Chrono Compendium
Zenan Plains - Site Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: ZeaLitY on May 08, 2009, 01:52:33 am
-
If you haven't heard of this, Miss California took flak recently during the pageant because she came out and said that "marriage should be between a man and a woman only." The person who gave her hell for it, Perez Hilton, is not exactly a shining beacon of humanity, but he's at least not a neanderthal primitivistic fuckhead spouting anti-human and anti-Constitutional religious bullshit.
Andrew Sullivan really depressed me when he said this:
Carrie Prejean has had to go through some really bad stuff she didn't deserve, just for inarticulately expressing a valid opinion in front of Perez Hilton.
This is the retarded line the rest of the Republicans are taking. "Buuut but but, it was free speech!" So, that somehow makes it unable to be challenged? However, Andrew Sullivan, being an intelligent person, aired dissent to this later in the day:
But it's not a valid opinion Andrew and you know it. It's an opinion, yes, but valid? Come on now. Let's say the same thing had happened during a beauty pageant in say, 1965, and the contestant had said, essentially, I don't think whites and blacks should be able to be marry because that's just not how it should be and the Bible said and blah blah blah. Now say said contestant was vilified by liberals and the civil rights movement for expression, and in turn conservatives and libertarians and First Amendment hounds complained she was being attacked for her "valid" opinion.
Now flash forward almost 25 years. Do you think anyone short of KKK members, and maybe those people we all saw going to Palin rallies last fall would look back at that answer and think it was actually valid? Dated/a sign of the times, probably. Bigoted, maybe. An opinion, of course. But just because someone thinks something and has the god and Constitutional given right to say something (say anything!) does not make their opinion valid.
I'm sorry. But I think you know that. And I honestly think the reason you are hedging around this Carrie Prejean thing a bit is because her answer had a Christian bent, not because of free speech, or because you think we need to deal realistically with what people on the opposite side (you know, those who only want "opposite marriage") think or where they're coming from.
And this:
Twenty years ago, I watched an interview with Anita Bryant on Larry King where she claimed that the gay community had destroyed her career. "The very same thing they accuse me of doing to them, they did to me," she said in a paraphrased burst of self-pity. It was apparently lost on her that she brought it on herself, that people will fight back and that her suffering was mild compared to the injury she inflicted on countless people who were already objects of hatred.
Perez Hilton (who I'd never heard of before this ridiculous beauty queen flap) strikes me as something of a jerk and a very bad "face" for gay marriage equality. But come on - the insults that Prejean has had to endure are mild compared to the vicious and hateful invective I've been subjected to for being gay my entire life. Hell, I get attacked and insulted more in five minutes on a chat room for being gay than Prejean has had to suffer since this entire affair began.
Millions of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens of California were stripped of their rights in a deeply insulting and grossly unfair vote fueled by bigotry, and the right wingers are upset because a beauty queen was treated a bit badly? Please.
Thank you.
Sadly, Miss California is now finding herself in trouble with the state because there are topless photos of her. Ah, America...where anti-human hate bullshit is A-OK in selecting a "beautiful" person, but topless photos are an inadmissible sin for such a selection. Nevermind that the pageant itself paid for her implants.
I hope she gets dethroned. Not because of the topless photos, because of the coincidental justice over her religious nuttery.
-
I think the media are targeting her completely unfairly due to her making an unpopuler statement. Do I agree? hell no. If she wasn't a complete dumbass, I would admire her courage and audacity to say what she feels whether right or wrong. This particular case pisses me off more then the countless other similar cases, why? No idea but it does. Punish deeds, not words.
So ZeaLitY, I would like to say in this case Fuck You, and Fuck the millions of people who think a idea regardless of how blatantly unfair and prejudice, can't even be said today.
-
The question shouldn't have been asked in the first place. He knew the answer he was going to get, he just wanted to out her for her beliefs.
I don't give a fuck about "gay" marriage. I think they should have it just so the country can shut the fuck up about it and get back to our economic problems.
The others questions for the other contestants were bullshit, by the way. The pageant is a joke, blah blah blah I could go on and on.
And I hate the Republican party, we don't have the balls to do anything (yes, I, regretfully, am a Republican) yet we place the blame on Obama for shit he's trying to do to fix our country.
Also, did she have nude photos or something? I heard someone say it on a commercial, but I have been trying to avoid the news for a while.
Okay, I'm done. Here's some Prince to cheer you up Z.
:1999
-
So ZeaLitY, I would like to say in this case Fuck You, and Fuck the millions of people who think a idea regardless of how blatantly unfair and prejudice, can't even be said today.
You're failing to make an important distinction. No one stopped her from saying it. Rather, someone disagreed with it, and there's the outrage. Free speech exists for both sides: her right to say it, and our right to disagree.
Also, did she have nude photos or something?
Nothing is actually exposed, but since she's shirtless in them, it's too much for the beauty pageant people.
-
From where I stand the her opposition couldn't believe that she said it. Media is bashing not what she said at all from what I read, its that she said it. I didn't care for Perez, but he critiqued what she said not that she said it (at first at least, his blogs are another story).
Today I am impress every time I met a real activist of there belief. I know racists, I know gays, I know people who are socialist and people who are objectivist. Every single one I admire, not the idea or belief but, that regardless of public opinion they say and voice what they feel. Today's world doesn't try to just punish some of them they do in fact try to silence them. That kind of 'solution' is what leads, I feel, to extremist(who I do not feel for as much).
-
I believe gay marriage should be between a man and a woman.
-
You know, I'm all for gay rights, but I would not equate her statement with the KKK. She didn't talk about lynching gays, she said that she was against gay marriage. Her opinion, wrong as it may be, resonates with a lot of people in this country. So let her represent them... she already is. I know she's in some anti-gay organization promoting her views. I don't really think someone like her is going to make a big impact. Already most of New England has voted to legalize gay marriage and soon the west will follow after it... soon enough.
Anyway, she could have lied about her opinion to everyone and said she supports it and yadda yadda and not raised such contraversy, but she decided to stand up for what she believes in and essentially forfeit her crown (before all her naked pics). So if she's so passionate about it, so be it. I don't really agree with her, but it's not like I'm going to go curse out those people in the car I saw the other day with about 20 extremely rightist bumper stickers all over it (including marriage= man+women and gun rights).
-
There was once a point in time at which mainstream American citizens were split in regards to the enslavement of people of a certain skin color. Granted, that was way more severe than the degredation homosexuals seem to feel over this particular issue, but it's still about societal revolution.
But aside from the content of what she said, I felt she could have expressed herself far more articulately, and that alone makes me glad they didn't give her the crown. I shudder to think what would have happened if they asked her to do a derivative or something. She would be much more empowered if she traded those implants in for a college scholarship.
-
True freedom of expression and speech. With it comes good and bad. What people fail to realize is the flak that can come down from saying whatever you believe or feel at any time, especially when grounded in taboo, contested, religious, political, or other such strongly divided subjects. Whether her fundamentally based opinion on same-sex marriages is right or wrong isn't the issue (I personally don't care. Gay people fall in love and decide to spend the rest of their lives together that's pretty much marriage right there, closer to it than half the hetero marriages in existance today) it's the reaction to it that's becoming some big fucking deal, and honestly the reaction is only natural.
The Right wing should really pick its battles better. If they focused more on economical conservatism instead of always sucking the dick of the Christian right all the time maybe the country as a whole would be taking the non-religious grounded principles they hold more seriously. It's one thing to personally feel gay marriage is wrong, it's another to hold everyone in the world to your own beliefs. You don't like it, don't do it. Simple as that.
-
Prejean? She's nothing. Hilton is the one who you should be cursing; he did far more to damage the cause of same-sex marriage advocates than Prejean.
Since I did not see the "incident," perhaps I am undervaluing the tone of the statement, but, in context with her preamble, it seems like Prejean essentially said “"Yay, we get a choice! I just don't approve of both choices."
It is not an ideal stance, but Perez Hilton's response was far worse. His response was essentially "You disagree with me?! Too bad, boo on freedom of choice!"
If he just ignored her and said nothing, would it have made the news? Maybe as a sentence or two in a story covering the pageant in general, but it was his reaction that made her statement make headlines.
Through his own intolerance of opposing ideologies, he has strengthened that opposition; he has fueled their flames of passion. Anti-same-sex-marriage groups now have a martyr. They can point to Prejean as an illustration of how "hateful," "oppressive," and "evil" homosexuals and the "homosexual agenda" can be. Her time in the limelight will hopefully be short, but Hilton put her there in the first place.
What good came out of Hilton's response? His petty vindictiveness and unprofessional behavior are not traits that the homosexual community should want to be associated with. He is not a leader or a figurehead for them to rally around. It is rather harsh, but nothing can excuse Hilton’s actions. There is no mistreatment he could have gone through, no insults he could have endured, that would have justified him. Each time homosexuals respond to intolerance with intolerance, they validate that approach and in turn validate their attackers. Nothing can ever justify a person willingly devaluing themselves in that manner.
The most expedient route to social justice is to be "more human than the humans," to behave in a more morally upright manner than your opposition, to be such a shining example of humanity that others -- poor examples of humanity they may be -- cannot help but admit that you are, indeed, human and are entitled to all the rights there associated.
-
What relevance did that have with the Miss America pageant? If Perez didn't want truthful answers perhaps he should shut the fuck up. If anyone should be cursing anything it should be the beauty pageants and how useless they are and how the promote anorexia. I seen this in the news and I think Hilton knew the answer he was going to get and was just prodding. Also I find Hilton's existence to be far more insulting to homosexual's than Miss California's statement. Now I got to go see her tittays!
Edit: That pic is far from scandalous and it's from a lingerie advert. This is just more Perez garbage to try to get some media attention. http://thedirty.com/2009/05/06/exclusive-image-miss-california-carrie-prejean-exposed/
-
This is the retarded line the rest of the Republicans are taking. "Buuut but but, it was free speech!" So, that somehow makes it unable to be challenged? However, Andrew Sullivan, being an intelligent person, aired dissent to this later in the day:
Just because its an opinion and has the right to be challanged doesn't mean that people should be given shit over their opinions. We have already learned how to do this with CT vs CC, so lets take what we've learned and apply it elsewhere in our lives, hmm?
-
Honestly, I'm cool with people's opinions. You have every right to say 'I think marriage should be between a man and a woman only' or 'I think whites shouldn't marry blacks' or anything like that, so long as you show enough respect to say 'I think BLAH BLAH BLAH but it's cool that you think differently.' When people force their opinions on me, it angers me.
Honestly, we seem to have our freedom of speech. We are supposed to be able to say whatever the fuck we want, but when we try and say something we think is true that most people don't agree with, we get yelled at, berated, insulted, and potentially jailed. It's like they're saying that we can say whatever we want, so long as everyone else likes what we say.
Government hurts my head.
-
God, this topic has brought out the inner frightened moderate in everyone.
What good came out of Hilton's response? His petty vindictiveness and unprofessional behavior are not traits that the homosexual community should want to be associated with. He is not a leader or a figurehead for them to rally around. It is rather harsh, but nothing can excuse Hilton’s actions. There is no mistreatment he could have gone through, no insults he could have endured, that would have justified him. Each time homosexuals respond to intolerance with intolerance, they validate that approach and in turn validate their attackers. Nothing can ever justify a person willingly devaluing themselves in that manner.
Everyone I quoted and my own remarks flagged Hilton as an idiot. This doesn't exonerate the manufactured scandal or the religious idiocy of her views and their right to be criticized. Hilton didn't erupt at her at the pageant; he merely disparaged her for this after it had ended on his blog.
What relevance did that have with the Miss America pageant?
Believe it or not, beauty pageants have at least a slight veneer of focus on inner beauty as well, easily referenced with the "I want world peace" cliché answer for finalists.
This is the retarded line the rest of the Republicans are taking. "Buuut but but, it was free speech!" So, that somehow makes it unable to be challenged? However, Andrew Sullivan, being an intelligent person, aired dissent to this later in the day:
Just because its an opinion and has the right to be challanged doesn't mean that people should be given shit over their opinions. We have already learned how to do this with CT vs CC, so lets take what we've learned and apply it elsewhere in our lives, hmm?
Sorry, but when someone supports the systematic oppression of an entire group of people born a certain way beyond their control, I'm going to "give them shit" about it, just as I give ignorant Chrono Trigger fanboys shit about their baseless criticisms of Chrono Cross.
When people force their opinions on me, it angers me.
Enjoy your right to vote? If you would have asked most men around the turn of the century, they might have said that women shouldn't be allowed. But suffragists didn't accept that. They criticized these men for their stupidity and figuratively martyred themselves through public vilification and jail sentences. Free speech includes the right to criticize, especially where social improvement is concerned.
-
Edit: That pic is far from scandalous and it's from a lingerie advert. This is just more Perez garbage to try to get some media attention. http://thedirty.com/2009/05/06/exclusive-image-miss-california-carrie-prejean-exposed/
I made the mistake of reading through some of those comments. This entire issue if retarded tabloid trash, plain and simple. Also, am I the only one imagining the blogger's post of it being read by Jiminy Glick?
-
God, this topic has brought out the inner frightened moderate in everyone.
I am not frighten in the slightest of voicing my thoughts. I don't wish to go around with a red paint tagging walls and shouting my creed on the streets. Am I a moderate just because I don't yell and scream obscenities? Am I a moderate because I can easily tolerate a conflicting stance? No.
-
What relevance did that have with the Miss America pageant?
Believe it or not, beauty pageants have at least a slight veneer of focus on inner beauty as well, easily referenced with the "I want world peace" cliché answer for finalists.
I'll agree with that when I see an overweight person in one. I still think it's her prerogative and this is just trying to be pushed as news. Exactly the type of thing I would expect to see on Faux (Fox) News.
-
But aside from the content of what she said, I felt she could have expressed herself far more articulately, and that alone makes me glad they didn't give her the crown.
I dunno. Would you rather she said:
I personally believe the U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some, uh...people out there in our nation don't have marriage, and, uh, I believe that our marriage like such as South Africa and, uh, the Iraq everywhere like, such as and...I believe that they should, our marriage over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., err, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future for our...
-
My PERSONAL opinion is that Gay marriage should not be allowed under 2 reasons:
1: Marriage is a Biblical, Judaic, and Islamic principle that has been stated to be between a man and a woman.
2: Being something of religion, the law should have no hand in this.
Now, let me expand on my explanation:
Marriage has been taken from religion and into state to become a legal binding between a man and woman. Personally, this is a breach of church and state to me, but that doesn't really matter or apply to the topic at hand. Altering the lawful version of marriage will most definitley anger a numerous amount of people who consider lawfully married and religiously married to be the same thing (which in many cases it is the same thing). Altering the lawful bersion of marriage will then give the effect that, since lawful and religious are considered the same, that the religious version is altered as well, and that would be a breach in church and state (I really am not going to go into church state thing... anything marriage related is like this, so w/ever). This is where I get my viewpoint from.
It may have been "proven" that people are born homosexual, but many other things have been so-called "proven" and then proven otherwise. People are gay, maybe not by choice per-say, but I believe that if a person's settings and life can affect their actions and attitude, that they can affect their sexual preference as well (no matter how unrelated their life and lifestyle is to their preference). Under that viewpoint, if someone can be "turned gay" from their past and their present, then their future also should be able to have a chance for them to be "turned un-gay".
I'm not saying I hate gays. Some of my best friends are gay. Some of the coolest people I know are gay. But if we can see someone go from straight to gay, I'm pretty sure there have been cases that people have gone from being gay to straight (albeit rare because of probability... say that theres a 1/10 chance he will become gay and then a 1/10 chance he will turn back. thats a 1/100 chance that he will go from one to the other then back).
Now, here is my personal solution to the problem:
Though I personally do not support homosexual marriage.... ....I never said I didn't support the theory that there can be a homosexual equivalent of marriage. Religiously, homosexual marriage is wrong. Lawfully, marriage gives a couple numerous different advantages over being apart (though I do not know the statistics of what being married changes, so I really cannot list them). Being religiously wrong or otherwise, I personally believe that homosexual couples should be allowed to enjoy the same advantages (and disadvantages) that married couples have. There should be a homosexual equivalent to the lawful side of marriage. My only stipulation to this is that it not be called marriage, but go under some other name (but not some stupid politically correct term like "lawfully bound" either. that would be stupid). Not being called marriage, religious fanatics should have less right to complain (and they SHOULDN'T complain either).
I, myself, am a Christian, and I do personally stand against having a religiously bound version of gay marriage, because it is against my religion (I mean, if there was a religion out there that was 100% all for homosexual marriage, be my guest). However I do think that homosexuals should be able to enjoy the rights and liberties of heterosexual couples through their own version of marriage.
(on an unrelated topic, you can bash fox news all you want for it having a conservative bias. just about all the other news stations have a liberal bias, anyways)
-Serge out.
-
It's against everything I stand for. I'm republican.
-
Hey Serge, marriage was in ancient china before the major spread of Judaism and the like.
-
... I've never voted before... I'm too young.
Yes, the world is shaped by conservatives and liberals. I just want the right to think what I want to and have no one try to make me think like they do, or worse tell me I'm thinking wrong. You give two people a piece of literature and they come back with two very different ideas of what it meant and all that good stuff. That's all fine and dandy, but when person A tries to make person B think like they do and tells them they're thinking wrong, that's not cool.
-
Hey Serge, marriage was in ancient china before the major spread of Judaism and the like.
Despite if what you say is true or not, our lifestyle and our government derived it from Christianity originally. Also, I would be shocked to hear of gay marriages being accepted in ancient china... it sounds like one of those kinds of things that would get you killed in ancient times....
And teaflower: Agreed
-
Sorry, but when someone supports the systematic oppression of an entire group of people born a certain way beyond their control, I'm going to "give them shit" about it...
Near-sighted people of the world unite! We have been forced to wear eye-shackles for too long! People say that Diver's Licenses = 20/20 vision, I say that that is nothing but ignorance and hate spe-
Oh wait, you were talking about homosexuals.
Systematic oppression of an entire group of people born a certain way beyond their control is fairly standard. The question ought to be if that gene expression could be harmful to the individual and others if left unregulated.
It is acceptable to force near sighted individuals to wear corrective lenses when driving because, though they were born a certain way beyond their control, they are potentially dangerous to themselves and others if left unregulated.
Given that homosexuals are not a danger to themselves or others (well, no more than any given human), they ought not have specific regulations applied to them.
Point being, genetics is a red herring.
Exactly the type of thing I would expect to see on Faux (Fox) News.
It's only a clever play on words if you don't have to explain it.
1: Marriage is a Biblical, Judaic, and Islamic principle that has been stated to be between a man and a woman.
Marriage has existed in other cultures too. Romans and Greeks also practiced marriage and while the gods were consulted to see if a union was auspicious, it wasn't inherently a religious ceremony.
While Western society evolved from the Medieval Society, which had Christian overtones, that society evolved from Roman tradition before it (and that from Greek tradition). Indeed, the Justinian Code still forms the backbone of the modern legal system.
Additionally, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have conflicting beliefs about marriage; which should be held above the others? Does a divorce only require I throw a sandal at my wife? Can I take three more? If I die without producing an heir, should my brothers be forced to sleep with my wife in order to produce one?
While it is perfectly valid for individuals to vote based on their belief systems, as a society of individuals from a myriad of backgrounds, we cannot apply a single cultures definition of marriage to government laws.
2: Being something of religion, the law should have no hand in this.
No hand in religious marriage ceremonies, I agree. However, insofar as any legal benefits are a part of marriage, the law must have a hand in it. You can't have it both ways. Either, legally, no marriage can be recognized or, legally, every marriage must be recognized. I'd be largely happy either way.
So either remove the legal rights that a heterosexual spouse has, or grant those legal rights to a homosexual spouse.
It may have been "proven" that people are born homosexual, but many other things have been so-called "proven" and then proven otherwise.
As said above, genetics is a red herring. Let us assume, for a moment, that homosexuality is entirely a choice; so what? Being a Republican is entirely a choice, being an Atheist is entirely a choice, seeing the new Star Trek movie is entirely a choice. If we allow freedom in what religious, political, or entertainmental beliefs a person might have, why not in sexual practices as well?
To note, at least some forms of homosexuality are genetic (there are, at the least, different genetic variations that can manifest as homosexuality). A recent study, for example, linked male homosexuality to a gene that increases either the fertility or sexual drive in women (their aunts, specifically). And by recent, I mean in the last year. And by last year I mean “I can’t remember yesterday with details, I doubt I can provide any more information on this.”
Religiously, homosexual marriage is wrong.
Actually, I'd argue that, as a Christian, you should be a supporter of homosexual marriage. As a Christian, you should be imitating Jesus, yes?
Do you recall the Sermon on the Mount? If someone strikes you on your right cheek, offer the left. If they force you to go with them one mile, go with them two. And I take from that: if someone tries to "infringe" on what you say sex should be, give them what you say marriage is as well.
Do you recall the disparaging remarks made about Jesus? That he was a friend of "sinners and tax collectors"? Christians should be the friends of homosexuals (regardless of if homosexuality is a sin or not). However, Christian opposition to homosexual marriage has become a barrier to this possibility. And, if you are Christian, and believe that homosexuality is a sin, then you should want these people to be saved? Excessive Christian opposition to homosexual marriage (and indeed, homosexuals in general) forms a barrier to the very potential. If a homosexual hears "God hates fags" from the mouth of a "Christian," why should they listen to anything else they have to say? Christians, then, are a barrier to homosexuals accepting Christian beliefs.
Christians should be the best friends homosexuals have; that we aren't is a sin (poetically speaking).
-
it sounds like one of those kinds of things that would get you killed in ancient times....
Homosexuality was an executable offense in Great Britain. I remember Ian McKellen saying that in an interview once.
I kinda wish I could find that interview now.
-
But aside from the content of what she said, I felt she could have expressed herself far more articulately, and that alone makes me glad they didn't give her the crown.
I dunno. Would you rather she said:
I personally believe the U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some, uh...people out there in our nation don't have marriage, and, uh, I believe that our marriage like such as South Africa and, uh, the Iraq everywhere like, such as and...I believe that they should, our marriage over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., err, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future for our...
Touche, Zaich, touche. I agree that Carrie Prejean did a better job expressing herself than her predecessor.
I don't believe her answer has been quoted in this thread yet, so this is a great time to drop it:
Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.
I fault the media with often shortening her answer by cutting out the first two sentences. At least I hadn't been aware of that part of her response before I saw it on Wikipedia. When I said she could have been more articulate, I was referring to:
You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman...
That's the kind of sentence that shouldn't survive the beta test phase of an RPG...Unless the writer's point was to make the character seem mildly airheaded. More critically, in this extremely harsh economy such a minor bit of grammatical awkwardness could prevent a person from landing a job if it happened during a hiring interview.
However, now that I examine the whole answer more closely, there is also a problem with this:
Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.
We are not quite there yet; the choice only exists in somewhere between two and four states in the US if I remember correctly. This is like saying women could choose to vote in the US in 1865. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_women%27s_suffrage_in_the_United_States#Women.27s_suffrage_in_individual_states) Ms. Prejean's answer belies a lack of appreciation for the greater meaning of the gay marriage movement: it's about making sure people are valued as full human beings everywhere, and that States can't "choose" whether to value human beings.
What makes the gay marriage debate so tricky is that gay marriage really isn't "possible" in most religions owing to the fact that marriage as a religious concept arose in part to promote reproduction ("be fruitful and multiply"). When asexual genetic recombination is made possible by science, things will get really interesting, but until then, American citizens will have to learn to separate marriage in the religious sense from marriage in the legal sense. I don't think gay marriage advocates are arguing for the government to barge into churches and force clergy to conduct gay marriages (or at least I personally would not go so far as to advocate this). The movement is simply asking the government to afford gays the same legal rights and priveleges hetero citizens enjoy. Conservatives have to realize that their personal beliefs aren't under attack here, just the harm they're doing to fellow human beings.
-
We are not quite there yet; the choice only exists in somewhere between two and four states in the US if I remember correctly.
True, but the question was (since this hasn't been posted either):
Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?
She didn't answer the question, but that is generally to be expected. Given the context, it is quite possible that she was referring to the situation in Vermont and the other states specifically. Or, alternately, she could have been referring to voter choice, and not explicitly marriage choice. That is, she could have been saying that it is great that voters can decide if they want to allow it or not (which indicates she isn't aware that voters have had no say in some of those cases), not that individuals get to be married or not.
The movement is simply asking the government to afford gays the same legal rights and priveleges hetero citizens enjoy.
They have the exact same rights currently, and in every state. A homosexual man is just as free to marry a woman as a heterosexual man and they'll get the exact same privileges, and a heterosexual man is just as barred from marrying a man as a homosexual man and the exact same privileges are withheld.
Things are perfectly equal, according to the letter of the law. Not so much according to the intent, however. Which is really just me splitting hairs.
-
Exactly the type of thing I would expect to see on Faux (Fox) News.
It's only a clever play on words if you don't have to explain it.
I like to assume everyone's a moron.
-
Exactly the type of thing I would expect to see on Faux (Fox) News.
It's only a clever play on words if you don't have to explain it.
I like to assume everyone's a democrat.
Fix'd
-
Exactly the type of thing I would expect to see on Faux (Fox) News.
It's only a clever play on words if you don't have to explain it.
I like to assume everyone's a democrat.
Fix'd
Nice :lol:
-
1: Marriage is a Biblical, Judaic, and Islamic principle that has been stated to be between a man and a woman.
While Western society evolved from the Medieval Society, which had Christian overtones, that society evolved from Roman tradition before it (and that from Greek tradition). Indeed, the Justinian Code still forms the backbone of the modern legal system.
The Romans adapted to the views of Christianity, and for a long time after their original religious practices were overwritten with Christianity, it was used as the legal religion of the Roman Empire (Though the Christian-Roman empire did do a number of bad things, similar to how it was before they were Christian, we shall not get into that).
Additionally, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have conflicting beliefs about marriage; which should be held above the others? Does a divorce only require I throw a sandal at my wife? Can I take three more? If I die without producing an heir, should my brothers be forced to sleep with my wife in order to produce one?
This is unrelated to the topic of homosexual vs heterosexual marriage.
While it is perfectly valid for individuals to vote based on their belief systems, as a society of individuals from a myriad of backgrounds, we cannot apply a single cultures definition of marriage to government laws.
We cannot apply them, true. However, the government already did so when it was established. The reason for religious freedom when the government was created was not because there were 1000000s of Jews and Muslims and Mormons and Buddhists etc. in America, but actually many many many different people with different views on the Bible and Christianity. Thusly, they made the lawful version of marriage off of Christianity.
2: Being something of religion, the law should have no hand in this.
No hand in religious marriage ceremonies, I agree. However, insofar as any legal benefits are a part of marriage, the law must have a hand in it. You can't have it both ways. Either, legally, no marriage can be recognized or, legally, every marriage must be recognized. I'd be largely happy either way.
So either remove the legal rights that a heterosexual spouse has, or grant those legal rights to a homosexual spouse.
Did you miss my entire argument? My entire argument was for getting homosexual couples to have the ability to achieve the same sets of rights and benefits that are part of a legal marriage. My only stipulation for this was that it be a legal marriage but under a different name, as to be able to easily dispell the radicals and such who are 100% against it.
It may have been "proven" that people are born homosexual, but many other things have been so-called "proven" and then proven otherwise.
As said above, genetics is a red herring. Let us assume, for a moment, that homosexuality is entirely a choice; so what? Being a Republican is entirely a choice, being an Atheist is entirely a choice, seeing the new Star Trek movie is entirely a choice. If we allow freedom in what religious, political, or entertainmental beliefs a person might have, why not in sexual practices as well?
To note, at least some forms of homosexuality are genetic (there are, at the least, different genetic variations that can manifest as homosexuality). A recent study, for example, linked male homosexuality to a gene that increases either the fertility or sexual drive in women (their aunts, specifically). And by recent, I mean in the last year. And by last year I mean “I can’t remember yesterday with details, I doubt I can provide any more information on this.”
I wasn't arguing about the freedom of choice my friend. Let them have whatever sexual practice they want. I was just trying to argue that being homosexual isn't entirely genetic. Even if it was genetic, it doesn't mean you can't grow and change.
Religiously, homosexual marriage is wrong.
Actually, I'd argue that, as a Christian, you should be a supporter of homosexual marriage. As a Christian, you should be imitating Jesus, yes?
[/quote]
ima going to have to quote the Bible on this one...
Matthew 19: 4-5 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? "
Truthfully the Bible never truly outright defines marriage like "Marriage is a sacred covenent between a man and a woman etc...", however the above quote is specifically referencing marriage. Marriage is a way for a man and a woman to become "one flesh", and also in the Bible it is stated that when a man and a woman have sex they are, in God's eyes, considered to be "one flesh", and married in God's viewpoint.
And though it is not specifically stated that Homosexual marriage is wrong, what is stated is this:
Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
This states that Homosexual acts are wrong. Compiled with sex being a way for a man and woman to marry (though not exactly the BEST way) in God's eyes, it can be deducted that homosexual marriage, in a religious standpoint, is not Biblical.
Do you recall the Sermon on the Mount? If someone strikes you on your right cheek, offer the left. If they force you to go with them one mile, go with them two. And I take from that: if someone tries to "infringe" on what you say sex should be, give them what you say marriage is as well.
Do you recall the disparaging remarks made about Jesus? That he was a friend of "sinners and tax collectors"? Christians should be the friends of homosexuals (regardless of if homosexuality is a sin or not). However, Christian opposition to homosexual marriage has become a barrier to this possibility. And, if you are Christian, and believe that homosexuality is a sin, then you should want these people to be saved? Excessive Christian opposition to homosexual marriage (and indeed, homosexuals in general) forms a barrier to the very potential. If a homosexual hears "God hates fags" from the mouth of a "Christian," why should they listen to anything else they have to say? Christians, then, are a barrier to homosexuals accepting Christian beliefs.
Christians should be the best friends homosexuals have; that we aren't is a sin (poetically speaking).
Hahahaha so funny... I love how you missed it when I said:
I'm not saying I hate gays. Some of my best friends are gay. Some of the coolest people I know are gay.
PRETTY Damn sure that I have some gay friends, and though my religion speaks against homosexual activities, it also speaks out against being an asshole to people. I may not support what my friends believe but I do support my friends.Exactly the type of thing I would expect to see on Faux (Fox) News.
It's only a clever play on words if you don't have to explain it.
I like to assume everyone's a democrat.
Fix'd
Nice :lol:
HAHAHAHA =D nice
-
Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.
This is what this whole debacle is about?
You know what, fuck all of you. Fuck the entire damn world.
Bullshit knows no ends.
-
Given the context, it is quite possible that she was referring to the situation in Vermont and the other states specifically. Or, alternately, she could have been referring to voter choice, and not explicitly marriage choice. That is, she could have been saying that it is great that voters can decide if they want to allow it or not (which indicates she isn't aware that voters have had no say in some of those cases), not that individuals get to be married or not.
Aww, I totally forgot to post the question, and didn't pick up on this. In that case, I'll have to give her more credit for the internal logic of her answer. So she was basically saying she was glad she lives in a country where people can decide whether gay marriage should be legal. In this context, she appears to be a States' rights advocate more than anti-gay marriage; so the argument here should more rightly focus on whether States' rights should be allowed to trump individual rights.
Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
This states that Homosexual acts are wrong.
To split hairs, Leviticus says male homosexual acts are wrong. It doesn't say you can't lie with a woman as with a man, so Sappho, you go girl!
-
Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
This states that Homosexual acts are wrong.
To split hairs, Leviticus says male homosexual acts are wrong. It doesn't say you can't lie with a woman as with a man, so Sappho, you go girl!
Not to mention that Leviticus also contains things like the Jewish dietary laws--sorry, Christians, but you don't get to invoke that passage against homosexuality unless you also don't eat pork, but do sew tassels to the hems of your garments, keep the Festival of Shelters, and follow all the other injunctions therein, 'cause if those bits aren't valid, why should the bit about homosexuality be? Sorry, but you don't get to pick and choose. Either it's all important, or none of it is.
-
Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.
This is what this whole debacle is about?
You know what, fuck all of you. Fuck the entire damn world.
Bullshit knows no ends.
It Perez Hilton we're talking about here, the faggot knows no bounds.
-
Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
This states that Homosexual acts are wrong.
To split hairs, Leviticus says male homosexual acts are wrong. It doesn't say you can't lie with a woman as with a man, so Sappho, you go girl!
Not to mention that Leviticus also contains things like the Jewish dietary laws--sorry, Christians, but you don't get to invoke that passage against homosexuality unless you also don't eat pork, but do sew tassels to the hems of your garments, keep the Festival of Shelters, and follow all the other injunctions therein, 'cause if those bits aren't valid, why should the bit about homosexuality be? Sorry, but you don't get to pick and choose. Either it's all important, or none of it is.
Oh, sorry, my bad. Make sure to remind me to kill the next person I see who I know has most definitley had sex with more than one person... and sometimes more than one at a time.
First of all, not even all Jewish people abide by all of those laws. Especially not the death to someone laws.
Second, it is a common belief among Christians that many laws in the Old Testament had been overwritten with some of the things in the new testament.
Considering I cannot explain things amazingly well, and I dont have the time to either, for the example of not eating pork, I'm going to cite someone's interpretation of I Timothy 4: 1-5 for you.
(AV)
1Timothy 4
1. Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
I Timothy 4:3 {1} Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from
meats, {2} which God hath created {3} to be received {4}
with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
(1) He sets down two types of this false doctrine, that is, the
law of single life, and the difference of meats.
(2) He proves that he justly called such doctrines devilish,
first, because the teachers of them make laws of things
which are not their own: for have they created the meats?
(3) Secondly, because they overthrow with their decrees the
reason why they were created by God, that is, that we
should use them.
(4) Thirdly, because by this means they rob God of his glory,
who will be honoured in the use of them. And here with
this, the apostle declares that we must use the liberality
of God solemnly, and with a good conscience.
So we are not under any law not to eat it. Christ has superseded the Old Testament law.
-quote from http://boards.history.com/topic/History-Of-Christianity/Why-Do-Christians/600006478&start=0
That would be a moderate explanation, in my opinion
-
The dietary laws were possibly a bad choice of example, but you're still dodging my point, which is that many sections of the Old Testament are ignored by Christians even if they were never specifically superseded in the New. (What Jews do or don't do is irrelevant--we aren't talking about Jews, and they don't have a history of trying to impose the contents of their holy books on people not of their religion.) The injunction against homosexuality in Leviticus is in the Old Testament; therefore, it's as much of, and no more of, a part of your holy law as the sections that are being ignored. Therefore, using it to condemn homosexuality is pure hypocrisy designed to appeal to certain people's prejudices, because it's exactly as outmoded and irrelevant as the bits about the proper actions to take when you find mildew in your house.
-
I don't know if we knew this, but many Christian practices were adopted from Roman and Greek mythology. For example, Christmas is in December because that's when Saturnalia was. They take the practices of 'heathens' and 'pagans' and morph them into their 'civilized' beliefs. Though, if you ask me, how much more civilized to have one dude send his son down to earth to have him get his ass kicked? Sure, Roman mythology is bloody as hell (Kronus/Kronos/Cronos/Cronus ripped his dad's parts off), but... honestly, no religion is king.
I like the concept of the 'civil union'. It's essentially a marriage in everything but name. I know Vermont had something like that until the bill was made for actual marriage. This way, you can have all the benefits of marriage (wills, inheritance, etc..) but none of the religious freaks saying 'YOUR LIFE GOES AGAINST GOD FOR SHAME!'.
Though, when you look at it, a lot of Christian practices go against what should be taught, according to what Jesus said. Didn't he say you shouldn't eat shellfish? Mm... shrimp cocktail... And didn't he say something about spreading the word peacefully? Yay, Crusades! Wasn't there something about helping thine neighbor? He broke his wagon wheel, so screw him! I think there might've been something about treating others as you want to be treated... so obviously every person who swears at me deserves to be sworn at.
And the whole thing about 'saving' people? What is redemption? Ultimately, we're doomed from the start. The first time we crush an ant under our feet is murder. The first time we tell someone 'You look fine' when they look like crap is a lie. The first time you see a cute girl/guy and you want to sleep with them, that's lust. The first time you sleep in on a Saturday and sit and do nothing but play video games, that's sloth. Deadly sins, people...
If you ask me, redemption is finding inner peace. It's hard to grasp, but... when you find it, it's awesome. I think.
Also, hey look! Another religious debate!
-
So is the gaybashing segment before or after swimsuits? There is swimsuits, right? But serious (if ever), how does that even come up? And how many gays are probably involved with a beauty pageant?
-
And how many gays are probably involved with a beauty pageant?
Who designs their dresses? The stage, the music, the swimsuits?
Gays, that's who. You better thank them for all the fashion in your life.
-
The dietary laws were possibly a bad choice of example, but you're still dodging my point, which is that many sections of the Old Testament are ignored by Christians even if they were never specifically superseded in the New. (What Jews do or don't do is irrelevant--we aren't talking about Jews, and they don't have a history of trying to impose the contents of their holy books on people not of their religion.) The injunction against homosexuality in Leviticus is in the Old Testament; therefore, it's as much of, and no more of, a part of your holy law as the sections that are being ignored. Therefore, using it to condemn homosexuality is pure hypocrisy designed to appeal to certain people's prejudices, because it's exactly as outmoded and irrelevant as the bits about the proper actions to take when you find mildew in your house.
You are saying that I am condemning people? What the FUCK dont you understand about what I have said? Let me get one thing very straight and very clear:
I live by what I personally understand Christianity to be. What I understand my belief to be is based around a philosphy of love. Love your neighbor as yourself. Love the Lord your God. Love your enemies. Christ died because he loved us.
I also believe that Man and Woman were meant for eachother. Gays exist. So what? It is my belief that being homosexual is wrong. So what am I going to do about it? Am I going to go out and murder every single one of them? Fuck no! I'm going to love them. There are many fools in this world that believe that they should take up arms and crusade against homosexuality. Do you NOT realize that I am just as appauled at this as you?
As for the things in Loviticus? Hah! Please, go ahead and name them! I truly wish to know of what you speak. List them out so that I may either strengthen my beliefs or cast them aside like dirty laundry!
And if you wish to speak to me about anger, consult Matthew 21:
"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. "
Jesus got angry at them for insulting the temple by trading and selling there. You have insulted me and my beliefs, not by calling it old or ignorant, but by directly accusing me of being prejudiced and of condemning homosexuality. I have stated a number of times that I do not condemn nor hate homosexuals. It is my belief that it is wrong, however that doesn't mean I go around beating gays with a cross! It is their belief that it is not wrong, and my beliefs tell me to respect other people's religions and beliefs. I stated my belief in a homosexual equivalent of marriage, so that they may recieve the same benefits and pleasures that heterosexual couples do, but you have taken my statement and twisted it as if to say that I am against gay rights! It is not I that is condemning anyone, sir. It is you, sir, that are condemning me.
Though, if you ask me, how much more civilized to have one dude send his son down to earth to have him get his ass kicked?
I like the concept of the 'civil union'. It's essentially a marriage in everything but name. I know Vermont had something like that until the bill was made for actual marriage. This way, you can have all the benefits of marriage (wills, inheritance, etc..) but none of the religious freaks saying 'YOUR LIFE GOES AGAINST GOD FOR SHAME!'.
If you would read above, you would know that this is exactly my belief.
Though, when you look at it, a lot of Christian practices go against what should be taught, according to what Jesus said. Didn't he say you shouldn't eat shellfish? Mm... shrimp cocktail...
Could you please advise me on where to find this? I would dearly appreciate it.
And didn't he say something about spreading the word peacefully? Yay, Crusades!
Their intentions were good. HOWEVER before you or someone else even DARES misquote me, their methods were some of the greatest amounts of foolishness in history.
Wasn't there something about helping thine neighbor? He broke his wagon wheel, so screw him! I think there might've been something about treating others as you want to be treated... so obviously every person who swears at me deserves to be sworn at.
I really really REALLY hope that you are not applying this to me...
And the whole thing about 'saving' people? What is redemption? Ultimately, we're doomed from the start. The first time we crush an ant under our feet is murder. The first time we tell someone 'You look fine' when they look like crap is a lie. The first time you see a cute girl/guy and you want to sleep with them, that's lust. The first time you sleep in on a Saturday and sit and do nothing but play video games, that's sloth. Deadly sins, people...
You would think I didn't already know this? The basis behind Christianity and Judaism is EXACTLY that. People are inherently sinful. Judaism uses Old Testament (called the Torah by them) beliefs to keep themselves as Godly as possible, and Christians believe that Jesus died for us and his purity nullified all sins for whoever believes in him. Which yes, under the circumstances, Gays CAN be Christian and just because they're gay doesn't mean they're going straght to hell. Just like all other sins, it is forgiven too.
Im not even sure how to end this post anymore.
-
Did you miss my entire argument?
A valid concern. My arguments tend to very quickly move from specific commentary to a broader exhortation; the latter can be easily mistaken for the former. But no, I didn't miss your entire argument.
Now, a proper response must be divided into two parts. You brought up one element that needs specific and in depth addressing, while the other points are more along the lines of technical corrections. As such, this will be a little out of order.
ima going to have to quote the Bible on this one...
And unfortunately you've gone on an unnecessary tangent by doing so. If you look at my arguments again they were pointed at how Christians in general should act towards homosexuals, specifically in the context of homosexual marriage. Nothing I said was a commentary on the conceptually ideal potential of the word, what marriage should be, etc.
I took a rather different approach to the matter, a more direct approach, I believe. It does not matter how marriage should be defined from a biblical standpoint; that can be debated. What does matter is how Christians, believing in the basic tenants of Christianity, should behave. I thus drew from the teachings of Christ; specifically, that the sin of the individual is unimportant in regards to how one should treat them. I am proposing that in order to best live and communicate the fundamental tenant of Christianity (love and forgiveness of sin through Jesus), Christians should support homosexual marriage.
In short, I am claiming that the proper definition of marriage is unimportant. Thus, what the book of Matthew says about marriage is unimportant. Likewise, what the book of Leviticus says about homosexuality is unimportant. And thus, in turn, if homosexual marriage is biblical or not is unimportant. That is a non-issue; what is important is how Christians are to fulfill the Great Commission. Insofar as a political and social opposition to same-sex marriage hinders that goal, such opposition is harmful and, indeed, sinful.
Let us take a conservative standpoint for a moment: "marriage should only be between a man and a woman" and "homosexuality is a sin." That is exactly why Christians should support same-sex marriage; it is not by alienating or attacking same sex marriage, or indeed homosexuals, that Christians can fulfill the Great Commission. At any point did Jesus attempt to force people to give up sin or a sinful way of life? Consider the story of the adulterous woman in the book of John as an example; Jesus first saved the woman's life and then urged her to "go and sin no more." We should connect with individuals on a personal, fundamental level before attempting to correct what we might see as flaws. Care about the person first and the sin second, as it were.
What is to follow is the aforementioned technical corrections:
Christians should be the best friends homosexuals have; that we aren't is a sin (poetically speaking).
Hahahaha so funny... I love how you missed it when I said:
"I'm not saying I hate gays. Some of my best friends are gay. Some of the coolest people I know are gay."
[/quote]
Please do note the lack of second person pronouns. I did not say "you should be the best friend homosexuals have," but rather "Christians." How many homosexuals see the Westboro Baptist Church as friends, for example? I intended my statements to be for all Christians which (unfortunately) does include groups like that.
... the government already did so when it was established. The reason for religious freedom when the government was created was ... Thusly, they made the lawful version of marriage off of Christianity.
Sorry, I'm going to have to call BS on that one. The people who established religious freedom through the First Amendment were not the same people to establish federal marriage laws. In fact, you might notice a great gap in the Constitution in terms of references to marriage. However, since it wasn't explicitly stated in the Constitution, the "right" of marriage is reserved for the states. So the "lawful version of marriage" was created by state governments first, not the federal government (which is what established religious freedom).
Did you miss my entire argument? My entire argument was for getting homosexual couples to have the ability to achieve the same sets of rights and benefits that are part of a legal marriage. My only stipulation for this was that it be a legal marriage but under a different name, as to be able to easily dispell the radicals and such who are 100% against it.
The radicals who are 100% against it aren't going to care what you call it; a rose by any other name, and all that. Likewise, homosexuals who are 100% for it aren't going to be happy with an alternate name. Your stipulation satisfies neither side while pissing both off. Besides, it has already been discovered that separate but equal is nothing of the sort.
I don't know if we knew this, but many Christian practices were adopted from Roman and Greek mythology. For example, Christmas is in December because that's when Saturnalia was.
The practice of specifically absorbing Greek and Roman "mythology," and indeed pagan elements in general, did not formally begin until the rise of Pope Gregory that Great. Given that early Christians, until around the 5th century, specifically attempted to distance themselves from Pagan religious elements, it is highly improbable that they willingly assimilated anything pagan. The earliest specific mention of the birth of Christ comes from the 4th century, and records can tentatively place the date of the birth of Christ being believed to be in December/January as early as the 2nd century.
You are essentially stating a historical theory (and I should note that, in history, the word “theory” does not have the same meaning as what the word “theory” means in science) from the 1800’s that was never well supported. It was postulated but with no actual historical evidence to back it up. Certainly Christians did absorb some pagan elements; we have records of it occurring. But that can not be applied to different time periods without proper evidence.
-
The radicals who are 100% against it aren't going to care what you call it; a rose by any other name, and all that. Likewise, homosexuals who are 100% for it aren't going to be happy with an alternate name. Your stipulation satisfies neither side while pissing both off.
Yours is just one of two possible outcomes...
I could see them pissed that it would be called something different... but I could also see them happy that they get what they wanted. ..."would smell as sweet", to finish off your quote.
I could see them pissed that homosexuals get marriage... but I could also see them happy that they don't get marriage per say, but merely the benefits and pleasures (In truth, I have alot of Christian friends who agree with this idea, but sure, 100% radicals would really never agree to this, considering they dont want gays to have ANY rights.... but really, it would be just-deserts if you consider the persecution they placed upon them (100% rads = someone who hates gays, 100%))
Giving them marriage in itself would:
make gays happy, piss off christians.
Not giving them marriage would:
make christians happy, piss off gays.
-
I live by what I personally understand Christianity to be.
And gay people mostly don't. But since you believe Christianity is the one truth, you punish them with your Christian-influenced laws and disparage them. That's not the kind of freedom America is all about.
-
I live by what I personally understand Christianity to be.
And gay people mostly don't. But since you believe Christianity is the one truth, you punish them with your Christian-influenced laws and disparage them. That's not the kind of freedom America is all about.
You can disagree with people's lifestyles in America. You can even hate people for things they can't help like race/sex/mental state. You may be an asshole for doing it, but you can definitely do it.
-
I live by what I personally understand Christianity to be.
And gay people mostly don't. But since you believe Christianity is the one truth, you punish them with your Christian-influenced laws and disparage them. That's not the kind of freedom America is all about.
I'm just going to have to say fuck you and fuck off. If you're going to try and argue intelligently with someone, try actually listening to both their argument and their side. I've said where I've stood too many times already, and by saying such things you're basically going "Nah-nah I'm not listening".
-
:picardno
Let's not carry this into another downward spiral of bashing and cussing out fellow forum members like previous discussions have.
And gay people mostly don't. But since you believe Christianity is the one truth, you punish them with your Christian-influenced laws and disparage them. That's not the kind of freedom America is all about.
I'm sorry Z, are there actually laws on a state or federal level that "punish" gays? I know there's still a lot ground to be covered in equality standards, but I think our society is past the point of legal hazing for sexual orientation.
-
I must be a bad person, because I just don't give a shit if homosexuals can marry or not. I mean I wouldn't care if they could or couldn't. If I was gay I might be concerned, but it doesn't really effect me.
-
There's not enough separation between State and "Morals".
-
But aside from the content of what she said, I felt she could have expressed herself far more articulately, and that alone makes me glad they didn't give her the crown. I shudder to think what would have happened if they asked her to do a derivative or something. She would be much more empowered if she traded those implants in for a college scholarship.
Sadly, I wonder whether or not she'd really know what to do with such a scholarship... This isn't really so much of a jab at her intellect, but the fact that she sounded so much like a talking head when she gave that response. Granted, she probably was nervous for talking about her beliefs when California is in such a heated battle over gay marriage, but she could barely even articulate her opinion much less give any kind of substantial explanation for it. "That's how I was raised..." right. Has she thought about important issues for herself, I wonder.
-
I live by what I personally understand Christianity to be.
And gay people mostly don't. But since you believe Christianity is the one truth, you punish them with your Christian-influenced laws and disparage them. That's not the kind of freedom America is all about.
I'm just going to have to say fuck you and fuck off. If you're going to try and argue intelligently with someone, try actually listening to both their argument and their side. I've said where I've stood too many times already, and by saying such things you're basically going "Nah-nah I'm not listening".
You've argued that gays should have civil unions that are equivalent to marriage because including gays in legal marriage would offend bigots. That's punishing gays with (in this case) Christian influenced laws, because we know that separate but equal doesn't work, and it is indeed disparaging to the group getting the "next best thing". You may not like the way Zeality phrased it, but he was addressing what you've asserted in this thread.
And while there is a case to be made that government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all, if that's how we want to do things, it means that the government has to stop offering straight marriage. If we seek to do good in the world, both straight and gay marriage must have equal legal standing, whatever that legal standing winds up being.
-
I live by what I personally understand Christianity to be.
And gay people mostly don't. But since you believe Christianity is the one truth, you punish them with your Christian-influenced laws and disparage them. That's not the kind of freedom America is all about.
I'm just going to have to say fuck you and fuck off. If you're going to try and argue intelligently with someone, try actually listening to both their argument and their side. I've said where I've stood too many times already, and by saying such things you're basically going "Nah-nah I'm not listening".
You've argued that gays should have civil unions that are equivalent to marriage because including gays in legal marriage would offend bigots. That's punishing gays with (in this case) Christian influenced laws, because we know that separate but equal doesn't work, and it is indeed disparaging to the group getting the "next best thing". You may not like the way Zeality phrased it, but he was addressing what you've asserted in this thread.
And while there is a case to be made that government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all, if that's how we want to do things, it means that the government has to stop offering straight marriage. If we seek to do good in the world, both straight and gay marriage must have equal legal standing, whatever that legal standing winds up being.
...punishing them by giving them something they have wanted for quite a while?
If we really are going to compare my opinion on how to solve this problem to separate but equal of the old days, then we are making a false comparison.
separate but equal then meant separating blacks from white society, and then hazing them.
my opinion means nothing but the exact equality of homosexual couples and heterosexual couples in the lawful sense. Same rights same abilities same advantages, everything.
I'm sorry but if you're saying that my wanting to work towards equality whilst trying to stay within the bounds of my religion is the same as being an asshole to them and protesting soldier's deaths and blaming the war on them, then I can't argue with someone taking everything I say and twisting it as if to make me look like the bad guy. Saying that I'm trying to punish them, whilst in reality I'm trying to be the one that quells both sides of this argument.
I read my post 2 above and see the possibilities.... and if theres a single chance that both sides can be happy, and there is, I would take it.
I'm sorry Z, are there actually laws on a state or federal level that "punish" gays? I know there's still a lot ground to be covered in equality standards, but I think our society is past the point of legal hazing for sexual orientation.
^^ This is exactly what I am talking about. If you truly think that my viewpoint is just another way that I can haze and discriminate and persecute and be an asshole, then you obviously missed a number of things I said.
-
Uh, yes?
When married filing jointly allows a better tax position that gays don't have access to, they've effectively been discriminated against by the tax and marriage laws. Ditto for an entire wide RANGE of legal issues, like inheritance, etc.
-
Uh, yes?
When married filing jointly allows a better tax position that gays don't have access to, they've effectively been discriminated against by the tax and marriage laws. Ditto for an entire wide RANGE of legal issues, like inheritance, etc.
At least they have love. Money can't buy that. :lol:
-
At least they have love. Money can't buy that. :lol:
Dude, don't forget about hookers.
-
...punishing them by giving them something they have wanted for quite a while?
If we really are going to compare my opinion on how to solve this problem to separate but equal of the old days, then we are making a false comparison.
Except that you aren't giving them what they want. Saying "You can have civil unions, but the straights get marriage", even if the two are identical in legal rights and responsibilities, is not the same thing. It's treating gays as second class citizens because it is denying them an institution that is available to their fellow citizens for no other reason that granting them access to the institution would offend bigots.
separate but equal then meant separating blacks from white society, and then hazing them.
my opinion means nothing but the exact equality of homosexual couples and heterosexual couples in the lawful sense. Same rights same abilities same advantages, everything.
That's not actually what separate but equal means. That it was used initially to refer to blacks and whites does not mean that the principle can only apply to those too cultural groups. Your opinion does not mean exact equality, because it still enforces the notion that the institution of marriage is something that gay citizens should not have access to, while straight citizens should. This is not exact equality.
I'm sorry but if you're saying that my wanting to work towards equality whilst trying to stay within the bounds of my religion is the same as being an asshole to them and protesting soldier's deaths and blaming the war on them, then I can't argue with someone taking everything I say and twisting it as if to make me look like the bad guy. Saying that I'm trying to punish them, whilst in reality I'm trying to be the one that quells both sides of this argument.
I made no such statement. Don't try to play the martyr; your politics are being challenged here, not your humanity. While you may believe that you have the very best of intentions for gays in this country, the arguments being made are that the consequences of applying your policies would not in fact result in the benefits for gays you believe such action would. You can be sincere in your goals, and still pursue means that will not achieve them. No one is saying otherwise.
I read my post 2 above and see the possibilities.... and if theres a single chance that both sides can be happy, and there is, I would take it.
That there are two sides in a conflict does not mean that both sides have legitimate claims. The arguments against marriage equality for gays all boil down to bigotry. That members of a particular sect are offended by the idea of gay marriage is not a legitimate reason to deny marriage equality to gays. Providing such equality will upset bigots, of this there is no doubt. This is acceptable.
-
Except that you aren't giving them what they want. Saying "You can have civil unions, but the straights get marriage", even if the two are identical in legal rights and responsibilities, is not the same thing. It's treating gays as second class citizens because it is denying them an institution that is available to their fellow citizens for no other reason that granting them access to the institution would offend bigots.
While I could be mistaken, I think he was saying that the legal form of "marriage" would be something along the lines of civil unions, for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Marriage would be reserved for non-legal use.
The idea that telling heterosexual married couples that they are no longer "married" but in a "civil union" is rather hilarious, in that political suicide sort of way.
-
I made no such statement. Don't try to play the martyr; your politics are being challenged here, not your humanity. While you may believe that you have the very best of intentions for gays in this country, the arguments being made are that the consequences of applying your policies would not in fact result in the benefits for gays you believe such action would. You can be sincere in your goals, and still pursue means that will not achieve them. No one is saying otherwise.
Forgive me for making you think otherwise, but that statement wasn't directed toward you... or atleast I dont believe it was.
While I could be mistaken, I think he was saying that the legal form of "marriage" would be something along the lines of civil unions, for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Marriage would be reserved for non-legal use.
Weather he agrees with me or otherwise, I think Thought has gotten to the closest possible explanation of what I was going for.
The idea that telling heterosexual married couples that they are no longer "married" but in a "civil union" is rather hilarious, in that political suicide sort of way.
I don't think the phrase "civil union" really fits either. I'd personally just go for "Legally Married" vs "Religiously Married"...
-
I didn't see this thread until today. Wow...just wow. I will never understand why people fret so much about same-sex marriage. It's nothing different from a heterosexual couple...
-
It's nothing different from a heterosexual couple...
Besides the confusion of who gets the mother's day card.
-
Really, fuck religion and government for depriving homosexuals the right to marry. WHAT'S THE PROBLEM JEEEEEEEEEZ
It's nothing different from a heterosexual couple...
Besides the confusion of who gets the mother's day card.
oh u :roll:
-
Dobson: Why did you give the answer you did with regard to the affirmation of marriage?
Prejean: . . . I felt as though Satan was trying to tempt me in asking me this question. And then God was in my head and in my heart saying, "Do not compromise this. You need to stand up for me and you need to share with all these people . . . you need to witness to them and you need to show that you're not willing to compromise that for this title of Miss USA."
And I knew right here that it wasn't about winning. It was about being true to my convictions.
Whew. I wish my Invisible Friend could net me tax benefits and respect for untenable positions.
-
(http://jaredude.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/churchlady.jpg)
SATAN?!
Wow.