|
On November 06 2008 11:49 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 11:45 -_- wrote:On November 06 2008 11:40 vsrooks wrote:On November 06 2008 11:38 -_- wrote:On November 06 2008 11:35 vsrooks wrote:On November 06 2008 10:40 strongwind wrote:I just posted this in suggestion box's blog, but decided to paste here as well: A lot of people don't realize that the church and state have been hand-in-hand for a very long time in regards to marriage, mainly because there wasn't much of a problem with it until now. I find it unfair how some people boil this down into a deceptively simple "accept gay marriage or reject it" approach. The problem runs deeper than that. On November 06 2008 09:43 vsrooks wrote:
The only reason you would voted for Prop 8 was if you didn't like homosexuals, end of story. There's no other reason that people would vote for it. If you were fine with homosexuals you would have voted no, because you wouldn't care. It's bad enough people voted for discrimination, but they can at least have the balls to admit to it, instead of hiding behind some religion BS or whatever. This is a very ignorant statement. The vast majority of christians do not have any problem with gay rights. I, for one, hope that gay rights activists push to expand the power of civil unions and to try to establish them on an equal standing with marriage in all states. The word "marriage" is what is hotly contested here. Like the op said (see suggestion box blog), marriage has been deeply rooted in christianity in our country, and many regard marriage as a religious institution. I believe the solution lies with the government and their recognition of the different kinds of relationship status, as well as normalizing the benefits among them (or ridding of them entirely). I also understand that gay rights activists wish to avoid discrimination based on the distinction between civil unions and marriages. I think this requires, as mentioned above, a major change in the way the government recognizes relationship status and their allocation of resources and benefits. I know the answer is not a simple or easy one, but neither is the problem that is associated with it. Okay 'marriage' is a religious word, why do homosexuals using the word ruin that word for you? Simple answer, you don't think their way of life is the right way. Also I'm glad that your belief in a WORD is allowing you to ruin peoples' lives. I'm not married... is my life RUINED?? BY A WORD!? Protecting marriage as a religious idea is letting a WORD run things. Treating people differently under the law has nothing to do with a WORD and yes treating people differently under the law does greatly affect lives. Totally agree about the WORD thing. I got an idea: let's take all the WORDS out of the law. Because having WORDS run things is bad. And lets not treat anyone different under the law either. That's what the equal protection clause means, RIGHT? But back to WORDS, if I'm unhappy w/ how WORDS are running my country, what can I do? How do I know that everyone I know isn't a WORD?? Scary stuff... You are missing his point, whether if it is intentional or not...
When a person misses the point they wanted to make and someone responds to tthe point they did make but think they didn't, naturally one also thinking the first point maker-misser made his point will think the point-rebutter missed that point maker-misser's point.
Graphical illustration: X AXIS AND Y AXIS ON THIRD PLANE
Point "WORD" dude thought he made:.............----------------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>........X
Point "WORD" dude did make :...........................X:ppp  )
My response :....-_-_ddd.....................>X
What you think I should've done :.........................................>X??????
Hope this helps
|
The problem here isn't the word marriage, it's religion's take on the word marriage. Any non-religious person shouldn't care about gay marriage. It's the silliest thing ever to be okay with a "civil union" between gay people, but not be okay with marriage between gay people, if civil unions and marriages have the exact same consequences.
That's like saying you're against minorities who drive cars, but you're okay with minorities who drive automobiles.
It's retarded logic. Marriage isn't any more 'sacred' than baseball in this day and age, to a large portion of the population. Anyone should be able to play with anyone else they want.
Sorry if these were stupid metaphors but I hope my point got across.
|
On November 06 2008 11:44 Murk wrote:
Homosexuality is a sin, and marriage is a holy thing, it shouldnt of never been allowed in the first place. a Preist that host gay marriages is making a mockery of everything hes supposed to stand for, and im not talking out of my ass homosexuality IS A SIN read the bible
you are forgetting not everyone believes in that collection of short stories.
|
On November 06 2008 11:44 Murk wrote:
Homosexuality is a sin
no
, and marriage is a holy thing
no
, it shouldn't of never been allowed in the first place. a Preist that host gay marriages is making a mockery of everything hes supposed to stand for
No one is stopping a priest or a church or a religion from not wedding gay couples. Many people marry outside the christian church or even without any religion at all. Last time I checked there was a separation of church and state in the US... so stopping it for religious reasons is just silly.
, and I'm not talking out of my ass homosexuality IS A SIN read the bible
It has its fun parts but I've read better books.
|
On November 06 2008 11:44 Murk wrote:
Homosexuality is a sin, and marriage is a holy thing, it shouldnt of never been allowed in the first place. a Preist that host gay marriages is making a mockery of everything hes supposed to stand for, and im not talking out of my ass homosexuality IS A SIN read the bible
Don't you think it is retarded to tell someone to go "read the bible" and that homosexuality "is a sin".
What is it to them? Who are we to force them to follow our beliefs?
As for prop 8, I'm really indifferent. I don't really mind one way or the other because it doesn't affect me (selfish but hey that's how it is).
|
On November 06 2008 12:49 capek wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 11:44 Murk wrote:
Homosexuality is a sin, and marriage is a holy thing, it shouldnt of never been allowed in the first place. a Preist that host gay marriages is making a mockery of everything hes supposed to stand for, and im not talking out of my ass homosexuality IS A SIN read the bible Don't you think it is retarded to tell someone to go "read the bible" and that homosexuality "is a sin". What is it to them? Who are we to force them to follow our beliefs? As for prop 8, I'm really indifferent. I don't really mind one way or the other because it doesn't affect me (selfish but hey that's how it is).
It's not that you're self-fish it's just you don't care, like me.
|
On November 06 2008 10:20 d_so wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 09:38 Creationism wrote:
If you dwell too far into idealism of the definition of marriage, often you will get lost in your argument, as the OP post kind of did. The argument goes as far to say that marriage should not be defined by the state, but rather by the religion; since United States has the freedom of religion, then we should have the freedom to marry cuz we can jus make a religion where gay ppl can marry. Of course the counter arguments to this also come from the institution side, where taxes and liabilities rule the argument.
Honestly, I really could not give less of a fuck whether or not homosexuals are entering the marriage institution, or that the definition of marriage is ruining by them doing so. But rather, it is the practical matter of the institution that affects my life and that is the position that I must judge on a modern basis. The key thing here is the gays can force those around them to accept their institution, whether or not that those around them agree or disagree with it, with a certification or recognition of marriage from the government. The government's recognition of the matter is key in deciding whether or not the marriage is institutionally valid and will therefore determine what the people can and cannot accept.
Therefore, to say that the government has no role recognize and define marriage is wrong. If the government recognizes gay marriage, whether or not the people recognize it is ineffective as far as policy goes. To change that recognition of gay marriage, the people who oppose it must once again go through the government and form a law to repeal the law before. Marriage is not only a instititutional definition, but also a social definition. If you say that the government has no right to ban gay marriage, then they also have no right to recognize it.
Oh, and I do think its funny that people care more about chickens in cages than homosexuals. haha you need to understand something. church and state is not always separate. they are not mutually exclusive. marriage is a legal AND religious institution, and you can't separate it as either/or.if you want an example of another religious institution that gets tax relief, see churches.
yes you can, because being a legal institution is all that matters. it doesn't matter that religion and laws have been mixed in the past and are still mixed today, in a legal sense, nothing else matters. Just because a bunch of people ( a religion ) believe something has *no value* at all when it comes to passing laws.
You can say it's a legal and religious institution all you want, but it doesn't mean anything of substance other than religion likes to use to word marriage.
And you are right, church and state isn't always separate because we haven't come far enough as a country. Tax exemption status for churches is something else that needs to be abolished.
Logic trumps tradition & history.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 06 2008 11:50 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2008 11:47 DM20 wrote:
I hope you guys realize that the main point of prop 8 was to ban the "teaching" of homosexuality in schools, could you explain what this even means
Parents were afraid that when a state backed a form of marriage that wasn't a man and a woman public schools when discussing marriage would have to also discuss homosexual marriaged and thus discuss homosexuallity with young and impressionable minds increasing the chances that children would be "fine" or "ok" with homosexuallity in general. This is a fear people have... making homosexuallity more mainstream will make it more of an "option" for their children.
|
Sounds like something from Nazi Germany. Situations like this, I feel ashame to be an American. Why are we depriving a minority group a priviledge that is available to everyone else? How does it affect you? It doesn't. Might as well replace 'gay' with some other minority and makes some lame excuses to justify it.
To be fair, the vote was 55% for Prop 8, rather than 80+% so that means there are at least some people that can think beyond themselves.
|
United States4471 Posts
On November 06 2008 11:44 Murk wrote:
Homosexuality is a sin, and marriage is a holy thing, it shouldnt of never been allowed in the first place. a Preist that host gay marriages is making a mockery of everything hes supposed to stand for, and im not talking out of my ass homosexuality IS A SIN read the bible
And this is exactly the kind of narrow-minded, self-centered point of view that allowed Prop 8 to pass.
"I believe in Christianity, therefore everyone must also believe in Christianity. If I believe everything people tell me about what the Bible says is true, then everyone should believe everything I am told about the Bible is true. The only kind of marriage I recognize is the kind that involves a man and a woman and is presided over by a priest, therefore everyone else should not recognize any other kind of alleged non-Christian 'marriage'."
Marriage is a concept that is beyond any single religion or faith. The idea that the Christian faith should somehow define what the US should recognize as a valid marriage is about as far from the idea of freedom of religion as you can get. The Constitution specifically prohibits the establishment of a national or official US religion, and specifically allows for each citizen to follow whatever set of beliefs he or she wishes too. What part of that in any way suggests that the government, state or federal, has the power to deny two persons the right to marry as a result of the way ONE religion (or ANY religion) defines the term "marriage"? As far as I know, marriage is a concept present in many societies, many of which have nothing to do with Christianity or the Bible.
People get married in the US under different faiths (or even no faith at all) all the time, and yet the government has no issue recognizing those marriages. Marriage between a neo-nazi and a pagan? No problemo. Marriage between a Jew and a Muslim? Go right ahead. Marriage between two secular, non-religious people? Just sign on the dotted line. Marriage involving oaths based upon a fictional religion/faith/philosophy, i.e. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings? Live on in geeky matrimony. But marriage between two people of the same gender? Noooooooo, that's not marriage as it was intended to be defined. The rest of those? Yeah, that's what marriage was always supposed to be about.
Whatever faith or non-faith you choose to adopt, the FACT remains that marriage has become a non-religious, secular institution that serves a non-religious, secular purpose in the US. People get married for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with religion or faith, such as tax benefits, marital property rights, immigration status, etc. The notion that gay marriage should not be recognized because of any religion, let alone one, ignores the facts and reality surrounding marriage in the present in the US.
|
I agree with you that marriage is a religious thing. Therefore who should be able to marry SHOULD be controlled by the church and not the government. However marriage is much more than just a religious pledge and ceremony. Its a legally binding contract. Therefore it needs to be controlled by the state and not the churches.
Seeing as gay people have the same rights as every other person, they should be allowed to get married.
|
United States4471 Posts
On November 06 2008 14:04 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Parents were afraid that when a state backed a form of marriage that wasn't a man and a woman public schools when discussing marriage would have to also discuss homosexual marriaged and thus discuss homosexuallity with young and impressionable minds increasing the chances that children would be "fine" or "ok" with homosexuallity in general. This is a fear people have... making homosexuallity more mainstream will make it more of an "option" for their children.
As frightening as the notion is that people actually considered this as a factor when voting on Prop 8 is, this is actually true. I'm curious how many people actually learned about the institution of marriage when they were attending public school. I know it never came up in any of my classes, but, unlike pro-Prop 8 people, I don't like to assume that everyone's like me. Would this come up in History? Math? Science? Literature? I mean, seriously, where does marriage fit into any public school curriculum?
|
I am glad they banned gay marriage. I wish they'd ban it in Ontario, Canada too.
|
I'm surprised that the margin was that small, maybe things will be different in another 4 years.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
this is not something that should be voted on
so retarded
|
On November 06 2008 11:44 Murk wrote:
Homosexuality is a sin, and marriage is a holy thing, it shouldnt of never been allowed in the first place. a Preist that host gay marriages is making a mockery of everything hes supposed to stand for, and im not talking out of my ass homosexuality IS A SIN read the bible
It's people like you who make me embarrassed to be a Christian.
|
On November 06 2008 18:07 Yaqoob wrote:
I am glad they banned gay marriage. I wish they'd ban it in Ontario, Canada too.
Any reasoning behind this opinion?
|
Too many homophobes trying to stop gay marriage. It's kinda funny.
|
On November 06 2008 09:50 Murk wrote:Ok, ill admit it! i cant stand homosexuals they disgust me !!! happy?!?!!?!? Aw look how cute it is. You ruffled its feathers 
Don't worry little guy, it will be okay. God will straighten this all out.
---
On a more serious note, I think its pretty sad. These individuals were probably raised this way in homophobic and/or heavily religious homes. One of my friends graduated at the top of his engineering class and voted for McCain because he doesn't support pro-choice.
This is, afterall, what makes religion dangerous. It puts a veil over rationality and common sense. Of course, they'll say that the boogeyman (aka Satan) put the veil over you!
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
interesting how people describe different moral views as lacking in rationality or some neutral thing like knowledge or common sense. it is neither epistemologically accurate nor is it the best rhetorical strategy. i don't know what to make of this popular happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
