EPTObama backs gay marriage - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Shebuha
Canada1335 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4748 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:04 m4inbrain wrote: I lost you now, maybe im too tired after being up for too long. I don't hate on church (even though i'm not a believer), i don't hate blacks, stuff like that. I'm just saying, it's not your government that is a problem, but the church interfering with it ("marriage" a bible thing and stuff like that). Also, why exactly is gay marriage banned in (parts of) the US in the first place? ok, either I am not very clear or English is not your first language (which is obviously fine). I have to get to bed, but I would encourage you to look into what I am about to say. The idea of separation of Church and state, as it is used today, is NOT what the American founders meant in the Establishment clause. it was invented by a justice of the name Hugo Black, who the wrote the opinion establish this idea. he was a known anti-catholic. The Church is not "interfering." We, as a religious nation elect religious representatives, to, you know, represent us. Or in some cases, we even vote on this stuff directly. Not the Church. Gay marriage is banned because it is seen as (A) wrong, or (B) a sin. (I distinguish the two terms because sin has a religious connotation to it.). (C), some people just don't think homosexuals have the right to married, as we know it. So many think that they are right and this is such a important, civil "rights" issues that even if the people don't support it, it must be changed anyway. Superiority complex at it's finest. | ||
|
MVega
763 Posts
 For almost a decade now I've been saying that this should happen. And please leave religion bashing out of it, and please leave religion out of your desires for homosexual couples to not have the same rights as the rest of us. No where in the bible does it say that homosexuals aren't to have the same rights as anyone else. All it says is that homosexuality is a sin. So technically is road rage, but you wouldn't say that someone that swears at a fellow driver shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else would you? In the same vein don't be disrespectful towards the religious beliefs of other people. Kindness costs you nothing, and keeping your mouth shut costs even less. There are plenty of religious organizations that have for at least the last fifteen years openly welcomed homosexual members and supported them in their quest for equal rights. Just because some religious people are bigots and uninformed it doesn't mean that most/all are. In fact the majority of Christians and Muslims that I know, and I know many, are in favor of everyone having the same rights. Realistically we should all be celebrating this. It changes nothing in the lives of the people who are against it, and it's only positive for everyone else. | ||
|
pbjsandwich
United States443 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:09 Joedaddy wrote: I think Obama sees the writing on the wall of what is already being addressed in the judicial system and is taking advantage of it for political gain. The issue of gay marriage, specifically in California, is being challenged through the judicial process, and has been for years. I predict that gay marriage is going to be legalized in every state in time, but that process needs to play out without the interference of the federal government. If it doesn't, you're going to have situations in the future where the federal government doesn't agree with you on issues (like marijuana) and they will have even more precedent to intervene and impose their will on you the citizen. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say, "I support gay marriage, so I support intervention at a federal level," and then disagree with the federal government intervening on other issues where your position is in conflict to the office of the president. God forbid the president play the politics game too | ||
|
Joedaddy
United States1948 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:13 Introvert wrote: ok, either I am not very clear or English is not your first language (which is obviously fine). I have to get to bed, but I would encourage you to look into what I am about to say. The idea of separation of Church and state, as it is used today, is NOT what the American founders meant in the Establishment clause. The Church is not "interfering." We, as a religious nation elect religious representatives, to, you know, represent us. Or in some cases, we even vote on this stuff directly. Not the Church. Gay marriage is banned because it is seen as (A) wrong, or (B) a sin. (I distinguish the two terms because sin has a religious connotation to it.). (C), some people just don't think homosexuals have the right to married, as we know it. So many think that they are right and this is such a important, civil "rights" issues that even if the people don't support it, it must be changed anyway. Superiority complex at it's finest. I still don't understand what the Church has to do with this issue. Unless the government is planning on forcing religious bodies to perform the marriage? You don't have to do anything religious to have a legal marriage. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4748 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:14 MVega wrote: Good for him. For almost a decade now I've been saying that this should happen. And please leave religion bashing out of it, and please leave religion out of your desires for homosexual couples to not have the same rights as the rest of us. No where in the bible does it say that homosexuals aren't to have the same rights as anyone else. All it says is that homosexuality is a sin. So technically is road rage, but you wouldn't say that someone that swears at a fellow driver shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else would you? In the same vein don't be disrespectful towards the religious beliefs of other people. Kindness costs you nothing, and keeping your mouth shut costs even less. There are plenty of religious organizations that have for at least the last fifteen years openly welcomed homosexual members and supported them in their quest for equal rights. Just because some religious people are bigots and uninformed it doesn't mean that most/all are. Realistically we should all be celebrating this. It changes nothing in the lives of the people who are against it, and it's only positive for everyone else. not the same. No religious person says they should be jailed for being gay, just that, since marriage is between a man and woman, they CAN'T get married. Like i said, you can "love whoever you want" but you cannot marry whoever want, as that is not marriage. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4748 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:16 Joedaddy wrote: I still don't understand what the Church has to do with this issue. Unless the government is planning on forcing religious bodies to perform the marriage? You don't have to do anything religious to have a legal marriage. Well, it's up for forcing them to provide birth control, indirectly fund abortion, etc. I mean, now every American will be REQUIRED to pay into healthcare. It does not seem like a far stretch to say this could happen (even if it be 20 years from now.) And he brought the Church up, not me. | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:13 Introvert wrote: ok, either I am not very clear or English is not your first language (which is obviously fine). I have to get to bed, but I would encourage you to look into what I am about to say. The idea of separation of Church and state, as it is used today, is NOT what the American founders meant in the Establishment clause. The Church is not "interfering." We, as a religious nation elect religious representatives, to, you know, represent us. Or in some cases, we even vote on this stuff directly. Not the Church. Gay marriage is banned because it is seen as (A) wrong, or (B) a sin. (I distinguish the two terms because sin has a religious connotation to it.). (C), some people just don't think homosexuals have the right to married, as we know it. So many think that they are right and this is such a important, civil "rights" issues that even if the people don't support it, it must be changed anyway. Superiority complex at it's finest. I edited already, i read up a bit - you're right, i misunderstood the part of state and church being seperated. Also your english should be fine, it's more that i can't really concentrate anymore (and english is obviously not my first language^^). Then again, as i said, you can't discriminate a minority because a book says it's "a sin". Just does not work for me, you can be religious as much as you want, and i guess it's easy to be against something when you're the majority - no one is denying you that right, right? If you discriminate gays based on a book (i'm not going into it too much, don't worry), where do you stop? It just seems so weird to me. The bible says alot of things, yet you ban gay marriage, not all the other sins. Why is there no death-penalty for cheating your wife? Stuff like that? I'm just rambling at this point, i hope it shines through what i mean. If not, i'll try later when i've slept. :/ gnite anyway Edit: of course i brought up the church. Gay marriage is banned because of it, am i wrong? | ||
|
MVega
763 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:18 Introvert wrote: not the same. No religious person says they should be jailed for being gay, just that, since marriage is between a man and woman, they CAN'T get married. Like i said, you can "love whoever you want" but you cannot marry whoever want, as that is not marriage. I'm not really even disagreeing with you. If a church doesn't want to marry a couple for any reason they should be able to say no without fear of retribution from the government or local vandals or whatever, that's their choice. It shouldn't be a right or an option of the church however to deny a person the same rights as anyone else has. Realistically we're talking about two different things here. You're talking about the religious institution of marriage, while mostly what homosexual couples want is the same legal benefits of marriage which are up to the government, not a church. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4748 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:21 m4inbrain wrote: I edited already, i read up a bit - you're right, i misunderstood the part of state and church being seperated. Also your english should be fine, it's more that i can't really concentrate anymore (and english is obviously not my first language^^). Then again, as i said, you can't discriminate a minority because a book says it's "a sin". Just does not work for me, you can be religious as much as you want, and i guess it's easy to be against something when you're the majority - no one is denying you that right, right? If you discriminate gays based on a book (i'm not going into it too much, don't worry), where do you stop? It just seems so weird to me. The bible says alot of things, yet you ban gay marriage, not all the other sins. Why is there no death-penalty for cheating your wife? Stuff like that? I'm just rambling at this point, i hope it shines through what i mean. If not, i'll try later when i've slept. :/ gnite anyway It's because this is a huge societal shift we are talking about here. This is about more than a book, this is the changing of a core, ancient human institution, and it's happening at a rapid pace without the consent of the society. Hell, for the majority of human history, the idea of "rights" as we know them didn't exist at all! Fun Fact: there used to be laws about adultery, but we got rid of them, for the most part. (Can we at least agree THAT is wrong?). We are individuals in a society, not a bunch of amoral, pre-programmed automatons. We have laws based on our moral and religious character. Just because the non-religious think that they are somehow more fair or qualified due to their lack of religious belief is absurd. Yes, the big bad Church didn't say "we want control, we are going to BAN this!" The people in the Church and society (many of the religious) did. I have to get up in 5 hours... need sleep. gn | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4748 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:31 oneofthem wrote: this 'consent of the society' stuff is laughable considering that society can do pretty horrible shit. So I guess we should just go with what you think then, huh? We could be completely religion based, that would tone down some of the change, wouldn't it? it's either one man decides, society (and thus religion, too, partly,) decides, or religion alone decides. | ||
|
pbjsandwich
United States443 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:13 Introvert wrote: ok, either I am not very clear or English is not your first language (which is obviously fine). I have to get to bed, but I would encourage you to look into what I am about to say. The idea of separation of Church and state, as it is used today, is NOT what the American founders meant in the Establishment clause. it was invented by a justice of the name Hugo Black, who the wrote the opinion establish this idea. he was a known anti-catholic. The Church is not "interfering." We, as a religious nation elect religious representatives, to, you know, represent us. Or in some cases, we even vote on this stuff directly. Not the Church. Gay marriage is banned because it is seen as (A) wrong, or (B) a sin. (I distinguish the two terms because sin has a religious connotation to it.). (C), some people just don't think homosexuals have the right to married, as we know it. So many think that they are right and this is such a important, civil "rights" issues that even if the people don't support it, it must be changed anyway. Superiority complex at it's finest. WE are not a country of one religion though. More importantly even if Hugo Black was anti catholic the idea of the separation of church and state is an important one in the development of our country and is not a precedent that will ever be in danger of being overturned. And for good reason. And you put "Rights" in quotes and say this is an issue of a superiority complex makes no sense to me. Before this whole issue started Gays were legal marry in some states without any problems but the right religious wing found it to be a problem (due to their religious belief) This is purely discriminatory if the Right actually had a problem with the establishment of "Man and Woman" then there would be a rewrite of the law but of course that is not the issue here since this is a huge debate | ||
|
pbjsandwich
United States443 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:29 Introvert wrote: It's because this is a huge societal shift we are talking about here. This is about more than a book, this is the changing of a core, ancient human institution, and it's happening at a rapid pace without the consent of the society. Hell, for the majority of human history, the idea of "rights" as we know them didn't exist at all! Fun Fact: there used to be laws about adultery, but we got rid of them, for the most part. (Can we at least agree THAT is wrong?). We are individuals in a society, not a bunch of amoral, pre-programmed automatons. We have laws based on our moral and religious character. Just because the non-religious think that they are somehow more fair or qualified due to their lack of religious belief is absurd. Yes, the big bad Church didn't say "we want control, we are going to BAN this!" The people in the Church and society (many of the religious) did. I have to get up in 5 hours... need sleep. gn This post is so ridiculously close minded I accept religion as it and have nothing against but are you really saying that there should be laws about adultery now? Please tell me I am reading that wrong. No non religious person is thinking that they are more qualified but the fact is this country is based on the constitution and not the bible. If an elected official wants to (and HAS) influence the country with the bible they can but the supreme court only goes by one scripture and that is the constitution and it sure as hell should and will not be influenced by the bible EDIT: Also this is not a huge societal shift Gay people and their relationships have been around forever. It has been socially accepted for decades and the only people impeding that progress are the religious people who hold onto their personal beliefs and try to project them as truth. There's a reason why it's a hate crime to target gay people. A lot of the country has already accepted homosexuals and this isn't a shift at all for us. Rather, it's a ridiculous irraitonal wall that we're facing because a part of the country can't accept that people of the same sex can love each other romantically | ||
|
Blargh
United States2103 Posts
Honestly, you guys don't even have to have this discussion. Let me go find the other marriage-related threads and you can read the 20+ pages of the exact same thing. 90% of it ends up just being people misunderstanding other people / people who are just being argumentative and not thinking everything through because they are arguing. Instead of discussing the oh-so-original marriage + civil union shit, why not discuss Obama-related shit? Edited for typos. | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:29 Introvert wrote: It's because this is a huge societal shift we are talking about here. This is about more than a book, this is the changing of a core, ancient human institution, and it's happening at a rapid pace without the consent of the society. Hell, for the majority of human history, the idea of "rights" as we know them didn't exist at all! Fun Fact: there used to be laws about adultery, but we got rid of them, for the most part. (Can we at least agree THAT is wrong?). We are individuals in a society, not a bunch of amoral, pre-programmed automatons. We have laws based on our moral and religious character. Just because the non-religious think that they are somehow more fair or qualified due to their lack of religious belief is absurd. Of course, i agree that it's a huge shift. So? And well, i'm a bit torn about that adultery stuff, i mean.. Let's be honest, if my wife (not married, just saying) cheats on me, i may want her to be punished for that. Then again, .. Would be punishment for adultery really a good thing? Don't think so. You're right when you say that we all are individuals in a society, and that there has to be some "consent" (right word?) between them. Balance, something like that. But denying rights to someone because you don't like seeing two men kissing, that's not a matter worthy of discussing. To me it's common sense, that they're no different than me, except i like kissing girls. And well, i never said that i dont believe in anything. I don't believe in the bible, true. I'm not non-religious, i just think different. But being objective when it comes to laws should be a neccessity, do you disagree? I can understand if you think that it's going too fast, then again, you might want to consider the perspective of a gay man in the US. How would you feel, what would you think about the "land of the free"? | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:34 Introvert wrote: So I guess we should just go with what you think then, huh? We could be completely religion based, that would tone down some of the change, wouldn't it? it's either one man decides, society (and thus religion, too, partly,) decides, or religion alone decides. Okay, that's really thin ice i'm moving on now, but as a german, i might tell you that decisions based on society (and [misguided] religious beliefs) not always turn out to be smart... Instead of discussing the oh-so-original marriage + civil union shit, why not discuss Obama-related shit? Fine. I was right, rooting for him.  | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
More immediately, the administration's position, if adopted by the court, probably would result in gay marriage becoming legal in seven other states that, like California, give gay couples all the benefits of marriage, but don't allow them to wed. That's too bad, pushing to get civil unions in states where there currently are none would do more for gay rights but people are stupid and obsessed with the word marriage. | ||
Pholon
Netherlands6142 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:09 Joedaddy wrote: I think Obama sees the writing on the wall of what is already being addressed in the judicial system and is taking advantage of it for political gain. The issue of gay marriage, specifically in California, is being challenged through the judicial process, and has been for years. I predict that gay marriage is going to be legalized in every state in time, but that process needs to play out without the interference of the federal government. If it doesn't, you're going to have situations in the future where the federal government doesn't agree with you on issues (like marijuana) and they will have even more precedent to intervene and impose their will on you the citizen. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say, "I support gay marriage, so I support intervention at a federal level," and then disagree with the federal government intervening on other issues where your position is in conflict to the office of the president. Well it looks like Obama is feels that this issue is one of rights, not of opinion or popular vote. Would you disagree? If you make the distinction it's still possible to endorse federal involvement here while objecting to it in other cases. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On March 01 2013 17:55 Introvert wrote: Next you'll tell me that Black's "wall of separation" was a good, well researched ruling 0_o Compared to the dissent in that case, it wasn't. But, for some reason, I doubt that you know what Rutledge's dissent, which was joined by the rest of the court, actually said. | ||
| ||
