| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
pbjsandwich
United States443 Posts
Maybe it's not so much about the word marriage but the fact that if the Supreme Court does not overturn prop 8 then that is a stance of the Federal Government to discriminate against Gays. This is a fight for Gays to not be seen as different or unnatural but to be seen as a normal regular relationship. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6284 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:39 Blargh wrote: Let us all note how every one of these threads/discussions just -SO HAPPENS- to move towards religion. Coincidence? WHO KNOWS! 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. Every one of these threads turns out the same way, mods should just make a 'big gay/abortion thread' in which people can freely go around in flaming circles all they want without making threads about useless thing every day. Gay marriage in Holland, gay marriage in Texas, gay marriage in Arizona, politicians talking about gay marriage. Are the discussions in these topics so different that we need 50 threads. EDIT: edited in the quote | ||
|
Introvert
United States4753 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:34 pbjsandwich wrote: 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 ... This country ran quite well for over a 150+ years without Black's idiocy. Again, research American history and you will see how hilariously bad the decision ( and it's reasoning) was. It might have been legal because it wasn't illegal. As in, society hadn't said something either way, because it wasn't thought about, because it was assumed that marriage was between a man and woman. Now that the gay rights people are actively perusing it, we have a debate. The argument is that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's not "anti-gay" it's "pro-the-same-marriage-that-has-existed-since-the-beginning." I am so tired of the left needing to make every issue they want to politicize into an urgent "civil rights" or group identity crisis. In CA they changed the Constitution to say it was between a man and woman. Not that all gays were going to be fined and jailed. IF you are gay, then you CANNOT, in the normal sense, be married. When a guy gets together with a guy it's not he same (in terms of marriage) as a man and a woman. But some want it to be. People who push for this rapid change are also the people that seem to forget that society and history and morality didn't begin the day they personally started to think about it. | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
Every one of these threads turns out the same way, mods should just make a 'big gay/abortion thread' in which people can freely go around in flaming circles all they want without making threads about useless thing every day. Gay marriage in Holland, gay marriage in Texas, gay marriage in Arizona, politicians talking about gay marriage. Are the discussions in these topics so different that we need 50 threads. Didn't feel like flaming to me, i actually tried to learn something by talking to "the opposite opinion". If that's too much for people to read, well.. It's not like you could just ignore these posts, right? | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:46 pbjsandwich wrote: It matters Maybe it's not so much about the word marriage but the fact that if the Supreme Court does not overturn prop 8 then that is a stance of the Federal Government to discriminate against Gays. This is a fight for Gays to not be seen as different or unnatural but to be seen as a normal regular relationship. In California the difference between a civil union and a marriage is the word used. It's not discrimination to give people the same rights but call it a different word. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4753 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:45 Mindcrime wrote: 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. I know what it said, and I know the whole court has a history of being ridiculous. Just because Justices agree on the "principle" of it, doesn't make them right. (Notice I didn't cite the dissent(s)). A look at American History and the founders words and state debates will show you what needs to be seen. | ||
|
pbjsandwich
United States443 Posts
If not for Justice Black's "idiocy" would be the reigning religion? You see the problem there? Not even the founding fathers were devout christians. I don't see why you have asuch ahuge problem with Justice Black's landmark decision that is widely respected and modern. In CA and other states they allowed gay MARRIAGE. Then it became an issue for the right wing. It was allowed now it's being disallowed. Gays were happily married for YEARS until recently where they were forced to revoke their status. Why? Honestly. Why. Would you be ok with it if the government said that Marriage can be between 2 men or 2 women? Because that seems tobe what your argument is standing on. | ||
|
pbjsandwich
United States443 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:49 jalstar wrote: In California the difference between a civil union and a marriage is the word used. It's not discrimination to give people the same rights but call it a different word. This is a social issue and goes beyond what is just allowed in the eyes of the government Why do homosexuals have to been seen in a different light at all. Why must they be subjected to a Civil Union rather than a Marriage? IS the government saying that they are not equal or the same? | ||
|
Stol
Sweden185 Posts
| ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4753 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:52 pbjsandwich wrote: So what you're saying is that your religion If not for Justice Black's "idiocy" would be the reigning religion? You see the problem there? Not even the founding fathers were devout christians. I don't see why you have asuch ahuge problem with Justice Black's landmark decision that is widely respected and modern. In CA and other states they allowed gay MARRIAGE. Then it became an issue for the right wing. It was allowed now it's being disallowed. Gays were happily married for YEARS until recently where they were forced to revoke their status. Why? Honestly. Why. Would you be ok with it if the government said that Marriage can be between 2 men or 2 women? Because that seems tobe what your argument is standing on. Most of the founding fathers held some sort of Church based education. Most of them were undeniably religious, and based much of what they did and said on it. ( I am aware they were not saints. Very few are!) Do I really have to go this far back? No matter, don't have the time. (for example, Congress used used to hold Sunday Church sessions! Fancy that happening now, huh? Even Jefferson, the man who's letter Black used, attended!) the entire Constitution is a restriction on government, not the people. It was to avoid setting up an official Church (Like in England, from where many of the colonists left for that reason). The states even continued to have state funded Churches AFTER the Constitution's ratification! They clearly meant NOTHING similar to what the Court did in Everson. Those are just two examples. My point, the "religious right" didn't start this. The gays just got angry that some of the religious refused to recognize or accommodate it. It is still a huge societal shift because it was rather rare before, and now it is front and center, with it occurring more often. I'm not saying that gay marriage never happened up until now, obviously. Sorry for some bad grammar and things of the sort, I really do need sleep. (but I always find ONE more thing to respond to.) Again, I don't know why so many act as if all of morality and the like was primitive or simply non-existent before they decided to use their own brilliant mind to think about it. The lack of Constitutional knowledge in this thread alone is proof enough that no one knows jack. | ||
|
pbjsandwich
United States443 Posts
separating the 2 | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
Again, I don't know why so many act as if all of morality and the like was primitive or simply non-existent before they deiced to use their own brilliant mind to think about it. The lack of Constitutional knowledge in this thread alone proof enough no one knows jack. Actually, i did not say that at all. What i'm implying though is that stuff changes. Remember slavery? In ye oldern days, that was completely fine and accepted. Stuff changes, as morality changes. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6284 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:54 pbjsandwich wrote: This is a social issue and goes beyond what is just allowed in the eyes of the government Why do homosexuals have to been seen in a different light at all. Why must they be subjected to a Civil Union rather than a Marriage? IS the government saying that they are not equal or the same? Why do homosexuals have to be called homosexuals, lets call everything 'people'. In the end, all 'people' are getting screwed over by Obama. While he talks about useless bottomless pit subjects that affect 1% of the population, things that affect 100% of you are swept under the rug. Good job, you are bringing a tear of joy to criminals faces | ||
|
pbjsandwich
United States443 Posts
On March 01 2013 19:03 Introvert wrote: Most of the founding fathers held some sort of Church based education. Most of them were undeniably religious, and based much of what they did and said on it. ( I am aware they were not saints. Very few are!) Do I really have to go this far back? No matter, don't have the time. (for example, Congress used used to hold Sunday Church sessions! Fancy that happening now, huh?) the entire Constitution is a restriction on government, not the people. It was to avoid setting up an official Church (Like in England, from where many of the colonists left for that reason). The states even continued to have state funded Churches AFTER the Constitution's ratification! They clearly meant NOTHING similar to what the Court did in Everson. Those are just two examples. My point, the "religious right" didn't start this. The gays just got angry that some of the religious refused to recognize or accommodate it. It is still a huge societal shift because it was rather rare before, and now it is front and center, with it occurring more often. I'm not saying that gay marriage never happened up until now, obviously. Sorry for some bad grammar and things of the sort, I really do need sleep. (but I always find ONE more thing to respond to.) Again, I don't know why so many act as if all of morality and the like was primitive or simply non-existent before they deiced to use their own brilliant mind to think about it. The lack of Constitutional knowledge in this thread alone proof enough no one knows jack. That's all irrelevant? The separation of church and state existed before the Justice decided toset a precedent for it but this idea was based on the writings of John Locke who heavily influenced the framework for our country. Yes, our early government (and population) were all religious and held their beliefs strongly the idea of the seperation of church and state still existed (obviously, considering no politician back then would even try and get a law passed on the word of God) but we have progressed to a country that holds many different types of people with different types of religions and I thought as a nation most people has recognized this. There's nothing about your religion that makes it better than mines or anyone else's. So why must the right (who hold power solely due to this broken political system and it's history) feel like their ideas (based on 1 religion) must be right? This whole ideology is so bad that we can't even get a Jewish president elected. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4753 Posts
On March 01 2013 19:07 Zeo wrote: Why do homosexuals have to be called homosexuals, lets call everything 'people'. In the end, all 'people' are getting screwed over by Obama. While he talks about useless bottomless pit subjects that affect 1% of the population, things that affect 100% of you are swept under the rug. Good job, you are bringing a tear of joy to criminals faces Well if you have to talk about Gay marriage or the gigantic, ever increasing debt, the still weak economy, the large number of people on foodstamps, or the projection that your landmark healthcare bill actually WILL add to the debt, which would you choose? | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 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. evaluating whether marriage is treated with bias is not done with any reference to who's doing the evaluating. you need simply ask the question, whether justice is carried out in denying marriage to those who seek it. | ||
|
pbjsandwich
United States443 Posts
On March 01 2013 19:07 Zeo wrote: Why do homosexuals have to be called homosexuals, lets call everything 'people'. In the end, all 'people' are getting screwed over by Obama. While he talks about useless bottomless pit subjects that affect 1% of the population, things that affect 100% of you are swept under the rug. Good job, you are bringing a tear of joy to criminals faces Obama isn't doing anyhting to screw people over I don't know how much you know about American politics but the President can't just wave his hands and gay marriage is suddenly legalized | ||
|
karpotoss
135 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  31066Calm  6784Flash  4295Horang2 3378Sea 2974Shuttle 2329ggaemo 1156EffOrt 1025Barracks 853Soulkey 663[ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games singsing2238 hiko1282 Lowko604 crisheroes382 Hui .367 KnowMe261 Fuzer  202oskar108 ArmadaUGS107 Trikslyr68 QueenE60 FunKaTv  33rGuardiaN31 ZerO(Twitch)20 |
|
|
EPT
