|
http://www.smh.com.au/world/obama-backs-gay-marriage-in-supreme-court-20130301-2fap1.html
WASHINGTON: The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn California's ban on gay marriage and take a sceptical view of similar bans elsewhere, wading into a case that could have broad implications for the right of same-sex couples to wed.
The administration said unequivocally in a friend-of-the-court brief filed late on Thursday that gay marriage should be allowed to resume in California, where citizens voted to bar it in a 2008 referendum known as Proposition 8.
It does not explicitly call for marriage equality across the United States, but points the court in that direction.
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.
Advertisement
They are: Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island.
The brief marks President Barack Obama's most expansive view of the legal rights of gays and lesbians to marry. He announced his personal support for gay marriage last year but has said the issue should be governed by states.
Mr Obama, a former constitutional law professor, raised expectations that he would back a broad brief during his inauguration address on January 21. He said the nation's journey "is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law".
"For if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well," Mr Obama said.
The Justice Department planned to submit its brief later on Thursday – the deadline for filing in the California case. The justices will hear oral arguments in the case on March 26.
This is big news. Finally the motion is getting a presidential push. Obama's statement is really appropriate for the times, as well as his symbol as the president of change.
|
cool. props for him for having the gonads to do this. but i think its the best time right now.. and he doesn't have a 2nd presidency to worry about now
|
i greatly enjoy the brief moment when presidents realize they have a pair of balls...before they sink back to perpetuate the status quo
|
On March 01 2013 13:33 brassmonkey1211 wrote:
i greatly enjoy the brief moment when presidents realize they have a pair of balls...before they sink back to perpetuate the status quo
More of they grow into them in their second term because they have no fear of not being re-elected. Most presidents don't do anything extremely rash in their first term compared to their second.
|
On March 01 2013 13:33 brassmonkey1211 wrote:
i greatly enjoy the brief moment when presidents realize they have a pair of balls...before they sink back to perpetuate the status quo
Not unlike annonymous posts on the internet really.
|
Is the article quoting Obama's father near the end, or the president himself? Why would they call him Mr. Obama instead of President Obama?
Besides that, I like the article. Hopefully gay marriage becomes legal all over the states. Let love love.
|
This is going to piss a lot of people off, but it's for the best. Change is always harder on the stupid ones, that's what I learned from sc2 patch changes and life in general.
|
I can't believe civil rights are put up to a vote in the first place.
|
On March 01 2013 13:44 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I can't believe civil rights are put up to a vote in the first place.
i support obama and homosexuals 100% on this "issue"
|
fucking awesome :D been waiting for this for quite awhile as a California resident.
|
It's really sad that there are people who honestly oppose this, it's like being pro-segregation.
|
On March 01 2013 13:44 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I can't believe civil rights are put up to a vote in the first place.
Its the Democratic principle.
|
On March 01 2013 13:53 Ettick wrote:
It's really sad that there are people who honestly oppose this, it's like being pro-segregation.
I hate to be that guy so I'll nonchalantly avoid using the dreaded word but that's what happens when people follow old, rotten "traditions".
|
|
|
Unfortunate it is, that the ban of homosexual marriages in California will start the debate of ability of a state to write its own law vs. federal regulation. While I have nothing against homosexual folks, I hate federal institutions sticking their noses into smaller communities rights to self decision.
|
Huge bigot religious drama shitfest inc
|
Obama was supossed to have adressed this 5 years ago, what was the delay?
|
On March 01 2013 13:44 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I can't believe civil rights are put up to a vote in the first place.
What else would you propose? Someone special decides what the civil rights are?
|
There's a reason for this, and I want to know what it is. And by reason, I mean the timing.
|
|
|
On March 01 2013 14:35 Nick_54 wrote:
Obama was supossed to have adressed this 5 years ago, what was the delay?
For most presidents they do most of the riskier stuff in the second term while playing safe in the first term. Sometimes I don't know why some presidents don't run for just one term.
|
On March 01 2013 13:41 HaniStream wrote:
This is going to piss a lot of people off, but it's for the best. Change is always harder on the stupid ones, that's what I learned from sc2 patch changes and life in general.
Just because a person has different believes doesn't mean they are unintelligent... Don't get me wrong homosexuality kind of freaks me out but I am all for them having the same rights I do. It's just that you are generalizing an opinion or belief and calling it stupid. Isn't that close to what is being done to the gay community?
|
On March 01 2013 14:45 Confuse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 13:44 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I can't believe civil rights are put up to a vote in the first place. What else would you propose? Someone special decides what the civil rights are?
Rights should be equal across the board. No one man needs to decide, nor should it ever be put up to a popular vote. How can you honestly defend minority rights being voted on? That's mob rule, not democracy.
It's in your Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
|
On March 01 2013 15:18 Angry_Fetus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 14:45 Confuse wrote:On March 01 2013 13:44 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I can't believe civil rights are put up to a vote in the first place. What else would you propose? Someone special decides what the civil rights are? Rights should be equal across the board. No one man needs to decide, nor should it ever be put up to a popular vote. How can you honestly defend minority rights being voted on? That's mob rule, not democracy. It's in your Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
you havent explained how these rights should be determined. there is no piece of paper that lists all unalienable rights that exist.
|
I'm referring to current established rights that are limited to a subset of people, not entirely new concepts. Besides, your point doesn't even make any sense. The United States signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
|
On March 01 2013 15:07 HTOMario wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 13:41 HaniStream wrote:
This is going to piss a lot of people off, but it's for the best. Change is always harder on the stupid ones, that's what I learned from sc2 patch changes and life in general. Just because a person has different believes doesn't mean they are unintelligent... Don't get me wrong homosexuality kind of freaks me out but I am all for them having the same rights I do. It's just that you are generalizing an opinion or belief and calling it stupid. Isn't that close to what is being done to the gay community?
It IS stupid when there is no logical proof or reasoning behind it. That's called being stupid. Just so you know.
But let's not get into that. I might have a religious argument or some shit with someone.
Anyway, interesting, but it's not like public announcements ever actually reflect what a president believes. Ever. I wonder what the biggest downfall of humanity will be. Politics or a lack of common sense?
|
On March 01 2013 15:26 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I'm referring to current established rights that are limited to a subset of people, not entirely new concepts. Besides, your point doesn't even make any sense. The United States signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Sadly most of the countries who signed that don't have allowances for gay marriage. Governments love being hypocritical.
|
On March 01 2013 14:35 Nick_54 wrote:
Obama was supossed to have adressed this 5 years ago, what was the delay?
chances of re-election
|
On March 01 2013 14:45 Confuse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 13:44 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I can't believe civil rights are put up to a vote in the first place. What else would you propose? Someone special decides what the civil rights are?
That they are auto-granted regardless of the vote? Just like we can't vote right now to force black people to use a separate bathroom, even an overwhelming majority of people would like for that to happen.
|
This is incredibly thrilling and something to rejoice at since the days of Stonewall when people wondered if gays can even have a loving relationship.
Also, I do not understand the people who are so paranoid about government having too much power by allowing gays to marry. The state prohibits gay marriage, the government is simply lifting the ban.
Also, this story although depressing is pretty funny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_same-sex_marriage_in_Spain
|
On March 01 2013 15:26 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I'm referring to current established rights that are limited to a subset of people, not entirely new concepts. Besides, your point doesn't even make any sense. The United States signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
wasnt the decision to sign that by the U.S. put up to a vote?
|
On March 01 2013 15:07 HTOMario wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 13:41 HaniStream wrote:
This is going to piss a lot of people off, but it's for the best. Change is always harder on the stupid ones, that's what I learned from sc2 patch changes and life in general. Just because a person has different believes doesn't mean they are unintelligent... Don't get me wrong homosexuality kind of freaks me out but I am all for them having the same rights I do. It's just that you are generalizing an opinion or belief and calling it stupid. Isn't that close to what is being done to the gay community?
It doesn't mean they aren't unintelligent either. And most of them are definitely unintelligent. Many generalizations end up being true. I don't even understand how homosexuality can freak someone out. What is there to be "freaked out" by... :S
|
If you read the whole article, it's not that strange when you read the part that says "First legal same-sex marriage in 2005: Although the first known attempt at same-sex marriage is that of Marcela and Elisa, same-sex marriage was legalized in Spain in 2005, by law 13/2005."
On March 01 2013 13:27 Twinkle Toes wrote:
This is big news.
I disagree. I consider it to be completely minor news.
What matters most is their rights. There's almost zero significance in a word/name.
Yeah it's probably a good thing, but it really doesn't change much at all.
|
On March 01 2013 16:11 Xapti wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 13:27 Twinkle Toes wrote:
This is big news. Finally the motion is getting a presidential push. Obama's statement is really appropriate for the times, as well as his symbol as the president of change. I disagree. I consider it to be completely minor news. What matters most is their rights. There's almost zero significance in a word/name.Yeah it's probably a good thing, but it really doesn't change much at all.
Clearly the LGBT community thinks otherwise.
|
On March 01 2013 16:12 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 16:11 Xapti wrote:On March 01 2013 13:27 Twinkle Toes wrote:
This is big news. Finally the motion is getting a presidential push. Obama's statement is really appropriate for the times, as well as his symbol as the president of change. I disagree. I consider it to be completely minor news. What matters most is their rights. There's almost zero significance in a word/name.Yeah it's probably a good thing, but it really doesn't change much at all. Clearly the LGBT community thinks otherwise.
Language is a pretty powerful factor and tool. Words are not meaningless at all.
Also, how weird is it to ask your partner to "civil union" me?
|
On March 01 2013 13:39 ElvisWayCool wrote:
Is the article quoting Obama's father near the end, or the president himself? Why would they call him Mr. Obama instead of President Obama?
Besides that, I like the article. Hopefully gay marriage becomes legal all over the states. Let love love.
Yea. He didn't spend six years in american president school to be called mr.
Anyway, i hope this changes something. It has been said to death, but there is absolutly no valid reason for a modern society to deny homesexuals the right to marry.
|
Religion must be separated from the State, and this goes both ways.
If by marriage, they mean a civil union, then I totally support him, but if by marriage they mean forcing the church to marry them, then I disagree.
|
On March 01 2013 16:14 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 16:12 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 01 2013 16:11 Xapti wrote:On March 01 2013 13:27 Twinkle Toes wrote:
This is big news. Finally the motion is getting a presidential push. Obama's statement is really appropriate for the times, as well as his symbol as the president of change. I disagree. I consider it to be completely minor news. What matters most is their rights. There's almost zero significance in a word/name.Yeah it's probably a good thing, but it really doesn't change much at all. Clearly the LGBT community thinks otherwise. Language is a pretty powerful factor and tool. Words are not meaningless at all. Also, how weird is it to ask your partner to "civil union" me?
You don't need to call it civil union; you could call it marriage, or whatever you want to call it; The government only calls it a civil union. But to answer your question, I don't think it's weird. Considering that Christianity invaded/conquered the word marriage, it makes sense that people use a word that is non-religious — especially when it comes to a GOVERNMENT which is supposed to be generally secular.
I think it's absolutely silly that there's 2 names for something that's exactly the same, but while silly, it has virtually no significant impact when they're merged into one.
Edit: For the record, in my original post I didn't cut out the quote appropriately. I only disagree with the first sentence, not the rest.
|
On March 01 2013 16:08 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 15:26 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I'm referring to current established rights that are limited to a subset of people, not entirely new concepts. Besides, your point doesn't even make any sense. The United States signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. wasnt the decision to sign that by the U.S. put up to a vote?
You're really nitpicking now. That's not what I said.
"No one man needs to decide, nor should it ever be put up to a popular vote. How can you honestly defend minority rights being voted on?"
*hint: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is all encompassing. It doesn't deal with minority rights.
|
|
|
On March 01 2013 16:19 Angry_Fetus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 16:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 01 2013 15:26 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I'm referring to current established rights that are limited to a subset of people, not entirely new concepts. Besides, your point doesn't even make any sense. The United States signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. wasnt the decision to sign that by the U.S. put up to a vote? You're really nitpicking now. That's not what I said. "No one man needs to decide, nor should it ever be put up to a popular vote. How can you honestly defend minority rights being voted on?" *hint: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is all encompassing. It doesn't deal with minority rights.
oh, i thought you said this:
On March 01 2013 13:44 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I can't believe civil rights are put up to a vote in the first place.
|
On March 01 2013 16:21 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 16:19 Angry_Fetus wrote:On March 01 2013 16:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 01 2013 15:26 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I'm referring to current established rights that are limited to a subset of people, not entirely new concepts. Besides, your point doesn't even make any sense. The United States signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. wasnt the decision to sign that by the U.S. put up to a vote? You're really nitpicking now. That's not what I said. "No one man needs to decide, nor should it ever be put up to a popular vote. How can you honestly defend minority rights being voted on?" *hint: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is all encompassing. It doesn't deal with minority rights. oh, i thought you said this: Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 13:44 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I can't believe civil rights are put up to a vote in the first place.
Yes, in reference to the OP talking about a popular vote on minority rights. Again, you're nitpicking, and have yet to present a legitimate argument.
|
On March 01 2013 16:25 Angry_Fetus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 16:21 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 01 2013 16:19 Angry_Fetus wrote:On March 01 2013 16:08 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 01 2013 15:26 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I'm referring to current established rights that are limited to a subset of people, not entirely new concepts. Besides, your point doesn't even make any sense. The United States signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. wasnt the decision to sign that by the U.S. put up to a vote? You're really nitpicking now. That's not what I said. "No one man needs to decide, nor should it ever be put up to a popular vote. How can you honestly defend minority rights being voted on?" *hint: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is all encompassing. It doesn't deal with minority rights. oh, i thought you said this: On March 01 2013 13:44 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I can't believe civil rights are put up to a vote in the first place. Yes, in reference to the OP talking about a popular vote on minority rights. Again, you're nitpicking, and have yet to present a legitimate argument.
im not making an argument. i am trying to understand how you can determine civil rights without society putting it up for a vote.
|
On March 01 2013 16:17 Xapti wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 16:14 Shiragaku wrote:On March 01 2013 16:12 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 01 2013 16:11 Xapti wrote:On March 01 2013 13:27 Twinkle Toes wrote:
This is big news. Finally the motion is getting a presidential push. Obama's statement is really appropriate for the times, as well as his symbol as the president of change. I disagree. I consider it to be completely minor news. What matters most is their rights. There's almost zero significance in a word/name.Yeah it's probably a good thing, but it really doesn't change much at all. Clearly the LGBT community thinks otherwise. Language is a pretty powerful factor and tool. Words are not meaningless at all. Also, how weird is it to ask your partner to "civil union" me? I think it's absolutely silly that there's 2 names for something that's exactly the same, but while silly, it has virtually no significant impact when they're merged into one. Edit: For the record, in my original post I didn't cut out the quote appropriately. I only disagree with the first sentence, not the rest.
is it exactly the same?
i dont know about the american or canadian marriage, but for germany there are certain rights and obligations that comes with a marriage and these are different from the ones following a civil union.
|
I still don't think they should get married.
Obviously they should be allowed to and I'm happy that they are, but I never understood why they would want to when the civil union brings the same benefits. Gays getting married before the Church is akin to African Americans joining the Ku-Klux-Klan or jews joining the Nazi party.
The catholic church has been discrimatory towards gays for two thousand years, why would you ever find it appealing to get married "before god"? A commited, loving relationship surely doesn't need this "yes-I-do"-pageantry...
|
It's more about the symbol of equality isn't it? Both types of people should have access to the same exact ceremony, and that's what counts. Just having the option seems to generate more feelings of equality imo
|
On March 01 2013 16:20 TOCHMY wrote:
Someone wake up KwarK
I know! He's always a joy to have in these types of threads! Best moderator or best moderator?
It DOES say in the OP that Obama supports all of the legal benefits and never so much the actual "marriage".
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.
So, I don't think he's trying to say that a Churches should marry gay couples necessarily. But, like I've said so many times in so many other threads... Any gay person who wants to get married by a Church is probably as stupid as the people who don't want them getting married. Civil unions are good. In fact, I'd rather get a civil union, regardless of my sexual preference (I don't think all states that have CU's even allow this? Weird shit, idk)
@Above poster
That won't ever happen ever. Not that anyone should really care. I'd rather people care about bigger inequality issues than some silly ceremony which really doesn't mean anything anyway.
|
On March 01 2013 17:00 Blargh wrote:I know! He's always a joy to have in these types of threads! Best moderator or best moderator? It DOES say in the OP that Obama supports all of the legal benefits and never so much the actual "marriage". Show nested quote +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. So, I don't think he's trying to say that a Churches should marry gay couples necessarily. But, like I've said so many times in so many other threads... Any gay person who wants to get married by a Church is probably as stupid as the people who don't want them getting married. Civil unions are good. In fact, I'd rather get a civil union, regardless of my sexual preference (I don't think all states that have CU's even allow this? Weird shit, idk)
Lots of churches support gay marriage. A lot of people associate gay marriage with the general trend for religious institutions to evolve and change just as culture does.
|
On March 01 2013 17:05 Mohdoo wrote:Lots of churches support gay marriage. A lot of people associate gay marriage with the general trend for religious institutions to evolve and change just as culture does.
Eh, that's a bit weird. Can you really just change the words of God like that? Do you know who you're fucking with?
|
I think many of you guys would be surprised to hear that not all churches or Christians are anti-gay. There are many churches that would be more than happy to allow a same-sex couple to marry.
Times are changing. I talk to Christians every day who are sick and tired of their homophobic brothers misinterpreting them.
On March 01 2013 17:07 Blargh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:05 Mohdoo wrote:Lots of churches support gay marriage. A lot of people associate gay marriage with the general trend for religious institutions to evolve and change just as culture does. Eh, that's a bit weird. Can you really just change the words of God like that? Do you know who you're fucking with?
The Bible is pretty weird. It is heavily relativistic to its situations and as Desmond Tutu said, it is more of a library rather than a single book.
|
@blargh
Well I'm not saying it will or won't happen (because I don't have any idea) -- just saying why gays might want it to happen. Even if it is "logical" or whatever to be happy with having the civil union option since it brings all the same benefits, it is still unsettling for something to exist that is accessible to one type of person, but denied to the other -- based solely on an uncontrollable thing like gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. Although many may prefer civil union over marriage for practical reasons, I'm sure most would feel more equal provided with both options, just as straight people are.
|
|
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On March 01 2013 17:07 Blargh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:05 Mohdoo wrote:Lots of churches support gay marriage. A lot of people associate gay marriage with the general trend for religious institutions to evolve and change just as culture does. Eh, that's a bit weird. Can you really just change the words of God like that? Do you know who you're fucking with?
There is quite a bit of variation from interpretations of the Bible, or the Torah, Quran etc. Its why you get so much variation in different sects beliefs and has been the cause of various schisms in the past. Honestly I think its good that some parts of the church are modernising. Society's morality has changed an awful lot in the last two millennia and it would be problematic if such a large institution that a large part of the population derives its beliefs from hadn't changed along with it.
|
On March 01 2013 15:24 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 15:18 Angry_Fetus wrote:On March 01 2013 14:45 Confuse wrote:On March 01 2013 13:44 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I can't believe civil rights are put up to a vote in the first place. What else would you propose? Someone special decides what the civil rights are? Rights should be equal across the board. No one man needs to decide, nor should it ever be put up to a popular vote. How can you honestly defend minority rights being voted on? That's mob rule, not democracy. It's in your Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" you havent explained how these rights should be determined. there is no piece of paper that lists all unalienable rights that exist.
it's called the Bill of Rights
and if anyone is denied rights because of anything other than their criminal status than it's a violation
lmao there's no piece of paper that lists all unalienable rights
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On March 01 2013 16:51 kafkaesque wrote:
I still don't think they should get married.
Obviously they should be allowed to and I'm happy that they are, but I never understood why they would want to when the civil union brings the same benefits. Gays getting married before the Church is akin to African Americans joining the Ku-Klux-Klan or jews joining the Nazi party.
The catholic church has been discrimatory towards gays for two thousand years, why would you ever find it appealing to get married "before god"? A commited, loving relationship surely doesn't need this "yes-I-do"-pageantry...
Why are you associating marriage with the church? I'm pretty sure Obama is just addressing people being able to get married before the state.
|
On March 01 2013 17:20 Pholon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 16:51 kafkaesque wrote:
I still don't think they should get married.
Obviously they should be allowed to and I'm happy that they are, but I never understood why they would want to when the civil union brings the same benefits. Gays getting married before the Church is akin to African Americans joining the Ku-Klux-Klan or jews joining the Nazi party.
The catholic church has been discrimatory towards gays for two thousand years, why would you ever find it appealing to get married "before god"? A commited, loving relationship surely doesn't need this "yes-I-do"-pageantry... Why are you associating marriage with the church? I'm pretty sure Obama is just addressing people being able to get married before the state.
yeah I think that guy's post is hilarious
This isn't akin to african americans joining the ku klux klan but rather the civil rights problems we were having pre 1960s
This is discrimination being done by the government and everyone against it is somehow justifying it publicly through their religion and politics
it's really sickening
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On March 01 2013 17:17 pbjsandwich wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 15:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 01 2013 15:18 Angry_Fetus wrote:On March 01 2013 14:45 Confuse wrote:On March 01 2013 13:44 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I can't believe civil rights are put up to a vote in the first place. What else would you propose? Someone special decides what the civil rights are? Rights should be equal across the board. No one man needs to decide, nor should it ever be put up to a popular vote. How can you honestly defend minority rights being voted on? That's mob rule, not democracy. It's in your Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" you havent explained how these rights should be determined. there is no piece of paper that lists all unalienable rights that exist. it's called the Bill of Rights and if anyone is denied rights because of anything other than their criminal status than it's a violation lmao there's no piece of paper that lists all unalienable rights
The bill of rights is by no means all-encompassing or unchangeable. It was written in the late 18th century and, apart from amendment about congressional pay, hasn't been changed since. Because of this there are quite a few things that are considered basic human rights that aren't included.
|
Did anybody say it was either all encompassing or unchangeable?
But everyone is equal under the law
That isn't apart of the bill of rights but it is in the constitution and the fact that it is being violated is terrible
|
On March 01 2013 17:29 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:17 pbjsandwich wrote:On March 01 2013 15:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 01 2013 15:18 Angry_Fetus wrote:On March 01 2013 14:45 Confuse wrote:On March 01 2013 13:44 Angry_Fetus wrote:
I can't believe civil rights are put up to a vote in the first place. What else would you propose? Someone special decides what the civil rights are? Rights should be equal across the board. No one man needs to decide, nor should it ever be put up to a popular vote. How can you honestly defend minority rights being voted on? That's mob rule, not democracy. It's in your Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" you havent explained how these rights should be determined. there is no piece of paper that lists all unalienable rights that exist. it's called the Bill of Rights and if anyone is denied rights because of anything other than their criminal status than it's a violation lmao there's no piece of paper that lists all unalienable rights The bill of rights is by no means all-encompassing or unchangeable. It was written in the late 18th century and, apart from amendment about congressional pay, hasn't been changed since. Because of this there are quite a few things that are considered basic human rights that aren't included.
And yet, people still refuse to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment ought to be changed or that the Bible shouldn't be taken seriously. Weird that.
Good on Obama. It's about time to see something like this. Even though all he's going to do is generate more opposition at least he's sticking true to his original "promises".
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On March 01 2013 17:33 pbjsandwich wrote:
Did anybody say it was either all encompassing or unchangeable?
But everyone is equal under the law
That isn't apart of the bill of rights but it is in the constitution and the fact that it is being violated is terrible
You were trying to claim that it lists all unalienable rights which for that to be the case it would have to be all encompassing and probably unchangeable.
|
On March 01 2013 17:24 pbjsandwich wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:20 Pholon wrote:On March 01 2013 16:51 kafkaesque wrote:
I still don't think they should get married.
Obviously they should be allowed to and I'm happy that they are, but I never understood why they would want to when the civil union brings the same benefits. Gays getting married before the Church is akin to African Americans joining the Ku-Klux-Klan or jews joining the Nazi party.
The catholic church has been discrimatory towards gays for two thousand years, why would you ever find it appealing to get married "before god"? A commited, loving relationship surely doesn't need this "yes-I-do"-pageantry... Why are you associating marriage with the church? I'm pretty sure Obama is just addressing people being able to get married before the state. yeah I think that guy's post is hilarious This isn't akin to african americans joining the ku klux klan but rather the civil rights problems we were having pre 1960s This is discrimination being done by the government and everyone against it is somehow justifying it publicly through their religion and politics it's really sickening
What? I'm all for equal rights...
|
The real question is if un-elected, life term members of the judiciary are going to once again decide on large scale societal change not put before Congress, or voted AGAINST by the people of the states, because it's what they want. It should be thought long and hard about what is a "right." We throw this word around now so easily. IF marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman, then homosexuals don't HAVE that right. This is what annoys me. We are redefining words for and institutions for our own purposes. I don't think society has debated this for long enough to take any sort of action yet. (Though I personally have already decided, both as an issue of rights and morality).
|
On March 01 2013 17:35 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:33 pbjsandwich wrote:
Did anybody say it was either all encompassing or unchangeable?
But everyone is equal under the law
That isn't apart of the bill of rights but it is in the constitution and the fact that it is being violated is terrible You were trying to claim that it lists all unalienable rights which for that to be the case it would have to be all encompassing and probably unchangeable.
I never said ti had all of them
But it is a piece of paper that has civil rights listed on it.
There is a framework to work with there
and beyond the bill of rights the constitution does a pretty good job
but for SOME REASON it's ok to discriminate against gays because of.....?
Not really sure
|
On March 01 2013 17:37 kafkaesque wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:24 pbjsandwich wrote:On March 01 2013 17:20 Pholon wrote:On March 01 2013 16:51 kafkaesque wrote:
I still don't think they should get married.
Obviously they should be allowed to and I'm happy that they are, but I never understood why they would want to when the civil union brings the same benefits. Gays getting married before the Church is akin to African Americans joining the Ku-Klux-Klan or jews joining the Nazi party.
The catholic church has been discrimatory towards gays for two thousand years, why would you ever find it appealing to get married "before god"? A commited, loving relationship surely doesn't need this "yes-I-do"-pageantry... Why are you associating marriage with the church? I'm pretty sure Obama is just addressing people being able to get married before the state. yeah I think that guy's post is hilarious This isn't akin to african americans joining the ku klux klan but rather the civil rights problems we were having pre 1960s This is discrimination being done by the government and everyone against it is somehow justifying it publicly through their religion and politics it's really sickening What? I'm all for equal rights...
I'm not saying you weren't but I thought your comparison and argument were kind of funny
|
On March 01 2013 17:37 kafkaesque wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:24 pbjsandwich wrote:On March 01 2013 17:20 Pholon wrote:On March 01 2013 16:51 kafkaesque wrote:
I still don't think they should get married.
Obviously they should be allowed to and I'm happy that they are, but I never understood why they would want to when the civil union brings the same benefits. Gays getting married before the Church is akin to African Americans joining the Ku-Klux-Klan or jews joining the Nazi party.
The catholic church has been discrimatory towards gays for two thousand years, why would you ever find it appealing to get married "before god"? A commited, loving relationship surely doesn't need this "yes-I-do"-pageantry... Why are you associating marriage with the church? I'm pretty sure Obama is just addressing people being able to get married before the state. yeah I think that guy's post is hilarious This isn't akin to african americans joining the ku klux klan but rather the civil rights problems we were having pre 1960s This is discrimination being done by the government and everyone against it is somehow justifying it publicly through their religion and politics it's really sickening What? I'm all for equal rights...
Yeah, i know what you mean. But there's the thing called principle. A gay man is not different than any other man. If you label him or deny him something, it's kinda not equal. I can understand why they don't want that.
It's a bit like being allowed to drive a moped because it gets you from a to b, but you're denied driving a car because some idiotic book says so. I would be pissed about that (even though i might be okay with just riding a moped, denying me the option though would piss me off seriously).
|
When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters.
He announced his personal support for gay marriage last year but has said the issue should be governed by states.
Which to me sounds more like: "The states should govern the issue as long as they do what I want them to do."
There was a democratic vote in which the majority apparently sided against gay marriage, and now Obama wants to take a dump on that democratic process by asking the supreme court to intervene. I'm surprised that more people aren't offended that our right as citizens to vote for that which we desire is honored by the government.
Another example of the federal government taking a dump on the democratic process at the state level is the case of Angel Raich. Under California law, Raich was allowed to grow marijuana for medicinal use, but the federal government took a dump on California law and confiscated and burned Raich's marijuana plants. There was a lot of outrage about this case, and it is basically the same thing that is happening here, just on a different issue. State decides what is best for the state. Federal Government disagrees and will attempt to force the state into submission.
Sickening~
|
When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters.
The federal government actually needs to put a stop to the actual situation. It's not a state-matter, but a church-matter. It's because of the church, that gays are being kinda discriminated. Get the church out of the government/state-matters, then you're on the right way.
I'm surprised that more people aren't offended that our right as citizens to vote for that which we desire is honored by the government.
Wait, i didn't see that. I'm blown away by that ignorancy, i can't even tell how idiotic a statement like that looks. There's a democratic vote to deny a minorities right to marriage? The vote was idiotic in the first place, it should not be up to you if harry from two streets down the road can marry his friend george.
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On March 01 2013 17:46 Joedaddy wrote:When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. Show nested quote +He announced his personal support for gay marriage last year but has said the issue should be governed by states. Which to me sounds more like: "The states should govern the issue as long as they do what I want them to do." There was a democratic vote in which the majority apparently sided against gay marriage, and now Obama wants to take a dump on that democratic process by asking the supreme court to intervene. I'm surprised that more people aren't offended that our right as citizens to vote for that which we desire is honored by the government.
I think Obama is addressing rights here - so it doesn't have much to do with the democratic process.
|
I don't know what you're talking about but the Supreme Court was going to have to take this case either way....
Your whole idea of states rights is just so weird and out dated. Yeah It's a philosophy but to expect this current government to run that way is.....ridiculous? The federal government is the powerhouse and has been for awhile.
|
On March 01 2013 17:46 Joedaddy wrote:When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. Show nested quote +He announced his personal support for gay marriage last year but has said the issue should be governed by states. Which to me sounds more like: "The states should govern the issue as long as they do what I want them to do." There was a democratic vote in which the majority apparently sided against gay marriage, and now Obama wants to take a dump on that democratic process by asking the supreme court to intervene. I'm surprised that more people aren't offended that our right as citizens to vote for that which we desire is honored by the government. Another example of the federal government taking a dump on the democratic process at the state level is the case of Angel Raich. Under California law, Raich was allowed to grow marijuana for medicinal use, but the federal government took a dump on California law and confiscated and burned Raich's marijuana plants. There was a lot of outrage about this case, and it is basically the same thing that is happening here, just on a different issue. State decides what is best for the state. Federal Government disagrees and will attempt to force the state into submission. Sickening~
You are forgetting, according to many of the loudest people, this is a civil "rights" issue. It's too important, the banning is too immoral to be decided by the clearly bigoted people of the states! This requires action! This is similar to abortion. Country split? Varying states have different laws? No matter! This is SO important that in this case, the un-elected, unaccountable court NEEDS to step in and act! When society doesn't back you up the normal way, you get someone else to do it. Happened many times.
|
On March 01 2013 17:51 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. The federal government actually needs to put a stop to the actual situation. It's not a state-matter, but a church-matter. It's because of the church, that gays are being kinda discriminated. Get the church out of the government/state-matters, then you're on the right way.
I agree. All the religious people and their view in this very religious country should just NOT be represented when they disagree with you. Next you'll tell me that Black's "wall of separation" was a good, well researched ruling 0_o
|
Also as a Californian the whole Proposition program we have here is one of the most idiotic things to exist in American government. The fact that this proposition went through is not some kind of fair representation of what should happen but more like some kind of political win in a terrible terrible system
|
I agree with most things, but I can't stand the idea of leaving it to the states. To me marriage seems like something that you can't really have in some states and in others. I would much rather have federal law legalizing gay marriage nationwide.
|
On March 01 2013 17:55 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:51 m4inbrain wrote:When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. The federal government actually needs to put a stop to the actual situation. It's not a state-matter, but a church-matter. It's because of the church, that gays are being kinda discriminated. Get the church out of the government/state-matters, then you're on the right way. I agree. All the religious people and their view in this very religious country should just NOT be represented when they disagree with you. Next you'll tell me that Black's "wall of separation" was a good, well researched ruling 0_o
Yeah, exactly that. Not the black issue, but the church issue. Also it does not only disagree with me, but with basic human rights AND your own frikkin constitution (-> separation of church and state).
|
On March 01 2013 17:59 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:55 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 17:51 m4inbrain wrote:When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. The federal government actually needs to put a stop to the actual situation. It's not a state-matter, but a church-matter. It's because of the church, that gays are being kinda discriminated. Get the church out of the government/state-matters, then you're on the right way. I agree. All the religious people and their view in this very religious country should just NOT be represented when they disagree with you. Next you'll tell me that Black's "wall of separation" was a good, well researched ruling 0_o Yeah, exactly that. Not the black issue, but the church issue.
... I was referring to the mythical "separation of Church and state." The Justice who wrote the opinion was the Catholic hating FDR appointee named Hugo Black. Fun guy. Nothing to do with blacks.
As to rights and the Constitution, I have a feeling you really don't know the history of either. Look into it. Or don't. Doesn't matter, so long as you don't comment on American stuff pertaining to it.
The wall of separation is a purely judicial invention, unfortunately.
|
On March 01 2013 18:01 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:59 m4inbrain wrote:On March 01 2013 17:55 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 17:51 m4inbrain wrote:When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. The federal government actually needs to put a stop to the actual situation. It's not a state-matter, but a church-matter. It's because of the church, that gays are being kinda discriminated. Get the church out of the government/state-matters, then you're on the right way. I agree. All the religious people and their view in this very religious country should just NOT be represented when they disagree with you. Next you'll tell me that Black's "wall of separation" was a good, well researched ruling 0_o Yeah, exactly that. Not the black issue, but the church issue. ... I was referring to the mythical "separation of Church and state." The Justice who wrote the opinion was the Catholic hating FDR appointee named Hugo Black. Fun guy. Nothing to do with blacks.
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?
Edit: you're right, i misunderstood the separation of church and state part, after reading up (a bit) on it. Does not change the fact that the church should not interefere with laws, and a law against gay marriage is solely based on religious believes.
|
|
|
Russian Federation367 Posts
Seems like USA is going to hell.
|
On March 01 2013 17:51 Pholon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:46 Joedaddy wrote:When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. He announced his personal support for gay marriage last year but has said the issue should be governed by states. Which to me sounds more like: "The states should govern the issue as long as they do what I want them to do." There was a democratic vote in which the majority apparently sided against gay marriage, and now Obama wants to take a dump on that democratic process by asking the supreme court to intervene. I'm surprised that more people aren't offended that our right as citizens to vote for that which we desire is honored by the government. I think Obama is addressing rights here - so it doesn't have much to do with the democratic process.
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.
|
Why would this even be on the vote? It should already be given. You dont vote for minorities to have equal rights, so why would you vote for gays to have equal rights? There is nothing wrong with two same sex couple marrying, like what do non-supporters think will happen when gays can marry? World ending? People are still as discriminating as ever, just about different things now.
|
As a Christian I can't understand why gay marriage isn't legal across the entire U.S. already. Honestly, it isn't a big deal if it's legal, and there's no reason why this right should be denied to them, or anyone for that matter.
|
On March 01 2013 18:04 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 18:01 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 17:59 m4inbrain wrote:On March 01 2013 17:55 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 17:51 m4inbrain wrote:When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. The federal government actually needs to put a stop to the actual situation. It's not a state-matter, but a church-matter. It's because of the church, that gays are being kinda discriminated. Get the church out of the government/state-matters, then you're on the right way. I agree. All the religious people and their view in this very religious country should just NOT be represented when they disagree with you. Next you'll tell me that Black's "wall of separation" was a good, well researched ruling 0_o Yeah, exactly that. Not the black issue, but the church issue. ... I was referring to the mythical "separation of Church and state." The Justice who wrote the opinion was the Catholic hating FDR appointee named Hugo Black. Fun guy. Nothing to do with blacks. 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.
|
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. 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.
|
On March 01 2013 18:09 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:51 Pholon wrote:On March 01 2013 17:46 Joedaddy wrote:When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. He announced his personal support for gay marriage last year but has said the issue should be governed by states. Which to me sounds more like: "The states should govern the issue as long as they do what I want them to do." There was a democratic vote in which the majority apparently sided against gay marriage, and now Obama wants to take a dump on that democratic process by asking the supreme court to intervene. I'm surprised that more people aren't offended that our right as citizens to vote for that which we desire is honored by the government. I think Obama is addressing rights here - so it doesn't have much to do with the democratic process. 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
|
On March 01 2013 18:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 18:04 m4inbrain wrote:On March 01 2013 18:01 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 17:59 m4inbrain wrote:On March 01 2013 17:55 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 17:51 m4inbrain wrote:When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. The federal government actually needs to put a stop to the actual situation. It's not a state-matter, but a church-matter. It's because of the church, that gays are being kinda discriminated. Get the church out of the government/state-matters, then you're on the right way. I agree. All the religious people and their view in this very religious country should just NOT be represented when they disagree with you. Next you'll tell me that Black's "wall of separation" was a good, well researched ruling 0_o Yeah, exactly that. Not the black issue, but the church issue. ... I was referring to the mythical "separation of Church and state." The Justice who wrote the opinion was the Catholic hating FDR appointee named Hugo Black. Fun guy. Nothing to do with blacks. 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. 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.
|
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.
|
On March 01 2013 18:16 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 18:13 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 18:04 m4inbrain wrote:On March 01 2013 18:01 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 17:59 m4inbrain wrote:On March 01 2013 17:55 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 17:51 m4inbrain wrote:When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. The federal government actually needs to put a stop to the actual situation. It's not a state-matter, but a church-matter. It's because of the church, that gays are being kinda discriminated. Get the church out of the government/state-matters, then you're on the right way. I agree. All the religious people and their view in this very religious country should just NOT be represented when they disagree with you. Next you'll tell me that Black's "wall of separation" was a good, well researched ruling 0_o Yeah, exactly that. Not the black issue, but the church issue. ... I was referring to the mythical "separation of Church and state." The Justice who wrote the opinion was the Catholic hating FDR appointee named Hugo Black. Fun guy. Nothing to do with blacks. 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. 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.
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.
|
On March 01 2013 18:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 18:04 m4inbrain wrote:On March 01 2013 18:01 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 17:59 m4inbrain wrote:On March 01 2013 17:55 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 17:51 m4inbrain wrote:When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. The federal government actually needs to put a stop to the actual situation. It's not a state-matter, but a church-matter. It's because of the church, that gays are being kinda discriminated. Get the church out of the government/state-matters, then you're on the right way. I agree. All the religious people and their view in this very religious country should just NOT be represented when they disagree with you. Next you'll tell me that Black's "wall of separation" was a good, well researched ruling 0_o Yeah, exactly that. Not the black issue, but the church issue. ... I was referring to the mythical "separation of Church and state." The Justice who wrote the opinion was the Catholic hating FDR appointee named Hugo Black. Fun guy. Nothing to do with blacks. 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. 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?
|
On March 01 2013 18:18 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On March 01 2013 18:21 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 18:13 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 18:04 m4inbrain wrote:On March 01 2013 18:01 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 17:59 m4inbrain wrote:On March 01 2013 17:55 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 17:51 m4inbrain wrote:When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. The federal government actually needs to put a stop to the actual situation. It's not a state-matter, but a church-matter. It's because of the church, that gays are being kinda discriminated. Get the church out of the government/state-matters, then you're on the right way. I agree. All the religious people and their view in this very religious country should just NOT be represented when they disagree with you. Next you'll tell me that Black's "wall of separation" was a good, well researched ruling 0_o Yeah, exactly that. Not the black issue, but the church issue. ... I was referring to the mythical "separation of Church and state." The Justice who wrote the opinion was the Catholic hating FDR appointee named Hugo Black. Fun guy. Nothing to do with blacks. 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. 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
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
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this 'consent of the society' stuff is laughable considering that society can do pretty horrible shit.
|
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.
|
On March 01 2013 18:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 18:04 m4inbrain wrote:On March 01 2013 18:01 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 17:59 m4inbrain wrote:On March 01 2013 17:55 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 17:51 m4inbrain wrote:When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. The federal government actually needs to put a stop to the actual situation. It's not a state-matter, but a church-matter. It's because of the church, that gays are being kinda discriminated. Get the church out of the government/state-matters, then you're on the right way. I agree. All the religious people and their view in this very religious country should just NOT be represented when they disagree with you. Next you'll tell me that Black's "wall of separation" was a good, well researched ruling 0_o Yeah, exactly that. Not the black issue, but the church issue. ... I was referring to the mythical "separation of Church and state." The Justice who wrote the opinion was the Catholic hating FDR appointee named Hugo Black. Fun guy. Nothing to do with blacks. 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.
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
|
On March 01 2013 18:29 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 18:21 m4inbrain wrote:On March 01 2013 18:13 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 18:04 m4inbrain wrote:On March 01 2013 18:01 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 17:59 m4inbrain wrote:On March 01 2013 17:55 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 17:51 m4inbrain wrote:When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. The federal government actually needs to put a stop to the actual situation. It's not a state-matter, but a church-matter. It's because of the church, that gays are being kinda discriminated. Get the church out of the government/state-matters, then you're on the right way. I agree. All the religious people and their view in this very religious country should just NOT be represented when they disagree with you. Next you'll tell me that Black's "wall of separation" was a good, well researched ruling 0_o Yeah, exactly that. Not the black issue, but the church issue. ... I was referring to the mythical "separation of Church and state." The Justice who wrote the opinion was the Catholic hating FDR appointee named Hugo Black. Fun guy. Nothing to do with blacks. 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. 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 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
|
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.
|
On March 01 2013 18:29 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 18:21 m4inbrain wrote:On March 01 2013 18:13 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 18:04 m4inbrain wrote:On March 01 2013 18:01 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 17:59 m4inbrain wrote:On March 01 2013 17:55 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 17:51 m4inbrain wrote:When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. The federal government actually needs to put a stop to the actual situation. It's not a state-matter, but a church-matter. It's because of the church, that gays are being kinda discriminated. Get the church out of the government/state-matters, then you're on the right way. I agree. All the religious people and their view in this very religious country should just NOT be represented when they disagree with you. Next you'll tell me that Black's "wall of separation" was a good, well researched ruling 0_o Yeah, exactly that. Not the black issue, but the church issue. ... I was referring to the mythical "separation of Church and state." The Justice who wrote the opinion was the Catholic hating FDR appointee named Hugo Black. Fun guy. Nothing to do with blacks. 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. 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 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"?
|
On March 01 2013 18:34 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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. 
|
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.
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:09 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 17:51 Pholon wrote:On March 01 2013 17:46 Joedaddy wrote:When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. He announced his personal support for gay marriage last year but has said the issue should be governed by states. Which to me sounds more like: "The states should govern the issue as long as they do what I want them to do." There was a democratic vote in which the majority apparently sided against gay marriage, and now Obama wants to take a dump on that democratic process by asking the supreme court to intervene. I'm surprised that more people aren't offended that our right as citizens to vote for that which we desire is honored by the government. I think Obama is addressing rights here - so it doesn't have much to do with the democratic process. 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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
On March 01 2013 18:34 pbjsandwich wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 18:13 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 18:04 m4inbrain wrote:On March 01 2013 18:01 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 17:59 m4inbrain wrote:On March 01 2013 17:55 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 17:51 m4inbrain wrote:When I got married, the certifying body was the state in which I was married. Let the states decide what stance they take on gay marriage. The federal government needs to stay out of it and let the States handle State matters. The federal government actually needs to put a stop to the actual situation. It's not a state-matter, but a church-matter. It's because of the church, that gays are being kinda discriminated. Get the church out of the government/state-matters, then you're on the right way. I agree. All the religious people and their view in this very religious country should just NOT be represented when they disagree with you. Next you'll tell me that Black's "wall of separation" was a good, well researched ruling 0_o Yeah, exactly that. Not the black issue, but the church issue. ... I was referring to the mythical "separation of Church and state." The Justice who wrote the opinion was the Catholic hating FDR appointee named Hugo Black. Fun guy. Nothing to do with blacks. 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. 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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
On March 01 2013 18:45 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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.
|
On March 01 2013 18:49 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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?
|
I've always found it both interesting and a bit ironic that the people who generally oppose any kind of state or governmental involvement when it comes to gun control and taxes, the people who are deadly afraid of someone else interfering with their way of life, are the same who strongly believe in laws against abortion, promotes laws regarding decency and oppose gay marriage.
|
Civil unions are the same as marriage in some states barring the name, but they are not equal on a federal level. What would have to be done to give them the same rights in the eyes of the federal government? I'm unfamiliar with what political/legal action would be required.
|
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.
|
IDK if It's like this in Sweden but here a lot of people describe themselves as like "social + economic conservative"
separating the 2
|
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.
|
On March 01 2013 18:54 pbjsandwich wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 18:49 jalstar wrote: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. 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
|
On March 01 2013 19:03 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +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?) 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.
|
On March 01 2013 19:07 Zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 18:54 pbjsandwich wrote:On March 01 2013 18:49 jalstar wrote: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. 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
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?
|
While im in favour of gay marriage if the state performs "normal" marriage i dont think Obama should be telling judges what to do.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:34 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On March 01 2013 19:07 Zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 18:54 pbjsandwich wrote:On March 01 2013 18:49 jalstar wrote: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. 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
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
|
Personally i think that marriage should stay within two people of opposite sex. Reason why is that homosexual people can't have babies, so they are not contributing in "creating" next generations. Homosexual people would like to have "equal rights", but without the duties.
|
On March 01 2013 19:10 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 19:07 Zeo wrote:On March 01 2013 18:54 pbjsandwich wrote:On March 01 2013 18:49 jalstar wrote: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. 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 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?
All this is just showing that you're more focused on party politics rather than an objective solution to a problem.
On March 01 2013 19:12 karpotoss wrote:
Personally i think that marriage should stay within two people of opposite sex. Reason why is that homosexual people can't have babies, so they are not contributing in "creating" next generations. Homosexual people would like to have "equal rights", but without the duties.
I can't believe this is an actual post.
Like how much thought actually went into this lmao
Gay people can't adopt? Non Gay couples all have kids? Kids are contributing to the next generation when we are having an overpopulation issue?
Come on
|
On March 01 2013 19:03 pbjsandwich wrote:
IDK if It's like this in Sweden but here a lot of people describe themselves as like "social + economic conservative"
separating the 2
Sweden is a lot more socially liberal and the democrats probably lean more to the right than our most right-wing party. So ofc things are different.
I can understand that you believe in a different set of morals and so forth, what I find odd is that people are so hypocritical they actually end up using an argument for one part of what they believe in, even though they're entirely against the very same argument in other areas. Either you think its fine that there are laws regarding lifestyles or you dont, it is silly to chose that only your lifestyle should be unaffected.
Edit:
On March 01 2013 19:12 karpotoss wrote:
Personally i think that marriage should stay within two people of opposite sex. Reason why is that homosexual people can't have babies, so they are not contributing in "creating" next generations. Homosexual people would like to have "equal rights", but without the duties.
Thats not true, there are many homosexual couples who want to adopt children as well and "contribute". While they may not actually give birth to the child (with two women one of them actually could but anyway), they would still have the same "duties".
|
There really isn't much logic to either sides of America's 2 parties
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
back in the days when societal approval meant a forceful intervention into the lives of everyone, marriage as a "social institution" would have made sense. but it only made sense within that kind of society. there is no sanctity being offended if no sanctimonious hand wants to reach into gay people's affairs.
the social approval argument is a rather straightforward resurrection of social tyranny. would be nice for its supporters to accept it as such.
|
On March 01 2013 19:10 pbjsandwich wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 19:03 Introvert wrote: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?) 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.
The basis of our Constitution is the founders, who used Locke. we do not interpret the document using Locke directly.
You are right, there are many of them, so they get to decide, no? So when an Evangelical says NO and you say YES you are both equal. But then you would throw in Civil rights, and they would use morality. Because people have different views on something does not mean we take the non-moral view by default. I am simply amazed that you dismiss such a large portion of the population because you disagree. This is amazing. "Everyone is different, so we should choose my way!" is not a good reason. The right holds the house because they were elected (by the same majority who elected Obama.) You really think there are so many more liberals that they only reason the Republicans are around is because of a bad system? Three branches and two houses is MINORITY protection, something the left LOVES to talk about.
I really am going to bed now, but just think about what you said. "There are many different views, thus we should take mine."
|
I am not saying that at all. I am not dismissing a part of the country (like you are)
but there is nothing to your argument against gay marriage other than it does not go with your beliefs
When there is nothing different about a homosexual than your belief that they are somehow different than me and you.
I asked this question before. If the federal government said that marriage was suddenly ok between same sexes would you be ok with it? And if so then why not?
This is marriage as a government institution because no matter how much you argue about it there is a seperation of church and state and your church beliefs have no ground in this situation.
EDIT: Let me also add that there is an objective moral view in this situation and it is spelled out in the constitution. We are all created equal buddy.
|
On March 01 2013 19:14 pbjsandwich wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 19:10 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 19:07 Zeo wrote:On March 01 2013 18:54 pbjsandwich wrote:On March 01 2013 18:49 jalstar wrote: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. 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 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? All this is just showing that you're more focused on party politics rather than an objective solution to a problem.
I suppose you are right. if I point out the failure of the president, it's because I'm partisan. I remember the democrats screaming at the top of their lungs about 10 trillion. Now? Nope! Our debt is now worth more than the ENTIRE country produces in a year. It's not like 17 TRILLION dollars is such a big deal now, huh? I don't trust the man who continues to make the problem worse after promising to make it better. Especially when he acts like the sky is falling if a 2% reduction (his idea) is actually implemented. He wants to be "balanced" but can't cut 2%? But this is off topic.
|
You see how that's absolutely terrible?
People throughout the country like you are deciding and arguing against the fate of innocent people who are just trying to get married because of the anger stirred up through meaningless politics.
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On March 01 2013 18:49 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It's not discrimination to call certain people certain words? Really?
|
On March 01 2013 19:26 Pholon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 18:49 jalstar wrote: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. It's not discrimination to call certain people certain words? Really?
"separate but equal" am I right?
|
On March 01 2013 19:23 pbjsandwich wrote:
I am not saying that at all. I am not dismissing a part of the country (like you are)
but there is nothing to your argument against gay marriage other than it does not go with your beliefs
When there is nothing different about a homosexual than your belief that they are somehow different than me and you.
I asked this question before. If the federal government said that marriage was suddenly ok between same sexes would you be ok with it? And if so then why not?
This is marriage as a government institution because no matter how much you argue about it there is a seperation of church and state and your church beliefs have no ground in this situation.
EDIT: Let me also add that there is an objective moral view in this situation and it is spelled out in the constitution. We are all created equal buddy.
First, it differs from quite a few people's beliefs. (Hell, even in CA over half the voters agreed with "my beliefs!") I am saying the people get to choose, not the government.
btw, "all created equal" is in the Declaration, but the Constitution is based on the Declaration, so I get your point (be careful though, the Declaration mentions God!) But it's not spelled out in the Con. even murderers (for lack of a FAR less extreme example) are equal, but they aren't allowed to go around murdering. (I know it's different, but my point is, some things that equal people do are wrong. In fact, that's all of human history.)
Ok, the level of ignorance on the Constitution and American history is too.. well, you know the rest.
And on that note, I'm going to get some rest.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well when you make a passing reference to equality for murderers in a discussion about same sex people wanting to get married, you do need to take a break and calm down.
|
On the note of a very weak argument
Like what are you even trying to say? You'll fight for the doctrine that says that marriage is between a man and a women but suddenly when this doesn't go your way you'll argue against it?
You're killing me here. Maybe you should rethink your stance
EDIT: I really have to say it's quite amazing how strongly someone can feel about something with such flimsy reasoning
Hey if you're a homophobe just admit it rather than dancing around trying to hide behind politics. Most of the republicans have basically come out as such.
|
On March 01 2013 19:34 oneofthem wrote:
well when you make a passing reference to equality for murderers in a discussion about same sex people wanting to get married, you do need to take a break and calm down.
I am in a hurry to sleep, so I picked one. It's hard coming up with things less extreme than that that all people would agree is wrong. Obviously homosexuals ARE NOT IN ANY WAY LIKE OR ON THE LEVEL OF MURDERERS. gn
|
You are right, there are many of them, so they get to decide, no? So when an Evangelical says NO and you say YES you are both equal. But then you would throw in Civil rights, and they would use morality. Because people have different views on something does not mean we take the non-moral view by default. I am simply amazed that you dismiss such a large portion of the population because you disagree. This is amazing. "Everyone is different, so we should choose my way!" is not a good reason. The right holds the house because they were elected (by the same majority who elected Obama.) You really think there are so many more liberals that they only reason the Republicans are around is because of a bad system? Three branches and two houses is MINORITY protection, something the left LOVES to talk about.
This is not quite true. The belief that opinions are by definition equal is wishful thinking, at best. More often than not, someone is right and someone else is wrong. Reality doesn't care about opinions, and not all of them are worth considering. And frankly, the reality is that civil rights should not be a subject of debate to begin with.
Even more ironic is that the staunchest opponents of gay marriage are the hardcore right-wingers who constantly cry wolf about the government sticking its nose in their business. Hypocrisy is a wonderful thing.
"separate but equal" am I right?
Maybe homosexuals could be considered three fifths of a married couple?
|
On March 01 2013 19:36 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 19:34 oneofthem wrote:
well when you make a passing reference to equality for murderers in a discussion about same sex people wanting to get married, you do need to take a break and calm down. I am in a hurry to sleep, so I picked one. It's hard coming up with things less extreme than that that all people would agree is wrong. Obviously homosexuals ARE NOT IN ANY WAY LIKE OR ON THE LEVEL OF MURDERERS. gn
That's cause your argument is terrible and it has zero point at all
You would not have found any example that would have changed anyones minds
|
Oh thats another thing actually, perhaps someone could explain to me why history and the constitution are seemingly so sacred to americans? While history defines all of us, letting it shape who we are today is a grave mistake.
I wont be the first to say that you are supposed to learn from the mistakes of the past, not repeat them.
|
On March 01 2013 19:35 pbjsandwich wrote:
On the note of a very weak argument
Like what are you even trying to say? You'll fight for the doctrine that says that marriage is between a man and a women but suddenly when this doesn't go your way you'll argue against it?
You're killing me here. Maybe you should rethink your stance
EDIT: I really have to say it's quite amazing how strongly someone can feel about something with such flimsy reasoning
Hey if you're a homophobe just admit it rather than dancing around trying to hide behind politics. Most of the republicans have basically come out as such.
I will always argue that marriage is only one thing. I'm not "hating" on them. I wish peopel on the left knew how to phrase thigns without making it sound like a personal attack based on deep rage. I would say that it should be viewed as objectively immoral, and thus laws based on it are ok. However, it is a societal decision. I will always fight, but I have no choice but to acknowledge the opposition as reasonable. something the far left won't do nowadays, unfortunately. once and for all, gn
Pm if you really want to know more.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
hating on homosexuality is a purity breach, something akin to revulsion against rotten food, a moral gag reflex.
it doesn't have much rational thought behind it.
edit: okay, not saying revulsion against rotten food is irrational. liane young has more for the inquiring mind
|
Because it's completely unreasonable to believe that gay marriage is immoral
There really is no reasoning behind it at all
Not even gay marriage but gay relationships.
EDIT: get out of my head oneofthem
|
On March 01 2013 19:37 Stol wrote:
Oh thats another thing actually, perhaps someone could explain to me why history and the constitution are seemingly so sacred to americans? While history defines all of us, letting it shape who we are today is a grave mistake.
I wont be the first to say that you are supposed to learn from the mistakes of the past, not repeat them.
Even more baffling considering the country was founded on the lessons that been learned from the mistakes made in europe. The separation of church and state, the republic, the constitution, the bill of rights, all this is based on learning from history and a determination not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
|
On March 01 2013 19:40 pbjsandwich wrote:
Because it's completely unreasonable to believe that gay marriage is immoral
There really is no reasoning behind it at all
Not even gay marriage but gay relationships.
EDIT: get out of my head oneofthem
If you think about it, hating murder really is unreasonable (in the sense I take you to mean). we base it on "fairness" and "rights," both of which are entirely unnatural. like i said, pm if you wish. gn. again.
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On March 01 2013 19:39 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 19:35 pbjsandwich wrote:
On the note of a very weak argument
Like what are you even trying to say? You'll fight for the doctrine that says that marriage is between a man and a women but suddenly when this doesn't go your way you'll argue against it?
You're killing me here. Maybe you should rethink your stance
EDIT: I really have to say it's quite amazing how strongly someone can feel about something with such flimsy reasoning
Hey if you're a homophobe just admit it rather than dancing around trying to hide behind politics. Most of the republicans have basically come out as such. I will always argue that marriage is only one thing. I would say that it should be viewed as objectively immoral, and thus laws based on it are ok. However, it is a societal decision. I will always fight, but I have no choice but to acknowledge the opposition as reasonable. something the far left won't do nowadays, unfortunately. once and for all, gn. Pm if you really want to know more.
Would you like to tell why it's objectively immoral? To me morality has to do with the well-being of fellow conscious creatures - I don't see how gay marriage would harm anyone in any way.
|
On March 01 2013 19:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 19:40 pbjsandwich wrote:
Because it's completely unreasonable to believe that gay marriage is immoral
There really is no reasoning behind it at all
Not even gay marriage but gay relationships.
EDIT: get out of my head oneofthem If you think about it, hating murder really is unreasonable (in the sense I take you to mean). we base it on "fairness" and "rights," both of which are entirely unnatural. like i said, pm if you wish. gn. again.
Stop with that argument, it just makes you look really stupid mate. Comparing "killing someone" with "two dudes married" even in the slightest, does not help your case at all, not even the slightest. It just makes you look like a fanatic religious idiot.
No offense, but that's how it is.
|
The constitution is truly amazing
Of course it has it's flaws but the political "game" has devolved into wanking matches over the interpretation of them
We, the people (haha), have no choice but to let our "leaders" do what they see fit with the constitution and a lot of it is a shouting match between 2 sides
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On March 01 2013 19:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 19:40 pbjsandwich wrote:
Because it's completely unreasonable to believe that gay marriage is immoral
There really is no reasoning behind it at all
Not even gay marriage but gay relationships.
EDIT: get out of my head oneofthem If you think about it, hating murder really is unreasonable (in the sense I take you to mean). we base it on "fairness" and "rights," both of which are entirely unnatural. like i said, pm if you wish. gn. again.
When I think about it I hate murder because it's a really dick thing to do - this comes very natural to me. I don't understand you at all 
|
On March 01 2013 19:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 19:40 pbjsandwich wrote:
Because it's completely unreasonable to believe that gay marriage is immoral
There really is no reasoning behind it at all
Not even gay marriage but gay relationships.
EDIT: get out of my head oneofthem If you think about it, hating murder really is unreasonable (in the sense I take you to mean). we base it on "fairness" and "rights," both of which are entirely unnatural. like i said, pm if you wish. gn. again.
lol, hating a murderer has to do with empathy and the ability to understand the suffering of others. You would be more successful in arguing that approving of gay marriage comes from the same understanding that other people feel left out of society due to their inherent sexual preference. Meaning that disapproving of murders and approving of gay marriage both comes from empathy.
|
On March 01 2013 19:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 19:40 pbjsandwich wrote:
Because it's completely unreasonable to believe that gay marriage is immoral
There really is no reasoning behind it at all
Not even gay marriage but gay relationships.
EDIT: get out of my head oneofthem If you think about it, hating murder really is unreasonable (in the sense I take you to mean). we base it on "fairness" and "rights," both of which are entirely unnatural. like i said, pm if you wish. gn. again.
Why would I PM you?
This argument is ridiculous
there is nothing unnatural about trying to control or eliminate parts of community that are detrimental to it.
That;s completely "natural" right there if you really want to go into that type of argument
EDIT: I know this post was kind of ridiculous too
but I didn't know how else to word it
|
Well thats understandable, we're already comparing gay marriage with murder, I'm just waiting for the hitler reference.
|
On March 01 2013 19:54 Stol wrote:
Well thats understandable, we're already comparing gay marriage with murder, I'm just waiting for the hitler reference.
Those are typically reserved for Obama. Clearly, they have a lot in common.
|
On March 01 2013 19:46 Pholon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 19:42 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 19:40 pbjsandwich wrote:
Because it's completely unreasonable to believe that gay marriage is immoral
There really is no reasoning behind it at all
Not even gay marriage but gay relationships.
EDIT: get out of my head oneofthem If you think about it, hating murder really is unreasonable (in the sense I take you to mean). we base it on "fairness" and "rights," both of which are entirely unnatural. like i said, pm if you wish. gn. again. When I think about it I hate murder because it's a really dick thing to do - this comes very natural to me. I don't understand you at all
Why am i still here.
I mean, you would consider hurting you as "bad." But someone else? Bad? Why? it's just the way it "feels." I obviously have REASONS for opposing Gay marriage (some that could be made in syllogistic form, some not), but I wasn't talking about that, I was originally talking about the Constitutional side. I (and many others) find it to be wrong. That's all I'm going to say.
I love all the people "the Constitution was nice then but now blah blah blah..." Everyone here has already demonstrated amazing ignorance of it, why do you continue to try and evaluate it?
Everyone saying that being opposed to gay marriage is "irrational," why would I listen to you when you have proven that you talk about and criticize things you are ignorant of? Don't know jack about the Constitution, talk about it anyway. Criticize opponents of gay marriage, claim it is completely stupid. I am sorry, but I do not have time to lay out my entire philosophy of life, Pholon
I must say, the one "advantage" I have is that we are so surrounded by left and progressive thinking that I have had no choice but to know about it and the reasons for it/behind it.
Really, gn. Really.
|
On March 01 2013 19:56 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 19:54 Stol wrote:
Well thats understandable, we're already comparing gay marriage with murder, I'm just waiting for the hitler reference. Those are typically reserved for Obama. Clearly, they have a lot in common.
Party politics make people say stupid, stupid things
|
On March 01 2013 19:57 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 19:46 Pholon wrote:On March 01 2013 19:42 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 19:40 pbjsandwich wrote:
Because it's completely unreasonable to believe that gay marriage is immoral
There really is no reasoning behind it at all
Not even gay marriage but gay relationships.
EDIT: get out of my head oneofthem If you think about it, hating murder really is unreasonable (in the sense I take you to mean). we base it on "fairness" and "rights," both of which are entirely unnatural. like i said, pm if you wish. gn. again. When I think about it I hate murder because it's a really dick thing to do - this comes very natural to me. I don't understand you at all Why am i still here. I mean, you would consider hurting you as "bad." But someone else? Bad? Why? it's just the way it "feels." I obviously have REASONS for opposing Gay marriage (some that could be made in syllogistic form, some not), but I wasn't talking about that, I was originally talking about the Constitutional side. I (and many others) find it to be wrong. That's all I'm going to say. I love all the people "the Constitution was nice then but now blah blah blah..." Everyone here has already demonstrated amazing ignorance of it, why do you continue to try and evaluate it? Everyone saying that being opposed to gay marriage is "irrational," why would I listen to you when you have proven that you talk about and criticize things you are ignorant of? Don't know jack about the Constitution, talk about it anyway. Criticize opponents of gay marriage, claim it is completely stupid. I am sorry, but I do not have time to lay out my entire philosophy of life, Pholon I must say, the one "advantage" I have is that we are so surrounded by left and progressive thinking that I have had no choice but to know about it and the reasons for it/behind it. Really, gn. Really.
Where have I shown a lack of knowledge of the constitution?
It's obvious youre the one basing your knowledge of some other scripture that's not named the constitution
It seems like all you know is where it says God in the document rather than truly understanding the spirit of it (which is more John Locke than you'd like to believe)
EDIT: And it would be nice if you could actually say why you believe Gay Marrriage or gay relationships are bad instead of being an ass towards everyone.
and to all the Europeans ITT I don't blame you for not understanding our constitution lol
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
clarence thomas knows the constitution, all you jokers are just disobedient to the Original Vision.
|
I'll admit I dont know much about the american constitution, I dont really care about it either. Also havent really been discussing it other than asking a question surrounding it.
Then again you've effectively avoided making a single comment in reply to anything I've said, so maybe I wasnt included .
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 01 2013 19:37 Stol wrote:
Oh thats another thing actually, perhaps someone could explain to me why history and the constitution are seemingly so sacred to americans? While history defines all of us, letting it shape who we are today is a grave mistake.
I wont be the first to say that you are supposed to learn from the mistakes of the past, not repeat them.
with such enlightened views, you must be a noble european
|
Guess i was meant with not understanding the constitution, and yeah, alot of it seems weird to me. Or better, "old fashioned". Maybe not even the constitution itself, but the arguments constructed upon it.
with such enlightened views, you must be a noble european
Being cynical does not change the fact that he's quite right. Although that does not only go for the US, but other countries as well (including my own).
|
it's ok guys
he's just lashing out because he really doesn't have any good arguments.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 01 2013 20:05 m4inbrain wrote:Guess i was meant with not understanding the constitution, and yeah, alot of it seems weird to me. Or better, "old fashioned". Maybe not even the constitution itself, but the arguments constructed upon it. Being cynical does not change the fact that he's quite right. Although that does not only go for the US, but other countries as well (including my own).
oh you misunderstand me, i am just expressing admiration for a superior culture.
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On March 01 2013 19:57 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 19:46 Pholon wrote:On March 01 2013 19:42 Introvert wrote:On March 01 2013 19:40 pbjsandwich wrote:
Because it's completely unreasonable to believe that gay marriage is immoral
There really is no reasoning behind it at all
Not even gay marriage but gay relationships.
EDIT: get out of my head oneofthem If you think about it, hating murder really is unreasonable (in the sense I take you to mean). we base it on "fairness" and "rights," both of which are entirely unnatural. like i said, pm if you wish. gn. again. When I think about it I hate murder because it's a really dick thing to do - this comes very natural to me. I don't understand you at all Why am i still here. I mean, you would consider hurting you as "bad." But someone else? Bad? Why? it's just the way it "feels." I obviously have REASONS for opposing Gay marriage (some that could be made in syllogistic form, some not), but I wasn't talking about that, I was originally talking about the Constitutional side. I (and many others) find it to be wrong. That's all I'm going to say.
Yes it "feels" wrong to discriminate against gay people, and though you say you have REASONS (in all caps nonetheless) but seem to not be willing to share them I will continue to feel that way while joining you in wondering why you're still here.
Also, I don't care about your constitution - I don't even live in your country. I care about people, no matter where they're from, being treated fairly and if your constitution doesn't contribute to that then I'll argue it's wrong and should be changed.
|
On March 01 2013 20:12 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 20:05 m4inbrain wrote:Guess i was meant with not understanding the constitution, and yeah, alot of it seems weird to me. Or better, "old fashioned". Maybe not even the constitution itself, but the arguments constructed upon it. with such enlightened views, you must be a noble european Being cynical does not change the fact that he's quite right. Although that does not only go for the US, but other countries as well (including my own). oh you misunderstand me, i am just expressing admiration for a superior culture.
Not sure if you're trolling me, should go to sleep as well.
|
Zzzzzzz.
Here, I can settle pbj and introvert's argument easily with this. Compromise. You see, our whole society will ONLY ever work if we compromise. This is how humanity has (somehow) managed to survive up until this point. You will never be able to have everything you want, ever, because you will need to compromise, but at least you'll be able to have more than if you didn't compromise. No one will get what they want if no one compromised.
Now, gay people might not be able to do their little marriage ceremony in a religious church, but hey, they can still get all of the same legal rights! (Note: many gay couples cannot even do this in the US)
If you give a shit about equality, go try and fix genetic inequality. That makes far more of a difference than any sexual preference (oh shit, someone mind bring up whether or not genetics influence sexual orientation! hurrdurrrrrrrr!1!)
Why don't you two make a compromise so that the actual discussion can proceed (or whatever there is of one lolx)?
And to answer your question in your edit pbj, I'm fairly certain he doesn't support gay marriage because it goes against what the church believes and that the whole marriage process is pretty much meant specifically for M+F. He's an introvert, he cannot socialize normally with people. Leave him be.
Lastly... @ oneofthem
Safe yourself the effort of herpderping at every single person. You aren't adding anything to the (already mediocre) discussion by quoting someone then saying a sentence. Sorry to ruin the fun for you.
|
I will never understand what is "bad" about gay marriage. First of all, if you're Catholic or even any Protestant form of Christianity, in the Bible Jesus tells you to love your neighbor and to treat him as Jesus would. It might say that two homosexuals having sex is bad, but it doesn't tell you to go around bashing them and hating them.
Second, they're just as human as you or I. Why should they not get the basic liberties and rights we get? Even if you disagree with what they're doing, everyone should have the same basic liberties and rights.
I can't even fathom why people claim that gay marriage is so terrible, unjust, and immoral. I have never heard a rational explanation for why it's so "bad" and most of the people that insult it just dodge the question over and over again like Introvert here.
The constitution originally said that only white people were made equally, but is that true? Obviously not, otherwise we'd still have slaves and we wouldn't have an African-American president. I hope to live in a country where people can have the same basic freedoms regardless of what they practice or believe, the same fundamental principle this country was founded on.
|
This is great to hear from Obama, he's such a fine president.
|
Weed next please. The president should set a precedent.
He now has irreversibly lost the support of rednecks and republicans anyways, so he might as well employ sense without fear of ramifications.
|
On March 01 2013 20:21 birchman wrote:
This is great to hear from Obama, he's such a fine president.
While the automatic spending cuts will hit defense the hardest, the Department of Education will also suffer a crippling blow to its budget. Education Secretary Arne Duncan on Wednesday noted that the sequester could cost 40,000 jobs in education nationwide.
70,000 kids who rely on the Head Start pre-school program will have to go without, while another 30,000 children will no longer be able to receive child care assistance.
About 10,000 teachers could be laid off, and “2,100 fewer food inspections could occur,” Duncan said during a White House press briefing.
Government employees and contractors and members of the military will all take significant hits. Protections for clean air and clean water will lose funding. The government won’t have the money to clean up 1,000 gallons of radioactive nuclear waste. The Army and Air Force will face massive cuts.
Some 600,000 women and their children will no longer have access to food aid, due to cuts to the Women, Infants and Children program. With food inspectors facing slashed budgets, meat and poultry factories will be forced to close their doors - resulting in higher prices in grocery stores and an estimated $400 million in lost wages.
“It’s a lot like a slow-motion train wreck,”
Yes, Obama should totally focus all his efforts on gay marriage. Its not like 1000 gallons of toxic waste is leaking into Washington every year
|
Having overcome the hurdle or reelection, Obama can go all in now. I wonder what brave actions and decisions he has in the future.
|
On March 01 2013 18:49 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +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.
If I choose to marry a woman, it is a marriage. If I choose to marry a man, it is a civil union.
Explain to me exactly why these should be different.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 01 2013 20:15 Blargh wrote:
Zzzzzzz.
Here, I can settle pbj and introvert's argument easily with this. Compromise. You see, our whole society will ONLY ever work if we compromise. This is how humanity has (somehow) managed to survive up until this point. You will never be able to have everything you want, ever, because you will need to compromise, but at least you'll be able to have more than if you didn't compromise. No one will get what they want if no one compromised.
Now, gay people might not be able to do their little marriage ceremony in a religious church, but hey, they can still get all of the same legal rights! (Note: many gay couples cannot even do this in the US)
If you give a shit about equality, go try and fix genetic inequality. That makes far more of a difference than any sexual preference (oh shit, someone mind bring up whether or not genetics influence sexual orientation! hurrdurrrrrrrr!1!)
Why don't you two make a compromise so that the actual discussion can proceed (or whatever there is of one lolx)?
And to answer your question in your edit pbj, I'm fairly certain he doesn't support gay marriage because it goes against what the church believes and that the whole marriage process is pretty much meant specifically for M+F. He's an introvert, he cannot socialize normally with people. Leave him be.
Lastly... @ oneofthem
Safe yourself the effort of herpderping at every single person. You aren't adding anything to the (already mediocre) discussion by quoting someone then saying a sentence. Sorry to ruin the fun for you.
tell that to yourself.
1. you don't have to compromise to get what you want, as long as the other guy gives in. driving a hard and credible bargain is the way to get what you want in a negotiation.
2. compromises can happen without wishing or planning or working for one. depending on your political institution, the stronger side can get as much "compromise" as it can make that compromise pass through the teeth of the other. so, a seeming compromise in outcome does not need any party having a midway solution as their objective. given the correct political structure, two guys that want to murder each other can 'compromise' by killing each other as fast as they could manage.
the status quo is such that constant action and activism is needed to turn the tide and educate the public about their flawed but attractive moral impulses. this is not a situation that calls for compromise, it calls for clarity and getting your message through undistracted by sugar coating.
so yea, your wisdom is pretty generic and misguided.
|
isnt this all merely rhetorical?
|
On March 01 2013 21:08 Evangelist wrote:
If I choose to marry a woman, it is a marriage. If I choose to marry a man, it is a civil union.
Explain to me exactly why these should be different.
If I choose to get married it should be called marriage, explain to me why they should be different.
Marriage was not invented by the bible nor should it be defined by it.
If you don't want gay marriage don't marry another man, simple as that.
|
Now do a little more on that global warming issue that we have heard a lot about and actually effects people from outside the US just as much as you.
|
quite sad to see all this tolerance. People have no convictions nowadays. Let people do what they want is the new motto.
oh well i am not surprised anyway, as a president he had no other choice.
|
Yet another Obama lie.
Said he didn't support Gay marriage now he does.
What happened to a president that sticks to his guns, not a flip floper.
O well- at least he is gone in 4 years and we will replace him with another liar.
|
On March 02 2013 06:00 SayGen wrote:
Yet another Obama lie.
Said he didn't support Gay marriage now he does.
What happened to a president that sticks to his guns, not a flip floper.
O well- at least he is gone in 4 years and we will replace him with another liar.
Well there's lies and then there's lies.
If you would've talked to me five or six years ago I would've told you that I was against gay marriage. I'm not anymore.
People change. They grow up, mature, or they adopt new philosophies or outlooks. Or simply put they're politicians who want to win elections and know that they can't tell the public how they really feel about certain issues without losing votes. We don't have any way of knowing if Obama lied about his feelings on this subject or if he legitimately had a change of heart but he's always been friendly with the gay community so it's not like this is that big of a stretch.
|
On March 01 2013 20:20 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:
I will never understand what is "bad" about gay marriage. First of all, if you're Catholic or even any Protestant form of Christianity, in the Bible Jesus tells you to love your neighbor and to treat him as Jesus would. It might say that two homosexuals having sex is bad, but it doesn't tell you to go around bashing them and hating them.
Second, they're just as human as you or I. Why should they not get the basic liberties and rights we get? Even if you disagree with what they're doing, everyone should have the same basic liberties and rights.
I can't even fathom why people claim that gay marriage is so terrible, unjust, and immoral. I have never heard a rational explanation for why it's so "bad" and most of the people that insult it just dodge the question over and over again like Introvert here.
The constitution originally said that only white people were made equally, but is that true? Obviously not, otherwise we'd still have slaves and we wouldn't have an African-American president. I hope to live in a country where people can have the same basic freedoms regardless of what they practice or believe, the same fundamental principle this country was founded on.
I wouldn't advocate bashing or hating a gay person, in fact I have a couple of friends and acquaintances who happen to choose that lifestyle, and I am a Christian. However, if you're looking to understand a Christian POV on the institution of marriage, it is something that based on scripture is clearly defined to be one man and one woman.
Scripture reference from Genesis 2:21-24 (NKJV):
21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
There are more references that specify gender, but this text is one of the references towards marriage and makes a very clear distinction. Without question it means that a man is to leave his father/mother and to be joined with a wife. There are also many references that are indicative in scripture that homosexuality is sinful. Everyone of course has their free will to make their decisions on whether or not to abstain from sin or even honor the commands of God in His word. Nobody is forcing these decisions down your throat, but remember everyone has to deal with the consequences of all the decisions they make or don't make. Someone who is struggling with the sin of homosexuality in my mind is no different from me struggling with my struggles related to pornographic addiction. Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses, and everyone has their own morals and conscience that should help guide them in their decision making. Not everyone submits or even acknowledges God's existence. I understand all that, but this is where Christians are coming from. Christians who are in tune with scripture would not be overly critical of homosexuals in particular, and they wouldn't claim themselves to be any better than non-Christians. Anyone who calls themselves a Christian and portrays this attitude of self-righteousness instead of mercy, grace, and empathy when dealing with sensitive issues is clearly not living up to the standards they profess to hold dear.
Keep in mind that simply because one person or group of people within a specific religion or sub-section of society does something wrong, it shouldn't reflect poorly across the entirety of that group of people. There are many Christians that fall short and sin just like any other human being in history (outside of Jesus Christ from a believer stand-point who was perfect.) Just because a famous televangelist gets caught in a scandal, or in the case of the Catholic church they get entangled with a molestation issue, it doesn't mean that Christianity in a broader sense should be looked down upon for it. These things are conflicting with the very scriptures of the Bible, and to make an over-generalization and apply it broadly to all believers being hypocritical or not walking the walk is completely inaccurate at best.
I always tell my friends fwiw that I don't compromise my true beliefs to suit their perception of me, nor do I want anyone to water down what they hold dear to please me either. I don't force Christianity down anybodies throat, if they ask me about it I will answer questions. If they want to learn more, I refer them to my website where I write faith based articles. To me the majority of what is done and not spoken is the example that people really pay attention to because your actions speak louder than words for the most part. I have several issues that I would hold against Catholicism alone in light of scripture that traditions/teachings seem to contradict in some cases. That is why I consider myself a non-denominational Christian and attempt to live based off what I read in the Bible myself.
Anyhow, it seems I have gone on a slight tangent but I personally would not support any vote that trivializes God's definition of marriage between one man and one woman. I don't need to look any further than scriptures to figure that out for myself. I respect the legal decisions within the framework of our country, and fwiw I also think that gay couples should have equal benefits as citizens of the United States with any other couples. To put it all under the same umbrella of marriage to me is where I draw the line, but I understand that in many states this is a contentious issue. Additionally, it's not just about homosexual marriage specifically, I would also apply the lense of scripture and my personal values in not supporting pro-choice candidates or initiatives that would make abortion more easily accessible. Based on my studies of the Bible, which I look to as a moral authority and try to obey, it seems crystal clear that it is just plain wrong. There are many options available to women who are in a dilemma and cannot support a child. One of those options is adoption, and if there are people on waiting lists to care for children that aren't there own that makes it perhaps even more appalling that we resort to terminating pregnancies. Abortion to me is murder plain and simple, that's a common Christian point of view and I know that it is another hot topic debate today but it is one very important one for us.
God bless,
- Victor N.
|
TheFear, do you follow each book of the Old Testament with as much specificity as Genesis? Also, on what basis do you justify your denomination's reading of the Bible as "the right one"? I am genuinely curious.
|
On March 02 2013 06:05 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 06:00 SayGen wrote:
Yet another Obama lie.
Said he didn't support Gay marriage now he does.
What happened to a president that sticks to his guns, not a flip floper.
O well- at least he is gone in 4 years and we will replace him with another liar. Well there's lies and then there's lies. If you would've talked to me five or six years ago I would've told you that I was against gay marriage. I'm not anymore. People change. They grow up, mature, or they adopt new philosophies or outlooks. Or simply put they're politicians who want to win elections and know that they can't tell the public how they really feel about certain issues without losing votes. We don't have any way of knowing if Obama lied about his feelings on this subject or if he legitimately had a change of heart but he's always been friendly with the gay community so it's not like this is that big of a stretch.
not sure if he is "lying" now and just pandering to the LGBT community. obama has consistently shown himself to be a flip-flopper similar to most politicians.
|
On March 02 2013 06:07 farvacola wrote:
TheFear, do you follow each book of the Old Testament with as much specificity as Genesis? Also, on what basis do you justify your denomination's reading of the Bible as "the right one"? I am genuinely curious.
I know I sure do. Just this afternoon I sacrificed a lamb to the holy spirit because, of course, "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins."
So yeah gay marriage will hopefully pass us by as a legitimate issue in the United States in a few years. Obama might not be great but he has at least given me some hope that this conversation is ending soon. On to marijuana.
|
On March 02 2013 06:07 farvacola wrote:
TheFear, do you follow each book of the Old Testament with as much specificity as Genesis? Also, on what basis do you justify your denomination's reading of the Bible as "the right one"? I am genuinely curious.
I just said I am a non-denominational Christian in the bottom of the text. In terms of the Old Testament in it's entirety it should definitely be considered within the context of that era and the historical account of what was happening. A lot of people refer to things like the stoning of women or slavery to be some sort of call-out against the validity of the Bible as a moral guide. Simply because the Bible mentions these things in the context of a story, does not mean it condones the actions that were being taken. Some of what the Bible explains is said in a more direct fashion, other things are to be considered in context, and the Bible in general should always be considered in a holistic sense and not just picking the one verse that seems to back up what you're saying and ignoring the other relevant aspects of study.
With respect to the stoning of women, there is a very clear instance in the New Testament where Jesus defends a prostitute from being stoned. How can people use that as some sort of detriment to the Bible, when the focal point of all the gospels (the son of God) is clearly not an advocate of it. As a matter of fact, he told people (and I am paraphrasing): "Let he who is without sin (aka: nobody) cast the first stone."
Here is the story in it's entirety based on the Bible in John 8:2-11 (NKJV):
2 Now early[a] in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. 3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught[b] in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded[c] us that such should be stoned.[d] But what do You say?”[e] 6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.[f]
7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up[g] and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience,[h] went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her,[i] “Woman, where are those accusers of yours?[j] Has no one condemned you?”
11 She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and[k] sin no more.”
Does this sound like a book that advocates the stoning of women? It doesn't to me, it's the exact opposite. Yet people insist on ignoring the holistic view of scripture and just focus with a skeptical perspective on the parts that suit their agenda.
- Victor N.
|
On March 02 2013 06:07 farvacola wrote:
TheFear, do you follow each book of the Old Testament with as much specificity as Genesis? Also, on what basis do you justify your denomination's reading of the Bible as "the right one"? I am genuinely curious.
Though I do not agree with him and am not at all religious I feel I must point out that the New Testament doesn't like homosexuality either. Paul was kind of a dick and wrote lots of stuff that's not so nice to women or gay people.
|
On March 02 2013 06:14 Fake)Plants wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 06:07 farvacola wrote:
TheFear, do you follow each book of the Old Testament with as much specificity as Genesis? Also, on what basis do you justify your denomination's reading of the Bible as "the right one"? I am genuinely curious. I know I sure do. Just this afternoon I sacrificed a lamb to the holy spirit because, of course, "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins." So yeah gay marriage will hopefully pass us by as a legitimate issue in the United States in a few years. Obama might not be great but he has at least given me some hope that this conversation is ending soon. On to marijuana.
After Jesus atoned for the sins of mankind by dying on a cross and shedding his innocent blood for us, this kind of sacrifice was no longer called for. To my knowledge it isn't an aspect of modern day Christian living. I would also appreciate it if you didn't take a sarcastic stab at something as to which the dynamics of you've probably made little to no effort to understand. I only assume this based on the erroneous and irreverent nature of your post. Thanks.
- Victor N.
|
On March 02 2013 06:21 TheFear wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 06:14 Fake)Plants wrote:On March 02 2013 06:07 farvacola wrote:
TheFear, do you follow each book of the Old Testament with as much specificity as Genesis? Also, on what basis do you justify your denomination's reading of the Bible as "the right one"? I am genuinely curious. I know I sure do. Just this afternoon I sacrificed a lamb to the holy spirit because, of course, "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins." So yeah gay marriage will hopefully pass us by as a legitimate issue in the United States in a few years. Obama might not be great but he has at least given me some hope that this conversation is ending soon. On to marijuana. After Jesus atoned for the sins of mankind by dying on a cross and shedding his innocent blood for us, this kind of sacrifice was no longer called for. To my knowledge it isn't an aspect of modern day Christian living. I would also appreciate it if you didn't take a sarcastic stab at something as to which the dynamics of you've probably made little to no effort to understand. I only assume this based on the erroneous and irreverent nature of your post. Thanks. - Victor N.
Funny, you say "modern" day christian living, meaning religion has changed, think maybe it can change to iunno stop hating people for disagreeing with your shitty religion? See what I mean? You have every right to say hateful and hurtful things and your religion is using phrases like "destruction of humanity" "evil" "satan" to describe gay people. Yet when someone tells you how hateful and pathetic your religion is, you get defensive and say they have no right to say things like that. pot calls kettle black much?
BTW- I didn't ask your made up prophet to die for me, practice your religion in your homes and in your churches but leave it out of our government and laws.
|
On March 02 2013 06:25 FromShouri wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 06:21 TheFear wrote:On March 02 2013 06:14 Fake)Plants wrote:On March 02 2013 06:07 farvacola wrote:
TheFear, do you follow each book of the Old Testament with as much specificity as Genesis? Also, on what basis do you justify your denomination's reading of the Bible as "the right one"? I am genuinely curious. I know I sure do. Just this afternoon I sacrificed a lamb to the holy spirit because, of course, "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins." So yeah gay marriage will hopefully pass us by as a legitimate issue in the United States in a few years. Obama might not be great but he has at least given me some hope that this conversation is ending soon. On to marijuana. After Jesus atoned for the sins of mankind by dying on a cross and shedding his innocent blood for us, this kind of sacrifice was no longer called for. To my knowledge it isn't an aspect of modern day Christian living. I would also appreciate it if you didn't take a sarcastic stab at something as to which the dynamics of you've probably made little to no effort to understand. I only assume this based on the erroneous and irreverent nature of your post. Thanks. - Victor N. Funny, you say "modern" day christian living, meaning religion has changed, think maybe it can change to iunno stop hating people for disagreeing with your shitty religion? See what I mean? You have every right to say hateful and hurtful things and your religion is using phrases like "destruction of humanity" "evil" "satan" to describe gay people. Yet when someone tells you how hateful and pathetic your religion is, you get defensive and say they have no right to say things like that. pot calls kettle black much? BTW- I didn't ask your made up prophet to die for me, practice your religion in your homes and in your churches but leave it out of our government and laws.
i'm not religious, but you come off as quite the jerk in your post. if you want them to tolerate things that dont comport with their beliefs then maybe you should try to exercise some of the same tolerance.
|
On March 02 2013 06:32 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 06:25 FromShouri wrote:On March 02 2013 06:21 TheFear wrote:On March 02 2013 06:14 Fake)Plants wrote:On March 02 2013 06:07 farvacola wrote:
TheFear, do you follow each book of the Old Testament with as much specificity as Genesis? Also, on what basis do you justify your denomination's reading of the Bible as "the right one"? I am genuinely curious. I know I sure do. Just this afternoon I sacrificed a lamb to the holy spirit because, of course, "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins." So yeah gay marriage will hopefully pass us by as a legitimate issue in the United States in a few years. Obama might not be great but he has at least given me some hope that this conversation is ending soon. On to marijuana. After Jesus atoned for the sins of mankind by dying on a cross and shedding his innocent blood for us, this kind of sacrifice was no longer called for. To my knowledge it isn't an aspect of modern day Christian living. I would also appreciate it if you didn't take a sarcastic stab at something as to which the dynamics of you've probably made little to no effort to understand. I only assume this based on the erroneous and irreverent nature of your post. Thanks. - Victor N. Funny, you say "modern" day christian living, meaning religion has changed, think maybe it can change to iunno stop hating people for disagreeing with your shitty religion? See what I mean? You have every right to say hateful and hurtful things and your religion is using phrases like "destruction of humanity" "evil" "satan" to describe gay people. Yet when someone tells you how hateful and pathetic your religion is, you get defensive and say they have no right to say things like that. pot calls kettle black much? BTW- I didn't ask your made up prophet to die for me, practice your religion in your homes and in your churches but leave it out of our government and laws. i'm not religious, but you come off as quite the jerk in your post. if you want them to tolerate things that dont comport with their beliefs then maybe you should try to exercise some of the same tolerance.
It's interesting you'd take this stance. Personally I find you to be the one who need to show some tolerance of his obvious irritation and anger, and instead focus on what he's getting at with his message. Then maybe you'd be able to get through to them.
+ Show Spoiler +Lol, this shit is getting to meta. 
|
On March 02 2013 06:32 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 06:25 FromShouri wrote:On March 02 2013 06:21 TheFear wrote:On March 02 2013 06:14 Fake)Plants wrote:On March 02 2013 06:07 farvacola wrote:
TheFear, do you follow each book of the Old Testament with as much specificity as Genesis? Also, on what basis do you justify your denomination's reading of the Bible as "the right one"? I am genuinely curious. I know I sure do. Just this afternoon I sacrificed a lamb to the holy spirit because, of course, "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins." So yeah gay marriage will hopefully pass us by as a legitimate issue in the United States in a few years. Obama might not be great but he has at least given me some hope that this conversation is ending soon. On to marijuana. After Jesus atoned for the sins of mankind by dying on a cross and shedding his innocent blood for us, this kind of sacrifice was no longer called for. To my knowledge it isn't an aspect of modern day Christian living. I would also appreciate it if you didn't take a sarcastic stab at something as to which the dynamics of you've probably made little to no effort to understand. I only assume this based on the erroneous and irreverent nature of your post. Thanks. - Victor N. Funny, you say "modern" day christian living, meaning religion has changed, think maybe it can change to iunno stop hating people for disagreeing with your shitty religion? See what I mean? You have every right to say hateful and hurtful things and your religion is using phrases like "destruction of humanity" "evil" "satan" to describe gay people. Yet when someone tells you how hateful and pathetic your religion is, you get defensive and say they have no right to say things like that. pot calls kettle black much? BTW- I didn't ask your made up prophet to die for me, practice your religion in your homes and in your churches but leave it out of our government and laws. i'm not religious, but you come off as quite the jerk in your post. if you want them to tolerate things that dont comport with their beliefs then maybe you should try to exercise some of the same tolerance.
Coming from what I've seen in your posts I say the same to you, Pot calling kettle Black Not to mention his tone about someone daring to talk bad about his religion! I was forced to endure this shit all my life, constantly having to go to confession and reading the bible and bible camps and I can 100% tell you, they will never learn tolerance, we will have to force them too with laws.
|
On March 02 2013 06:25 FromShouri wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 06:21 TheFear wrote:On March 02 2013 06:14 Fake)Plants wrote:On March 02 2013 06:07 farvacola wrote:
TheFear, do you follow each book of the Old Testament with as much specificity as Genesis? Also, on what basis do you justify your denomination's reading of the Bible as "the right one"? I am genuinely curious. I know I sure do. Just this afternoon I sacrificed a lamb to the holy spirit because, of course, "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins." So yeah gay marriage will hopefully pass us by as a legitimate issue in the United States in a few years. Obama might not be great but he has at least given me some hope that this conversation is ending soon. On to marijuana. After Jesus atoned for the sins of mankind by dying on a cross and shedding his innocent blood for us, this kind of sacrifice was no longer called for. To my knowledge it isn't an aspect of modern day Christian living. I would also appreciate it if you didn't take a sarcastic stab at something as to which the dynamics of you've probably made little to no effort to understand. I only assume this based on the erroneous and irreverent nature of your post. Thanks. - Victor N. Funny, you say "modern" day christian living, meaning religion has changed, think maybe it can change to iunno stop hating people for disagreeing with your shitty religion? See what I mean? You have every right to say hateful and hurtful things and your religion is using phrases like "destruction of humanity" "evil" "satan" to describe gay people. Yet when someone tells you how hateful and pathetic your religion is, you get defensive and say they have no right to say things like that. pot calls kettle black much? BTW- I didn't ask your made up prophet to die for me, practice your religion in your homes and in your churches but leave it out of our government and laws.
Modern day Christian living changed simply because of the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross, that's the only reason I used the term "modern". God's character and His commands to us are valid today as they were hundreds or thousands of years ago. I haven't claimed to hate anybody, like I was discussing in my first post you're trying to label me in light of what other Christians may or may have not said. I am my own individual person and I don't fit into a perfect cube that we can call "Hateful Christians". Christians aren't called to hate others, they're called to love. Just like anyone else some of them, including myself, fall short. That's what being human is about, making mistakes and learning from them + making proper adjustments based on those lessons. I haven't labeled someone evil or satanic for being a homosexual, the Bible condemns the action as being a sin just like it does alcoholism, adultery, and lies.
With all due respect you are the one calling my beliefs hateful and my religion pathetic. I was trying to point out something that I think was an uninvited stab at my position. The only reason I was sharing it to begin with is because another user expressed interest in understanding the Christian view as far as I could tell, and I wanted to try to bring light since I noticed a couple of misconceptions I noticed ITT. I didn't come here with any intent to disrespect anyone, unfortunately it doesn't appear that you've taken that same standpoint. Do me a favor and stop putting words in my mouth, one Christian having behaved questionably at one point and offended someone doesn't mean I or all other Christians fit the same label/assumption. I am done posting in this thread for the sake of not derailing the topic at hand. I don't want to stray too far away and it appears that is the direction this is headed. If anyone wants to have a private discussion about these matters you can feel free to consult me via PM, otherwise take it easy.
- Victor N.
|
marriage is first and foremost a civil union, not a religious one. how hard is this to understand?
|
On March 02 2013 06:40 FromShouri wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 06:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 02 2013 06:25 FromShouri wrote:On March 02 2013 06:21 TheFear wrote:On March 02 2013 06:14 Fake)Plants wrote:On March 02 2013 06:07 farvacola wrote:
TheFear, do you follow each book of the Old Testament with as much specificity as Genesis? Also, on what basis do you justify your denomination's reading of the Bible as "the right one"? I am genuinely curious. I know I sure do. Just this afternoon I sacrificed a lamb to the holy spirit because, of course, "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins." So yeah gay marriage will hopefully pass us by as a legitimate issue in the United States in a few years. Obama might not be great but he has at least given me some hope that this conversation is ending soon. On to marijuana. After Jesus atoned for the sins of mankind by dying on a cross and shedding his innocent blood for us, this kind of sacrifice was no longer called for. To my knowledge it isn't an aspect of modern day Christian living. I would also appreciate it if you didn't take a sarcastic stab at something as to which the dynamics of you've probably made little to no effort to understand. I only assume this based on the erroneous and irreverent nature of your post. Thanks. - Victor N. Funny, you say "modern" day christian living, meaning religion has changed, think maybe it can change to iunno stop hating people for disagreeing with your shitty religion? See what I mean? You have every right to say hateful and hurtful things and your religion is using phrases like "destruction of humanity" "evil" "satan" to describe gay people. Yet when someone tells you how hateful and pathetic your religion is, you get defensive and say they have no right to say things like that. pot calls kettle black much? BTW- I didn't ask your made up prophet to die for me, practice your religion in your homes and in your churches but leave it out of our government and laws. i'm not religious, but you come off as quite the jerk in your post. if you want them to tolerate things that dont comport with their beliefs then maybe you should try to exercise some of the same tolerance. Coming from what I've seen in your posts I say the same to you, Pot calling kettle Black Not to mention his tone about someone daring to talk bad about his religion! I was forced to endure this shit all my life, constantly having to go to confession and reading the bible and bible camps and I can 100% tell you, they will never learn tolerance, we will have to force them too with laws.
i am curious what post(s) you are referring to where i did not present my opinion in a tolerant matter.
i could give two shits if you hate religion/religious people--thats your prerogative. but why do you have to do it like an ass? i grew up religious too but still have high respect for religions and religious people in general despite the fact that i dont believe a thing they say. i also dont share your opinion that "they" are unwilling to change their beliefs despite religious doctrine.
On March 02 2013 06:40 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 06:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 02 2013 06:25 FromShouri wrote:On March 02 2013 06:21 TheFear wrote:On March 02 2013 06:14 Fake)Plants wrote:On March 02 2013 06:07 farvacola wrote:
TheFear, do you follow each book of the Old Testament with as much specificity as Genesis? Also, on what basis do you justify your denomination's reading of the Bible as "the right one"? I am genuinely curious. I know I sure do. Just this afternoon I sacrificed a lamb to the holy spirit because, of course, "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins." So yeah gay marriage will hopefully pass us by as a legitimate issue in the United States in a few years. Obama might not be great but he has at least given me some hope that this conversation is ending soon. On to marijuana. After Jesus atoned for the sins of mankind by dying on a cross and shedding his innocent blood for us, this kind of sacrifice was no longer called for. To my knowledge it isn't an aspect of modern day Christian living. I would also appreciate it if you didn't take a sarcastic stab at something as to which the dynamics of you've probably made little to no effort to understand. I only assume this based on the erroneous and irreverent nature of your post. Thanks. - Victor N. Funny, you say "modern" day christian living, meaning religion has changed, think maybe it can change to iunno stop hating people for disagreeing with your shitty religion? See what I mean? You have every right to say hateful and hurtful things and your religion is using phrases like "destruction of humanity" "evil" "satan" to describe gay people. Yet when someone tells you how hateful and pathetic your religion is, you get defensive and say they have no right to say things like that. pot calls kettle black much? BTW- I didn't ask your made up prophet to die for me, practice your religion in your homes and in your churches but leave it out of our government and laws. i'm not religious, but you come off as quite the jerk in your post. if you want them to tolerate things that dont comport with their beliefs then maybe you should try to exercise some of the same tolerance. It's interesting you'd take this stance. Personally I find you to be the one who need to show some tolerance of his obvious irritation and anger, and instead focus on what he's getting at with his message. Then maybe you'd be able to get through to them. + Show Spoiler +Lol, this shit is getting to meta.
tolerate the intolerance. interesting thought.
|
On March 02 2013 06:40 TheFear wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 06:25 FromShouri wrote:On March 02 2013 06:21 TheFear wrote:On March 02 2013 06:14 Fake)Plants wrote:On March 02 2013 06:07 farvacola wrote:
TheFear, do you follow each book of the Old Testament with as much specificity as Genesis? Also, on what basis do you justify your denomination's reading of the Bible as "the right one"? I am genuinely curious. I know I sure do. Just this afternoon I sacrificed a lamb to the holy spirit because, of course, "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins." So yeah gay marriage will hopefully pass us by as a legitimate issue in the United States in a few years. Obama might not be great but he has at least given me some hope that this conversation is ending soon. On to marijuana. After Jesus atoned for the sins of mankind by dying on a cross and shedding his innocent blood for us, this kind of sacrifice was no longer called for. To my knowledge it isn't an aspect of modern day Christian living. I would also appreciate it if you didn't take a sarcastic stab at something as to which the dynamics of you've probably made little to no effort to understand. I only assume this based on the erroneous and irreverent nature of your post. Thanks. - Victor N. Funny, you say "modern" day christian living, meaning religion has changed, think maybe it can change to iunno stop hating people for disagreeing with your shitty religion? See what I mean? You have every right to say hateful and hurtful things and your religion is using phrases like "destruction of humanity" "evil" "satan" to describe gay people. Yet when someone tells you how hateful and pathetic your religion is, you get defensive and say they have no right to say things like that. pot calls kettle black much? BTW- I didn't ask your made up prophet to die for me, practice your religion in your homes and in your churches but leave it out of our government and laws. Modern day Christian living changed simply because of the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross, that's the only reason I used the term "modern". God's character and His commands to us are valid today as they were hundreds or thousands of years ago. I haven't claimed to hate anybody, like I was discussing in my first post you're trying to label me in light of what other Christians may or may have not said. I am my own individual person and I don't fit into a perfect cube that we can call "Hateful Christians". Christians aren't called to hate others, they're called to love. Just like anyone else some of them, including myself, fall short. That's what being human is about, making mistakes and learning from them + making proper adjustments based on those lessons. I haven't labeled someone evil or satanic for being a homosexual, the Bible condemns the action as being a sin just like it does alcoholism, adultery, and lies. With all due respect you are the one calling my beliefs hateful and my religion pathetic. I was trying to point out something that I think was an uninvited stab at my position. The only reason I was sharing it to begin with is because another user expressed interest in understanding the Christian view as far as I could tell, and I wanted to try to bring light since I noticed a couple of misconceptions I noticed ITT. I didn't come here with any intent to disrespect anyone, unfortunately it doesn't appear that you've taken that same standpoint. Do me a favor and stop putting words in my mouth, one Christian having behaved questionably at one point and offended someone doesn't mean I or all other Christians fit the same label/assumption. I am done posting in this thread for the sake of not derailing the topic at hand. I don't want to stray too far away and it appears that is the direction this is headed. If anyone wants to have a private discussion about these matters you can feel free to consult me via PM, otherwise take it easy. - Victor N.
Your own post states that he doesn't understand and no you weren't "trying to teach him something about your religion":
I would also appreciate it if you didn't take a sarcastic stab at something as to which the dynamics of you've probably made little to no effort to understand. I only assume this based on the erroneous and irreverent nature of your post. Thanks.
Nice try saying Im putting words in your mouth considering they came out by your own choice.
And yes, your religion is a plague, you may not "say" these things personally, but I bet you have listened in on a sermon that may not say word for word what I said, but the general message is the same. If you're so "human" and you take into account things that you have done wrong and attempt to fix them, then start with your religion and it's message of hateful tolerance.
|
On March 01 2013 22:50 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 20:15 Blargh wrote:
Zzzzzzz.
Here, I can settle pbj and introvert's argument easily with this. Compromise. You see, our whole society will ONLY ever work if we compromise. This is how humanity has (somehow) managed to survive up until this point. You will never be able to have everything you want, ever, because you will need to compromise, but at least you'll be able to have more than if you didn't compromise. No one will get what they want if no one compromised.
Now, gay people might not be able to do their little marriage ceremony in a religious church, but hey, they can still get all of the same legal rights! (Note: many gay couples cannot even do this in the US)
If you give a shit about equality, go try and fix genetic inequality. That makes far more of a difference than any sexual preference (oh shit, someone mind bring up whether or not genetics influence sexual orientation! hurrdurrrrrrrr!1!)
Why don't you two make a compromise so that the actual discussion can proceed (or whatever there is of one lolx)?
And to answer your question in your edit pbj, I'm fairly certain he doesn't support gay marriage because it goes against what the church believes and that the whole marriage process is pretty much meant specifically for M+F. He's an introvert, he cannot socialize normally with people. Leave him be.
Lastly... @ oneofthem
Safe yourself the effort of herpderping at every single person. You aren't adding anything to the (already mediocre) discussion by quoting someone then saying a sentence. Sorry to ruin the fun for you. tell that to yourself. 1. you don't have to compromise to get what you want, as long as the other guy gives in. driving a hard and credible bargain is the way to get what you want in a negotiation. 2. compromises can happen without wishing or planning or working for one. depending on your political institution, the stronger side can get as much "compromise" as it can make that compromise pass through the teeth of the other. so, a seeming compromise in outcome does not need any party having a midway solution as their objective. given the correct political structure, two guys that want to murder each other can 'compromise' by killing each other as fast as they could manage. the status quo is such that constant action and activism is needed to turn the tide and educate the public about their flawed but attractive moral impulses. this is not a situation that calls for compromise, it calls for clarity and getting your message through undistracted by sugar coating. so yea, your wisdom is pretty generic and misguided.
At least you exerted the effort to make an actual post.
I definitely believe it's a huge issue that gay couples cannot receive a civil union in every state, but that's not what we're arguing over. If you're arguing over that, then I would agree with you.
You interpreted compromise in a rather silly manner. The scenario we are talking about here is that gays want to be able to have a religious marriage. The government made a compromise by not "invading" religion and then offering a civil union. But, both parties are dissatisfied with what they got. BUT YOU NEVER GET EVERYTHING YOU WANT. In order to have a progressive society where we all coexist, we must make a compromise. When two individuals want two different actions that conflict each other, then they must make a compromise. Obviously one side can just say "But I want ALL of the cake, not just half." but then you won't ever get anything done (that's not a compromise, now is it?). In this particular scenario, gay people want to be able to have a religious marriage. Religious people don't want to give it to them. Government offers something which provides every legal benefit but isn't bound by God. Gays are not satisfied. You know what? That's just tough fucking shit man. You get something so very close to "equal" yet still complain? That's just bullshit. If someone cuts the cake and it just so happens that someone got 5% more cake, I'm not going to go say "Hey! That's not fair!"
The difference between a marriage and a civil union is so incredibly small that it's negligible. You won't ever get perfect equality. If you honestly believe that being able to get a official religious marriage as a gay couple instead of just getting a civil union is more important than ALL of the other inequalities out there, then you're just an idiot. Instead of wasting EVERYONE'S TIME AND MONEY AND EFFORT over STUPID-ASS shit, how about they just settle for a civil union? The state government (not all do, which I believe is absolutely retarded by the way) offers a service that provides every legal benefit specifically FOR gay people.
Think of it like an optimization problem. If you want to maximize the area of a square (or rectangle), you want to get as large of a length and height as possible. So, let's pretend that the LENGTH is 'Christians Getting What They Want' and WIDTH is 'Homosexuals Getting What They Want'. Now, obviously, you will not get the greatest area (amount of what people want, in this scenario) by having the width be 95 and the height be 5 [area = 475]. You would get a significantly better "area" if you had the width be 50 and the height be 50 [area = 2500]. The gays aren't getting ALL that they want, but they are getting almost all. In this case, the length (Christians) is probably 55 and the width (Gays) is probably 45. They didn't get all that they wanted, but that's just a compromise they will have to make, at least for the time being.
I do appreciate your attempt, though.
TL;DR
If you're gay, you should always have access to a civil union. If you're a church, you should not be forced to wed a gay couple because that goes against what you believe, and since we're talking about religion here, we just let that shit go.
BUT there is some serious retardation going down if gay couples are still upset over not being able to receive an official religious marriage even with CU's in place. These people need to grow up.
Honestly, this whole entire thread should just be closed because every one of these threads with any relevance whatsoever to gay marriage turns to the EXACT same thing. Someone, go make a super-thread for gay marriage so these half-related conversations (if you can call them that) can go down undisturbed. It'd be like the US Politics Megathread, except all about gay marriage.
Edited for clarity.
|
On March 02 2013 06:40 FromShouri wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 06:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 02 2013 06:25 FromShouri wrote:On March 02 2013 06:21 TheFear wrote:On March 02 2013 06:14 Fake)Plants wrote:On March 02 2013 06:07 farvacola wrote:
TheFear, do you follow each book of the Old Testament with as much specificity as Genesis? Also, on what basis do you justify your denomination's reading of the Bible as "the right one"? I am genuinely curious. I know I sure do. Just this afternoon I sacrificed a lamb to the holy spirit because, of course, "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins." So yeah gay marriage will hopefully pass us by as a legitimate issue in the United States in a few years. Obama might not be great but he has at least given me some hope that this conversation is ending soon. On to marijuana. After Jesus atoned for the sins of mankind by dying on a cross and shedding his innocent blood for us, this kind of sacrifice was no longer called for. To my knowledge it isn't an aspect of modern day Christian living. I would also appreciate it if you didn't take a sarcastic stab at something as to which the dynamics of you've probably made little to no effort to understand. I only assume this based on the erroneous and irreverent nature of your post. Thanks. - Victor N. Funny, you say "modern" day christian living, meaning religion has changed, think maybe it can change to iunno stop hating people for disagreeing with your shitty religion? See what I mean? You have every right to say hateful and hurtful things and your religion is using phrases like "destruction of humanity" "evil" "satan" to describe gay people. Yet when someone tells you how hateful and pathetic your religion is, you get defensive and say they have no right to say things like that. pot calls kettle black much? BTW- I didn't ask your made up prophet to die for me, practice your religion in your homes and in your churches but leave it out of our government and laws. i'm not religious, but you come off as quite the jerk in your post. if you want them to tolerate things that dont comport with their beliefs then maybe you should try to exercise some of the same tolerance. Coming from what I've seen in your posts I say the same to you, Pot calling kettle Black Not to mention his tone about someone daring to talk bad about his religion! I was forced to endure this shit all my life, constantly having to go to confession and reading the bible and bible camps and I can 100% tell you, they will never learn tolerance, we will have to force them too with laws.
You were forced to endure it sounds like you grew up in religion. So were you actually religious or did you never really believe any of it? As someone who used to think homosexuality was a sin, was super religious, and even went to Bible College intending to be a minister I can tell you from first hand experience that people can change.
I agree that we should just change the laws. Denying people happiness because it goes against a religious mandate that's two thousand years old is beyond silly. But just because you change the laws doesn't mean Christians are going to change their opinions on anything. Most Evangelicals still think abortion, alcoholism, and pre-marital sex are sins even though all of those are legal.
Finally, being a douche about their entire religion is pretty unfair. There are plenty of Christians who are okay with homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion, and they believe in evolution. Those kinds of Christians don't try and put their religion into the public agenda.
|
On March 02 2013 06:16 TheFear wrote:
With respect to the stoning of women, there is a very clear instance in the New Testament where Jesus defends a prostitute from being stoned. How can people use that as some sort of detriment to the Bible, when the focal point of all the gospels (the son of God) is clearly not an advocate of it. As a matter of fact, he told people (and I am paraphrasing): "Let he who is without sin (aka: nobody) cast the first stone."
Here is the story in it's entirety based on the Bible in John 8:2-11 (NKJV):
2 Now early[a] in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. 3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught[b] in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded[c] us that such should be stoned.[d] But what do You say?”[e] 6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.[f]
7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up[g] and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience,[h] went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her,[i] “Woman, where are those accusers of yours?[j] Has no one condemned you?”
11 She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and[k] sin no more.”
Does this sound like a book that advocates the stoning of women? It doesn't to me, it's the exact opposite. Yet people insist on ignoring the holistic view of scripture and just focus with a skeptical perspective on the parts that suit their agenda.
- Victor N.
jesus wins this one on a technicality. condemning her requires two witnesses. Since jesus takes away their revenge by taking away their chance at first blood, they leave, and without witnesses she is not allowed to be stoned
|
...focus with a skeptical perspective on the parts that suit their agenda.
A 1000x this. There is so much hatred and bigotry towards religion. Hatred and bigotry are the manifestation of ignorance on a subject that some have no desire to understand because its simply more convenient to ignore the truth while generalizing all religions and religious people.
|
On March 02 2013 06:54 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 06:40 FromShouri wrote:On March 02 2013 06:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 02 2013 06:25 FromShouri wrote:On March 02 2013 06:21 TheFear wrote:On March 02 2013 06:14 Fake)Plants wrote:On March 02 2013 06:07 farvacola wrote:
TheFear, do you follow each book of the Old Testament with as much specificity as Genesis? Also, on what basis do you justify your denomination's reading of the Bible as "the right one"? I am genuinely curious. I know I sure do. Just this afternoon I sacrificed a lamb to the holy spirit because, of course, "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins." So yeah gay marriage will hopefully pass us by as a legitimate issue in the United States in a few years. Obama might not be great but he has at least given me some hope that this conversation is ending soon. On to marijuana. After Jesus atoned for the sins of mankind by dying on a cross and shedding his innocent blood for us, this kind of sacrifice was no longer called for. To my knowledge it isn't an aspect of modern day Christian living. I would also appreciate it if you didn't take a sarcastic stab at something as to which the dynamics of you've probably made little to no effort to understand. I only assume this based on the erroneous and irreverent nature of your post. Thanks. - Victor N. Funny, you say "modern" day christian living, meaning religion has changed, think maybe it can change to iunno stop hating people for disagreeing with your shitty religion? See what I mean? You have every right to say hateful and hurtful things and your religion is using phrases like "destruction of humanity" "evil" "satan" to describe gay people. Yet when someone tells you how hateful and pathetic your religion is, you get defensive and say they have no right to say things like that. pot calls kettle black much? BTW- I didn't ask your made up prophet to die for me, practice your religion in your homes and in your churches but leave it out of our government and laws. i'm not religious, but you come off as quite the jerk in your post. if you want them to tolerate things that dont comport with their beliefs then maybe you should try to exercise some of the same tolerance. Coming from what I've seen in your posts I say the same to you, Pot calling kettle Black Not to mention his tone about someone daring to talk bad about his religion! I was forced to endure this shit all my life, constantly having to go to confession and reading the bible and bible camps and I can 100% tell you, they will never learn tolerance, we will have to force them too with laws. You were forced to endure it sounds like you grew up in religion. So were you actually religious or did you never really believe any of it? As someone who used to think homosexuality was a sin, was super religious, and even went to Bible College intending to be a minister I can tell you from first hand experience that people can change. I agree that we should just change the laws. Denying people happiness because it goes against a religious mandate that's two thousand years old is beyond silly. But just because you change the laws doesn't mean Christians are going to change their opinions on anything. Most Evangelicals still think abortion, alcoholism, and pre-marital sex are sins even though all of those are legal. Finally, being a douche about their entire religion is pretty unfair. There are plenty of Christians who are okay with homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion, and they believe in evolution. Those kinds of Christians don't try and put their religion into the public agenda.
This guys is talking some sense, listen to him. I also come from a Christian background and believed it all for 10+ years until college. In the end it was evolution that changed my beliefs. I totally agree with this change in laws. Christians can still have their marriage as written in the bible and have their right to ban homosexuals from getting married in their own Church, but they should definitely be allowed to be married under state law. Obama probably always planned to do this but had to wait until the 2nd presidency to pass something that is probably gonna be pretty controversial in the US for a while. Ultimately though it will be a great step forward in tolerance for America.
|
On March 01 2013 14:29 aTnClouD wrote:
Huge bigot religious drama shitfest inc
Let me try to interpret this.
It's not alright when religious people believe that homosexual partners should not be able to marry because they believe it is wrong and therefore voice their opinion.
It is alright when people believe that homosexual partners should be able to marry because they believe it is okay and therefore voice their opinion.
Is that a fair assessment?
Correct me where I'm wrong.
I'm not trying to be rude, this is just what it seems like to me and so figure I'm missing something.
|
On March 02 2013 07:12 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 14:29 aTnClouD wrote:
Huge bigot religious drama shitfest inc Let me try to interpret this. It's not alright when religious people believe that homosexual partners should not be able to marry because they believe it is wrong and therefore voice their opinion. It is alright when people believe that homosexual partners should be able to marry because they believe it is okay and therefore voice their opinion. Is that a fair assessment? Correct me where I'm wrong. I'm not trying to be rude, this is just what it seems like to me and so figure I'm missing something.
Why do you think you're missing something? Seems pretty bang on to me. At least when it's in regards to making law and not simply a matter of personal preference.
|
On March 02 2013 07:04 Joedaddy wrote:A 1000x this. There is so much hatred and bigotry towards religion. Hatred and bigotry are the manifestation of ignorance on a subject that some have no desire to understand because its simply more convenient to ignore the truth while generalizing all religions and religious people.
You know that this works also the other way around, right?
Do me a favor, explain to me reasonable, why so many people hate on islam and christians (you see, its not hatred or bigotry towards religion in general, but towards these two religions) - and near to none (i NEVER saw someone doing it) towards for example buddhists?
|
On March 02 2013 07:20 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 07:04 Joedaddy wrote:...focus with a skeptical perspective on the parts that suit their agenda. A 1000x this. There is so much hatred and bigotry towards religion. Hatred and bigotry are the manifestation of ignorance on a subject that some have no desire to understand because its simply more convenient to ignore the truth while generalizing all religions and religious people. You know that this works also the other way around, right? Do me a favor, explain to me reasonable, why so many people hate on islam and christians (you see, its not hatred or bigotry towards religion in general, but towards these two religions) - and near to none (i NEVER saw someone doing it) towards for example buddhists?
same stuff against buddhists, but they don't make up the majority of america/europe or have a huge effect on policies
|
On March 02 2013 07:20 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 07:04 Joedaddy wrote:...focus with a skeptical perspective on the parts that suit their agenda. A 1000x this. There is so much hatred and bigotry towards religion. Hatred and bigotry are the manifestation of ignorance on a subject that some have no desire to understand because its simply more convenient to ignore the truth while generalizing all religions and religious people. You know that this works also the other way around, right? Do me a favor, explain to me reasonable, why so many people hate on islam and christians (you see, its not hatred or bigotry towards religion in general, but towards these two religions) - and near to none (i NEVER saw someone doing it) towards for example buddhists?
this actually got me curious what their beliefs are. from wiki:
Some later traditions do feature sanction of homosexual contact. However, some, including the current Dalai Lama, uphold that any form of sexual expression other than monogamous vaginal sex within a heterosexual relationship violates the Third Precept of Buddhism.
regardless, i think people hate on buddhism less because they are less familiar with it. this is a forum occupied mostly by westerners who have more experience with christianity/islam and most likely little experience with buddhism or other eastern religions.
|
As someone who grew up buddihst I think it has a lot less "preachiness" to it.
No offense with that post but Buddhism is about karma and a good middle road life that is accepting and thoughtful about your after life.
It's way less invasive than most of the other religions and you don't have buddhists on street corners yelling "GOD HATES FAGS"
or even in politics trying to limit the rights of homosexual because of their scripture.
|
On March 02 2013 07:20 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 07:04 Joedaddy wrote:...focus with a skeptical perspective on the parts that suit their agenda. A 1000x this. There is so much hatred and bigotry towards religion. Hatred and bigotry are the manifestation of ignorance on a subject that some have no desire to understand because its simply more convenient to ignore the truth while generalizing all religions and religious people. You know that this works also the other way around, right? Do me a favor, explain to me reasonable, why so many people hate on islam and christians (you see, its not hatred or bigotry towards religion in general, but towards these two religions) - and near to none (i NEVER saw someone doing it) towards for example buddhists?
Do you have any experience with nations in which Buddhism is a major religion?
|
The last thing we should do is listen to some fictional book or its followers when we are trying to get equal rights for everybody. Good thing Obama is pushing this now, who knows how long it would take if you get another few of those religious cooks in the future.
|
What tso and dAPhREAk said. Also check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Buddhists
If it exists, theres probably been persecution against it.
As for those justifying negative behavior towards religion, bigotry is bigotry. In my opinion, people aren't jerks because of their religion, creed, sexuality, beliefs, etc. They're jerks because they're jerks and people from all sorts of associations, groups, and backgrounds can behave with civility or with irrational rage. The fact that they believe that they can fully justify is why bigotry even exists.
Also for a challenge for those bashing Christianity. Here's something you may wanna try out for the hell of it. Don't even consider Christianity at all. Pretend that no religion was the reason for restrictions on homosexuality. Now consider what other factors may have contributed to these restrictions. Could it have been economic? Perhaps prior to modern technology, the only way for the majority of the population to survive was through the traditional family unit and a high reproduction rate. Perhaps it was other social factors, such as misogyny, which I argue is not purely a Christian fault, as many societies and religions developed as such. Perhaps the need for the female/male dynamic was seen as infallible.
Certainly these don't hold true today, but what you should consider is that these factors may go hand and hand with Christianity that one was not necessarily the cause of the other.
|
After reading page 9 & 10 i really really want to go to the States to check out if those "Christians" are indeed as funny as they seem. I was raised christian and i can't believe the same "christians" spread hate although they should spread the love. I don't get it, maybe in Germany the protestant Church is just more "nice"?
Now as far as the news goes, i'm glad. Finally a big hint into the worlds direction to show some support to our friends who want to live their life with another person they love. Gay or not, don't see the matter.
|
On March 02 2013 07:59 Pimpmuckl wrote:
After reading page 9 & 10 i really really want to go to the States to check out if those "Christians" are indeed as funny as they seem. I was raised christian and i can't believe the same "christians" spread hate although they should spread the love. I don't get it, maybe in Germany the protestant Church is just more "nice"?
Now as far as the news goes, i'm glad. Finally a big hint into the worlds direction to show some support to our friends who want to live their life with another person they love. Gay or not, don't see the matter.
It really is the influence of politics
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
using religion as a rationale for prejudice has the hidden implication that your religion bounds you to a certain moral view. this binding is what's really at stake.
why can't you think for yourself, the general refrain.
|
Is anyone even arguing that religious views justify a ban on same sex marriage here? Looks like 11 pages of circlejerking from e-atheists.
|
On March 02 2013 07:19 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 07:12 danl9rm wrote:On March 01 2013 14:29 aTnClouD wrote:
Huge bigot religious drama shitfest inc Let me try to interpret this. It's not alright when religious people believe that homosexual partners should not be able to marry because they believe it is wrong and therefore voice their opinion. It is alright when people believe that homosexual partners should be able to marry because they believe it is okay and therefore voice their opinion. Is that a fair assessment? Correct me where I'm wrong. I'm not trying to be rude, this is just what it seems like to me and so figure I'm missing something. Why do you think you're missing something? Seems pretty bang on to me. At least when it's in regards to making law and not simply a matter of personal preference.
Having a dissenting opinion is fine. Having a dissenting opinion not based on facts, science, empirical and demonstrable evidence, not so much. Claiming that the moon is made of cheese is an opinion. Would you take it seriously?
Also, what on earth inspired some people to think marriage has any roots in religion? It existed as a concept long before any of the monotheistic religions that dominate the world today came into being. It is basically institutionalized prostitution, usually in the form of a father granting exclusive access to his daughter's vagina in exchange for money/land/goods. It's a business agreement, nothing more. It's about as romantic and sacred as the stuff you get between your toes after wearing flip-flops on a really warm day.
For the record, I fully support gay marriage, and fully oppose marriage as a concept. If that made any sense.
|
On March 02 2013 08:05 oneofthem wrote:
using religion as a rationale for prejudice has the hidden implication that your religion bounds you to a certain moral view. this binding is what's really at stake.
why can't you think for yourself, the general refrain.
Well then the answering verse would be "we can and we do."
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 02 2013 08:10 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 08:05 oneofthem wrote:
using religion as a rationale for prejudice has the hidden implication that your religion bounds you to a certain moral view. this binding is what's really at stake.
why can't you think for yourself, the general refrain. Well then the answering verse would be "we can and we do."
doesn't look like it from the outside.
|
On March 02 2013 08:11 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 08:10 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:05 oneofthem wrote:
using religion as a rationale for prejudice has the hidden implication that your religion bounds you to a certain moral view. this binding is what's really at stake.
why can't you think for yourself, the general refrain. Well then the answering verse would be "we can and we do." doesn't look like it from the outside.
i always get "why are you so closed minded?" when expressing how i don't believe the earth is 6000 years old
they really are that blind
|
On March 02 2013 08:11 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 08:10 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:05 oneofthem wrote:
using religion as a rationale for prejudice has the hidden implication that your religion bounds you to a certain moral view. this binding is what's really at stake.
why can't you think for yourself, the general refrain. Well then the answering verse would be "we can and we do." doesn't look like it from the outside.
Come on, I know you see the problems inherent to such a cursory brand of logic. A great number of those who see the utility in lambasting something as expansive as "religion" are simply unable or unwilling to recognize just how much differentiation exists amongst the "religious". Furthermore, the notion that anyone ought to outwardly justify their religious inclinations in order to satisfy some stilted public perspective makes little sense to me, particularly when that public perspective is so obviously flawed.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 02 2013 08:23 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 08:11 oneofthem wrote:On March 02 2013 08:10 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:05 oneofthem wrote:
using religion as a rationale for prejudice has the hidden implication that your religion bounds you to a certain moral view. this binding is what's really at stake.
why can't you think for yourself, the general refrain. Well then the answering verse would be "we can and we do." doesn't look like it from the outside. Come on, I know you see the problems inherent to such a cursory brand of logic. A great number of those who see the utility in lambasting something as expansive as "religion" are simply unable or unwilling to recognize just how much differentiation exists amongst the "religious". Furthermore, the notion that anyone ought to outwardly justify their religious inclinations in order to satisfy some stilted public perspective makes little sense to me, particularly when that public perspective is so obviously flawed.
yea well, religion can be ok, but as a broader social phenomenon it is notable for the powerful hereditary effects. it's one of the pillars of passing on traditions, and that includes traditional prejudices.
of course, one can be religious and reject any and all of the doctrines held by the rest of the religious group. but, even that guy should recognize the above mentioned blind heredity of tradition in religious society.
|
On March 02 2013 08:21 tso wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 08:11 oneofthem wrote:On March 02 2013 08:10 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:05 oneofthem wrote:
using religion as a rationale for prejudice has the hidden implication that your religion bounds you to a certain moral view. this binding is what's really at stake.
why can't you think for yourself, the general refrain. Well then the answering verse would be "we can and we do." doesn't look like it from the outside. i always get "why are you so closed minded?" when expressing how i don't believe the earth is not 6000 years old they really are that blind
I'm sorry if I'm mistaken, but did you just say you believe the earth is 6000 years old? Or that you don't? (double negative)
|
lol earth 6,000 years old. idiots i call them. its actually 10,000 years old.
|
On March 02 2013 08:32 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 08:21 tso wrote:On March 02 2013 08:11 oneofthem wrote:On March 02 2013 08:10 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:05 oneofthem wrote:
using religion as a rationale for prejudice has the hidden implication that your religion bounds you to a certain moral view. this binding is what's really at stake.
why can't you think for yourself, the general refrain. Well then the answering verse would be "we can and we do." doesn't look like it from the outside. i always get "why are you so closed minded?" when expressing how i don't believe the earth is not 6000 years old they really are that blind I'm sorry if I'm mistaken, but did you just say you believe the earth is 6000 years old? Or that you don't? (double negative)
lol fixed. an unfortunate negative there
|
On March 02 2013 08:31 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 08:23 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:11 oneofthem wrote:On March 02 2013 08:10 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:05 oneofthem wrote:
using religion as a rationale for prejudice has the hidden implication that your religion bounds you to a certain moral view. this binding is what's really at stake.
why can't you think for yourself, the general refrain. Well then the answering verse would be "we can and we do." doesn't look like it from the outside. Come on, I know you see the problems inherent to such a cursory brand of logic. A great number of those who see the utility in lambasting something as expansive as "religion" are simply unable or unwilling to recognize just how much differentiation exists amongst the "religious". Furthermore, the notion that anyone ought to outwardly justify their religious inclinations in order to satisfy some stilted public perspective makes little sense to me, particularly when that public perspective is so obviously flawed. yea well, religion can be ok, but as a broader social phenomenon it is notable for the powerful hereditary effects. it's one of the pillars of passing on traditions, and that includes traditional prejudices. of course, one can be religious and reject any and all of the doctrines held by the rest of the religious group. but, even that guy should recognize the above mentioned blind heredity of tradition in religious society.
That sounds far more reasonable, and believe me when I tell you that there do exist entire congregations of "Christians" who consider it their spiritual duty to indict tradition and challenge "the moral establishment" as much as they can. Many atheists and agnostics would be surprised to know just how many religious folk are actually "on their side", if only they'd drop the surface level hyperbolic judgements.
|
1. its about time, democratic presidents always have this giant problem of growing their balls on the bottom of their feet so they pussyfoot around every issue ~.~ seriously
2. it doesnt make you morally superior for believing in creationism or evolution. the same fundamental reason that you or anyone believes evolution is the same reason that someone believes creationsim: someone told you, probably starting at a young age that it was so. for all we know tomorrow the fuckign Xel Naga will land and tell us that evolution is bullshit and they made everyone. well haha for you morally superior prick.
3. if you take the second most important law (love thy neighbor, after love the lord your god which we shall ignore because that is a non-secular one), then there is no reason to ban gay marriage. if the term marriage was not used in over 1100 places in legislation that defines everything from the tax code to the most inane of topics, then whatever. but if in keeping your beliefs hurts someone else, that is fundamentally wrong. It matters little whether someone hates gays or loves gays or doesnt care, so far as it not affect someone
4. hate the players, not the game
|
On March 02 2013 08:48 CeriseCherries wrote:
the same fundamental reason that you or anyone believes evolution is the same reason that someone believes creationsim: someone told you, probably starting at a young age that it was so. for all we know tomorrow the fuckign Xel Naga will land and tell us that evolution is bullshit and they made everyone. well haha for you morally superior prick.
evidence > holy book
|
On March 02 2013 08:54 tso wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 08:48 CeriseCherries wrote:
the same fundamental reason that you or anyone believes evolution is the same reason that someone believes creationsim: someone told you, probably starting at a young age that it was so. for all we know tomorrow the fuckign Xel Naga will land and tell us that evolution is bullshit and they made everyone. well haha for you morally superior prick. evidence > holy book
How did you learn what the word "evidence" meant?
|
On March 02 2013 08:48 CeriseCherries wrote:
2. it doesnt make you morally superior for believing in creationism or evolution. the same fundamental reason that you or anyone believes evolution is the same reason that someone believes creationsim: someone told you, probably starting at a young age that it was so. for all we know tomorrow the fuckign Xel Naga will land and tell us that evolution is bullshit and they made everyone. well haha for you morally superior prick.
You don't "believe" in evolution any more than you "believe" in gravity, you accept it as fact after studying the available data.
It has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with reality.
|
On March 02 2013 08:56 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 08:54 tso wrote:On March 02 2013 08:48 CeriseCherries wrote:
the same fundamental reason that you or anyone believes evolution is the same reason that someone believes creationsim: someone told you, probably starting at a young age that it was so. for all we know tomorrow the fuckign Xel Naga will land and tell us that evolution is bullshit and they made everyone. well haha for you morally superior prick. evidence > holy book How did you learn what the word "evidence" meant?
A dictionary. And school.
|
On March 02 2013 08:56 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 08:54 tso wrote:On March 02 2013 08:48 CeriseCherries wrote:
the same fundamental reason that you or anyone believes evolution is the same reason that someone believes creationsim: someone told you, probably starting at a young age that it was so. for all we know tomorrow the fuckign Xel Naga will land and tell us that evolution is bullshit and they made everyone. well haha for you morally superior prick. evidence > holy book How did you learn what the word "evidence" meant?
you can't possibly be indicating the beliefs of those who accept evolution as having the same foundation of the likes of christian scientists and holy rollers
|
On March 02 2013 09:00 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 08:56 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:54 tso wrote:On March 02 2013 08:48 CeriseCherries wrote:
the same fundamental reason that you or anyone believes evolution is the same reason that someone believes creationsim: someone told you, probably starting at a young age that it was so. for all we know tomorrow the fuckign Xel Naga will land and tell us that evolution is bullshit and they made everyone. well haha for you morally superior prick. evidence > holy book How did you learn what the word "evidence" meant? A dictionary. And school.
Where did you learn to value such things?
And to tso, no, I'm not.
|
On March 02 2013 07:19 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 07:12 danl9rm wrote:On March 01 2013 14:29 aTnClouD wrote:
Huge bigot religious drama shitfest inc Let me try to interpret this. It's not alright when religious people believe that homosexual partners should not be able to marry because they believe it is wrong and therefore voice their opinion. It is alright when people believe that homosexual partners should be able to marry because they believe it is okay and therefore voice their opinion. Is that a fair assessment? Correct me where I'm wrong. I'm not trying to be rude, this is just what it seems like to me and so figure I'm missing something. Why do you think you're missing something? Seems pretty bang on to me. At least when it's in regards to making law and not simply a matter of personal preference.
So, religious people voicing their opinion is wrong with regards to law, but irreligious people voicing their opinion, with regards to the law, is ok?
|
On March 02 2013 09:06 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 09:00 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 08:56 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:54 tso wrote:On March 02 2013 08:48 CeriseCherries wrote:
the same fundamental reason that you or anyone believes evolution is the same reason that someone believes creationsim: someone told you, probably starting at a young age that it was so. for all we know tomorrow the fuckign Xel Naga will land and tell us that evolution is bullshit and they made everyone. well haha for you morally superior prick. evidence > holy book How did you learn what the word "evidence" meant? A dictionary. And school. Where did you learn to value such things? And to tso, no, I'm not.
stop being a contrarian
|
On March 02 2013 09:06 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 09:00 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 08:56 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:54 tso wrote:On March 02 2013 08:48 CeriseCherries wrote:
the same fundamental reason that you or anyone believes evolution is the same reason that someone believes creationsim: someone told you, probably starting at a young age that it was so. for all we know tomorrow the fuckign Xel Naga will land and tell us that evolution is bullshit and they made everyone. well haha for you morally superior prick. evidence > holy book How did you learn what the word "evidence" meant? A dictionary. And school. Where did you learn to value such things? And to tso, no, I'm not.
By using my evolved primate brain to realize that knowledge is valuable, and also something I desire on a personal level. I genuinely care if what I think is true actually is true.
And the knowledge my brain has encouraged my to acquire tells me homosexuality is perfectly natural, that it is frequently observed in nature in many different species, and is integral to our genetic heritage. It is not a lifestyle, it is not a choice, any more than skintone or the colour of your eyes. And as such, it deserves to be treated the same as heterosexuality.
|
On March 02 2013 09:15 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 09:06 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 09:00 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 08:56 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:54 tso wrote:On March 02 2013 08:48 CeriseCherries wrote:
the same fundamental reason that you or anyone believes evolution is the same reason that someone believes creationsim: someone told you, probably starting at a young age that it was so. for all we know tomorrow the fuckign Xel Naga will land and tell us that evolution is bullshit and they made everyone. well haha for you morally superior prick. evidence > holy book How did you learn what the word "evidence" meant? A dictionary. And school. Where did you learn to value such things? And to tso, no, I'm not. By using my evolved primate brain to realize that knowledge is valuable, and also something I desire on a personal level. I genuinely care if what I think is true actually is true.
Are you suggesting that the realization that "knowledge is valuable" came upon you like the fetal Jesus did Mary?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
just because history went through a religious phase doesn't mean we need to go to catholic school to learn about the importance of science. etc
|
On March 02 2013 09:21 oneofthem wrote:
just because history went through a religious phase doesn't mean we need to go to catholic school to learn about the importance of science. etc
Of course not, that has very little to do with what I am speaking. I'm simply playing a game with the notion that far too many people forget or ignore what "knowledge" is and how as humans come upon it.
|
On March 02 2013 09:17 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 09:15 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 09:06 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 09:00 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 08:56 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:54 tso wrote:On March 02 2013 08:48 CeriseCherries wrote:
the same fundamental reason that you or anyone believes evolution is the same reason that someone believes creationsim: someone told you, probably starting at a young age that it was so. for all we know tomorrow the fuckign Xel Naga will land and tell us that evolution is bullshit and they made everyone. well haha for you morally superior prick. evidence > holy book How did you learn what the word "evidence" meant? A dictionary. And school. Where did you learn to value such things? And to tso, no, I'm not. By using my evolved primate brain to realize that knowledge is valuable, and also something I desire on a personal level. I genuinely care if what I think is true actually is true. Are you suggesting that the realization that "knowledge is valuable" came upon you like the fetal Jesus did Mary?
No, it was a gradual process, both from my own internal maturation process, as well as parents challenging me on what I learned in school and outside of it, making me question and making me learn the most essential skill for any child, critical thinking.
But you are going off topic here, suffice it to say it is in our most basic nature to seek knowledge.
|
On March 02 2013 09:15 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 09:06 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 09:00 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 08:56 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:54 tso wrote:On March 02 2013 08:48 CeriseCherries wrote:
the same fundamental reason that you or anyone believes evolution is the same reason that someone believes creationsim: someone told you, probably starting at a young age that it was so. for all we know tomorrow the fuckign Xel Naga will land and tell us that evolution is bullshit and they made everyone. well haha for you morally superior prick. evidence > holy book How did you learn what the word "evidence" meant? A dictionary. And school. Where did you learn to value such things? And to tso, no, I'm not. By using my evolved primate brain to realize that knowledge is valuable, and also something I desire on a personal level. I genuinely care if what I think is true actually is true. And the knowledge my brain has encouraged my to acquire tells me homosexuality is perfectly natural, that it is frequently observed in nature in many different species, and is integral to our genetic heritage. It is not a lifestyle, it is not a choice, any more than skintone or the colour of your eyes. And as such, it deserves to be treated the same as heterosexuality.
i am curious what you mean by "integral to our genetic heritage." it seems to me that it would be irrelevant to our genetic heritage because it prevents procreation.
|
On March 02 2013 09:08 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 07:19 Tachion wrote:On March 02 2013 07:12 danl9rm wrote:On March 01 2013 14:29 aTnClouD wrote:
Huge bigot religious drama shitfest inc Let me try to interpret this. It's not alright when religious people believe that homosexual partners should not be able to marry because they believe it is wrong and therefore voice their opinion. It is alright when people believe that homosexual partners should be able to marry because they believe it is okay and therefore voice their opinion. Is that a fair assessment? Correct me where I'm wrong. I'm not trying to be rude, this is just what it seems like to me and so figure I'm missing something. Why do you think you're missing something? Seems pretty bang on to me. At least when it's in regards to making law and not simply a matter of personal preference. So, religious people voicing their opinion is wrong with regards to law, but irreligious people voicing their opinion, with regards to the law, is ok?
No, a religious person can express their opinion or propose a law, however they should require a secular justification or argument for it to be legislated. You can't just be like "because my holy book says so." That's what separation of church and state is for.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 02 2013 09:23 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 09:21 oneofthem wrote:
just because history went through a religious phase doesn't mean we need to go to catholic school to learn about the importance of science. etc Of course not, that has very little to do with what I am speaking. I'm simply playing a game with the notion that far too many people forget or ignore what "knowledge" is and how as humans come upon it.
what do you mean. how did humans come upon knowledge when humans didn't design the human brain
|
On March 02 2013 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 09:15 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 09:06 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 09:00 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 08:56 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:54 tso wrote:On March 02 2013 08:48 CeriseCherries wrote:
the same fundamental reason that you or anyone believes evolution is the same reason that someone believes creationsim: someone told you, probably starting at a young age that it was so. for all we know tomorrow the fuckign Xel Naga will land and tell us that evolution is bullshit and they made everyone. well haha for you morally superior prick. evidence > holy book How did you learn what the word "evidence" meant? A dictionary. And school. Where did you learn to value such things? And to tso, no, I'm not. By using my evolved primate brain to realize that knowledge is valuable, and also something I desire on a personal level. I genuinely care if what I think is true actually is true. And the knowledge my brain has encouraged my to acquire tells me homosexuality is perfectly natural, that it is frequently observed in nature in many different species, and is integral to our genetic heritage. It is not a lifestyle, it is not a choice, any more than skintone or the colour of your eyes. And as such, it deserves to be treated the same as heterosexuality. i am curious what you mean by "integral to our genetic heritage." it seems to me that it would be irrelevant to our genetic heritage because it prevents procreation.
Homosexuality doesn't prevent procreation though I'm sure it does hinder it in many cases. Homosexual family members can also help raise children thus providing additional fitness to people that share their genes.
|
On March 02 2013 09:23 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 09:17 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 09:15 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 09:06 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 09:00 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 08:56 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:54 tso wrote:On March 02 2013 08:48 CeriseCherries wrote:
the same fundamental reason that you or anyone believes evolution is the same reason that someone believes creationsim: someone told you, probably starting at a young age that it was so. for all we know tomorrow the fuckign Xel Naga will land and tell us that evolution is bullshit and they made everyone. well haha for you morally superior prick. evidence > holy book How did you learn what the word "evidence" meant? A dictionary. And school. Where did you learn to value such things? And to tso, no, I'm not. By using my evolved primate brain to realize that knowledge is valuable, and also something I desire on a personal level. I genuinely care if what I think is true actually is true. Are you suggesting that the realization that "knowledge is valuable" came upon you like the fetal Jesus did Mary? No, it was a gradual process, both from my own internal maturation process, as well as parents challenging me on what I learned in school and outside of it, making me question and making me learn the most essential skill for any child, critical thinking. But you are going off topic here, suffice it to say it is in our most basic nature to seek knowledge.
The manner in which the average person conceives of religious thought or knowledge is very much on topic. And I'm quite glad that you mentioned parents, because that is the essence of what I am hinting at. You've had education, parenting, and reading experience to help lead you to where you are now. Now lets use some of that "critical thinking" and consider how those amongst us without the grace of caring parents, an unbiased history book, or even an environment that encourages healthy skepticism while growing up might come to a different place, and why simply pointing the finger of rationality at them and laughing will probably only further entrench their worldview.
|
On March 02 2013 09:35 GogoKodo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 02 2013 09:15 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 09:06 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 09:00 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 08:56 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:54 tso wrote:On March 02 2013 08:48 CeriseCherries wrote:
the same fundamental reason that you or anyone believes evolution is the same reason that someone believes creationsim: someone told you, probably starting at a young age that it was so. for all we know tomorrow the fuckign Xel Naga will land and tell us that evolution is bullshit and they made everyone. well haha for you morally superior prick. evidence > holy book How did you learn what the word "evidence" meant? A dictionary. And school. Where did you learn to value such things? And to tso, no, I'm not. By using my evolved primate brain to realize that knowledge is valuable, and also something I desire on a personal level. I genuinely care if what I think is true actually is true. And the knowledge my brain has encouraged my to acquire tells me homosexuality is perfectly natural, that it is frequently observed in nature in many different species, and is integral to our genetic heritage. It is not a lifestyle, it is not a choice, any more than skintone or the colour of your eyes. And as such, it deserves to be treated the same as heterosexuality. i am curious what you mean by "integral to our genetic heritage." it seems to me that it would be irrelevant to our genetic heritage because it prevents procreation. Homosexuality doesn't prevent procreation though I'm sure it does hinder it in many cases. Homosexual family members can also help raise children thus providing additional fitness to people that share their genes.
unless i'm missing some new scientific breakthrough, it hinders it in every case. adopting children is irrelevant to genetics since you don't pass on your genes. regardless, i am just trying to figure out what the guy meant by it being integral.
|
On March 02 2013 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 09:15 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 09:06 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 09:00 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 08:56 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:54 tso wrote:On March 02 2013 08:48 CeriseCherries wrote:
the same fundamental reason that you or anyone believes evolution is the same reason that someone believes creationsim: someone told you, probably starting at a young age that it was so. for all we know tomorrow the fuckign Xel Naga will land and tell us that evolution is bullshit and they made everyone. well haha for you morally superior prick. evidence > holy book How did you learn what the word "evidence" meant? A dictionary. And school. Where did you learn to value such things? And to tso, no, I'm not. By using my evolved primate brain to realize that knowledge is valuable, and also something I desire on a personal level. I genuinely care if what I think is true actually is true. And the knowledge my brain has encouraged my to acquire tells me homosexuality is perfectly natural, that it is frequently observed in nature in many different species, and is integral to our genetic heritage. It is not a lifestyle, it is not a choice, any more than skintone or the colour of your eyes. And as such, it deserves to be treated the same as heterosexuality. i am curious what you mean by "integral to our genetic heritage." it seems to me that it would be irrelevant to our genetic heritage because it prevents procreation.
Integral may have been a poor choice of words, inextricable may be a better term.
And it does serve an evolutionary purpose, it allows for a measure of population control, and can also allow for more males to facilitate hunting/gathering without causing more breeding-related conflicts. Regardless, it is, and has likely always been, a part of our genetic makeup. It's been said by more than one credible scientist in the field that everyone is bisexual to some degree, it's just a matter of how much.
|
Way to go Obama! It was wise to name my desktop computer after you back when you were sworn-in in the beginning of 2009. Both have been great.
|
On March 02 2013 09:39 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 09:23 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 09:17 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 09:15 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 09:06 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 09:00 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 08:56 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:54 tso wrote:On March 02 2013 08:48 CeriseCherries wrote:
the same fundamental reason that you or anyone believes evolution is the same reason that someone believes creationsim: someone told you, probably starting at a young age that it was so. for all we know tomorrow the fuckign Xel Naga will land and tell us that evolution is bullshit and they made everyone. well haha for you morally superior prick. evidence > holy book How did you learn what the word "evidence" meant? A dictionary. And school. Where did you learn to value such things? And to tso, no, I'm not. By using my evolved primate brain to realize that knowledge is valuable, and also something I desire on a personal level. I genuinely care if what I think is true actually is true. Are you suggesting that the realization that "knowledge is valuable" came upon you like the fetal Jesus did Mary? No, it was a gradual process, both from my own internal maturation process, as well as parents challenging me on what I learned in school and outside of it, making me question and making me learn the most essential skill for any child, critical thinking. But you are going off topic here, suffice it to say it is in our most basic nature to seek knowledge. The manner in which the average person conceives of religious thought or knowledge is very much on topic. And I'm quite glad that you mentioned parents, because that is the essence of what I am hinting at. You've had education, parenting, and reading experience to help lead you to where you are now. Now lets use some of that "critical thinking" and consider how those amongst us without the grace of caring parents, an unbiased history book, or even an environment that encourages healthy skepticism while growing up might come to a different place, and why simply pointing the finger of rationality at them and laughing will probably only further entrench their worldview.
There is no laughter, and only occasional derision.
I don't hate people for being ignorant, I'm ignorant about plenty of stuff. But I do resent willful ignorance, the obtuse refusal to use the amazing wealth of knowledge we have gathered, and have now made available to everyone with internet access. Everyone with some degree of curiosity and imagination can acquire practically any information in the world in five minutes or less.
It seems perverse to me to have an ironclad opinion on a subject you have not even bothered researching on a basic level. I never make a bold statement on a topic without trying to learn whether what I say actually is true or not. Sometimes I fail. But at least I make the attempt to understand. And on this one, I feel pretty confident.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's also pretty unfair to those who are not prejudiced against religious people when you think that any criticism of religion has to come from prejudice.
if someone's not 'believing' in evolution etc is ignorant, and pointing out that ignorance makes the guy seem ignorant. this is not really the same as calling him an ignorant shithead as an insult. it's just an unfortunate fact.
the cultural relativist's "don't insult the culturally less privileged" is a form of hands off privilege. certainly, when you have a young earth creationist who hates fags etc, astrophysics is just another magical fairytale to him, and you probably won't get anywhere with that line of argument. however, this is not to say it's impossible for that guy to learn and know better, it's just a harder task to teach him.
|
On March 02 2013 09:08 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 07:19 Tachion wrote:On March 02 2013 07:12 danl9rm wrote:On March 01 2013 14:29 aTnClouD wrote:
Huge bigot religious drama shitfest inc Let me try to interpret this. It's not alright when religious people believe that homosexual partners should not be able to marry because they believe it is wrong and therefore voice their opinion. It is alright when people believe that homosexual partners should be able to marry because they believe it is okay and therefore voice their opinion. Is that a fair assessment? Correct me where I'm wrong. I'm not trying to be rude, this is just what it seems like to me and so figure I'm missing something. Why do you think you're missing something? Seems pretty bang on to me. At least when it's in regards to making law and not simply a matter of personal preference. So, religious people voicing their opinion is wrong with regards to law, but irreligious people voicing their opinion, with regards to the law, is ok?
It's not specific to religious people, but to anyone who has beliefs that trample on the civil rights of others. I can believe all I want that blacks and whites should not be able to get married, but trying to propose that into law would be a terrible offense to those whom it would affect. In this case, the purpose of the marriage laws are to protect the fabric of our society, and discrimination against gays simply should not be a part of that, as we've proven time and time again with other discrimination our society has done away with.
|
On March 02 2013 10:01 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 09:08 danl9rm wrote:On March 02 2013 07:19 Tachion wrote:On March 02 2013 07:12 danl9rm wrote:On March 01 2013 14:29 aTnClouD wrote:
Huge bigot religious drama shitfest inc Let me try to interpret this. It's not alright when religious people believe that homosexual partners should not be able to marry because they believe it is wrong and therefore voice their opinion. It is alright when people believe that homosexual partners should be able to marry because they believe it is okay and therefore voice their opinion. Is that a fair assessment? Correct me where I'm wrong. I'm not trying to be rude, this is just what it seems like to me and so figure I'm missing something. Why do you think you're missing something? Seems pretty bang on to me. At least when it's in regards to making law and not simply a matter of personal preference. So, religious people voicing their opinion is wrong with regards to law, but irreligious people voicing their opinion, with regards to the law, is ok? It's not specific to religious people, but to anyone who has beliefs that trample on the civil rights of others. I can believe all I want that blacks and whites should not be able to get married, but trying to propose that into law would be a terrible offense to those whom it would affect. In this case, the purpose of the marriage laws are to protect the fabric of our society, and discrimination against gays simply should not be a part of that, as we've proven time and time again with other discrimination our society has done away with.
Quoted just in case this ends up being missed. Things like this aren't JUST about religious people, or about gays, despite the current context..
|
On March 02 2013 09:47 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 09:39 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 09:23 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 09:17 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 09:15 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 09:06 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 09:00 McBengt wrote:On March 02 2013 08:56 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:54 tso wrote:On March 02 2013 08:48 CeriseCherries wrote:
the same fundamental reason that you or anyone believes evolution is the same reason that someone believes creationsim: someone told you, probably starting at a young age that it was so. for all we know tomorrow the fuckign Xel Naga will land and tell us that evolution is bullshit and they made everyone. well haha for you morally superior prick. evidence > holy book How did you learn what the word "evidence" meant? A dictionary. And school. Where did you learn to value such things? And to tso, no, I'm not. By using my evolved primate brain to realize that knowledge is valuable, and also something I desire on a personal level. I genuinely care if what I think is true actually is true. Are you suggesting that the realization that "knowledge is valuable" came upon you like the fetal Jesus did Mary? No, it was a gradual process, both from my own internal maturation process, as well as parents challenging me on what I learned in school and outside of it, making me question and making me learn the most essential skill for any child, critical thinking. But you are going off topic here, suffice it to say it is in our most basic nature to seek knowledge. The manner in which the average person conceives of religious thought or knowledge is very much on topic. And I'm quite glad that you mentioned parents, because that is the essence of what I am hinting at. You've had education, parenting, and reading experience to help lead you to where you are now. Now lets use some of that "critical thinking" and consider how those amongst us without the grace of caring parents, an unbiased history book, or even an environment that encourages healthy skepticism while growing up might come to a different place, and why simply pointing the finger of rationality at them and laughing will probably only further entrench their worldview. There is no laughter, and only occasional derision. I don't hate people for being ignorant, I'm ignorant about plenty of stuff. But I do resent willful ignorance, the obtuse refusal to use the amazing wealth of knowledge we have gathered, and have now made available to everyone with internet access. Everyone with some degree of curiosity and imagination can acquire practically any information in the world in five minutes or less. It seems perverse to me to have an ironclad opinion on a subject you have not even bothered researching on a basic level. I never make a bold statement on a topic without trying to learn whether what I say actually is true or not. Sometimes I fail. But at least I make the attempt to understand. And on this one, I feel pretty confident.
You are right to point out the utility in the access to information provided by the internet; more is indeed at an individuals fingertips in terms of knowledge than ever before. The problem deals not in access but in mediation; the internet cannot tell a user what to type into that search window, nor can it disabuse a user from whatever place they argue from. In fact, I think such access without mediation has only fed into the paradigm of misplaced skepticism and obtuse ideology. I do not think it coincidental that Of Pandas and People, considered by most to be the source of the term "intelligent design" in popular use, was only published in 1989, almost directly alongside the procession of the internet as we know it. My point is that I think you are discounting your upbringing and place of origin a bit too much when you consider healthy critical skepticism so ubiquitous; I think that there are places here in the United States that, had you been given the chance to visit them, would most certainly change your mind in regards to just how different people and their upbringings can be.
On March 02 2013 09:50 oneofthem wrote:
it's also pretty unfair to those who are not prejudiced against religious people when you think that any criticism of religion has to come from prejudice.
if someone's not 'believing' in evolution etc is ignorant, and pointing out that ignorance makes the guy seem ignorant. this is not really the same as calling him an ignorant shithead as an insult. it's just an unfortunate fact.
the cultural relativist's "don't insult the culturally less privileged" is a form of hands off privilege. certainly, when you have a young earth creationist who hates fags etc, astrophysics is just another magical fairytale to him, and you probably won't get anywhere with that line of argument. however, this is not to say it's impossible for that guy to learn and know better, it's just a harder task to teach him.
I apologize if I gave you the impression that I was arguing against criticism of religion in all forms, I swear I am very much about criticizing every institution, the Church included. And I am most certainly not a cultural relativist; I firmly believe that every Creationist and bigot who relies on flimsy ideology to justify their ignorance deserves their fair share of ridicule. What concerns me is how easy it is to allow the obvious and loud images of the clearly stupid agglomerate into definitive understandings of groups of people like "Christians" or "religious" people, without enough attention paid to the relatively quiet masses of likely doubt-ridden but good and tolerant believers who consider themselves religious for a host of non-doctrinal reasons. If a productive societal discourse is to take place between the religious and the non, both sides need to figure out how to be more persuasive rather than pointed. Which basically means we agree.
|
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem?
|
On March 02 2013 11:41 farvacola wrote:
You are right to point out the utility in the access to information provided by the internet; more is indeed at an individuals fingertips in terms of knowledge than ever before. The problem deals not in access but in mediation; the internet cannot tell a user what to type into that search window, nor can it disabuse a user from whatever place they argue from. In fact, I think such access without mediation has only fed into the paradigm of misplaced skepticism and obtuse ideology. I do not think it coincidental that Of Pandas and People, considered by most to be the source of the term "intelligent design" in popular use, was only published in 1989, almost directly alongside the procession of the internet as we know it. My point is that I think you are discounting your upbringing and place of origin a bit too much when you consider healthy critical skepticism so ubiquitous; I think that there are places here in the United States that, had you been given the chance to visit them, would most certainly change your mind in regards to just how different people and their upbringings can be.
This may come as a surprise, but I actually have visited places like those you describe. I've been to creationist museums and listened to preachers ranting about how homosexuality is a device of satan, used to corrupt mankind in the eyes of god. It's one of the reasons I feel so strongly about this, I've seen how blind faith can ruin otherwise good, caring people and seduce them into the admittedly highly alluring world of us and them. I see homophobia as a direct result of this insular echo chamber.
Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think any person mentally stable enough to form a coherent sentence is so lost that he or she could not be moved if enough proof was presented.
And it makes a move like the president's even more important, for better or worse he's basically taken it upon himself to drag the reductionists and angry social conservatives kicking and screaming into the twenty first century. Not a task I envy him, but one I admire him for shouldering.
|
How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people.
On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem?
Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try...
If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll*
|
On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem?
Lol! Close this thread now! It is really actually this simple! LOL good job sir!
|
Oh god, I'm getting out of here...
|
On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll*
Because...
if you are against guns...
and even if you don't own a gun...
others with guns can still shoot you!
|
On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll*
While I see where your coming from I really hope your not serious. The issue is not as simple as that for many people I agree.
.
You comparison is awful, guns in households increase likelihood of accidental death or a suicide, and they can be used to harm other individuals. This is not to say that there is not a good use for guns, but come on...
Lgbtq groups being suppressed by our society causes suicides, quite a bit, gay teens have a very alarming suicide rate and sometimes though not as often at all, violent crimes against them for their sexuality. More acceptance within our laws will set an example that it's ok., I'm not just talking about marriage equality here, I'm talking people not being accepted by their parents and communities and friends. People losing their jobs or careers over sexual orientation.
If you could stick with, it's more complicated than that, maybe I'm being too technical.
Props to Obama I hope real chsnge comes from this, and not just gay marriage, that is only a small part of the change needed to bring equality to the united states.
|
On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll*
So true! They are really similar, like if someone with issues can get a gun then shoots someone with it... other people get hurt! And if some faggots marry it's all unnatural and shit so god will smite us with lightning bolts.
User was warned for this post
|
On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll*
You've touched upon something more interesting there than you know. Being against "gay marriage" or "guns" is a pretty ambiguous statement. More exact statements could be I am against "two men marrying each other" and "being shot by a person using a gun".
One of those things involves and affects you, the other doesn't.
|
Well hell,
it's
about
time.
Props to the good americans out there who backed obama leading to awesome moments like this!
|
On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll*
And other people getting same-sex marriage affects you how, exactly?
|
People just don't have any respect for religions anymore, yet they still want to be part of them just so they can get "married", just accepting the convenient parts of the religion and ignoring all the rest. Your average christian thinks the Bible is a silly boogie story. This is so wrong and I sincerely wish people would just leave marriage to those who actually think it's a spiritual ceremony instead of a nice little tradition with no other meaning than legislative. I respect those people who leave the church when they grow up and realise they don't believe any of it, and roll my eyes to those who belittle the foundations of christianity yet refuse to give up on church, and better yet try to force their values into it and want their voice to be heard in church. Have a little respect to those "unintelligent" people who still believe in God and think marriage is sacred. The bible is pretty clear about marriage being a pact between a man and a woman. Christianity is a religion, in other words it has it's basis in belief instead of rational thinking that would suggest marriage does not look at sexual preference, end of story. A buddhist cannot take part in marriage, is that against equal rights too? I mean that must be the case since whatever bible says marriage is about clearly doesn't matter and after all a buddhist is equal to everyone else.
|
I'm all for homosexuals getting married, but without any financial benefits that are meant to encourage married couples to have children. And religious institutions should not be forced to let homosexuals marry. Those two reservations I think are sensible.
@duckmaster
Marriage is not exclusive to religion... Your level of ignorance is astounding.
|
On March 02 2013 20:21 duckmaster wrote:
People just don't have any respect for religions anymore, yet they still want to be part of them just so they can get "married", just accepting the convenient parts of the religion and ignoring all the rest. Your average christian thinks the Bible is a silly boogie story. This is so wrong and I sincerely wish people would just leave marriage to those who actually think it's a spiritual ceremony instead of a nice little tradition with no other meaning than legislative. I respect those people who leave the church when they grow up and realise they don't believe any of it, and roll my eyes to those who belittle the foundations of christianity yet refuse to give up on church, and better yet try to force their values into it and want their voice to be heard in church. Have a little respect to those "unintelligent" people who still believe in God and think marriage is sacred. The bible is pretty clear about marriage being a pact between a man and a woman. Christianity is a religion, in other words it has it's basis in belief instead of rational thinking that would suggest marriage does not look at sexual preference, end of story. A buddhist cannot take part in marriage, is that against equal rights too? I mean that must be the case since whatever bible says marriage is about clearly doesn't matter and after all a buddhist is equal to everyone else.
Marriage is not the purview of christianity, or any religion. It is a secular, legal contract that was appropriated by religions to gain temporal power.
|
I'll preface this by saying, i do believe gays should be allowed to marry, but i don't believe churches should be forced to go against their beliefs to give gays a marriage "ceremony" in their church. You can't just take away one person's rights in order to give another person rights. And as wrong as their (the religious anti-homosexuality) belief is, you can't make laws forcing a religion to change or make laws forcing people to change their religious beliefs (that's definitely in the constitution). It's not about people being for/against any certain religion, it's about making laws for/against any certain religion.
The only point I really think a lot of you are missing is
The administration said unequivocally in a friend-of-the-court brief filed late on Thursday that gay marriage should be allowed to resume in California, where citizens voted to bar it in a 2008 referendum known as Proposition 8.
and The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn California's
This is a dangerous precedent. The problem is, it's setting up the Supreme Court to be the #1 power over all laws of the country, basically throwing out the "checks and balances" that our government is supposed to have. After this, what's to stop the supreme court from doing away with congress? or the president? or elections?
What if Obama(or any other president) asks the supreme court to do away with the law saying a president can only run for presidential election twice? (this is a bad summary..it actually says something about not being in the office of presidency more than 8 years, or if they came into the office during another presidents term [ie when Kennedy was shot] with 2 or more years left in that term, they can only run and gain the office for 1 more term of 4 years) What if they do this, the people actually vote Obama (or any other president) out of office, then he asks the supreme court to overturn that vote?
My point is, if it's something that was voted on, by the citizens, then you can't just throw it out the door arbitrarily like that. It should have to be voted on again, and again, and again, until it passes. We shouldn't just be making laws to force beliefs onto people (either religious or non-religious or whatever they may be). We should be more focused on educating and persuading people that they should vote for something like gay marriage being allowed, not against. And by this i don't mean railing, name-calling, or stuff like that, it should be logical, and respectful, while still being persuasive (by using words to change one's belief) and the massive amount of yelling and name-calling I see from both sides of the argument, is only going to cause further disruption and separation, not cohesiveness and unity.
|
United States5162 Posts
On March 02 2013 21:53 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:I'll preface this by saying, i do believe gays should be allowed to marry, but i don't believe churches should be forced to go against their beliefs to give gays a marriage "ceremony" in their church. You can't just take away one person's rights in order to give another person rights. And as wrong as their (the religious anti-homosexuality) belief is, you can't make laws forcing a religion to change or make laws forcing people to change their religious beliefs (that's definitely in the constitution). It's not about people being for/against any certain religion, it's about making laws for/against any certain religion. The only point I really think a lot of you are missing is Show nested quote +
The administration said unequivocally in a friend-of-the-court brief filed late on Thursday that gay marriage should be allowed to resume in California, where citizens voted to bar it in a 2008 referendum known as Proposition 8.
and Show nested quote +The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn California's This is a dangerous precedent. The problem is, it's setting up the Supreme Court to be the #1 power over all laws of the country, basically throwing out the "checks and balances" that our government is supposed to have. After this, what's to stop the supreme court from doing away with congress? or the president? or elections? What if Obama(or any other president) asks the supreme court to do away with the law saying a president can only run for presidential election twice? (this is a bad summary..it actually says something about not being in the office of presidency more than 8 years, or if they came into the office during another presidents term [ie when Kennedy was shot] with 2 or more years left in that term, they can only run and gain the office for 1 more term of 4 years) What if they do this, the people actually vote Obama (or any other president) out of office, then he asks the supreme court to overturn that vote? My point is, if it's something that was voted on, by the citizens, then you can't just throw it out the door arbitrarily like that. It should have to be voted on again, and again, and again, until it passes. We shouldn't just be making laws to force beliefs onto people (either religious or non-religious or whatever they may be). We should be more focused on educating and persuading people that they should vote for something like gay marriage being allowed, not against. And by this i don't mean railing, name-calling, or stuff like that, it should be logical, and respectful, while still being persuasive (by using words to change one's belief) and the massive amount of yelling and name-calling I see from both sides of the argument, is only going to cause further disruption and separation, not cohesiveness and unity.
A vote by a majority of people doesn't mean you can make a law for anything - that leads to the tyranny of the majority. People should be guaranteed certain rights, and even if a lot of people don't agree that those people should have rights that doesn't make it legal(see the civil rights movement). This isn't about the supreme court deciding on any law, of which many of the things you spoke of would require constitutional amendments, only ones which affect peoples' right, such as Roe vs Wade or Brown vs The Board of Education. And while Obama is asking it to be overturned, in reality the discrimination between gays and straights under marriage would be examined under the equal protection clause of the constitution, and not simply overruled because Obama asked for it.
And by saying you can't forbid gay people to marry doesn't mean you have to do it yourself. Gay people should have the same legal marriage as straight people, but Churches shouldn't have to marry them. I would hope that would be the change, but UK did/is trying to go the other route.
|
On March 01 2013 14:25 Roman666 wrote:
Unfortunate it is, that the ban of homosexual marriages in California will start the debate of ability of a state to write its own law vs. federal regulation. While I have nothing against homosexual folks, I hate federal institutions sticking their noses into smaller communities rights to self decision. You mean smaller communities' right to "self decision" on somebody else's rights?
|
There isn't much discussion about the actual case in this thread. Here's a link that explains the possible holdings the court could reach:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/the-courts-five-options-in-the-california-marriage-case/
It really doesn't mean much that Obama's administration has filed a brief in this case. The court has been receiving literally hundreds of briefs from various groups. Obama's lawyers are just making the same arguments that numerous other parties are making.
|
Your arguments:
On March 02 2013 19:37 Geneq wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll* And other people getting same-sex marriage affects you how, exactly?
On March 02 2013 19:12 urashimakt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll* You've touched upon something more interesting there than you know. Being against "gay marriage" or "guns" is a pretty ambiguous statement. More exact statements could be I am against "two men marrying each other" and "being shot by a person using a gun". One of those things involves and affects you, the other doesn't.
On March 02 2013 19:09 nttea wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll* So true! They are really similar, like if someone with issues can get a gun then shoots someone with it... other people get hurt! And if some faggots marry it's all unnatural and shit so god will smite us with lightning bolts.
On March 02 2013 19:08 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll* While I see where your coming from I really hope your not serious. The issue is not as simple as that for many people I agree. . You comparison is awful, guns in households increase likelihood of accidental death or a suicide, and they can be used to harm other individuals. This is not to say that there is not a good use for guns, but come on... Lgbtq groups being suppressed by our society causes suicides, quite a bit, gay teens have a very alarming suicide rate and sometimes though not as often at all, violent crimes against them for their sexuality. More acceptance within our laws will set an example that it's ok., I'm not just talking about marriage equality here, I'm talking people not being accepted by their parents and communities and friends. People losing their jobs or careers over sexual orientation. If you could stick with, it's more complicated than that, maybe I'm being too technical. Props to Obama I hope real chsnge comes from this, and not just gay marriage, that is only a small part of the change needed to bring equality to the united states.
On March 02 2013 19:07 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll* Because... if you are against guns... and even if you don't own a gun... others with guns can still shoot you!
His argument: "If you don't like gay marriage then don't get gay married."
It's called illustrating absurdity by being absurd, fucking morons.
Hopefully one day you people can learn to make the distinction between legitimate arguments and fucking retarded arguments. Nah, I won't keep my hopes up.
User was warned for this post
|
On March 03 2013 02:15 rusedeguerre wrote:Your arguments:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 19:37 Geneq wrote:On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll* And other people getting same-sex marriage affects you how, exactly? Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 19:12 urashimakt wrote:On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll* You've touched upon something more interesting there than you know. Being against "gay marriage" or "guns" is a pretty ambiguous statement. More exact statements could be I am against "two men marrying each other" and "being shot by a person using a gun". One of those things involves and affects you, the other doesn't. Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 19:09 nttea wrote:On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll* So true! They are really similar, like if someone with issues can get a gun then shoots someone with it... other people get hurt! And if some faggots marry it's all unnatural and shit so god will smite us with lightning bolts. Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 19:08 BlueBird. wrote:On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll* While I see where your coming from I really hope your not serious. The issue is not as simple as that for many people I agree. . You comparison is awful, guns in households increase likelihood of accidental death or a suicide, and they can be used to harm other individuals. This is not to say that there is not a good use for guns, but come on... Lgbtq groups being suppressed by our society causes suicides, quite a bit, gay teens have a very alarming suicide rate and sometimes though not as often at all, violent crimes against them for their sexuality. More acceptance within our laws will set an example that it's ok., I'm not just talking about marriage equality here, I'm talking people not being accepted by their parents and communities and friends. People losing their jobs or careers over sexual orientation. If you could stick with, it's more complicated than that, maybe I'm being too technical. Props to Obama I hope real chsnge comes from this, and not just gay marriage, that is only a small part of the change needed to bring equality to the united states. Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 19:07 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:On March 02 2013 18:46 rusedeguerre wrote:How convenient for Obama that he opposed gay marriage when the polls opposed it, and then the moment the majority switched to support, he suddenly changed his opinion on the matter. When republicans do this, it is called flip-flopping. When Obama does it, they say his "perspective is evolving" or some PR BS. Politics as usual people. On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Is this really your argument? lol, ok, let me try... If you really are against guns, then don't own one. Why is this still a problem? *eyeroll* Because... if you are against guns... and even if you don't own a gun... others with guns can still shoot you! His argument: "If you don't like gay marriage then don't get gay married." It's called illustrating absurdity by being absurd, fucking morons. Hopefully one day you people can learn to make the distinction between legitimate arguments and fucking retarded arguments. Nah, I won't keep my hopes up.
In my logic class I learned to spot sound and valid arguments and, as far as I can tell, this argument is the platonic form of a syllogism.
|
I have absolutely nothing against gay people, I come for a community with a very large gay population..
but having said that, I am ENTIRELY against the government sticking their nose into this issue. The constitution grants them no such power to do this. I cant see this as anything except another example of the government trying to do more than it has the right to.
|
Why some people always bring up though "oh, but the Churches shouldn't be forced to marry same-sex couples" thing as if it's even a question. It isn't. Such a provision isn't ever being forced by the secular government, and never actually has been anywhere, be it in North America or Europe or whatever. It's just a stupid and asinine red herring that people just love to throw out every single time this conversation pops up.
|
On March 03 2013 02:27 Aveng3r wrote:
I have absolutely nothing against gay people, I come for a community with a very large gay population..
but having said that, I am ENTIRELY against the government sticking their nose into this issue. The constitution grants them no such power to do this. I cant see this as anything except another example of the government trying to do more than it has the right to.
Wasn't the Constitution also created to prevent the tyranny of the majority? Specifically, discrimination against Quakers during its time?
|
On March 03 2013 02:27 Aveng3r wrote:
I have absolutely nothing against gay people, I come for a community with a very large gay population..
but having said that, I am ENTIRELY against the government sticking their nose into this issue. The constitution grants them no such power to do this. I cant see this as anything except another example of the government trying to do more than it has the right to.
?
The government is supposed to protect the rights of citizens. If some group (gay people) is being discriminated against, then it's the role of the SC/government to rectify that. I'm not sure what you think would happen if the government didn't stick its nose into the gay marriage issue. More than likely, gays wouldn't be able to marry.
|
How this still is an issue, I will never understand.
|
Austria24417 Posts
Good. He's starting to use his status as president to get his message across.
|
This really isn't that big of a deal, other than it marks Obama speaking out in a direct and specific way about the gay marriage issue, which has been rare as far as I know. Other than that, the Supreme Court will probably vote the same way it would normally. The President saying this isn't going to make Justice Scalia more liberal.
Edit: The Supreme Court Justices also don't have terms and election results to worry about. The only thing Obama can really do to influence the Supreme Court is to appoint new Justices if some our current Justices retire within his term.
And I don't see how this negatively affects democracy, the Supreme Court isn't stepping outside of its jurisdiction, all they can do is hear cases. And the President is entitled to express his opinion publicly, I'm sure you'll read statements from senators saying which way the Supreme Court should vote, even though they don't have an actual say in the matter.
|
If they keep up this pace of 'progressing' on gay marriage, maybe by another ten years they will finally give gay people the rights they should have had for around thirty years now, when public opinion first started to really turn around on viewing them as people.
|
On March 03 2013 02:52 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 02:27 Aveng3r wrote:
I have absolutely nothing against gay people, I come for a community with a very large gay population..
but having said that, I am ENTIRELY against the government sticking their nose into this issue. The constitution grants them no such power to do this. I cant see this as anything except another example of the government trying to do more than it has the right to. ? The government is supposed to protect the rights of citizens. If some group (gay people) is being discriminated against, then it's the role of the SC/government to rectify that. I'm not sure what you think would happen if the government didn't stick its nose into the gay marriage issue. More than likely, gays wouldn't be able to marry.
Im small government.. the concept of the president asking the supreme court to overturn the popular vote of a state is ridiculous. Where are the checks and balances when this is happening??
|
Austria24417 Posts
On March 03 2013 03:55 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 02:52 Shiori wrote:On March 03 2013 02:27 Aveng3r wrote:
I have absolutely nothing against gay people, I come for a community with a very large gay population..
but having said that, I am ENTIRELY against the government sticking their nose into this issue. The constitution grants them no such power to do this. I cant see this as anything except another example of the government trying to do more than it has the right to. ? The government is supposed to protect the rights of citizens. If some group (gay people) is being discriminated against, then it's the role of the SC/government to rectify that. I'm not sure what you think would happen if the government didn't stick its nose into the gay marriage issue. More than likely, gays wouldn't be able to marry. Im small government.. the concept of the president asking the supreme court to overturn the popular vote of a state is ridiculous. Where are the checks and balances when this is happening??
They went out the window during the Bush era.
You may be right that it's a drastic form of action but it has to be. Things have to change and in a nation where nothing ever changes, if all this does in the end is spark discussion, it'll already have been a good thing.
Civil rights are threatened by Proposition 8. It may have been a popular vote that decided it but I seriously have to ask myself if the population should be allowed to threaten those in the first place.
|
I fail to se how someone can view and push their way of life and life choises upon anyone else but themselfs.
It's just silly to make people feel unwanted/out of place in a sociaty based on what gender they wish to share beds with.
I just cannot belive that there are people out there that whould rather see their own nighbours living unhappy and alone instead of in a giving and loving relationship.
|
On March 03 2013 02:52 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 02:27 Aveng3r wrote:
I have absolutely nothing against gay people, I come for a community with a very large gay population..
but having said that, I am ENTIRELY against the government sticking their nose into this issue. The constitution grants them no such power to do this. I cant see this as anything except another example of the government trying to do more than it has the right to. ? The government is supposed to protect the rights of citizens. If some group (gay people) is being discriminated against, then it's the role of the SC/government to rectify that. I'm not sure what you think would happen if the government didn't stick its nose into the gay marriage issue. More than likely, gays wouldn't be able to marry.
This, if the government didn't stick it's nose in to many social issues in this country, they would still be issues. You honestly might still have slavery, women might still not have the vote, etc.
Our government is supposed to intervene, see the supreme court, when they determine that a state law is violating the constitutional rights of an american citizen. In this case, it's my opinion that they are, regardless of anyones feelings on the subject.
You will see equal rights granted either by judicial interpretation or by constitutional amendment, for all sexual orientations some day in this country. Unless there is an apocalypse or something.
|
Am I the only one hoping the new pope will be in favor of gay marriage. Hence changing this entire discussion by removing the only "argument" against.
|
On March 03 2013 05:27 henkel wrote:
Am I the only one hoping the new pope will be in favor of gay marriage. Hence changing this entire discussion by removing the only "argument" against.
Sure I'm hoping for that too. I am also hoping for a blowjob from Scarlett Johanssen. I have a hard time figuring out which one is more likely.
|
On March 03 2013 03:55 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 02:52 Shiori wrote:On March 03 2013 02:27 Aveng3r wrote:
I have absolutely nothing against gay people, I come for a community with a very large gay population..
but having said that, I am ENTIRELY against the government sticking their nose into this issue. The constitution grants them no such power to do this. I cant see this as anything except another example of the government trying to do more than it has the right to. ? The government is supposed to protect the rights of citizens. If some group (gay people) is being discriminated against, then it's the role of the SC/government to rectify that. I'm not sure what you think would happen if the government didn't stick its nose into the gay marriage issue. More than likely, gays wouldn't be able to marry. Im small government.. the concept of the president asking the supreme court to overturn the popular vote of a state is ridiculous. Where are the checks and balances when this is happening??
Suppose popular vote declared the systematic hunting and killing of black people to be permissible. Should the SC intervene?
|
On March 03 2013 05:27 henkel wrote:
Am I the only one hoping the new pope will be in favor of gay marriage. Hence changing this entire discussion by removing the only "argument" against.
The Catholic Church isn't even the loudest opponent of gay marriage in the United States.
|
On March 03 2013 05:29 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 05:27 henkel wrote:
Am I the only one hoping the new pope will be in favor of gay marriage. Hence changing this entire discussion by removing the only "argument" against. Sure I'm hoping for that too. I am also hoping for a blowjob from Scarlett Johanssen. I have a hard time figuring out which one is more likely.
Yeah thats an even harder question. But don't give up hope
On March 03 2013 05:36 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 05:27 henkel wrote:
Am I the only one hoping the new pope will be in favor of gay marriage. Hence changing this entire discussion by removing the only "argument" against. The Catholic Church isn't even the loudest opponent of gay marriage in the United States.
really? Whenever I hear an argument against same sex marriage it always seems religion based. Whats the loudest opponent then(in the states)?
|
Are there people on TL who still oppose gay marriage?
Lol. Christianity, the only religion where your views give you the right to dictate how people outside your religion live. (and this coming from a person raised in christian education/upbringing his whole life)
Islam "I cannot eat pork"
Christianity "You cannot marry him!"
|
On March 02 2013 22:05 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 21:53 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:I'll preface this by saying, i do believe gays should be allowed to marry, but i don't believe churches should be forced to go against their beliefs to give gays a marriage "ceremony" in their church. You can't just take away one person's rights in order to give another person rights. And as wrong as their (the religious anti-homosexuality) belief is, you can't make laws forcing a religion to change or make laws forcing people to change their religious beliefs (that's definitely in the constitution). It's not about people being for/against any certain religion, it's about making laws for/against any certain religion. The only point I really think a lot of you are missing is
The administration said unequivocally in a friend-of-the-court brief filed late on Thursday that gay marriage should be allowed to resume in California, where citizens voted to bar it in a 2008 referendum known as Proposition 8.
and The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn California's This is a dangerous precedent. The problem is, it's setting up the Supreme Court to be the #1 power over all laws of the country, basically throwing out the "checks and balances" that our government is supposed to have. After this, what's to stop the supreme court from doing away with congress? or the president? or elections? What if Obama(or any other president) asks the supreme court to do away with the law saying a president can only run for presidential election twice? (this is a bad summary..it actually says something about not being in the office of presidency more than 8 years, or if they came into the office during another presidents term [ie when Kennedy was shot] with 2 or more years left in that term, they can only run and gain the office for 1 more term of 4 years) What if they do this, the people actually vote Obama (or any other president) out of office, then he asks the supreme court to overturn that vote? My point is, if it's something that was voted on, by the citizens, then you can't just throw it out the door arbitrarily like that. It should have to be voted on again, and again, and again, until it passes. We shouldn't just be making laws to force beliefs onto people (either religious or non-religious or whatever they may be). We should be more focused on educating and persuading people that they should vote for something like gay marriage being allowed, not against. And by this i don't mean railing, name-calling, or stuff like that, it should be logical, and respectful, while still being persuasive (by using words to change one's belief) and the massive amount of yelling and name-calling I see from both sides of the argument, is only going to cause further disruption and separation, not cohesiveness and unity. A vote by a majority of people doesn't mean you can make a law for anything - that leads to the tyranny of the majority. People should be guaranteed certain rights, and even if a lot of people don't agree that those people should have rights that doesn't make it legal(see the civil rights movement). This isn't about the supreme court deciding on any law, of which many of the things you spoke of would require constitutional amendments, only ones which affect peoples' right, such as Roe vs Wade or Brown vs The Board of Education. And while Obama is asking it to be overturned, in reality the discrimination between gays and straights under marriage would be examined under the equal protection clause of the constitution, and not simply overruled because Obama asked for it. And by saying you can't forbid gay people to marry doesn't mean you have to do it yourself. Gay people should have the same legal marriage as straight people, but Churches shouldn't have to marry them. I would hope that would be the change, but UK did/is trying to go the other route.
the funny thing about the constitution, including the bill of rights, was that it was voted on by a few white men. so, the idea that it is the epitome of civil rights is ludicrous. of note, the bill of rights and constitution allowed slavery, allowed only men to vote, etc. etc.
it is better to have a majority of people decide civil rights than a minority (which is the constitution). sure, it leads to a majority rule, but i see that as a lot better than some old ass white dudes who are long dead deciding what was right and wrong, or even some old asses that we currently have in teh supreme court deciding whats right and wrong.
|
He has unfortunately flip-flopped on a lot of issues.
|
On March 03 2013 05:51 henkel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 05:36 Mindcrime wrote:On March 03 2013 05:27 henkel wrote:
Am I the only one hoping the new pope will be in favor of gay marriage. Hence changing this entire discussion by removing the only "argument" against. The Catholic Church isn't even the loudest opponent of gay marriage in the United States. really? Whenever I hear an argument against same sex marriage it always seems religion based. Whats the loudest opponent then(in the states)?
You have to keep the demographics of the United States in mind. Catholics are not just outnumbered by protestants, but by evangelical protestants.
|
On March 03 2013 05:51 henkel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 05:29 McBengt wrote:On March 03 2013 05:27 henkel wrote:
Am I the only one hoping the new pope will be in favor of gay marriage. Hence changing this entire discussion by removing the only "argument" against. Sure I'm hoping for that too. I am also hoping for a blowjob from Scarlett Johanssen. I have a hard time figuring out which one is more likely. Yeah thats an even harder question. But don't give up hope Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 05:36 Mindcrime wrote:On March 03 2013 05:27 henkel wrote:
Am I the only one hoping the new pope will be in favor of gay marriage. Hence changing this entire discussion by removing the only "argument" against. The Catholic Church isn't even the loudest opponent of gay marriage in the United States. really? Whenever I hear an argument against same sex marriage it always seems religion based. Whats the loudest opponent then(in the states)?
Evangelical churches?
|
On March 03 2013 06:10 electronic voyeur wrote:
He has unfortunately flip-flopped on a lot of issues.
Obama? What issues has he flip-flopped on other than gay marriage, which he was supportive of even before pushing for federal legalisation?
|
On March 03 2013 06:10 electronic voyeur wrote:
He has unfortunately flip-flopped on a lot of issues.
He didn't flip-flop, his views have evolved.
+ Show Spoiler +Although some conservatives might claim that they were intelligently designed by his advisors to maximize his re-election chances.
|
Civil rights shouldn't be available for voting for the public. We don't have a democracy (rule by many) but a republic (rule by law). If people decided they wanted to pass some racist legislation, it would never see the light of day because those people's civil rights are not eligible to be taken away by the many. Until we get a federal law allowing gay people the same rights as straights, then this will keep on happening. Civil rights should be based on what is right, not what most of the people are thinking, because most of the people (at least in our country) are stupid and/or religious. (Religious not necessarily being synonymous with stupid, but obviously having a huge impact on how much you care about people who don't believe the same thing as you)
|
On March 03 2013 05:59 MaestroSC wrote:
Are there people on TL who still oppose gay marriage?
Lol. Christianity, the only religion where your views give you the right to dictate how people outside your religion live. (and this coming from a person raised in christian education/upbringing his whole life)
Islam "I cannot eat pork"
Christianity "You cannot marry him!"
Actually, a lot of religions try to tell other people what they can't do (especially Islam). The religions that immediately come to mind as "inward" instead of "outward" religions would be East Asian religions (primarily Buddhism).
|
On March 03 2013 06:16 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 06:10 electronic voyeur wrote:
He has unfortunately flip-flopped on a lot of issues. He didn't flip-flop, his views have evolved. + Show Spoiler +Although some conservatives might claim that they were intelligently designed by his advisors to maximize his re-election chances.
anyone with half a brain would claim that..... you dont go from saying marriage is between a man and a woman to gay marriage is perfectly alright at his age....
|
On March 03 2013 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 06:16 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2013 06:10 electronic voyeur wrote:
He has unfortunately flip-flopped on a lot of issues. He didn't flip-flop, his views have evolved. + Show Spoiler +Although some conservatives might claim that they were intelligently designed by his advisors to maximize his re-election chances. anyone with half a brain would claim that..... you dont go from saying marriage is between a man and a woman to gay marriage is perfectly alright at his age....
Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington.
|
On March 03 2013 06:07 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 22:05 Myles wrote:On March 02 2013 21:53 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:I'll preface this by saying, i do believe gays should be allowed to marry, but i don't believe churches should be forced to go against their beliefs to give gays a marriage "ceremony" in their church. You can't just take away one person's rights in order to give another person rights. And as wrong as their (the religious anti-homosexuality) belief is, you can't make laws forcing a religion to change or make laws forcing people to change their religious beliefs (that's definitely in the constitution). It's not about people being for/against any certain religion, it's about making laws for/against any certain religion. The only point I really think a lot of you are missing is
The administration said unequivocally in a friend-of-the-court brief filed late on Thursday that gay marriage should be allowed to resume in California, where citizens voted to bar it in a 2008 referendum known as Proposition 8.
and The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn California's This is a dangerous precedent. The problem is, it's setting up the Supreme Court to be the #1 power over all laws of the country, basically throwing out the "checks and balances" that our government is supposed to have. After this, what's to stop the supreme court from doing away with congress? or the president? or elections? What if Obama(or any other president) asks the supreme court to do away with the law saying a president can only run for presidential election twice? (this is a bad summary..it actually says something about not being in the office of presidency more than 8 years, or if they came into the office during another presidents term [ie when Kennedy was shot] with 2 or more years left in that term, they can only run and gain the office for 1 more term of 4 years) What if they do this, the people actually vote Obama (or any other president) out of office, then he asks the supreme court to overturn that vote? My point is, if it's something that was voted on, by the citizens, then you can't just throw it out the door arbitrarily like that. It should have to be voted on again, and again, and again, until it passes. We shouldn't just be making laws to force beliefs onto people (either religious or non-religious or whatever they may be). We should be more focused on educating and persuading people that they should vote for something like gay marriage being allowed, not against. And by this i don't mean railing, name-calling, or stuff like that, it should be logical, and respectful, while still being persuasive (by using words to change one's belief) and the massive amount of yelling and name-calling I see from both sides of the argument, is only going to cause further disruption and separation, not cohesiveness and unity. A vote by a majority of people doesn't mean you can make a law for anything - that leads to the tyranny of the majority. People should be guaranteed certain rights, and even if a lot of people don't agree that those people should have rights that doesn't make it legal(see the civil rights movement). This isn't about the supreme court deciding on any law, of which many of the things you spoke of would require constitutional amendments, only ones which affect peoples' right, such as Roe vs Wade or Brown vs The Board of Education. And while Obama is asking it to be overturned, in reality the discrimination between gays and straights under marriage would be examined under the equal protection clause of the constitution, and not simply overruled because Obama asked for it. And by saying you can't forbid gay people to marry doesn't mean you have to do it yourself. Gay people should have the same legal marriage as straight people, but Churches shouldn't have to marry them. I would hope that would be the change, but UK did/is trying to go the other route. the funny thing about the constitution, including the bill of rights, was that it was voted on by a few white men. so, the idea that it is the epitome of civil rights is ludicrous. of note, the bill of rights and constitution allowed slavery, allowed only men to vote, etc. etc. it is better to have a majority of people decide civil rights than a minority (which is the constitution). sure, it leads to a majority rule, but i see that as a lot better than some old ass white dudes who are long dead deciding what was right and wrong, or even some old asses that we currently have in teh supreme court deciding whats right and wrong.
I would agree except for the fact that oppression rarely ever originates in the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS has delivered many reprehensible decisions since 1789, but such decisions almost always involve okaying the oppressive laws and policies that originated in more democratic bodies.
|
I think its quite likely the court strikes it down.
It takes only 1 ideological small government purist to break with the majority, the amicus brief filed by the group of republicans offers a clear way to do that, or a single justice concerned with his legacy (Roberts comes to mind). Although the conservative movement in the US will never openly admit it, prop 8 and similar measures getting struck down could be great for them, it takes a lose-lose issue off the table for them forever. Demographics are destiny and with the way public opinion is developing (13% increase in those that favor over the last 4-5 years, now the majority) and it's one of many factors that are causing them to lose the youth vote so impressively, it's an issue they need to fabricate an exit out of without offending the base. The supreme court seems as good a way as any to do that.
|
On March 03 2013 06:53 Derez wrote:
I think its quite likely the court strikes it down.
It takes only 1 ideological small government purist to break with the majority, the amicus brief filed by the group of republicans offers a clear way to do that, or a single justice concerned with his legacy (Roberts comes to mind). Although the conservative movement in the US will never openly admit it, it takes a lose-lose issue off the table for them forever. Demographics are destiny and with the way public opinion is developing (13% increase in those that favor over the last 4-5 years, now the majority), it's an issue they need to fabricate an exit out of without offending the base. The supreme court seems as good a way as any to do that.
I truly don't think the conservatives who are vehemently opposing this fully realize what an opportunity this is, it's basically a get out of jail free card.
|
On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:16 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2013 06:10 electronic voyeur wrote:
He has unfortunately flip-flopped on a lot of issues. He didn't flip-flop, his views have evolved. + Show Spoiler +Although some conservatives might claim that they were intelligently designed by his advisors to maximize his re-election chances. anyone with half a brain would claim that..... you dont go from saying marriage is between a man and a woman to gay marriage is perfectly alright at his age.... Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington.
so he lied to us his first term?
|
On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:16 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2013 06:10 electronic voyeur wrote:
He has unfortunately flip-flopped on a lot of issues. He didn't flip-flop, his views have evolved. + Show Spoiler +Although some conservatives might claim that they were intelligently designed by his advisors to maximize his re-election chances. anyone with half a brain would claim that..... you dont go from saying marriage is between a man and a woman to gay marriage is perfectly alright at his age.... Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term?
Politicians lie all the time, they say what they think most people want to hear
|
On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:16 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2013 06:10 electronic voyeur wrote:
He has unfortunately flip-flopped on a lot of issues. He didn't flip-flop, his views have evolved. + Show Spoiler +Although some conservatives might claim that they were intelligently designed by his advisors to maximize his re-election chances. anyone with half a brain would claim that..... you dont go from saying marriage is between a man and a woman to gay marriage is perfectly alright at his age.... Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term?
And this surprises you? Are you really that ignorant to think no politician lies to us? He always supported gay rights. He just didn't have the liberty to openly admit his full beliefs about gay marriage without it hurting him more than helping him, so he kept quiet about it. Now people are more enlightened and more tolerant of others rights and beliefs and it is safe to say what he actually wants to say about the matter.
You could compare it to people who were against slavery back when it was in full force. You couldn't outright say so otherwise you'd be punished and treated badly.
|
On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:16 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2013 06:10 electronic voyeur wrote:
He has unfortunately flip-flopped on a lot of issues. He didn't flip-flop, his views have evolved. + Show Spoiler +Although some conservatives might claim that they were intelligently designed by his advisors to maximize his re-election chances. anyone with half a brain would claim that..... you dont go from saying marriage is between a man and a woman to gay marriage is perfectly alright at his age.... Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term?
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from Obama saying he was against gay marriage. You'd be more likely to find him skirting the issue or saying something closer to "not right now".
Edit: Also, a big reason conservatives want to keep the issue open is that it is a huge way to drive the common folk to the polls. The common people may not know much about politics, but they know the bible tells them gay people are evil.
|
On March 03 2013 07:23 Kerwin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:16 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2013 06:10 electronic voyeur wrote:
He has unfortunately flip-flopped on a lot of issues. He didn't flip-flop, his views have evolved. + Show Spoiler +Although some conservatives might claim that they were intelligently designed by his advisors to maximize his re-election chances. anyone with half a brain would claim that..... you dont go from saying marriage is between a man and a woman to gay marriage is perfectly alright at his age.... Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from Obama saying he was against gay marriage. You'd be more likely to find him skirting the issue or saying something closer to "not right now". Edit: Also, a big reason conservatives want to keep the issue open is that it is a huge way to drive the common folk to the polls. The common people may not know much about politics, but they know the bible tells them gay people are evil.
He said, "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been."
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/09/11623172-the-evolution-of-obamas-stance-on-gay-marriage?lite
|
On March 03 2013 07:09 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:16 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2013 06:10 electronic voyeur wrote:
He has unfortunately flip-flopped on a lot of issues. He didn't flip-flop, his views have evolved. + Show Spoiler +Although some conservatives might claim that they were intelligently designed by his advisors to maximize his re-election chances. anyone with half a brain would claim that..... you dont go from saying marriage is between a man and a woman to gay marriage is perfectly alright at his age.... Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term? And this surprises you? Are you really that ignorant to think no politician lies to us? He always supported gay rights. He just didn't have the liberty to openly admit his full beliefs about gay marriage without it hurting him more than helping him, so he kept quiet about it. Now people are more enlightened and more tolerant of others rights and beliefs and it is safe to say what he actually wants to say about the matter. You could compare it to people who were against slavery back when it was in full force. You couldn't outright say so otherwise you'd be punished and treated badly.
im not sure why you would defend obama for being a liar--and i am surprised that he would outright lie. i would prefer someone who sticks to their principles than a liar. and why do people keep saying he kept quiet? he came straight out and said marriage was between a man and woman. he has flip-flopped on this issue.
|
On March 03 2013 07:33 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 07:23 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:16 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2013 06:10 electronic voyeur wrote:
He has unfortunately flip-flopped on a lot of issues. He didn't flip-flop, his views have evolved. + Show Spoiler +Although some conservatives might claim that they were intelligently designed by his advisors to maximize his re-election chances. anyone with half a brain would claim that..... you dont go from saying marriage is between a man and a woman to gay marriage is perfectly alright at his age.... Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from Obama saying he was against gay marriage. You'd be more likely to find him skirting the issue or saying something closer to "not right now". Edit: Also, a big reason conservatives want to keep the issue open is that it is a huge way to drive the common folk to the polls. The common people may not know much about politics, but they know the bible tells them gay people are evil. Show nested quote +He said, "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been." http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/09/11623172-the-evolution-of-obamas-stance-on-gay-marriage?lite
Saying he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a political stance on gay rights, when in the next statement he says who he think should be making these decisions. That is not a lie. You can not practice something but believe others should be able to practice it. This was him deflecting the issue by saying it's not an issue he believes he should have to legislate on.
Edit: besides I don't know why people complain so much about "flip-flopping". As a person you should never make decisions based on how a past version of you thought, but on how you currently think and the information currently available to you. A person who never changes their mind sounds like a person who always thinks they are right and can't make a mistake.
|
On March 03 2013 07:42 Kerwin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 07:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:23 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:16 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2013 06:10 electronic voyeur wrote:
He has unfortunately flip-flopped on a lot of issues. He didn't flip-flop, his views have evolved. + Show Spoiler +Although some conservatives might claim that they were intelligently designed by his advisors to maximize his re-election chances. anyone with half a brain would claim that..... you dont go from saying marriage is between a man and a woman to gay marriage is perfectly alright at his age.... Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from Obama saying he was against gay marriage. You'd be more likely to find him skirting the issue or saying something closer to "not right now". Edit: Also, a big reason conservatives want to keep the issue open is that it is a huge way to drive the common folk to the polls. The common people may not know much about politics, but they know the bible tells them gay people are evil. He said, "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been." http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/09/11623172-the-evolution-of-obamas-stance-on-gay-marriage?lite Saying he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a political stance on gay rights, when in the next statement he says who he think should be making these decisions. That is not a lie. You can not practice something but believe others should be able to practice it. This was him deflecting the issue by saying it's not an issue he believes he should have to legislate on.
you do know he is saying that it shouldnt be left up to the states now, right?
|
On March 03 2013 07:48 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 07:42 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:23 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:16 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2013 06:10 electronic voyeur wrote:
He has unfortunately flip-flopped on a lot of issues. He didn't flip-flop, his views have evolved. + Show Spoiler +Although some conservatives might claim that they were intelligently designed by his advisors to maximize his re-election chances. anyone with half a brain would claim that..... you dont go from saying marriage is between a man and a woman to gay marriage is perfectly alright at his age.... Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from Obama saying he was against gay marriage. You'd be more likely to find him skirting the issue or saying something closer to "not right now". Edit: Also, a big reason conservatives want to keep the issue open is that it is a huge way to drive the common folk to the polls. The common people may not know much about politics, but they know the bible tells them gay people are evil. He said, "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been." http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/09/11623172-the-evolution-of-obamas-stance-on-gay-marriage?lite Saying he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a political stance on gay rights, when in the next statement he says who he think should be making these decisions. That is not a lie. You can not practice something but believe others should be able to practice it. This was him deflecting the issue by saying it's not an issue he believes he should have to legislate on. you do know he is saying that it shouldnt be left up to the states now, right?
You do realize that making a change in his stance does not constitute lying? My personal belief is that he had to skirt the issue in the debate in order to get elected. But he didn't lie in the debate. As a lawyer you consider all angles to a case. In the debate he was largely talking about a social issue. But in this case (since it's being taken to the supreme court) it's being viewed as a civil rights issue. Civil rights issues SHOULD NOT be voted on by the populace. Civil rights issues need to go before the Supreme Court.
|
On March 03 2013 07:35 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 07:09 Zooper31 wrote:On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:16 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2013 06:10 electronic voyeur wrote:
He has unfortunately flip-flopped on a lot of issues. He didn't flip-flop, his views have evolved. + Show Spoiler +Although some conservatives might claim that they were intelligently designed by his advisors to maximize his re-election chances. anyone with half a brain would claim that..... you dont go from saying marriage is between a man and a woman to gay marriage is perfectly alright at his age.... Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term? And this surprises you? Are you really that ignorant to think no politician lies to us? He always supported gay rights. He just didn't have the liberty to openly admit his full beliefs about gay marriage without it hurting him more than helping him, so he kept quiet about it. Now people are more enlightened and more tolerant of others rights and beliefs and it is safe to say what he actually wants to say about the matter. You could compare it to people who were against slavery back when it was in full force. You couldn't outright say so otherwise you'd be punished and treated badly. im not sure why you would defend obama for being a liar--and i am surprised that he would outright lie. i would prefer someone who sticks to their principles than a liar. and why do people keep saying he kept quiet? he came straight out and said marriage was between a man and woman. he has flip-flopped on this issue.
Because I feel the lie was needed for the greater good. I just found it kinda stupid you were surprised/upset that he lied, hes a politician...
|
On March 03 2013 07:56 Kerwin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 07:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:42 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:23 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:16 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2013 06:10 electronic voyeur wrote:
He has unfortunately flip-flopped on a lot of issues. He didn't flip-flop, his views have evolved. + Show Spoiler +Although some conservatives might claim that they were intelligently designed by his advisors to maximize his re-election chances. anyone with half a brain would claim that..... you dont go from saying marriage is between a man and a woman to gay marriage is perfectly alright at his age.... Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from Obama saying he was against gay marriage. You'd be more likely to find him skirting the issue or saying something closer to "not right now". Edit: Also, a big reason conservatives want to keep the issue open is that it is a huge way to drive the common folk to the polls. The common people may not know much about politics, but they know the bible tells them gay people are evil. He said, "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been." http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/09/11623172-the-evolution-of-obamas-stance-on-gay-marriage?lite Saying he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a political stance on gay rights, when in the next statement he says who he think should be making these decisions. That is not a lie. You can not practice something but believe others should be able to practice it. This was him deflecting the issue by saying it's not an issue he believes he should have to legislate on. you do know he is saying that it shouldnt be left up to the states now, right? You do realize that making a change in his stance does not constitute lying? My personal belief is that he had to skirt the issue in the debate in order to get elected. But he didn't lie in the debate. As a lawyer you consider all angles to a case. In the debate he was largely talking about a social issue. But in this case (since it's being taken to the supreme court) it's being viewed as a civil rights issue. Civil rights issues SHOULD NOT be voted on by the populace. Civil rights issues need to go before the Supreme Court.
so instead of millions of people deciding what is best for the populace, a few old ass people should decide what is best for the populace. gotcha.
whether he lied or not (debatable), he is a flip-flopper.
|
On March 03 2013 07:59 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 07:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:09 Zooper31 wrote:On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:16 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2013 06:10 electronic voyeur wrote:
He has unfortunately flip-flopped on a lot of issues. He didn't flip-flop, his views have evolved. + Show Spoiler +Although some conservatives might claim that they were intelligently designed by his advisors to maximize his re-election chances. anyone with half a brain would claim that..... you dont go from saying marriage is between a man and a woman to gay marriage is perfectly alright at his age.... Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term? And this surprises you? Are you really that ignorant to think no politician lies to us? He always supported gay rights. He just didn't have the liberty to openly admit his full beliefs about gay marriage without it hurting him more than helping him, so he kept quiet about it. Now people are more enlightened and more tolerant of others rights and beliefs and it is safe to say what he actually wants to say about the matter. You could compare it to people who were against slavery back when it was in full force. You couldn't outright say so otherwise you'd be punished and treated badly. im not sure why you would defend obama for being a liar--and i am surprised that he would outright lie. i would prefer someone who sticks to their principles than a liar. and why do people keep saying he kept quiet? he came straight out and said marriage was between a man and woman. he has flip-flopped on this issue. Because I feel the lie was needed for the greater good
Ah yes, manipulate the ignorant masses for their own good.
I don't know why people even pretend to want democracy anymore. Everyone I talk to believes people are stupid and some elite should be ruling because they know what's best.
|
On March 03 2013 08:04 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 07:59 Zooper31 wrote:On March 03 2013 07:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:09 Zooper31 wrote:On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:16 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2013 06:10 electronic voyeur wrote:
He has unfortunately flip-flopped on a lot of issues. He didn't flip-flop, his views have evolved. + Show Spoiler +Although some conservatives might claim that they were intelligently designed by his advisors to maximize his re-election chances. anyone with half a brain would claim that..... you dont go from saying marriage is between a man and a woman to gay marriage is perfectly alright at his age.... Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term? And this surprises you? Are you really that ignorant to think no politician lies to us? He always supported gay rights. He just didn't have the liberty to openly admit his full beliefs about gay marriage without it hurting him more than helping him, so he kept quiet about it. Now people are more enlightened and more tolerant of others rights and beliefs and it is safe to say what he actually wants to say about the matter. You could compare it to people who were against slavery back when it was in full force. You couldn't outright say so otherwise you'd be punished and treated badly. im not sure why you would defend obama for being a liar--and i am surprised that he would outright lie. i would prefer someone who sticks to their principles than a liar. and why do people keep saying he kept quiet? he came straight out and said marriage was between a man and woman. he has flip-flopped on this issue. Because I feel the lie was needed for the greater good Ah yes, manipulate the ignorant masses for their own good. I don't know why people even pretend to want democracy anymore. Everyone I talk to believes people are stupid and some elite should be ruling because they know what's best.
People are in fact stupid. Idk if I want the majority of them voting on such important things. But then it's better than a buncha elites voting on it for us instead.
|
On March 03 2013 07:59 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 07:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:09 Zooper31 wrote:On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:16 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2013 06:10 electronic voyeur wrote:
He has unfortunately flip-flopped on a lot of issues. He didn't flip-flop, his views have evolved. + Show Spoiler +Although some conservatives might claim that they were intelligently designed by his advisors to maximize his re-election chances. anyone with half a brain would claim that..... you dont go from saying marriage is between a man and a woman to gay marriage is perfectly alright at his age.... Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term? And this surprises you? Are you really that ignorant to think no politician lies to us? He always supported gay rights. He just didn't have the liberty to openly admit his full beliefs about gay marriage without it hurting him more than helping him, so he kept quiet about it. Now people are more enlightened and more tolerant of others rights and beliefs and it is safe to say what he actually wants to say about the matter. You could compare it to people who were against slavery back when it was in full force. You couldn't outright say so otherwise you'd be punished and treated badly. im not sure why you would defend obama for being a liar--and i am surprised that he would outright lie. i would prefer someone who sticks to their principles than a liar. and why do people keep saying he kept quiet? he came straight out and said marriage was between a man and woman. he has flip-flopped on this issue. Because I feel the lie was needed for the greater good. I just found it kinda stupid you were surprised/upset that he lied, hes a politician...
i am sad that you are so disenfranchised with the system. i do not expect politicians to blatantly lie to me. i expect them to be wishy-washy, refuse to take positions and deflect. i dont expect them to say marriage doesnt include gays and then say it does, or say marriage should be decided by states and then say fuck the states, federal gov't bitches!
i understand why people are cool with what obama is doing because it reflects their own belief that gay marriage should be allowed (also my belief), but i think you guys should think for a second how fucking horrible it is that a politician blatantly misled everyone.... if a corporation did this the fucking internet would be ablaze with criticism, but because it reflects their own beliefs---its cool.
|
On March 03 2013 08:00 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 07:56 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:42 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:23 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:16 hypercube wrote:[quote] He didn't flip-flop, his views have evolved. + Show Spoiler +Although some conservatives might claim that they were intelligently designed by his advisors to maximize his re-election chances. anyone with half a brain would claim that..... you dont go from saying marriage is between a man and a woman to gay marriage is perfectly alright at his age.... Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from Obama saying he was against gay marriage. You'd be more likely to find him skirting the issue or saying something closer to "not right now". Edit: Also, a big reason conservatives want to keep the issue open is that it is a huge way to drive the common folk to the polls. The common people may not know much about politics, but they know the bible tells them gay people are evil. He said, "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been." http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/09/11623172-the-evolution-of-obamas-stance-on-gay-marriage?lite Saying he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a political stance on gay rights, when in the next statement he says who he think should be making these decisions. That is not a lie. You can not practice something but believe others should be able to practice it. This was him deflecting the issue by saying it's not an issue he believes he should have to legislate on. you do know he is saying that it shouldnt be left up to the states now, right? You do realize that making a change in his stance does not constitute lying? My personal belief is that he had to skirt the issue in the debate in order to get elected. But he didn't lie in the debate. As a lawyer you consider all angles to a case. In the debate he was largely talking about a social issue. But in this case (since it's being taken to the supreme court) it's being viewed as a civil rights issue. Civil rights issues SHOULD NOT be voted on by the populace. Civil rights issues need to go before the Supreme Court. so instead of millions of people deciding what is best for the populace, a few old ass people should decide what is best for the populace. gotcha. whether he lied or not (debatable), he is a flip-flopper.
Dude... how many times (in history ever...) have the millions of people ever been right about anything? Every civil rights movement in America has at first been opposed by the majority and slowly later generations except it. Unless you feel like waiting for 50-something years for the populace to catch up to reasonable thinking, the government needs to pass civil rights laws like this so people can get the rights they friggin' deserve as an American.
|
On March 03 2013 08:10 Kerwin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 08:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:56 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:42 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:23 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
anyone with half a brain would claim that..... you dont go from saying marriage is between a man and a woman to gay marriage is perfectly alright at his age.... Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from Obama saying he was against gay marriage. You'd be more likely to find him skirting the issue or saying something closer to "not right now". Edit: Also, a big reason conservatives want to keep the issue open is that it is a huge way to drive the common folk to the polls. The common people may not know much about politics, but they know the bible tells them gay people are evil. He said, "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been." http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/09/11623172-the-evolution-of-obamas-stance-on-gay-marriage?lite Saying he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a political stance on gay rights, when in the next statement he says who he think should be making these decisions. That is not a lie. You can not practice something but believe others should be able to practice it. This was him deflecting the issue by saying it's not an issue he believes he should have to legislate on. you do know he is saying that it shouldnt be left up to the states now, right? You do realize that making a change in his stance does not constitute lying? My personal belief is that he had to skirt the issue in the debate in order to get elected. But he didn't lie in the debate. As a lawyer you consider all angles to a case. In the debate he was largely talking about a social issue. But in this case (since it's being taken to the supreme court) it's being viewed as a civil rights issue. Civil rights issues SHOULD NOT be voted on by the populace. Civil rights issues need to go before the Supreme Court. so instead of millions of people deciding what is best for the populace, a few old ass people should decide what is best for the populace. gotcha. whether he lied or not (debatable), he is a flip-flopper. Dude... how many times (in history ever...) have the millions of people ever been right about anything? Every civil rights movement in America has at first been opposed by the majority and slowly later generations except it. Unless you feel like waiting for 50-something years for the populace to catch up to reasonable thinking, the government needs to pass civil rights laws like this so people can get the rights they friggin' deserve as an American.
so, when the supreme court says fuck gay marriage and affirms the ban on gay marriage, you are cool with that system? or is it only if the supreme court says yay gay marriage and affirms the appellate decision?
|
On March 03 2013 08:10 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 07:59 Zooper31 wrote:On March 03 2013 07:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:09 Zooper31 wrote:On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:16 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2013 06:10 electronic voyeur wrote:
He has unfortunately flip-flopped on a lot of issues. He didn't flip-flop, his views have evolved. + Show Spoiler +Although some conservatives might claim that they were intelligently designed by his advisors to maximize his re-election chances. anyone with half a brain would claim that..... you dont go from saying marriage is between a man and a woman to gay marriage is perfectly alright at his age.... Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term? And this surprises you? Are you really that ignorant to think no politician lies to us? He always supported gay rights. He just didn't have the liberty to openly admit his full beliefs about gay marriage without it hurting him more than helping him, so he kept quiet about it. Now people are more enlightened and more tolerant of others rights and beliefs and it is safe to say what he actually wants to say about the matter. You could compare it to people who were against slavery back when it was in full force. You couldn't outright say so otherwise you'd be punished and treated badly. im not sure why you would defend obama for being a liar--and i am surprised that he would outright lie. i would prefer someone who sticks to their principles than a liar. and why do people keep saying he kept quiet? he came straight out and said marriage was between a man and woman. he has flip-flopped on this issue. Because I feel the lie was needed for the greater good. I just found it kinda stupid you were surprised/upset that he lied, hes a politician... i am sad that you are so disenfranchised with the system. i do not expect politicians to blatantly lie to me. i expect them to be wishy-washy, refuse to take positions and deflect. i dont expect them to say marriage doesnt include gays and then say it does, or say marriage should be decided by states and then say fuck the states, federal gov't bitches! i understand why people are cool with what obama is doing because it reflects their own belief that gay marriage should be allowed (also my belief), but i think you guys should think for a second how fucking horrible it is that a politician blatantly misled everyone.... if a corporation did this the fucking internet would be ablaze with criticism, but because it reflects their own beliefs---its cool.
Sigh, he didn't mislead anyone. When he was asked that question, he responded how he felt fit at the time, answering the question largely as a social issue. It is now evident that this is a civil rights issues which based on our laws has to be brought to the supreme court and not state legislatures.
|
On March 03 2013 08:12 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 08:10 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 08:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:56 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:42 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:23 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:
[quote]
Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from Obama saying he was against gay marriage. You'd be more likely to find him skirting the issue or saying something closer to "not right now". Edit: Also, a big reason conservatives want to keep the issue open is that it is a huge way to drive the common folk to the polls. The common people may not know much about politics, but they know the bible tells them gay people are evil. He said, "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been." http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/09/11623172-the-evolution-of-obamas-stance-on-gay-marriage?lite Saying he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a political stance on gay rights, when in the next statement he says who he think should be making these decisions. That is not a lie. You can not practice something but believe others should be able to practice it. This was him deflecting the issue by saying it's not an issue he believes he should have to legislate on. you do know he is saying that it shouldnt be left up to the states now, right? You do realize that making a change in his stance does not constitute lying? My personal belief is that he had to skirt the issue in the debate in order to get elected. But he didn't lie in the debate. As a lawyer you consider all angles to a case. In the debate he was largely talking about a social issue. But in this case (since it's being taken to the supreme court) it's being viewed as a civil rights issue. Civil rights issues SHOULD NOT be voted on by the populace. Civil rights issues need to go before the Supreme Court. so instead of millions of people deciding what is best for the populace, a few old ass people should decide what is best for the populace. gotcha. whether he lied or not (debatable), he is a flip-flopper. Dude... how many times (in history ever...) have the millions of people ever been right about anything? Every civil rights movement in America has at first been opposed by the majority and slowly later generations except it. Unless you feel like waiting for 50-something years for the populace to catch up to reasonable thinking, the government needs to pass civil rights laws like this so people can get the rights they friggin' deserve as an American. so, when the supreme court says fuck gay marriage and affirms the ban on gay marriage, you are cool with that system? or is it only if the supreme court says yay gay marriage and affirms the appellate decision?
Whether or not it gets approved doesn't really matter. The issue can't be trusted with the populace, because if the populace was majority for someone's civil rights, it wouldn't really be a civil rights issue would it... it would have already been put into law.
Edited for clarity
|
On March 03 2013 08:10 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 07:59 Zooper31 wrote:On March 03 2013 07:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:09 Zooper31 wrote:On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:16 hypercube wrote:On March 03 2013 06:10 electronic voyeur wrote:
He has unfortunately flip-flopped on a lot of issues. He didn't flip-flop, his views have evolved. + Show Spoiler +Although some conservatives might claim that they were intelligently designed by his advisors to maximize his re-election chances. anyone with half a brain would claim that..... you dont go from saying marriage is between a man and a woman to gay marriage is perfectly alright at his age.... Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term? And this surprises you? Are you really that ignorant to think no politician lies to us? He always supported gay rights. He just didn't have the liberty to openly admit his full beliefs about gay marriage without it hurting him more than helping him, so he kept quiet about it. Now people are more enlightened and more tolerant of others rights and beliefs and it is safe to say what he actually wants to say about the matter. You could compare it to people who were against slavery back when it was in full force. You couldn't outright say so otherwise you'd be punished and treated badly. im not sure why you would defend obama for being a liar--and i am surprised that he would outright lie. i would prefer someone who sticks to their principles than a liar. and why do people keep saying he kept quiet? he came straight out and said marriage was between a man and woman. he has flip-flopped on this issue. Because I feel the lie was needed for the greater good. I just found it kinda stupid you were surprised/upset that he lied, hes a politician... i am sad that you are so disenfranchised with the system. i do not expect politicians to blatantly lie to me. i expect them to be wishy-washy, refuse to take positions and deflect. i dont expect them to say marriage doesnt include gays and then say it does, or say marriage should be decided by states and then say fuck the states, federal gov't bitches! i understand why people are cool with what obama is doing because it reflects their own belief that gay marriage should be allowed (also my belief), but i think you guys should think for a second how fucking horrible it is that a politician blatantly misled everyone.... if a corporation did this the fucking internet would be ablaze with criticism, but because it reflects their own beliefs---its cool.
Deflecting a question or simply not answering it is just as bad as lying imo. Either way you are correct, I'm just happy he's backing gay marriage regardless of what he said in the past or not.
|
On March 03 2013 08:14 Kerwin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 08:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 08:10 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 08:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:56 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:42 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:23 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
so he lied to us his first term? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from Obama saying he was against gay marriage. You'd be more likely to find him skirting the issue or saying something closer to "not right now". Edit: Also, a big reason conservatives want to keep the issue open is that it is a huge way to drive the common folk to the polls. The common people may not know much about politics, but they know the bible tells them gay people are evil. He said, "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been." http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/09/11623172-the-evolution-of-obamas-stance-on-gay-marriage?lite Saying he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a political stance on gay rights, when in the next statement he says who he think should be making these decisions. That is not a lie. You can not practice something but believe others should be able to practice it. This was him deflecting the issue by saying it's not an issue he believes he should have to legislate on. you do know he is saying that it shouldnt be left up to the states now, right? You do realize that making a change in his stance does not constitute lying? My personal belief is that he had to skirt the issue in the debate in order to get elected. But he didn't lie in the debate. As a lawyer you consider all angles to a case. In the debate he was largely talking about a social issue. But in this case (since it's being taken to the supreme court) it's being viewed as a civil rights issue. Civil rights issues SHOULD NOT be voted on by the populace. Civil rights issues need to go before the Supreme Court. so instead of millions of people deciding what is best for the populace, a few old ass people should decide what is best for the populace. gotcha. whether he lied or not (debatable), he is a flip-flopper. Dude... how many times (in history ever...) have the millions of people ever been right about anything? Every civil rights movement in America has at first been opposed by the majority and slowly later generations except it. Unless you feel like waiting for 50-something years for the populace to catch up to reasonable thinking, the government needs to pass civil rights laws like this so people can get the rights they friggin' deserve as an American. so, when the supreme court says fuck gay marriage and affirms the ban on gay marriage, you are cool with that system? or is it only if the supreme court says yay gay marriage and affirms the appellate decision? Whether or not it gets approved doesn't really matter. The issue can't be trusted with the populace, because if the populace was majority for someone's civil rights, it wouldn't really be a civil rights issue would it... it would have already been put into law.
*cough* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson
|
On March 03 2013 08:12 dAPhREAk wrote:
so, when the supreme court says fuck gay marriage and affirms the ban on gay marriage, you are cool with that system?
I'm not cool with it, but it's still better than not having that potential check on states' power.
|
On March 03 2013 08:18 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 08:14 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 08:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 08:10 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 08:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:56 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:42 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:23 Kerwin wrote:
[quote]
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from Obama saying he was against gay marriage. You'd be more likely to find him skirting the issue or saying something closer to "not right now".
Edit: Also, a big reason conservatives want to keep the issue open is that it is a huge way to drive the common folk to the polls. The common people may not know much about politics, but they know the bible tells them gay people are evil. He said, "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been." http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/09/11623172-the-evolution-of-obamas-stance-on-gay-marriage?lite Saying he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a political stance on gay rights, when in the next statement he says who he think should be making these decisions. That is not a lie. You can not practice something but believe others should be able to practice it. This was him deflecting the issue by saying it's not an issue he believes he should have to legislate on. you do know he is saying that it shouldnt be left up to the states now, right? You do realize that making a change in his stance does not constitute lying? My personal belief is that he had to skirt the issue in the debate in order to get elected. But he didn't lie in the debate. As a lawyer you consider all angles to a case. In the debate he was largely talking about a social issue. But in this case (since it's being taken to the supreme court) it's being viewed as a civil rights issue. Civil rights issues SHOULD NOT be voted on by the populace. Civil rights issues need to go before the Supreme Court. so instead of millions of people deciding what is best for the populace, a few old ass people should decide what is best for the populace. gotcha. whether he lied or not (debatable), he is a flip-flopper. Dude... how many times (in history ever...) have the millions of people ever been right about anything? Every civil rights movement in America has at first been opposed by the majority and slowly later generations except it. Unless you feel like waiting for 50-something years for the populace to catch up to reasonable thinking, the government needs to pass civil rights laws like this so people can get the rights they friggin' deserve as an American. so, when the supreme court says fuck gay marriage and affirms the ban on gay marriage, you are cool with that system? or is it only if the supreme court says yay gay marriage and affirms the appellate decision? Whether or not it gets approved doesn't really matter. The issue can't be trusted with the populace, because if the populace was majority for someone's civil rights, it wouldn't really be a civil rights issue would it... it would have already been put into law. *cough* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson
The populace got that one wrong before the supreme court did. :/
|
On March 03 2013 08:00 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 07:56 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:42 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:23 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:16 hypercube wrote:[quote] He didn't flip-flop, his views have evolved. + Show Spoiler +Although some conservatives might claim that they were intelligently designed by his advisors to maximize his re-election chances. anyone with half a brain would claim that..... you dont go from saying marriage is between a man and a woman to gay marriage is perfectly alright at his age.... Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from Obama saying he was against gay marriage. You'd be more likely to find him skirting the issue or saying something closer to "not right now". Edit: Also, a big reason conservatives want to keep the issue open is that it is a huge way to drive the common folk to the polls. The common people may not know much about politics, but they know the bible tells them gay people are evil. He said, "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been." http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/09/11623172-the-evolution-of-obamas-stance-on-gay-marriage?lite Saying he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a political stance on gay rights, when in the next statement he says who he think should be making these decisions. That is not a lie. You can not practice something but believe others should be able to practice it. This was him deflecting the issue by saying it's not an issue he believes he should have to legislate on. you do know he is saying that it shouldnt be left up to the states now, right? You do realize that making a change in his stance does not constitute lying? My personal belief is that he had to skirt the issue in the debate in order to get elected. But he didn't lie in the debate. As a lawyer you consider all angles to a case. In the debate he was largely talking about a social issue. But in this case (since it's being taken to the supreme court) it's being viewed as a civil rights issue. Civil rights issues SHOULD NOT be voted on by the populace. Civil rights issues need to go before the Supreme Court. so instead of millions of people deciding what is best for the populace, a few old ass people should decide what is best for the populace. gotcha. whether he lied or not (debatable), he is a flip-flopper.
You can call him a flip-flopper all you want, but it seems like at this point a majority of americans sees gay marriage as a right, while several years ago that was a minority. Obama's flip-flop pretty much happened once poll numbers started to show that majority. He seems to be doing exactly what the populace wants.
I don't get the debate in the first place. Gay marriage is a done deal in the US, 7/10 people that reach the voting age favor it and that percentage keeps going up, while 7/10 that die oppose it. If it doesn't happen now, it'll happen in 5 years and the dems have a social issue they can exploit in the meantime.
|
On March 03 2013 08:26 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 08:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:56 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:42 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:23 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
anyone with half a brain would claim that..... you dont go from saying marriage is between a man and a woman to gay marriage is perfectly alright at his age.... Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from Obama saying he was against gay marriage. You'd be more likely to find him skirting the issue or saying something closer to "not right now". Edit: Also, a big reason conservatives want to keep the issue open is that it is a huge way to drive the common folk to the polls. The common people may not know much about politics, but they know the bible tells them gay people are evil. He said, "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been." http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/09/11623172-the-evolution-of-obamas-stance-on-gay-marriage?lite Saying he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a political stance on gay rights, when in the next statement he says who he think should be making these decisions. That is not a lie. You can not practice something but believe others should be able to practice it. This was him deflecting the issue by saying it's not an issue he believes he should have to legislate on. you do know he is saying that it shouldnt be left up to the states now, right? You do realize that making a change in his stance does not constitute lying? My personal belief is that he had to skirt the issue in the debate in order to get elected. But he didn't lie in the debate. As a lawyer you consider all angles to a case. In the debate he was largely talking about a social issue. But in this case (since it's being taken to the supreme court) it's being viewed as a civil rights issue. Civil rights issues SHOULD NOT be voted on by the populace. Civil rights issues need to go before the Supreme Court. so instead of millions of people deciding what is best for the populace, a few old ass people should decide what is best for the populace. gotcha. whether he lied or not (debatable), he is a flip-flopper. You can call him a flip-flopper all you want, but it seems like at this point a majority of americans sees gay marriage as a right, while several years ago that was a minority. Obama's flip-flop pretty much happened once poll numbers started to show that majority. He seems to be doing exactly what the populace wants. I don't get the debate in the first place. Gay marriage is a done deal in the US, 7/10 people that reach the voting age favor it and that percentage keeps going up, while 7/10 that die oppose it. If it doesn't happen now, it'll happen in 5 years and the dems have a social issue they can exploit in the meantime.
what? a majority of california (one of the most liberal states in the nation) voted to ban gay marriage. how can you say a majority support gay marriage?
|
On March 03 2013 08:28 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 08:26 Derez wrote:On March 03 2013 08:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:56 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:42 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:23 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:
[quote]
Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from Obama saying he was against gay marriage. You'd be more likely to find him skirting the issue or saying something closer to "not right now". Edit: Also, a big reason conservatives want to keep the issue open is that it is a huge way to drive the common folk to the polls. The common people may not know much about politics, but they know the bible tells them gay people are evil. He said, "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been." http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/09/11623172-the-evolution-of-obamas-stance-on-gay-marriage?lite Saying he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a political stance on gay rights, when in the next statement he says who he think should be making these decisions. That is not a lie. You can not practice something but believe others should be able to practice it. This was him deflecting the issue by saying it's not an issue he believes he should have to legislate on. you do know he is saying that it shouldnt be left up to the states now, right? You do realize that making a change in his stance does not constitute lying? My personal belief is that he had to skirt the issue in the debate in order to get elected. But he didn't lie in the debate. As a lawyer you consider all angles to a case. In the debate he was largely talking about a social issue. But in this case (since it's being taken to the supreme court) it's being viewed as a civil rights issue. Civil rights issues SHOULD NOT be voted on by the populace. Civil rights issues need to go before the Supreme Court. so instead of millions of people deciding what is best for the populace, a few old ass people should decide what is best for the populace. gotcha. whether he lied or not (debatable), he is a flip-flopper. You can call him a flip-flopper all you want, but it seems like at this point a majority of americans sees gay marriage as a right, while several years ago that was a minority. Obama's flip-flop pretty much happened once poll numbers started to show that majority. He seems to be doing exactly what the populace wants. I don't get the debate in the first place. Gay marriage is a done deal in the US, 7/10 people that reach the voting age favor it and that percentage keeps going up, while 7/10 that die oppose it. If it doesn't happen now, it'll happen in 5 years and the dems have a social issue they can exploit in the meantime. what? a majority of california (one of the most liberal states in the nation) voted to ban gay marriage. how can you say a majority support gay marriage?
Majority of CA is not the majority of the country.
Though what people say in polls and what people do in voting in person is very different imo.
|
On March 03 2013 08:28 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 08:26 Derez wrote:On March 03 2013 08:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:56 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:42 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:23 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:
[quote]
Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from Obama saying he was against gay marriage. You'd be more likely to find him skirting the issue or saying something closer to "not right now". Edit: Also, a big reason conservatives want to keep the issue open is that it is a huge way to drive the common folk to the polls. The common people may not know much about politics, but they know the bible tells them gay people are evil. He said, "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been." http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/09/11623172-the-evolution-of-obamas-stance-on-gay-marriage?lite Saying he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a political stance on gay rights, when in the next statement he says who he think should be making these decisions. That is not a lie. You can not practice something but believe others should be able to practice it. This was him deflecting the issue by saying it's not an issue he believes he should have to legislate on. you do know he is saying that it shouldnt be left up to the states now, right? You do realize that making a change in his stance does not constitute lying? My personal belief is that he had to skirt the issue in the debate in order to get elected. But he didn't lie in the debate. As a lawyer you consider all angles to a case. In the debate he was largely talking about a social issue. But in this case (since it's being taken to the supreme court) it's being viewed as a civil rights issue. Civil rights issues SHOULD NOT be voted on by the populace. Civil rights issues need to go before the Supreme Court. so instead of millions of people deciding what is best for the populace, a few old ass people should decide what is best for the populace. gotcha. whether he lied or not (debatable), he is a flip-flopper. You can call him a flip-flopper all you want, but it seems like at this point a majority of americans sees gay marriage as a right, while several years ago that was a minority. Obama's flip-flop pretty much happened once poll numbers started to show that majority. He seems to be doing exactly what the populace wants. I don't get the debate in the first place. Gay marriage is a done deal in the US, 7/10 people that reach the voting age favor it and that percentage keeps going up, while 7/10 that die oppose it. If it doesn't happen now, it'll happen in 5 years and the dems have a social issue they can exploit in the meantime. what? a majority of california (one of the most liberal states in the nation) voted to ban gay marriage. how can you say a majority support gay marriage?
There is this thing called a poll. It's when you ask about of people about their stance on a particular issue to get an idea of what the general opinion of population is on the subject. Apparently there have been some of these poll thingys conducted on the topic of gay marriage, finding that a majority of americans now support it, with overwhelming support among young people in particular.
|
On March 03 2013 08:32 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 08:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 08:26 Derez wrote:On March 03 2013 08:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:56 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:42 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:23 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
so he lied to us his first term? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from Obama saying he was against gay marriage. You'd be more likely to find him skirting the issue or saying something closer to "not right now". Edit: Also, a big reason conservatives want to keep the issue open is that it is a huge way to drive the common folk to the polls. The common people may not know much about politics, but they know the bible tells them gay people are evil. He said, "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been." http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/09/11623172-the-evolution-of-obamas-stance-on-gay-marriage?lite Saying he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a political stance on gay rights, when in the next statement he says who he think should be making these decisions. That is not a lie. You can not practice something but believe others should be able to practice it. This was him deflecting the issue by saying it's not an issue he believes he should have to legislate on. you do know he is saying that it shouldnt be left up to the states now, right? You do realize that making a change in his stance does not constitute lying? My personal belief is that he had to skirt the issue in the debate in order to get elected. But he didn't lie in the debate. As a lawyer you consider all angles to a case. In the debate he was largely talking about a social issue. But in this case (since it's being taken to the supreme court) it's being viewed as a civil rights issue. Civil rights issues SHOULD NOT be voted on by the populace. Civil rights issues need to go before the Supreme Court. so instead of millions of people deciding what is best for the populace, a few old ass people should decide what is best for the populace. gotcha. whether he lied or not (debatable), he is a flip-flopper. You can call him a flip-flopper all you want, but it seems like at this point a majority of americans sees gay marriage as a right, while several years ago that was a minority. Obama's flip-flop pretty much happened once poll numbers started to show that majority. He seems to be doing exactly what the populace wants. I don't get the debate in the first place. Gay marriage is a done deal in the US, 7/10 people that reach the voting age favor it and that percentage keeps going up, while 7/10 that die oppose it. If it doesn't happen now, it'll happen in 5 years and the dems have a social issue they can exploit in the meantime. what? a majority of california (one of the most liberal states in the nation) voted to ban gay marriage. how can you say a majority support gay marriage? Majority of CA is not the majority of the country.
no shit? but ca is one of the most progressive, if not the most progressive, states in the nation.
|
On March 03 2013 08:33 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 08:32 Zooper31 wrote:On March 03 2013 08:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 08:26 Derez wrote:On March 03 2013 08:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:56 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:42 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:23 Kerwin wrote:
[quote]
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from Obama saying he was against gay marriage. You'd be more likely to find him skirting the issue or saying something closer to "not right now".
Edit: Also, a big reason conservatives want to keep the issue open is that it is a huge way to drive the common folk to the polls. The common people may not know much about politics, but they know the bible tells them gay people are evil. He said, "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been." http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/09/11623172-the-evolution-of-obamas-stance-on-gay-marriage?lite Saying he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a political stance on gay rights, when in the next statement he says who he think should be making these decisions. That is not a lie. You can not practice something but believe others should be able to practice it. This was him deflecting the issue by saying it's not an issue he believes he should have to legislate on. you do know he is saying that it shouldnt be left up to the states now, right? You do realize that making a change in his stance does not constitute lying? My personal belief is that he had to skirt the issue in the debate in order to get elected. But he didn't lie in the debate. As a lawyer you consider all angles to a case. In the debate he was largely talking about a social issue. But in this case (since it's being taken to the supreme court) it's being viewed as a civil rights issue. Civil rights issues SHOULD NOT be voted on by the populace. Civil rights issues need to go before the Supreme Court. so instead of millions of people deciding what is best for the populace, a few old ass people should decide what is best for the populace. gotcha. whether he lied or not (debatable), he is a flip-flopper. You can call him a flip-flopper all you want, but it seems like at this point a majority of americans sees gay marriage as a right, while several years ago that was a minority. Obama's flip-flop pretty much happened once poll numbers started to show that majority. He seems to be doing exactly what the populace wants. I don't get the debate in the first place. Gay marriage is a done deal in the US, 7/10 people that reach the voting age favor it and that percentage keeps going up, while 7/10 that die oppose it. If it doesn't happen now, it'll happen in 5 years and the dems have a social issue they can exploit in the meantime. what? a majority of california (one of the most liberal states in the nation) voted to ban gay marriage. how can you say a majority support gay marriage? Majority of CA is not the majority of the country. no shit? but ca is one of the most progressive, if not the most progressive, states in the nation.
Read it the first time, still doesn't change my response. Times are changing very rapidly and the poster above explained it more.
|
On March 03 2013 08:28 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 08:26 Derez wrote:On March 03 2013 08:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:56 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:42 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:23 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:
[quote]
Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from Obama saying he was against gay marriage. You'd be more likely to find him skirting the issue or saying something closer to "not right now". Edit: Also, a big reason conservatives want to keep the issue open is that it is a huge way to drive the common folk to the polls. The common people may not know much about politics, but they know the bible tells them gay people are evil. He said, "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been." http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/09/11623172-the-evolution-of-obamas-stance-on-gay-marriage?lite Saying he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a political stance on gay rights, when in the next statement he says who he think should be making these decisions. That is not a lie. You can not practice something but believe others should be able to practice it. This was him deflecting the issue by saying it's not an issue he believes he should have to legislate on. you do know he is saying that it shouldnt be left up to the states now, right? You do realize that making a change in his stance does not constitute lying? My personal belief is that he had to skirt the issue in the debate in order to get elected. But he didn't lie in the debate. As a lawyer you consider all angles to a case. In the debate he was largely talking about a social issue. But in this case (since it's being taken to the supreme court) it's being viewed as a civil rights issue. Civil rights issues SHOULD NOT be voted on by the populace. Civil rights issues need to go before the Supreme Court. so instead of millions of people deciding what is best for the populace, a few old ass people should decide what is best for the populace. gotcha. whether he lied or not (debatable), he is a flip-flopper. You can call him a flip-flopper all you want, but it seems like at this point a majority of americans sees gay marriage as a right, while several years ago that was a minority. Obama's flip-flop pretty much happened once poll numbers started to show that majority. He seems to be doing exactly what the populace wants. I don't get the debate in the first place. Gay marriage is a done deal in the US, 7/10 people that reach the voting age favor it and that percentage keeps going up, while 7/10 that die oppose it. If it doesn't happen now, it'll happen in 5 years and the dems have a social issue they can exploit in the meantime. what? a majority of california (one of the most liberal states in the nation) voted to ban gay marriage. how can you say a majority support gay marriage?
They seemed to have come to their senses afterwards tho. The changes in California nicely mirror Obama's 'evolving' position, which is another perfectly valid reason for him to get involved.
In California, public opinion clearly has shifted since Proposition 8 passed in 2008 and banned same-sex marriage. A Field Poll released this week showed that California voters, by a nearly 2-1 margin, now approve of allowing same-sex couples to marry, a finding in line with states that legalized gay marriage in November's election.
|
On March 03 2013 08:32 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 08:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 08:26 Derez wrote:On March 03 2013 08:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:56 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:42 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:23 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
so he lied to us his first term? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from Obama saying he was against gay marriage. You'd be more likely to find him skirting the issue or saying something closer to "not right now". Edit: Also, a big reason conservatives want to keep the issue open is that it is a huge way to drive the common folk to the polls. The common people may not know much about politics, but they know the bible tells them gay people are evil. He said, "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been." http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/09/11623172-the-evolution-of-obamas-stance-on-gay-marriage?lite Saying he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a political stance on gay rights, when in the next statement he says who he think should be making these decisions. That is not a lie. You can not practice something but believe others should be able to practice it. This was him deflecting the issue by saying it's not an issue he believes he should have to legislate on. you do know he is saying that it shouldnt be left up to the states now, right? You do realize that making a change in his stance does not constitute lying? My personal belief is that he had to skirt the issue in the debate in order to get elected. But he didn't lie in the debate. As a lawyer you consider all angles to a case. In the debate he was largely talking about a social issue. But in this case (since it's being taken to the supreme court) it's being viewed as a civil rights issue. Civil rights issues SHOULD NOT be voted on by the populace. Civil rights issues need to go before the Supreme Court. so instead of millions of people deciding what is best for the populace, a few old ass people should decide what is best for the populace. gotcha. whether he lied or not (debatable), he is a flip-flopper. You can call him a flip-flopper all you want, but it seems like at this point a majority of americans sees gay marriage as a right, while several years ago that was a minority. Obama's flip-flop pretty much happened once poll numbers started to show that majority. He seems to be doing exactly what the populace wants. I don't get the debate in the first place. Gay marriage is a done deal in the US, 7/10 people that reach the voting age favor it and that percentage keeps going up, while 7/10 that die oppose it. If it doesn't happen now, it'll happen in 5 years and the dems have a social issue they can exploit in the meantime. what? a majority of california (one of the most liberal states in the nation) voted to ban gay marriage. how can you say a majority support gay marriage? There is this thing called a poll. It's when you ask about of people about their stance on a particular issue to get an idea of what the general opinion of population is on the subject. Apparently there have been some of these poll thingys conducted on the topic of gay marriage, finding that a majority of americans now support it, with overwhelming support among young people in particular.
vote > polls. nobody says "awesome, we won the poll, but lost the vote."
|
On March 03 2013 08:35 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 08:32 McBengt wrote:On March 03 2013 08:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 08:26 Derez wrote:On March 03 2013 08:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:56 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:42 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:23 Kerwin wrote:
[quote]
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from Obama saying he was against gay marriage. You'd be more likely to find him skirting the issue or saying something closer to "not right now".
Edit: Also, a big reason conservatives want to keep the issue open is that it is a huge way to drive the common folk to the polls. The common people may not know much about politics, but they know the bible tells them gay people are evil. He said, "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been." http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/09/11623172-the-evolution-of-obamas-stance-on-gay-marriage?lite Saying he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a political stance on gay rights, when in the next statement he says who he think should be making these decisions. That is not a lie. You can not practice something but believe others should be able to practice it. This was him deflecting the issue by saying it's not an issue he believes he should have to legislate on. you do know he is saying that it shouldnt be left up to the states now, right? You do realize that making a change in his stance does not constitute lying? My personal belief is that he had to skirt the issue in the debate in order to get elected. But he didn't lie in the debate. As a lawyer you consider all angles to a case. In the debate he was largely talking about a social issue. But in this case (since it's being taken to the supreme court) it's being viewed as a civil rights issue. Civil rights issues SHOULD NOT be voted on by the populace. Civil rights issues need to go before the Supreme Court. so instead of millions of people deciding what is best for the populace, a few old ass people should decide what is best for the populace. gotcha. whether he lied or not (debatable), he is a flip-flopper. You can call him a flip-flopper all you want, but it seems like at this point a majority of americans sees gay marriage as a right, while several years ago that was a minority. Obama's flip-flop pretty much happened once poll numbers started to show that majority. He seems to be doing exactly what the populace wants. I don't get the debate in the first place. Gay marriage is a done deal in the US, 7/10 people that reach the voting age favor it and that percentage keeps going up, while 7/10 that die oppose it. If it doesn't happen now, it'll happen in 5 years and the dems have a social issue they can exploit in the meantime. what? a majority of california (one of the most liberal states in the nation) voted to ban gay marriage. how can you say a majority support gay marriage? There is this thing called a poll. It's when you ask about of people about their stance on a particular issue to get an idea of what the general opinion of population is on the subject. Apparently there have been some of these poll thingys conducted on the topic of gay marriage, finding that a majority of americans now support it, with overwhelming support among young people in particular. vote > polls. nobody says "awesome, we won the poll, but lost the vote."
Whole nation > CA. Nobody says "awesome, CA banned something 5 years ago therefore case closed."
|
On March 02 2013 18:51 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 11:53 Tomba wrote:
If you really are against gay marriage, don't marry the same sex. Why is this still a problem? Lol! Close this thread now! It is really actually this simple! LOL good job sir!
Yeah, it is actually that simple if you think about it...
|
On March 03 2013 08:35 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 08:32 McBengt wrote:On March 03 2013 08:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 08:26 Derez wrote:On March 03 2013 08:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:56 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:42 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:23 Kerwin wrote:
[quote]
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from Obama saying he was against gay marriage. You'd be more likely to find him skirting the issue or saying something closer to "not right now".
Edit: Also, a big reason conservatives want to keep the issue open is that it is a huge way to drive the common folk to the polls. The common people may not know much about politics, but they know the bible tells them gay people are evil. He said, "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been." http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/09/11623172-the-evolution-of-obamas-stance-on-gay-marriage?lite Saying he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a political stance on gay rights, when in the next statement he says who he think should be making these decisions. That is not a lie. You can not practice something but believe others should be able to practice it. This was him deflecting the issue by saying it's not an issue he believes he should have to legislate on. you do know he is saying that it shouldnt be left up to the states now, right? You do realize that making a change in his stance does not constitute lying? My personal belief is that he had to skirt the issue in the debate in order to get elected. But he didn't lie in the debate. As a lawyer you consider all angles to a case. In the debate he was largely talking about a social issue. But in this case (since it's being taken to the supreme court) it's being viewed as a civil rights issue. Civil rights issues SHOULD NOT be voted on by the populace. Civil rights issues need to go before the Supreme Court. so instead of millions of people deciding what is best for the populace, a few old ass people should decide what is best for the populace. gotcha. whether he lied or not (debatable), he is a flip-flopper. You can call him a flip-flopper all you want, but it seems like at this point a majority of americans sees gay marriage as a right, while several years ago that was a minority. Obama's flip-flop pretty much happened once poll numbers started to show that majority. He seems to be doing exactly what the populace wants. I don't get the debate in the first place. Gay marriage is a done deal in the US, 7/10 people that reach the voting age favor it and that percentage keeps going up, while 7/10 that die oppose it. If it doesn't happen now, it'll happen in 5 years and the dems have a social issue they can exploit in the meantime. what? a majority of california (one of the most liberal states in the nation) voted to ban gay marriage. how can you say a majority support gay marriage? There is this thing called a poll. It's when you ask about of people about their stance on a particular issue to get an idea of what the general opinion of population is on the subject. Apparently there have been some of these poll thingys conducted on the topic of gay marriage, finding that a majority of americans now support it, with overwhelming support among young people in particular. vote > polls. nobody says "awesome, we won the poll, but lost the vote."
Once you vote on something you can never vote on that subject again, and never change your mind. Also, a country or a state can never evolve their social policies with new generations who may see things differently.
|
In a democratic country that promotes liberty, any law targeting the way its citizens choose to live need have a damn good reason for existing. Simply being offended by something that in no other way affects you is not one of those reasons.
With the US having such a recent history of discrimination against its coloured community, its quite shocking that so many appear to be unable to see this for what it really is. Everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion, morals and sense of right and wrong. Expressing opinions of what one think is right is however something entirely different from promoting laws to ensure that everyone else acts accordingly.
|
There are likely many people who will tell a pollster they are in favor of gay marriage, but when they get alone in that booth with a secret ballot....
It's failed in what, 30+ states, and passed in 2?
|
On March 03 2013 08:56 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 08:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 08:32 McBengt wrote:On March 03 2013 08:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 08:26 Derez wrote:On March 03 2013 08:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:56 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:42 Kerwin wrote:Saying he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a political stance on gay rights, when in the next statement he says who he think should be making these decisions. That is not a lie. You can not practice something but believe others should be able to practice it. This was him deflecting the issue by saying it's not an issue he believes he should have to legislate on. you do know he is saying that it shouldnt be left up to the states now, right? You do realize that making a change in his stance does not constitute lying? My personal belief is that he had to skirt the issue in the debate in order to get elected. But he didn't lie in the debate. As a lawyer you consider all angles to a case. In the debate he was largely talking about a social issue. But in this case (since it's being taken to the supreme court) it's being viewed as a civil rights issue. Civil rights issues SHOULD NOT be voted on by the populace. Civil rights issues need to go before the Supreme Court. so instead of millions of people deciding what is best for the populace, a few old ass people should decide what is best for the populace. gotcha. whether he lied or not (debatable), he is a flip-flopper. You can call him a flip-flopper all you want, but it seems like at this point a majority of americans sees gay marriage as a right, while several years ago that was a minority. Obama's flip-flop pretty much happened once poll numbers started to show that majority. He seems to be doing exactly what the populace wants. I don't get the debate in the first place. Gay marriage is a done deal in the US, 7/10 people that reach the voting age favor it and that percentage keeps going up, while 7/10 that die oppose it. If it doesn't happen now, it'll happen in 5 years and the dems have a social issue they can exploit in the meantime. what? a majority of california (one of the most liberal states in the nation) voted to ban gay marriage. how can you say a majority support gay marriage? There is this thing called a poll. It's when you ask about of people about their stance on a particular issue to get an idea of what the general opinion of population is on the subject. Apparently there have been some of these poll thingys conducted on the topic of gay marriage, finding that a majority of americans now support it, with overwhelming support among young people in particular. vote > polls. nobody says "awesome, we won the poll, but lost the vote." Once you vote on something you can never vote on that subject again, and never change your mind. Also, a country or a state can never evolve their social policies with new generations who may see things differently.
im not sure what you mean. you can amend and repeal laws, so, yes, you can vote on it again. if you're referring to a constitutional amendment, it is obviously more difficult to amend or repeal, but also possible.
|
On March 03 2013 09:02 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 08:56 McBengt wrote:On March 03 2013 08:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 08:32 McBengt wrote:On March 03 2013 08:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 08:26 Derez wrote:On March 03 2013 08:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:56 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:42 Kerwin wrote:
[quote]
Saying he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a political stance on gay rights, when in the next statement he says who he think should be making these decisions. That is not a lie. You can not practice something but believe others should be able to practice it. This was him deflecting the issue by saying it's not an issue he believes he should have to legislate on. you do know he is saying that it shouldnt be left up to the states now, right? You do realize that making a change in his stance does not constitute lying? My personal belief is that he had to skirt the issue in the debate in order to get elected. But he didn't lie in the debate. As a lawyer you consider all angles to a case. In the debate he was largely talking about a social issue. But in this case (since it's being taken to the supreme court) it's being viewed as a civil rights issue. Civil rights issues SHOULD NOT be voted on by the populace. Civil rights issues need to go before the Supreme Court. so instead of millions of people deciding what is best for the populace, a few old ass people should decide what is best for the populace. gotcha. whether he lied or not (debatable), he is a flip-flopper. You can call him a flip-flopper all you want, but it seems like at this point a majority of americans sees gay marriage as a right, while several years ago that was a minority. Obama's flip-flop pretty much happened once poll numbers started to show that majority. He seems to be doing exactly what the populace wants. I don't get the debate in the first place. Gay marriage is a done deal in the US, 7/10 people that reach the voting age favor it and that percentage keeps going up, while 7/10 that die oppose it. If it doesn't happen now, it'll happen in 5 years and the dems have a social issue they can exploit in the meantime. what? a majority of california (one of the most liberal states in the nation) voted to ban gay marriage. how can you say a majority support gay marriage? There is this thing called a poll. It's when you ask about of people about their stance on a particular issue to get an idea of what the general opinion of population is on the subject. Apparently there have been some of these poll thingys conducted on the topic of gay marriage, finding that a majority of americans now support it, with overwhelming support among young people in particular. vote > polls. nobody says "awesome, we won the poll, but lost the vote." Once you vote on something you can never vote on that subject again, and never change your mind. Also, a country or a state can never evolve their social policies with new generations who may see things differently. im not sure what you mean. you can amend and repeal laws, so, yes, you can vote on it again. if you're referring to a constitutional amendment, it is obviously more difficult to amend or repeal, but also possible.
Obviously I was dead serious and meant every word.
|
|
|
On March 03 2013 09:00 rusedeguerre wrote:
There are likely many people who will tell a pollster they are in favor of gay marriage, but when they get alone in that booth with a secret ballot....
It's failed in what, 30+ states, and passed in 2?
I think that it's more likely that most people just aren't showing up to vote than lying about how they feel.
|
On March 03 2013 13:18 urashimakt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 09:00 rusedeguerre wrote:
There are likely many people who will tell a pollster they are in favor of gay marriage, but when they get alone in that booth with a secret ballot....
It's failed in what, 30+ states, and passed in 2? I think that it's more likely that most people just aren't showing up to vote than lying about how they feel.
Probably this.
Conservatives/Republicans are more likely to go the voting booths. So sometimes popular opinion polls are less likely to matter. Also older people are more likely to vote, and they tend to be against gay marriage,
What surprises me though, is that 2008 november elections were extremely good turnout for liberals, so that is kind of interesting when you think about this vote, Obama did win that election in California after all. Prop 8 was advertised EVERYWHERE out there, it was a big deal, I know several family members who voted for Obama but chose to vote against same sex marriage on prop 8...
I don't get it, but same-sex marriage will be allowed soon in this country, and I hope, more importantly for me at least, that lgbtq people are more accepted by their families, communities, etc as times change and our country evolves. The suicide rate is way too high for their community
|
so after reading the discussion in this thread, I cant help but ask this question: who is ever hurt by gay marriage? honestly. present to me a reasonable argument over someone sustaining actual harm as a result of gay marriage. I bet that it cant be done.
|
On March 03 2013 16:16 Aveng3r wrote:
so after reading the discussion in this thread, I cant help but ask this question: who is ever hurt by gay marriage? honestly. present to me a reasonable argument over someone sustaining actual harm as a result of gay marriage. I bet that it cant be done.
That poor young girl who's still waiting for her one true love to come around, because she knows that two men can't ever love each other, because two men can't get married, and everyone knows that only two people that have true love can get married.
|
On March 03 2013 16:16 Aveng3r wrote:
so after reading the discussion in this thread, I cant help but ask this question: who is ever hurt by gay marriage? honestly. present to me a reasonable argument over someone sustaining actual harm as a result of gay marriage. I bet that it cant be done.
Yeah exactly this. Two gay people become happily married and that's it, how can anybody else be put out by it? The argument against gay marriage comes down to not wanting gay people to be happy. What other reason could there be?
At my University there's an overwhelming amount of people who support civil rights like this and that seems to be consistent among the younger generation. So the good news is this kind of bigotry won't last forever. When the world is run by today's youth gay marriage bans will be nothing but a bad memory.
I'm pretty proud of my generation mostly because of it's open mindedness. Telling kids what to think isn't working anymore, they question things anyway and that is just awesome.
|
On March 03 2013 08:28 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 08:26 Derez wrote:On March 03 2013 08:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:56 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:42 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 07:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 07:23 Kerwin wrote:On March 03 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2013 06:35 Kerwin wrote:
[quote]
Unfortunately, gay marriage is about as divisive an issue as there is in America right now, so it's simply not something he could support in his first term. However, "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed during his first term. If you've listened to him talk, it's pretty clear that he supports gay rights, but he can't do things by himself and needs the support of the other politicians in Washington. so he lied to us his first term? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a quote from Obama saying he was against gay marriage. You'd be more likely to find him skirting the issue or saying something closer to "not right now". Edit: Also, a big reason conservatives want to keep the issue open is that it is a huge way to drive the common folk to the polls. The common people may not know much about politics, but they know the bible tells them gay people are evil. He said, "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been." http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/09/11623172-the-evolution-of-obamas-stance-on-gay-marriage?lite Saying he personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a political stance on gay rights, when in the next statement he says who he think should be making these decisions. That is not a lie. You can not practice something but believe others should be able to practice it. This was him deflecting the issue by saying it's not an issue he believes he should have to legislate on. you do know he is saying that it shouldnt be left up to the states now, right? You do realize that making a change in his stance does not constitute lying? My personal belief is that he had to skirt the issue in the debate in order to get elected. But he didn't lie in the debate. As a lawyer you consider all angles to a case. In the debate he was largely talking about a social issue. But in this case (since it's being taken to the supreme court) it's being viewed as a civil rights issue. Civil rights issues SHOULD NOT be voted on by the populace. Civil rights issues need to go before the Supreme Court. so instead of millions of people deciding what is best for the populace, a few old ass people should decide what is best for the populace. gotcha. whether he lied or not (debatable), he is a flip-flopper. You can call him a flip-flopper all you want, but it seems like at this point a majority of americans sees gay marriage as a right, while several years ago that was a minority. Obama's flip-flop pretty much happened once poll numbers started to show that majority. He seems to be doing exactly what the populace wants. I don't get the debate in the first place. Gay marriage is a done deal in the US, 7/10 people that reach the voting age favor it and that percentage keeps going up, while 7/10 that die oppose it. If it doesn't happen now, it'll happen in 5 years and the dems have a social issue they can exploit in the meantime. what? a majority of california (one of the most liberal states in the nation) voted to ban gay marriage. how can you say a majority support gay marriage?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
Ah yes, manipulate the ignorant masses for their own good.
I don't know why people even pretend to want democracy anymore. Everyone I talk to believes people are stupid and some elite should be ruling because they know what's best.
Support for a technocracy (or any kind of rule by the "elite") is an incredibly fringe idea that is very unpopular in the vast majority of academic and philosophical circles. The reasons are blatantly obvious. Just because you talk to a few random Joe's that haven't actually thought about this issue beyond "people are stupid" doesn't mean that democracy is bad.
|
On March 03 2013 16:16 Aveng3r wrote:
so after reading the discussion in this thread, I cant help but ask this question: who is ever hurt by gay marriage? honestly. present to me a reasonable argument over someone sustaining actual harm as a result of gay marriage. I bet that it cant be done.
Obama and his army of homosexual immigrant FEMA agents will come to your house, make you to eat contraception pills, take your banana bacon ice cream, force you into a gay marriage and then two dudes will have sex on your couch.
|
On March 03 2013 16:16 Aveng3r wrote:
so after reading the discussion in this thread, I cant help but ask this question: who is ever hurt by gay marriage? honestly. present to me a reasonable argument over someone sustaining actual harm as a result of gay marriage. I bet that it cant be done.
It's undeniable there are conservatives out there who know their husbands or wives are gay but are scared that normalizing it would lead them "astray", leaving them widowed or for the non-married ones, leaving them with very few options. I think this explains most of the panic we see when sexuality is open for liberation, and at times I think even those who are lying to themselves want their community to keep them shackled because of their self-hate.
|
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts...
|
On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts...
Not when those votes violate a fundamental right.
|
On March 05 2013 06:08 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 16:16 Aveng3r wrote:
so after reading the discussion in this thread, I cant help but ask this question: who is ever hurt by gay marriage? honestly. present to me a reasonable argument over someone sustaining actual harm as a result of gay marriage. I bet that it cant be done. It's undeniable there are conservatives out there who know their husbands or wives are gay but are scared that normalizing it would lead them "astray", leaving them widowed or for the non-married ones, leaving them with very few options. I think this explains most of the panic we see when sexuality is open for liberation, and at times I think even those who are lying to themselves want their community to keep them shackled because of their self-hate.
You gave me quite the chuckle, there. I won't pretend that the idea isn't possible. It's probably "a thing." But, that it "explains most of the panic;" you are one crazy dude.
|
On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts...
It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter.
We need to protect minorities from majorities
States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying.
|
On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter. We need to protect minorities from majorities States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying.
you realize that what is happening here is that the majority (federal gov't) is telling the minority (state gov't) what to do. prop 8 was a constitutional amendment. california's constitution says there is no such thing as (nor a fundamental right to) gay marriage. the only way that constitutional amendment can be overturned is if the federal government says that its constitution is more important than the state's constitution. originally, obama agreed that state's rights should prevail--then he flip-flopped and is now asking the federal gov't to shit on state's rights. whether you agree with gay marriage or not, at least realize the implications of what is happening here. please think about what you're saying.
|
On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter.We need to protect minorities from majorities
States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying.
which is funny because that action would, in itself, be a violation of the federal constitution.
where in the constitution does it guarantee the right to gay marriage?
|
On March 05 2013 07:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter.We need to protect minorities from majorities
States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying. which is funny because that action would, in itself, be a violation of the federal constitution. where in the constitution does it guarantee the right to gay marriage?
Which action?
|
I don't think Obama backs anything. I think he just want to appeal to bleeding heart liberals so they get tricked again. Obama hasn't done a dam thing to make this country better and I doubt he ever will.
|
On March 05 2013 07:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter.We need to protect minorities from majorities
States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying. which is funny because that action would, in itself, be a violation of the federal constitution. where in the constitution does it guarantee the right to gay marriage?
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Same reasoning would apply here. But it's going to be up to the Supreme court to decide.
|
Great, our world is going in the right direction.
|
On March 05 2013 07:06 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 07:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter.We need to protect minorities from majorities
States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying. which is funny because that action would, in itself, be a violation of the federal constitution. where in the constitution does it guarantee the right to gay marriage? Which action?
well, for one, there is no real allowance in the Constitution for the courts to decide on this matter, but more importantly:
Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
of course, this is a very originalist argument, so I don't expect many people here to take it well, but whatever.
|
On March 05 2013 07:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 07:06 Roe wrote:On March 05 2013 07:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter.We need to protect minorities from majorities
States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying. which is funny because that action would, in itself, be a violation of the federal constitution. where in the constitution does it guarantee the right to gay marriage? Which action? well, for one, there is no real allowance in the Constitution for the courts to decide on this matter, but more importantly: Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." of course, this is a very originalist argument, so I don't expect many people here to take it well, but whatever.
Courts have gained more power over time, I'm talking about the courts current function in our government not their original function. It's really hard to argue against me on this considering they have been acting as I stated throughout the 20th century.
Also,
14th amendment
And the
Full Faith and Credit Clause
And yes I know how the courts ruled in relation to Full Faith and Credit in relation to same sex marriage, but I fully expect them to change their ruling in relation to this within the next decade or two, times have changed.
|
On March 05 2013 06:47 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter. We need to protect minorities from majorities States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying. you realize that what is happening here is that the majority (federal gov't) is telling the minority (state gov't) what to do. prop 8 was a constitutional amendment. california's constitution says there is no such thing as (nor a fundamental right to) gay marriage. the only way that constitutional amendment can be overturned is if the federal government says that its constitution is more important than the state's constitution. originally, obama agreed that state's rights should prevail--then he flip-flopped and is now asking the federal gov't to shit on state's rights. whether you agree with gay marriage or not, at least realize the implications of what is happening here. please think about what you're saying.
I've re-thought about what I'm saying, and I can see where your going with your argument, but I don't buy it sorry.
|
On March 05 2013 06:47 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter. We need to protect minorities from majorities States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying. you realize that what is happening here is that the majority (federal gov't) is telling the minority (state gov't) what to do. prop 8 was a constitutional amendment. california's constitution says there is no such thing as (nor a fundamental right to) gay marriage. the only way that constitutional amendment can be overturned is if the federal government says that its constitution is more important than the state's constitution. originally, obama agreed that state's rights should prevail--then he flip-flopped and is now asking the federal gov't to shit on state's rights. whether you agree with gay marriage or not, at least realize the implications of what is happening here. please think about what you're saying.
The U.S. Constitution is more important that any state constitution and it always has been. There is no precedent in the discussion of states' rights that's being set with this. Just because the California state constitution doesn't adequately protect minority rights, it doesn't mean we should let Californians oppress minorities and deny them rights.
|
On March 05 2013 10:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 06:47 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter. We need to protect minorities from majorities States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying. you realize that what is happening here is that the majority (federal gov't) is telling the minority (state gov't) what to do. prop 8 was a constitutional amendment. california's constitution says there is no such thing as (nor a fundamental right to) gay marriage. the only way that constitutional amendment can be overturned is if the federal government says that its constitution is more important than the state's constitution. originally, obama agreed that state's rights should prevail--then he flip-flopped and is now asking the federal gov't to shit on state's rights. whether you agree with gay marriage or not, at least realize the implications of what is happening here. please think about what you're saying. The U.S. Constitution is more important that any state constitution and it always has been. There is no precedent in the discussion of states' rights that's being set with this. Just because the California state constitution doesn't adequately protect minority rights, it doesn't mean we should let Californians oppress minorities and deny them rights.
if you don't think this impacts or sets precedent for state's rights, you don't understand the issues.
|
Hell, its about damn time.
Seriously.
|
On March 05 2013 10:46 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 10:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 05 2013 06:47 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter. We need to protect minorities from majorities States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying. you realize that what is happening here is that the majority (federal gov't) is telling the minority (state gov't) what to do. prop 8 was a constitutional amendment. california's constitution says there is no such thing as (nor a fundamental right to) gay marriage. the only way that constitutional amendment can be overturned is if the federal government says that its constitution is more important than the state's constitution. originally, obama agreed that state's rights should prevail--then he flip-flopped and is now asking the federal gov't to shit on state's rights. whether you agree with gay marriage or not, at least realize the implications of what is happening here. please think about what you're saying. The U.S. Constitution is more important that any state constitution and it always has been. There is no precedent in the discussion of states' rights that's being set with this. Just because the California state constitution doesn't adequately protect minority rights, it doesn't mean we should let Californians oppress minorities and deny them rights. if you don't think this impacts or sets precedent for state's rights, you don't understand the issues.
Whatever the court's decision, it will be based on the idea that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that State Constitutions are only valid if they are consistent with the US Constitution. The SCOTUS will either find that California's constitution is consistent with the US Constitution or that it is not.
On the specific issue of marriage, it will set a precedent. "states rights"? not as much
|
On March 05 2013 10:54 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 10:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 05 2013 10:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 05 2013 06:47 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter. We need to protect minorities from majorities States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying. you realize that what is happening here is that the majority (federal gov't) is telling the minority (state gov't) what to do. prop 8 was a constitutional amendment. california's constitution says there is no such thing as (nor a fundamental right to) gay marriage. the only way that constitutional amendment can be overturned is if the federal government says that its constitution is more important than the state's constitution. originally, obama agreed that state's rights should prevail--then he flip-flopped and is now asking the federal gov't to shit on state's rights. whether you agree with gay marriage or not, at least realize the implications of what is happening here. please think about what you're saying. The U.S. Constitution is more important that any state constitution and it always has been. There is no precedent in the discussion of states' rights that's being set with this. Just because the California state constitution doesn't adequately protect minority rights, it doesn't mean we should let Californians oppress minorities and deny them rights. if you don't think this impacts or sets precedent for state's rights, you don't understand the issues. Whatever the court's decision, it will be based on the idea that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that State Constitutions are only valid if they are consistent with the US Constitution. The SCOTUS will either find that California's constitution is consistent with the US Constitution or that it is not. On the specific issue of marriage, it will set a precedent. "states rights"? not as much
federal constitution vs state constitution is a state's rights issue.
|
it sure is, but the supreme court has ruled on the side of the federal constitution since the early 1800s
|
On March 05 2013 11:23 Mindcrime wrote:
it sure is, but the supreme court has ruled on the side of the federal constitution since the early 1800s
big surprise that the federal government rules in favor of the federal government.
|
On March 05 2013 10:46 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 10:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 05 2013 06:47 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter. We need to protect minorities from majorities States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying. you realize that what is happening here is that the majority (federal gov't) is telling the minority (state gov't) what to do. prop 8 was a constitutional amendment. california's constitution says there is no such thing as (nor a fundamental right to) gay marriage. the only way that constitutional amendment can be overturned is if the federal government says that its constitution is more important than the state's constitution. originally, obama agreed that state's rights should prevail--then he flip-flopped and is now asking the federal gov't to shit on state's rights. whether you agree with gay marriage or not, at least realize the implications of what is happening here. please think about what you're saying. The U.S. Constitution is more important that any state constitution and it always has been. There is no precedent in the discussion of states' rights that's being set with this. Just because the California state constitution doesn't adequately protect minority rights, it doesn't mean we should let Californians oppress minorities and deny them rights. if you don't think this impacts or sets precedent for state's rights, you don't understand the issues.
What is this going to set a precedent for? That states aren't allowed to oppress their minorities? Pretty sure we already covered that. Obviously the discussion of states' rights can come into play here, but it's not like this is setting some brand new, never-before-seen precedent about the states' rights discussion.
|
On March 05 2013 16:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 10:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 05 2013 10:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 05 2013 06:47 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter. We need to protect minorities from majorities States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying. you realize that what is happening here is that the majority (federal gov't) is telling the minority (state gov't) what to do. prop 8 was a constitutional amendment. california's constitution says there is no such thing as (nor a fundamental right to) gay marriage. the only way that constitutional amendment can be overturned is if the federal government says that its constitution is more important than the state's constitution. originally, obama agreed that state's rights should prevail--then he flip-flopped and is now asking the federal gov't to shit on state's rights. whether you agree with gay marriage or not, at least realize the implications of what is happening here. please think about what you're saying. The U.S. Constitution is more important that any state constitution and it always has been. There is no precedent in the discussion of states' rights that's being set with this. Just because the California state constitution doesn't adequately protect minority rights, it doesn't mean we should let Californians oppress minorities and deny them rights. if you don't think this impacts or sets precedent for state's rights, you don't understand the issues. What is this going to set a precedent for? That states aren't allowed to oppress their minorities? Pretty sure we already covered that. Obviously the discussion of states' rights can come into play here, but it's not like this is setting some brand new, never-before-seen precedent about the states' rights discussion.
i am actually unfamiliar with any precedent where the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned a state's constitutional amendment. can you point me to one?
|
A few "Jim crow" laws were overturned with brown v board for instan , many of the major supreme court cases have affected state statutes, amendments etc, I'm not going to go through each one .
Look here is one dealing with lgbtq rights, an amendment to Colorados constitution overturned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans
I was trying to find the exact number of state laws that have been found unconstitutional by the supreme court and I found something like 935 state statutes overturned, 200 something city ordinances, and 200 something state laws that federal laws take precedence over, so they werent overturnd but thr federal law comes first, always. All of these were until the year 2002, the source isn't trustworthy per say. (wiki answers) but their source is good,(government records) I would double check but I'm on my tablet, cant figure it out on here.
Im not a historian on the supreme court, but with a basic knowledge I would say they have the power and precedence
Technically this is not an enumerated power,(that is the power of judicial review) and technically the supreme court does not have the power to enforce its rulings. Say the supreme court rules on prop 8, california could ignore them. Some states ignored brown v board for instance, Remember what happened at little rock high school, the executive branch had to step in and Eisenhower enforced the scotus decision, Obama would likely do the same considering the circumstances.
|
On March 05 2013 06:47 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter. We need to protect minorities from majorities States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying. you realize that what is happening here is that the majority (federal gov't) is telling the minority (state gov't) what to do.
I just got off the phone with the Count. Apparently, there's 1 federal government and 50 state governments.
Many rulings the SCOTUS make are over whether or not a state or local government is allowed to do something. Pointing out that fact now for this specific case is merely a red herring to avoid the actual argument because it's one that's going to be lost.
|
On March 01 2013 14:35 Nick_54 wrote:
Obama was supossed to have adressed this 5 years ago, what was the delay?
He wasn't in his second term.
|
On March 05 2013 06:47 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2013 06:23 BlueBird. wrote:On March 05 2013 06:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's kind of messed up that California voters have to have their votes be approved by the Courts... It's part of our political system, the courts have had judicial interpretation for awhile now, if the courts determine prop 8 is a violation of the federal constitution than the voters votes don't matter. We need to protect minorities from majorities States aren't allowed to do deny constitutional rights because their majority vote said so, think about what your saying. you realize that what is happening here is that the majority (federal gov't) is telling the minority (state gov't) what to do. prop 8 was a constitutional amendment. california's constitution says there is no such thing as (nor a fundamental right to) gay marriage. the only way that constitutional amendment can be overturned is if the federal government says that its constitution is more important than the state's constitution. originally, obama agreed that state's rights should prevail--then he flip-flopped and is now asking the federal gov't to shit on state's rights. whether you agree with gay marriage or not, at least realize the implications of what is happening here. please think about what you're saying.
I think you have this whole situation backwards here.
Prop 8 was already struck down as unconstitutional by a lower court in California and by the 9th district court of appeals (I think that's its name anyway). The ruling stated:
"Although the constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently,"
The courts couldn't find any legitimate reason why Prop 8 should become law because it's only function was to prevent gay marriage and take away marriage rights from gay couples already married.
It's possibly going to the Supreme court because it's defendants want the court to overrule the California courts and appeals court to reinstate Prop 8.
|
On March 03 2013 16:16 Aveng3r wrote:
so after reading the discussion in this thread, I cant help but ask this question: who is ever hurt by gay marriage? honestly. present to me a reasonable argument over someone sustaining actual harm as a result of gay marriage. I bet that it cant be done.
Imo it's the adopted children. For proper growing up kids should have a mother and a father. I just think men are better at showing things like soccer(football) or how to use a screwdriver. Women on the other hand are better at showing empathy and compassion in everyday life. Plus if a boy has two fathers how will he know how to treat a woman? Most crucial information how to treat your husband/ wife in the future comes from observing your parents. This is my basic argument against gay marriage, and not that i'm some king of religious weirdo as pro - gay people seem to think about people like me.
|
|
|
On March 06 2013 00:29 karpotoss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 16:16 Aveng3r wrote:
so after reading the discussion in this thread, I cant help but ask this question: who is ever hurt by gay marriage? honestly. present to me a reasonable argument over someone sustaining actual harm as a result of gay marriage. I bet that it cant be done. Imo it's the adopted children. For proper growing up kids should have a mother and a father. I just think men are better at showing things like soccer(football) or how to use a screwdriver. Women on the other hand are better at showing empathy and compassion in everyday life. Plus if a boy has two fathers how will he know how to treat a woman? Most crucial information how to treat your husband/ wife in the future comes from observing your parents. This is my basic argument against gay marriage, and not that i'm some king of religious weirdo as pro - gay people seem to think about people like me.
So instead of that child being adopted let them grow up with no parents at all. That's better how?
|
On March 06 2013 00:29 karpotoss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 16:16 Aveng3r wrote:
so after reading the discussion in this thread, I cant help but ask this question: who is ever hurt by gay marriage? honestly. present to me a reasonable argument over someone sustaining actual harm as a result of gay marriage. I bet that it cant be done. Imo it's the adopted children. For proper growing up kids should have a mother and a father. I just think men are better at showing things like soccer(football) or how to use a screwdriver. Women on the other hand are better at showing empathy and compassion in everyday life. Plus if a boy has two fathers how will he know how to treat a woman? Most crucial information how to treat your husband/ wife in the future comes from observing your parents. This is my basic argument against gay marriage, and not that i'm some king of religious weirdo as pro - gay people seem to think about people like me.
The 1800s called, they want their bigotry back.
|
On March 06 2013 00:29 karpotoss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2013 16:16 Aveng3r wrote:
so after reading the discussion in this thread, I cant help but ask this question: who is ever hurt by gay marriage? honestly. present to me a reasonable argument over someone sustaining actual harm as a result of gay marriage. I bet that it cant be done. Imo it's the adopted children. For proper growing up kids should have a mother and a father. I just think men are better at showing things like soccer(football) or how to use a screwdriver. Women on the other hand are better at showing empathy and compassion in everyday life. Plus if a boy has two fathers how will he know how to treat a woman? Most crucial information how to treat your husband/ wife in the future comes from observing your parents. This is my basic argument against gay marriage, and not that i'm some king of religious weirdo as pro - gay people seem to think about people like me.
Nope, there is no factual basis for this , and no good studies back you.
If this is your argument there is then no reason a single parent could not have their child taken away.
I've met awful same sex parents and awful Heterosexual parents, ....
Also we are discussing Marriage, not adoption rights, even in states where you can marry as a same sex couple, it's still very very hard to adopt most of the time, there is no reason to deny marriage if your issue is adoption, just deny adoption. Your not even helping the kids with this either, your just hurting the kids that are in the system that nobody wants.
EDIT: Love your reinforcement of gender stereotypes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
