB just means something like "NOTE THIS:" - it's an abbreviation for a Latin phrase. If you already knew that, I was just pointing out that I realize that the news has moved on even as we continue discussing a hypothetical situation (so I don't get called out by someone for not reading the thread or something).
|
United States41956 Posts
On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote:Going to try to give a general response to the few who quoted me~ First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread. Someone asked if I thought black people should get married. Really? I take that as a cheap, personal attack to assume that I am somehow against anyone but a white man and a white woman getting married. Who's bigoted? My mother is married to a black man. My sister's kids' dad is black. We all get along quite well. My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. Everyone has their own ideas about whats best for our society. A responsible citizen in a democratic society feels the need to support ideals and legislation that move the country more in line with what they believe is best for the nation as a whole. Its what makes America great. I respect your advocacy and support of gay marriage. I do however, respectfully, disagree. + Show Spoiler +Personally, I think the best and easiest solution is for the government to just call it a partnership. Everyone who enters into the partnership receives the taxing and legal benefits that traditional marriage has granted. Everyone becomes equal in the eyes of the law and there is a real separation of Church and State. For those who view a lifelong commit to one another as more than just a contractual partnership, they are free to get married in a manner consistent with their beliefs without additional benefits.
The point regarding interracial marriage is that it is analogous to the current debate, not that all opponents of gay marriage oppose interracial marriage. The same parts of society went through the same debate and predicted the same outcomes (destruction of morals, marriage and society) and were overruled for the same reasons as the anti-gay crowd will be, that all citizens deserve the same rights and freedoms and that legally denying them it is immoral. Nobody is saying that everyone who wants to deny rights to gays wants to deny rights to blacks, they're drawing a parallel between that debate and this. Your solution would work if there was no cultural or symbolic value to the word marriage. However there is and separate but equal has never worked.
|
On July 28 2012 03:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote:Going to try to give a general response to the few who quoted me~ First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread. Someone asked if I thought black people should get married. Really? I take that as a cheap, personal attack to assume that I am somehow against anyone but a white man and a white woman getting married. Who's bigoted? My mother is married to a black man. My sister's kids' dad is black. We all get along quite well. My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. Everyone has their own ideas about whats best for our society. A responsible citizen in a democratic society feels the need to support ideals and legislation that move the country more in line with what they believe is best for the nation as a whole. Its what makes America great. I respect your advocacy and support of gay marriage. I do however, respectfully, disagree. + Show Spoiler +Personally, I think the best and easiest solution is for the government to just call it a partnership. Everyone who enters into the partnership receives the taxing and legal benefits that traditional marriage has granted. Everyone becomes equal in the eyes of the law and there is a real separation of Church and State. For those who view a lifelong commit to one another as more than just a contractual partnership, they are free to get married in a manner consistent with their beliefs without additional benefits. The point regarding interracial marriage is that it is analogous to the current debate, not that all opponents of gay marriage oppose interracial marriage. The same parts of society went through the same debate and predicted the same outcomes (destruction of morals, marriage and society) and were overruled for the same reasons as the anti-gay crowd will be, that all citizens deserve the same rights and freedoms and that legally denying them it is immoral. Nobody is saying that everyone who wants to deny rights to gays wants to deny rights to blacks, they're drawing a parallel between that debate and this. Your solution would work if there was no cultural or symbolic value to the word marriage. However there is and separate but equal has never worked.
Why are men's and women's restrooms still 'separate but equal'?
NOTE I am not using this as an argument, just as an example of a different use of the term. The concept of'separate but equal' is very strongly tied in the American mind to the issues of segregation. I of course understand that given how 'equal' the separate treatment of blacks & whites was (with all the widespread negative discrimination) there would be a real worry that this is a similar atmosphere prone to similar abuses.
|
On July 28 2012 00:34 Felnarion wrote:
The youth of this country have far, far too little understand of freedom of speech and its concepts.
Freedom of speech exists so society can change, evolve, and adopt new principles and ideas as time goes on. Without it, your ideas about gay-equality would NEVER get off the ground.
There is no logic that allows you to silence a company whose beliefs are that gays should not marry that does not allow another city to silence someone who believes they should.
You have to keep in mind that the same logic you are currently using to silence old ideas can just as easily be used to silence new ones. These days, its a majority opinion that gays should have some form of marriage or union available to them. However, it hasn't always been. In fact, it was a very rarely held opinion at one time. The same rules you're pretending exist to silence Chick Fil A, could just as easily silence YOU.
The PURPOSE of freedom of speech is to allow ideas to circulate freely, so that society can decide upon their merits. The purpose of freedom of speech is not to allow you to shit all over anyone who is wrong and then make them shut up by taking away their business.
You have to allow people who are wrong to be wrong. You have to allow it. If you don't, if you refuse this, then the people who hold the ideas that are wrong can silence you before you even challenge them. Those who hold the idea that gay marriage is wrong could have, in the past, kept your pro-gay businesses out of towns. They could have destroyed companies and people. But free speech protected you.
When I say "allow" I mean on a governmental level. You should personally tell them how wrong they are, repeatedly, and convince them of it. But on a societal, governmental, level...You can't just tell them they can't speak. That's a fast train to a stagnate, immoral, society.
Read this, guys. The hypocrisy is quite ironic.
1) Calling out the majority (on here, in society, and the media)
Mainstream new young wishy-washy liberal doctrine is the overwhelming majority in young internet users - go figre, it's the moral system schools, society and the media have taught them (family, I don't know but porbably too). They are taught that "everything is ok or something like that and, like, people should be free to do whatever they want". I'm being deliberately vague to make the point that there are very few clearly defined moral lines, and even those are quite hazy. Then another one is "freedom of speech beyond all else", typical liberal fun-fun, you know how they do.
The liberal 'free-thinkers' or whatever crown they want to give themselves, actually generally all think in the same way; watered down secular politically-correct post-modern pop-culture-philosophy. + Show Spoiler [spite] +Nice, very origional, now what does that mean about how you should live your life? Why exactly do you believe that? Have you ever considered anything else than your inherent world-view is 'true'? [OH no not TRUTH CLAIMS *shudders*] If you don't have a realisitc grasp of the flaws of your own paradigms, are you really as open-minded as you laud yourself to be?
It gets funny when there are people who disagree with some Liberal doctrine (and haven't yet been yelled into submission). Because while the liberals have been raised on their bread and butter of 'freedom-of-speach' since day one, as soon as someone disagrees with their moral views, they go apeshit, throw a tantrum, and chuck their opponent's freedom of speech out the window. Since its no wonder they are a majority (see prior indoctrination), their moral views are generally imposed on the minority. That IS NOT freedom of speech. So you, dear reader, please try to recognize when you act that way, and stop to consider if it's really right. It quickly devolves into a bickering match, whereas true freedom of speech would at least have some mutual respect.
Another thing. When you dissolve certain moral boundaries (say, in the sub-category of 'consenting adult sex'), you've dissolved moral boundaries! If you are turly fair and liberal, how then can you go back and be strict on some moral boundaries? That's not very self-consistent dear.
2) Chick-Fil-A vs Government
So the new thing is Gay marraige. Ok, there are some people who say (in a range of ways and to various extents) effectively "you shouldn't do that", Chich-Fil-A for one. The point of freedom of speech (yeah, it's lost the capitalization) is that you are free to agree or disagree with this stance, and you are allowed to voice it. True freedom of speech would be fighting FOR your opponent's right to voice his opinion, to debate openly with mutual boundaries and respect, and at all costs NOT silence the minority! Its a question if liberal doctrine really IS the majority, or only that its opponents have been crushed into submission...
Back to the topic (note, staying on topic, take a hint some of you), the mayor was wrong to publically discriminate against the private company. Although he may disagree with them, as do the vast majority of his supporters (can't say the same with absolute certainty about all the citizens of his city), he over-steped his boundaries.
The system works that if you disagree with the operations or stance of a company, you boycott that company. And surely, with a position like that, Chick-Fil-A will lose more and more customers in Liberal City. Certainly the mayor wouldn't shop there either!
But by putting out a regional governmental mandate against the company, he is using his power to amplify the strength of his personal boycott and effectivley boycotting it on behalf of his whole city. That's discriminating against the people in Boston who would still want to consume whatever fast food Chick-Fil-A provides.
Is Chick-Fil-A's action illegal? Not yet, thankfully, so as long as they are within the law, what mandate do government officials have to ban them? Seeing how hypocritical the majority is, tragically I believe some day it will be illegal to pull what Chick-Fil-A's up to (freedom of speech say whaaaat).
3) Disclaimer Clauses
Since this is General, and General is shitty nowadays, I know lots of people will pick at little subsets of what I've posted, diluting and derailing the thread, rather than discussing the hypocrasy of Liberal governments and their followers. That, and multiple personal attacks, demeaning and dismissive comments, bigotry and denial. Nice freedom of speech, guys. Very mature.
Its obvious to expect flack when you disagree with the majority, especially when you challenge and doubt their fundamental world view and moral system. No shit, I've only put the contrarian side of the argument out there to illicit a better reaction. So if you're mature, you'll notice that (!) (and take it into account). This applies to all discussion: pick at people's reasoning, logic, and consistency, and demonstrate flaws. Please not head-buts or outright dismissal.
My family have been Democrat voters for as long as we know, even helping extend Democrats abroad to another country, and were I in the States I'd vote for Obama. Sufficient credentials? Note, however, that doesn't mean I subscribe to everything 'Liberal', and I am quite frustrated with liberals giving us a bad name. Except, well, they're such a majority on the internet that its pretty staunchly bi-partisan.
|
On July 28 2012 03:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote:Going to try to give a general response to the few who quoted me~ First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread. Someone asked if I thought black people should get married. Really? I take that as a cheap, personal attack to assume that I am somehow against anyone but a white man and a white woman getting married. Who's bigoted? My mother is married to a black man. My sister's kids' dad is black. We all get along quite well. My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. Everyone has their own ideas about whats best for our society. A responsible citizen in a democratic society feels the need to support ideals and legislation that move the country more in line with what they believe is best for the nation as a whole. Its what makes America great. I respect your advocacy and support of gay marriage. I do however, respectfully, disagree. + Show Spoiler +Personally, I think the best and easiest solution is for the government to just call it a partnership. Everyone who enters into the partnership receives the taxing and legal benefits that traditional marriage has granted. Everyone becomes equal in the eyes of the law and there is a real separation of Church and State. For those who view a lifelong commit to one another as more than just a contractual partnership, they are free to get married in a manner consistent with their beliefs without additional benefits. The point regarding interracial marriage is that it is analogous to the current debate, not that all opponents of gay marriage oppose interracial marriage. The same parts of society went through the same debate and predicted the same outcomes (destruction of morals, marriage and society) and were overruled for the same reasons as the anti-gay crowd will be, that all citizens deserve the same rights and freedoms and that legally denying them it is immoral. Nobody is saying that everyone who wants to deny rights to gays wants to deny rights to blacks, they're drawing a parallel between that debate and this. Your solution would work if there was no cultural or symbolic value to the word marriage. However there is and separate but equal has never worked.
Marriage is tied into religion. You marry in a church by a priest. With church and state being separate the state has no control over what happens to the beliefs of a religion. The state offers their own solution called a domestic partnership which lies in the domain of the state. The state laid forth a solution and people seem to disregard it and view it as second-class. That is a personal problem, not a problem with religion.
The first amendment grants "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Free exercise thereof allows for religions to follow their beliefs towards marriage.
|
On July 28 2012 03:30 Ryalnos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 03:25 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote:Going to try to give a general response to the few who quoted me~ First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread. Someone asked if I thought black people should get married. Really? I take that as a cheap, personal attack to assume that I am somehow against anyone but a white man and a white woman getting married. Who's bigoted? My mother is married to a black man. My sister's kids' dad is black. We all get along quite well. My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. Everyone has their own ideas about whats best for our society. A responsible citizen in a democratic society feels the need to support ideals and legislation that move the country more in line with what they believe is best for the nation as a whole. Its what makes America great. I respect your advocacy and support of gay marriage. I do however, respectfully, disagree. + Show Spoiler +Personally, I think the best and easiest solution is for the government to just call it a partnership. Everyone who enters into the partnership receives the taxing and legal benefits that traditional marriage has granted. Everyone becomes equal in the eyes of the law and there is a real separation of Church and State. For those who view a lifelong commit to one another as more than just a contractual partnership, they are free to get married in a manner consistent with their beliefs without additional benefits. The point regarding interracial marriage is that it is analogous to the current debate, not that all opponents of gay marriage oppose interracial marriage. The same parts of society went through the same debate and predicted the same outcomes (destruction of morals, marriage and society) and were overruled for the same reasons as the anti-gay crowd will be, that all citizens deserve the same rights and freedoms and that legally denying them it is immoral. Nobody is saying that everyone who wants to deny rights to gays wants to deny rights to blacks, they're drawing a parallel between that debate and this. Your solution would work if there was no cultural or symbolic value to the word marriage. However there is and separate but equal has never worked. Why are men's and women's restrooms still 'separate but equal'? NOTE I am not using this as an argument, just as an example of a different use of the term. The concept of'separate but equal' is very strongly tied in the American mind to the issues of segregation. I of course understand that given how 'equal' the separate treatment of blacks & whites was (with all the widespread negative discrimination) there would be a real worry that this is a similar atmosphere prone to similar abuses.
i asked a feminist this once - her answer (which i felt was adequate) is in spoiler
+ Show Spoiler +They are not comparable. For one, the separate bathrooms and schools were far worse for black people. I have not heard of any visible contrast in quality in regards to bathrooms for men or women. They were also institutionally separated from whites, through jobs, income, and livelihood. The fights for the same fountain/bathrooms was part of a larger battle to fight racism overall. "Separate but equal" was an excuse, when the reality was "Keep the icky black people away from us!" The same is not true for women bathrooms. I think it is far more likely for men to want to see women while they are in the bathroom, not the other way around.
It is also wrong to equate gender relations with race relations. I think you will find the majority of women aren't comfortable going to the bathroom with men, or changing clothes with men in public, or bathing, etc. This is because society is sexually charged, and until women feel SAFE, the idea of having unisex locker rooms aren't going to happen. Please look up Rape Culture if you want to understand more of what I'm talking about.
One other thing to be considered is that women aren't arguing for non-separate bathrooms. Until that happens I don't feel it should be up for debate, because it should be about how the affected party feels, not what other people think they should feel about it. And what we feel is that we like our own bathrooms, thank you very much.
I don't believe feminism is about everybody being equal, but everybody having equal opportunities. This does not mean that both genders must do or have the same thing, but that both genders are free to do what they want without suffering from societal expectations. Men should be able to be house husbands and not be made fun of. Women should be able to give sexual favors freely without being slut shamed.
That said, I don't mind unisex bathrooms. They do exist. And when a place has them, I use it.
|
United States41956 Posts
On July 28 2012 03:44 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 03:25 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote:Going to try to give a general response to the few who quoted me~ First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread. Someone asked if I thought black people should get married. Really? I take that as a cheap, personal attack to assume that I am somehow against anyone but a white man and a white woman getting married. Who's bigoted? My mother is married to a black man. My sister's kids' dad is black. We all get along quite well. My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. Everyone has their own ideas about whats best for our society. A responsible citizen in a democratic society feels the need to support ideals and legislation that move the country more in line with what they believe is best for the nation as a whole. Its what makes America great. I respect your advocacy and support of gay marriage. I do however, respectfully, disagree. + Show Spoiler +Personally, I think the best and easiest solution is for the government to just call it a partnership. Everyone who enters into the partnership receives the taxing and legal benefits that traditional marriage has granted. Everyone becomes equal in the eyes of the law and there is a real separation of Church and State. For those who view a lifelong commit to one another as more than just a contractual partnership, they are free to get married in a manner consistent with their beliefs without additional benefits. The point regarding interracial marriage is that it is analogous to the current debate, not that all opponents of gay marriage oppose interracial marriage. The same parts of society went through the same debate and predicted the same outcomes (destruction of morals, marriage and society) and were overruled for the same reasons as the anti-gay crowd will be, that all citizens deserve the same rights and freedoms and that legally denying them it is immoral. Nobody is saying that everyone who wants to deny rights to gays wants to deny rights to blacks, they're drawing a parallel between that debate and this. Your solution would work if there was no cultural or symbolic value to the word marriage. However there is and separate but equal has never worked. Marriage is tied into religion. You marry in a church by a priest. With church and state being separate the state has no control over what happens to the beliefs of a religion. The state offers their own solution called a domestic partnership which lies in the domain of the state. The state laid forth a solution and people seem to disregard it and view it as second-class. That is a personal problem, not a problem with religion. The first amendment grants "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Free exercise thereof allows for religions to follow their beliefs towards marriage.
No, marriage in a religious building conducted by a religious official is associated with religion. That does not mean that all marriages are religious or that all marriages need to be conducted by a priest or that everything a priest touches is religious. If an atheist couple wish to marry in a church because of the cultural heritage of hundreds of years of church marriages then that doesn't mean they have a religious marriage, it just means that they like church weddings.
God doesn't personally sign every marriage license, they go ahead with or without his blessing.
|
Proud to be from Boston 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
