California voters passed Proposition 22 in 2000 by more than 61%, saying that a marriage in California is between a man and a woman. Earlier this year, four activist judges based in San Francisco overturned the people's vote, legalizing same-sex marriage.
This decision has far reaching effects.
For example, because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergartners.
By saying that a marriage is between “any two persons” rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of “marriage.” This undermines the value of marriage for those who do feel it is between a man and woman.
I am not for civil liberties being taken away and try to accept all people...including those who are gay, lesbian or Bi! I have friends who fall into all 3 categories so I'm not some hypocrite. I want my friends who are gay to be happy and have a relationship and be recognized by the government. However I think in some ways involving the schools is allowing the government to have too much control in our lives.
California law already grants domestic partners all the rights that a state can grant to a married couple. Gays have a right to their private lives, but not to change the definition of marriage for everyone else. Perhaps a better solution would be to call it a "civil union" or come up with some other word other than "marriage" because I feel marriage is between a man and a woman.
State law may require teachers to instruct children as young as kindergartners about marriage. If the gay marriage ruling is not overturned, TEACHERS COULD BE REQUIRED to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage. There is a difference-but not in the sense that gay couples don't love each other or their child the same way.
I feel that is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. For both straight and gay families. It shouldn’t be forced on kids in school to learn one way or the other. I don't think they should teach about traditional marriage either.
I do think they should teach acceptance in school so kids don't grow up thinking they're "wierd" or get picked on by others if they are gay.
Vote NO on Propostition 8...
...because it tales away the basic civil rights of citizens.
Tell me, do you know WHY the Supreme Court of California ruled as the did In re Marriage Cases?
Not since since Perez v. Sharpe have the people of California been faced with such a blatant attempt to enshrine an act of discrimination against her citizens.
TTFN,
Blackout
"I just meant sometimes we need to look and see if the government is taking too much control...on our rights. One of my high school history teachers always said if they take one right away from us, how many more can they take?" ~ BrownEyed Girl
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Exactly. No one has the right to take away another person's rights, not even if the majority votes to remove those rights.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person
How can this not be the government not becoming involved? If you ask me, we should do a proposition to remove government from becoming involved in marriage at all. Marriage has always been within religion. I don't care which religion but all of them include marriage ceremonies.
Therefore, the government recognizing homosexuals and/or heterosexuals marriages is wrong to begin with. That means the government playing a role in our religions. How is that separation of State and Church?
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
Marriage has NOT always been within religion. Historically speaking, marriage originated as a private contract between two people and the State. These arrangements date back to the earliest legal systems (such as the Code of Hammurabi) and were not originally religious. Even the christian church didn't make marriage a sacrament until the Council of Florence in 1431 C.E.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Would you be willing to pull up some links to verify that information for me? My perspective, as all perspectives should be, is skewed due to my personal opinion and it can be changed with good facts. Those two are good facts but I'd just like some links to further research it. I have little time in my schedule to do so.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_w...
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20050506-000006.html
A Google search will also bring up other resources.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
...I've been so busy the last several days that I haven't been able to keep up.
Thanks again,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
My perspective, as all perspectives should be, is skewed due to my personal opinion and it can be changed with good facts. Those two are good facts but I'd just like some links to further research it.
I like you. Please don't ever change this attitude. It is rare to find someone who believes that having truth and knowledge is more important than being right. :-)
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/50075-advocates-gay-marriage you should have fun responding to this.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
Discrimination. Really now? And you do not believe that goes both ways? Do i need to remind you of the adoption agencies shut, people sued, churches sued, because two people who act out on perverted nonsense believe they should "have the right" to be immoral. the truth hurts and I will be the first to say homosexuality is wrong. Gay people are nice people, I have gay friends. They believe gay marriage shouldn't be legalized just like I do. Two people getting married shouldn't cause a church to lose 20,000$ and an adoption agency to more than 4,000 children shut down. The only reason why you are here is because people decided to flee from religious persecution, so if you want to pull the discrimination card it is going both ways. Once again we face another challenge as Christians who are portrayed as some "evil" people who only believe in doing what is right. These are principals that are prevalent throughout history. To have morals is to have a place for God in your heart. It's not about protecting rights to citizens that are already there. They want special privileges that are immoral and wrong to fit THEIR needs. Now that is WRONG. Argue all you want, but you cannot defend your immoral beliefs to what is TRULY right. If you want Tolerance I am more than willing to defend for gay people. But changing the definition to marriage to fit their lifestyles, WRONG. It effects everyone no matter if you know someone who is gay or not. It WILL be taught in schools since schools are required to teach marriage. So your offensive technique fails again BlackOut. One day I hope you really do grow up and start believing in something that has meaning, unlike your pity rants on how right you always THINK you are.
Discrimination. Really now? And you do not believe that goes both ways?
I'm not sure I follow. I'm not aware of anyone trying to pass a constitutional amendment to take away the right of heterosexual people to marry, are you?
Do i need to remind you of the adoption agencies shut, people sued, churches sued,
Yes, please do. But for once, please do so by citing specifics. It is difficult to respond to allegations that are so vague.
because two people who act out on perverted nonsense believe they should "have the right" to be immoral.
Blah, blah, immoral, blah, blah. You have your opinion of what is moral, and I have mine. The Constitution protects both of our rights in that regard. But it does NOT permit you to pass laws because you think your religious-based morality is the only one. To quote our first president...
the truth hurts and I will be the first to say homosexuality is wrong. Gay people are nice people, I have gay friends. They believe gay marriage shouldn't be legalized just like I do.
You've said that before, but I just don't buy it. I know a LOT of gay people, and I've never met one who thinks that it is okay to change a State or the Federal Constitution to categorically prohibit gay people from exercising their freedom to marry. But even if these "friends" of yours are real, they are entitled to their opinion just as you and I are. That doesn't change the basis of the arguments for or against, however.
Two people getting married shouldn't cause a church to lose 20,000$ and an adoption agency to more than 4,000 children shut down.
Again, you need to present the specifics of these cases before we can respond to them. I will say that I am aware of no instances where any adoption agencies have been forced to shut down. I am aware of a few cases where religously-motivated adoption agencecies decided to shut down of their own accord, because they considered their desire to discriminate against gay people more important than finding homes for the children that had been left in the care.
The only reason why you are here is because people decided to flee from religious persecution, so if you want to pull the discrimination card it is going both ways.
Indeed, and that is why I find it so ironic that YOU want to perpetuate religious discrimination now by enshrining YOU religous beliefs in the law above the beliefs of all others. After all, lets not forget that there are quite a few religious groups (and even a few christian ones) that are perfectly willing to perform these marriages.
Once again we face another challenge as Christians who are portrayed as some "evil" people who only believe in doing what is right.
When you do what YOU think is right at the expesnse of the rights of OTHERS, then you are adding evidence to the argument that christians are evil.
These are principals that are prevalent throughout history.
Specifics? Based on your ignorance of the history of marriage, I am not inclined to accept your comment here without something a little more specific.
To have morals is to have a place for God in your heart.
Irrelevant. Appeals to your imaginary friend has no bearing on the Laws of the State of California or our Nation.
It's not about protecting rights to citizens that are already there.
Factually incorrect. The California Supreme Court ruled that this is exactly what Prop. 8 is doing.
They want special privileges that are immoral and wrong to fit THEIR needs.
The freedom to marry isn't a "special privilege." Its a basic civil right that must be afforded equally to ALL citizens.
Now that is WRONG. Argue all you want, but you cannot defend your immoral beliefs to what is TRULY right.
Sure I can. In fact, I would suggest that I'm doing a pretty good job of it, lol.
If you want Tolerance I am more than willing to defend for gay people.
Well, thanks. *rolls eyes*
But changing the definition to marriage to fit their lifestyles, WRONG.
On that, we will have to disagree. Fortunately, the Constitution of California seems to favor MY opinion in this case over YOURS.
It effects everyone no matter if you know someone who is gay or not.
Indeed it does. I would maintain however that this effect is a positive one.
It WILL be taught in schools since schools are required to teach marriage.
You say that like its a BAD thing, lol. Why wouldn't we want to educate our children into the way that the world around them works?
So your offensive technique fails again BlackOut. One day I hope you really do grow up and start believing in something that has meaning, unlike your pity rants on how right you always THINK you are.
Well, I hope you will pardon me if I laugh off your self-declared victory and leave the decision on which of us is more compelling in our arguments to our readers.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
What exactly has been done to opposite-sex marriages since gay marriage was legalized in June? The sky hasn't fallen. All I've seen are a bunch of happy couples having their committed relationships confirmed in the eyes of the state.
Why is marriage degraded when two people who love each other want to legally commit themselves to the relationship they've built? If anything, that reinforces what marriage should be.
The "fear" of having children learn that same-sex relationships are okay is disgusting to me. How do you think children of parents in same-sex relationships feel when no one in school acknowledges that kids can have two moms or two dads? But I guess you feel its appropriate for those children to feel singled out. And what about children who will realize later on that they are attracted to people of the same gender? They have learned implicitly all through school that same-gender attraction isn't normal.
But I've heard that schools don't have to teach about marriage anyways. I know I didn't learn about it in school. But I do hope that when Prop 8 fails, schools will begin to acknowledge and protect gay people and same-sex relationships because the state as a whole has taken a big step to protect and preserve gay rights in legalizing same-sex marriages.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person
1)Heterosexual couples feel like homosexuals have infringed upon there "territory." Even more so within Christian heterosexual couples. Have you considered their point of view? Imagine being a Christian and your sovereign telling you that your religion is wrong about marriage. This is why people are getting their panties in a bunch about the legalization of gay marriage. Hopefully that helps you understand that.
2)Again for the point of teaching marriage in school, consider the view of Christians. However, expand the perspective this time. Include Muslims, and Jews in the thought process this time. If one of those folks feel it's wrong for two people of the same sex are able to get married, would they truly want to send their kids to public schools? Is it right to make it so that these folks have to home school their kids or send them to EXPENSIVE private schools? Is it right to make them stop fighting for what they believe in to be true and just?
3)Hearsay rarely stands up in criminal trial. You should make sure you verify your sources (not saying it's wrong just saying).
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
Heterosexual couples feel like homosexuals have infringed upon there "territory."
Speak for yourself. My boss's, stepmother's, and friends' homosexual relationships have no effect, whatsoever, on my heterosexual relationship with my husband.
Imagine being a Christian and your sovereign telling you that your religion is wrong about marriage.
What? You mean like how Wiccans had to fight to get their religion recognized by the US military? Or how they had to fight against those who wanted to ban Wiccans from serving altogether?
How about being Muslim and hearing not only your government, but everyone around you, accuse you of being and/or supporting terrorists, just because of your religion?
How about being a Pagan of any sort and being told by every Christian that walks up to you that you're wrong in every aspect of your faith and that you're going to go to Hell because not only do you not believe in Jesus, but because you also sacrifice babies on Halloween?
If one of those folks feel it's wrong for two people of the same sex are able to get married, would they truly want to send their kids to public schools?
You have every legal right to pull your child out of the class in question and protest it if you so choose. You also have the right to vote for or against the people and bills that contribute to dictating what appears in public school curricula.
Public schools are designed to teach what the local government considers unbiased information. If you don't like that your kids are being taught about "alternative lifestyles" or even evolution, then perhaps public school isn't for you and you should consider your other options.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
The first part I gave reference to other religions by the way. And just because you feel homosexual marriages don't affect you, doesn't mean that I'm going to feel the same way. Humans are not synchronous.
And I don't go up to people and tell them they are wrong about their beliefs. I will if they ask me but I don't feel the need to tell them outright. Plus I hope and pray you don't believe sacrificing babies on any day is okay. (I'm assuming you were being sarcastic but I never know in this world.) Plus, the general public would condemn such an act anyway, not just Christians.
Your last point on having options is dependent upon the persons financial situation. If you're a single mother working two jobs, you may not have another option. You won't be able to home school them. And as far as I know, you have to educate your child up to a minimum of elementary level (legally speaking.) So people who can't afford to send their kids to private schools are forced to send their kids to public school. This leaves one last desperate option of moving. Because if the majority says it's non biased to teach about homosexual marriage as okay, then what you think individually won't matter.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
Plus I hope and pray you don't believe sacrificing babies on any day is okay.
There was a certain amount of sarcasm in the idea that Pagans practice human sacrifice (we don't). However, I was serious in that Christians think we do. I grew up in Churches that wholeheartedly believed and taught that Pagans sacrifice babies on Halloween and that they worship Satan (we don't, Satan is a Christian construct).
My point is, how would you like having complete strangers walk up to you, see any religious symbol other than theirs, and immediately start telling you that everything you believe in is wrong, that you're going to Hell, and that what you practice is evil?
Plus, the general public would condemn such an act anyway, not just Christians.
So do Pagans, but that doesn't stop Christians from teaching to their kids that the "evil Pagans" still do it. That Church I grew up in had videos about the "truth about Halloween" that they'd play for the youth group every year. They also had a woman who supposedly grew up in a Pagan coven where they supposedly performed "devil-worship" and sacrificed babies and she'd tell about how she was saved and because she was a Christian, her family disowned her and so on and so forth.
The first part I gave reference to other religions by the way. And just because you feel homosexual marriages don't affect you, doesn't mean that I'm going to feel the same way. Humans are not synchronous.
Then why do you feel your marriage is invalidated because of someone else's marriage? The fact that humans are asynchronous is exactly my point.
Your last point on having options is dependent upon the persons financial situation.
I've already covered the options that don't require money, such as requesting that your child be exempt (even temporarily for that lesson) from the class. It's called being involved in the child's life to the best of the parent's abilities (and don't cry about how a single mother can't do much to be involved, I was raised by a single mother and she was very much involved).
Also, sending your child to private school is still an option, even if it is a last option.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
That's kind of like when white people felt black people were infringing on their territory.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
It's not even close.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
Care to explain what makes this so different?
Absolutely I'd love to. I'm going to take this from the personal perspective. I'm not actively attempting to segregate homosexuals from society, nor am I attempting to take away civil liberties from them. I don't go out and make homosexuals sit at the back of the bus, nor do I go out and make them use different restrooms. And I am NOT trying to take their right to vote away either. If it were up to me, civil unions would have the same legal authority as marriage.
I believe there is a sanctity to marriage. It's a traditional concept that should be kept traditional. It's my personal convictions and beliefs that are deciding my vote. However, most people are like me anyway http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/50075-advocates-gay-marriage. That explains why.
Let me clarify one more thing, I DO NOT HATE HOMOSEXUALS. Nor do I think I am better than them.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
nor am I attempting to take away civil liberties from them.
The right to legally marry is a civil liberty in this country, so yes, you are looking to take that away. And please remember, it is the legal marriage in question here, not your religious ceremony.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I see nothing wrong with civil unions having same legal par as marriage. I feel marriage is linked to my religions ceremonies so if they feel the need to create a social institution that is similar to it then they can. They can create one that reflects nothing but the legal and governmental side of it. That is not taking away their legal rights, it's just me protecting mine.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
A marriage that reflects nothing but the legal and governmental side of it is still called a marriage. If I get married at a courthouse, it isn't called anything different than if I get married in a church.
Church marriages are recognized by the civil government. It's not the other way around. Your big fancy church ceremony being legally recognized by the government is the only thing that links marriage to religion.
There is no reason to try to protect your rights because no one is trying to take them away.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
What about the domestic side of marriage? Has that always been included in government?
Lets say that it has then. The domestic side of marriage therefore then has been to encourage families and procreation. So then that means the government has always intended, until recently (since government is the people), that marriage is between man and a woman.
Therefore, that means the people of California have again decided they would like the traditional view of the domestic side of marriage to remain the same. The domestic side is very much tied to the church.
However, civil unions still allow the legal and financial side of marriage to homosexual couples.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
The last time I checked, one didn't have to be christian to have kids or to live together as a family. Likewise, there is nothing in our "traditional" marriage laws that require couples to have children, and nothing in our other laws that say that you have to get married in order to have kids. In fact, both non-fertile and intentionally non-reproductive heterosexual couples are afforded the same marriage rights as those who desire to and do have kids. Thus, I would suggest that your argument is seriously flawed.
Also, in regards to the "tradition" argument. For one, it simply isn't true. There are numerous examples of same-sex marriages both ancient and modern in cultures from around the world. If one really wants to speak of "traditional" marriage, then an exclusive "one-man-one-woman-only" system is actually rather non-traditional. I would also like to present you with what the Supreme Court has to say about "tradition"...
So basically, the "tradition" argument gets you nowhere. Either the restriction you wish to impose is constitutional, or it is not. If it is not (and I maintain that this is the case), then no amount of "tradition" can justify a continuation of discriminatory anti-gay marriage laws.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Unfortunately for you, I'm a law student. That case you presented is based upon the issue of sexual activity and does not constitute for domestic issues outside of sexual interaction. I would hope you at least agree that the domestic side of marriage is far beyond the simple act of having sex with one person for the rest of your life.
Federally in Title 1, Chapter 1 Section 7 defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Therefore the federal government has determined that homosexual's do not have the right to marry. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/7.html
As for my argument is flawed, your opinion is objective. I would appreciate it if you would remain so as well. Though I may disagree with you, I don't feel the need to directly tell you I think your wrong. I think you must be insecure about your position that you feel the need to tell me straight out [and/or hopefully take me off my guard] that my argument is seriously flawed. Get off your high horse.
Now I will rebuttal your suggestions. Marriage is far beyond the simple act (as stated above) of lust. Marriage has become such a distorted perception by the public and is why divorce rates are common. People who marry out of lust generally will get a divorce because they realize live is more than sex.
However I digress back to the original point. The parameters of domestic issues are also objective. In my opinion, [which I'm just anticipating the direct declaration of my "ignorance"] that is naturally to be between a man and a woman. It is unnatural to me for a couple of the same sex to be together to begin with [yes I realize this a nature vs nurture issue.] Therefore, do they truly have the right to marry? In my opinion, along with several other Californians and Americans in general, they do not have the natural right to marry.
In this light, the decision was constitutional. You can refute me all you want but I'm done arguing with you blackout. You go beyond discussion and make things too personal [which by the way, you voted on your personal beliefs]. I find that immature and a waste of good intelligence. I would love to discuss this further but I cannot waste my time on someone who refuses to even consider the other sides point of view.
You attract more flies with honey than you do with vinegar blackout.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
That case you presented is based upon the issue of sexual activity and does not constitute for domestic issues outside of sexual interaction.
If you're a law student, I am surprised that you didn't catch the Court's reference to the Loving decision...
The Court actually used Loving (a case about the discriminatory denial of marriage rights) as an example of the principle they espoused in their decision. And heck, even in Justice Scalia, in his dissent of Lawrence, states that...
I think that if the Supreme Court of the United States can make the connection, then my use of the precedent is valid. I would also point out that other Courts (such as the California Supreme Court In re: Marriage Cases) have made the same connection...
Federally in Title 1, Chapter 1 Section 7 defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Therefore the federal government has determined that homosexual's do not have the right to marry.
Well, that's kind of the whole point in Judicial Review, now isn't it. Laws that are inconsistent with our Constitution can be challenged in Court. The federal legislature doesn't have the authority to decide ultimately who does or does not have access to a basic civil right. And barring a constitutional amendment (which has consistently failed to get even a simple majority in the Senate), only the Supreme Court can do that. Their actions can (and eventually will) be challenged in Court. The Supreme Court of the United States has not delivered an explicit ruling on whether or not same-sex couples must be afforded the right to marry, however, it has refused to strike down State laws which afford the right of marriage to their gay citizens (see Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health).
I think you must be insecure about your position that you feel the need to tell me straight out [and/or hopefully take me off my guard] that my argument is seriously flawed. Get off your high horse.
I just call 'em like I see 'em. If something is demonstrably wrong, I will point it out. If I think something is wrong, then I will say so and provide my evidence in support of that position. As for the "high horse" comment, you lost the moral high ground with me the instant you started advocating against my basic rights as a citizen of this country. So why don't YOU get of YOUR high horse, and quit trying to tell people how to live their lives.
Marriage is far beyond the simple act (as stated above) of lust.
Your entire rebuttal on this point is misdirected, since I have at no point claimed taht marriage is "a simple act of lust."
The parameters of domestic issues are also objective. In my opinion, [which I'm just anticipating the direct declaration of my "ignorance"] that is naturally to be between a man and a woman. It is unnatural to me for a couple of the same sex to be together to begin with [yes I realize this a nature vs nurture issue.] Therefore, do they truly have the right to marry? In my opinion, along with several other Californians and Americans in general, they do not have the natural right to marry.
There are also several flaws in this portion of your "analysis." For one, marriage is uniquely a human social construction. There is nothing "natural" about it, beyond the core observation that humans have a "natural" tendency to create such constructions. The "nature vs nurture" issue is also a non-starter, since categorizations may be ruled invidious whether they are biological (such as race or sex) or ideological (such as religion or creed). I would also point out that when another famous freedom to marry case reached the California Supreme Court (i.e. Perez v. Sharp), many Californians and most States still disapproved of interracial marriages as well. An appeal to popularity (tsk, tsk...I would expect better from a Law student) is a logical fallacy, and is not a valid argument with which to defend a discriminatory law.
In this light, the decision was constitutional.
I'm not sure which decision you're talking about, but in regards to Proposition 8, we won't know whether or not it was constitutional until after the Courts weigh in. I'm pretty confident how that will eventually play out.
'm done arguing with you blackout. You go beyond discussion and make things too personal [which by the way, you voted on your personal beliefs]. I find that immature and a waste of good intelligence. I would love to discuss this further but I cannot waste my time on someone who refuses to even consider the other sides point of view.
I would suggest that what you really don't like is being effectively challenged. And, hell yes I take this kind of shit personally. What you want to "discuss" is a fundamental infringement upon my basic rights as a human being and a citizen. Whether you intend it this way or not, your position represents a VERY PERSONAL attack against my family, for whom I have a great deal of passion when it comes to defending. The only two sides of this argument are to discriminate or NOT to discriminate. I think we see which side you're on.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I find this argument interesting. The more and more we have gone in depth Blackout, I've found that you're just the same as extremist on "my" side of the spectrum. This has become a case of calling the kettle black.
First off though, I will tip my hat off to you on your legal knowledge. Also, you have done a tremendous amount of research to support your argument. I cannot come close to saying you have failed in this area. You know your stuff. Another aspect you have going for you that I don't is time. You've spent more time researching and you're about twice my age which would give you twice as much time and experience to create your stance on such a subject. I feel as if I'm a rookie trying to play in the major leagues in this respect with you.
However, I must point out some flaws in you. I did not want it to come to this, but I do not have much of a choice. I can chose to let your comment go uncontested, or I can defend myself. The single aspect of our mannerisms that differs the most are respect and manners. I respect your view Blackout [regardless if you don't respect mine], and I would have liked to keep this polite and non personal.
You tell me that I don't have the right to tell anyone else how to live, and that I need to get off my high horse. First, when did I tell people how to live? All my comments on here are what I think. I never said everyone had to live how I thought was right. Second, what are you doing then? You're telling me I can't vote based upon my religion and beliefs. Is that not telling me how to live my life? Is that not telling me how to THINK?
As I said earlier, you DO have a vast knowledge. But how does that give you the right to mock my "analysis"? Or to tell me that my thinking is faulty. According to you, in this issue, I'm legally an idiot. I'm mentally incompetent according to you. Again I ask, when did you get the right to determine that I'm incompetent? I have been tumbling this issue in my head for several weeks now. I've thought this out quite well and you DO NOT have the right to tell me I haven't. You lack the information to dictate whether or not I've thought this out. Just because I lack data on court cases and such doesn't mean I'm not intelligent. I thank God that you're not the one who decides that anyway. I don't feel the need to accuse you of being ignorant so why should you have need to tell me I'm mentally incompetent? Oh as for the I don't like being effectively challenged, I didn't know they changed name calling to effectively challenging someone. I missed that memo.
My last argument is this. You said it's personal which gives you reason to be so abrasive and rude to me. How are you any different from me? Had prop 8 failed, it would have been attack on my (and several others) religions. Does the state have the right to say that my religion is wrong[outside of basic criminal justice laws]? And approving gay marriage would say so. It would be clearly stating (even without pronouncing) that the practices of the church is wrong. Not to mention the civil suits where people would be suing every church that didn't marry them. The church wouldn't be able to even keep its lights on anymore and a lawyer would become apart of the staff. This doesn't even include my children's future?
It is in the California's education code that they have to teach aspects about marriage. How can you teach aspects about marriage without teaching about marriage itself? Had prop 8 failed, and I stayed in California, then the teachers would be required to teach both sides of marriage. That is NOT fair to me and my family! If I'm in a situation where I cannot send my child to private school, or if I didn't have time to home school them, I'd have to send them to a public school. It would not be optional to me. How is that fair to me and my family? Why can't I raise my child how I think right and just? What makes your views better than mine? In my opinion they shouldn't teach about marriage at all and to leave that up to the parents.
As the lovely mayor of San Fransisco liked to say, "whether you like it or not," marriage has become intertwined with religion. Marriage is a huge aspect in the majority of religions and to tell them to butt out of it just doesn't work. They have legal authority to recognize a couple as married! Why should I let you take that authority away from them? The only way I see it being separated is to take religion completely out of it, which is virtually impossible. So you cannot separate religions legal aspect from the government. The church has the liberty to vote in the definition of marriage and that she did for prop 8. Can you deny their liberty to determine that? Yes the legal system may shut it down but we still had the right to speak our piece. We have the right to vote and introduce propositions. It was completely constitutional that we (and not just my denomination but several) decided what to determine the definition of marriage be. We are afforded that liberty to vote as well. Unless you want to take that away from us as well since we're a bunch of uneducated, mentally incompetent, idiots.
You're exactly like people I condemn on my side. You're telling people how they MUST think. That your truths are imperative and never wrong. You know I may have changed my opinion if you'd been polite to me. I may have changed my opinion if you assumed my brain worked quite well, and informed me instead of blatantly putting me down. How can I respect the validity of an opinion who does that? It's one thing to call me on something and tell me I'm wrong. It's an entirely different issue when you claim I don't have the capacity to think well. You lost your chance to change my mind Black out. You have JUDGED me and assumed that there must be something wrong with me. You have STEREOTYPED me and lumped me in with a group of people. I haven't done this with you Blackout. Why do it to me?
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
1.) He has a right to be extreme about this, because it has a direct and serious impact on his life and his basic civil rights. (I don't know if I've mentioned this to you before, but DENYING PEOPLE THEIR BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL). It does not directly affect your life and your civil rights. Basically, this issue is none of your business, and your "passion" about it is misplaced.
And the second difference between your brand of extremism and Blackout's:
2.) Blackout actually provides objective evidence to back up his argument. You do not.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Oh that's funny, I thought I was talking to black out, not you.
And no he doesn't HAVE to be extreme about it. Did you see Martin Luther King JR. go up to people and tell them there's something wrong with there thought process? Did he not just use words of love and promote his idea through peace and civility? What about Ghandi? There are ways to be extreme about what you believe without being offensive and rude.
And second, the man has twice the years on me. I don't have as much time to research the topic as I'd like, and it's not even close to an even playing field. Which is why I said he could have, if done correctly, changed my opinion in light of the knowledge he presented to me. But I can't respect the validity of statements coming from someone who looks down upon me. Even more so when I'm not looking down upon him.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
1.) Open forum.
2.) "It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked 'insufficient funds.'" --Martin Luther King Jr. He may have been a bit more eloquent than Blackout, but like Blackout, he called a spade a spade.
3.) Age and time are weak arguments. The challenge was laid down and you failed to meet the challenge. If you are in school, you have free access to limitless peer reviewed research.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Hm I believe you said something to me of the same affect when we first started debating.
Second, Martin Luther Jr never singled anyone out and looked down upon them. Black Out isn't even close to the magnitude of Martin Luther. He told the American People as a whole we were failing. If I disagreed with him and I were talking face to face with him, he'd encourage me to change my views. He would not tell me my brain is broken.
Third, that's your opinion now stating that age and knowledge are a weak argument. I defended myself down at the bottom intelligibly. However you seem too blinded by fury or some other emotion to even give me a chance to present my case. It's an automatic retaliation. As for my school, where would I access this information? I go to a junior college atm. I'm in the first year of my long law degree path.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
That's okay. I don't think anyone believed that for a minute anyway.
I'm not blinded; neither am I swayed. If I were blind, I might be swayed by your argument, but I can see through it. And you have failed to provide ANY evidence whatsoever. No one insulted your brain. They insult your argument, which sucks.
Now you're just being petulant.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
And approving gay marriage would say so. It would be clearly stating (even without pronouncing) that the practices of the church is wrong.
Like EW already stated, Blackout's (and probably EW's as well) passion about the matter stems from the fact that the ban directly affects him because it actively keeps him from marrying his significant other.
The law does not say that the Church is wrong. It simply disagrees with it.
They have legal authority to recognize a couple as married! Why should I let you take that authority away from them? The only way I see it being separated is to take religion completely out of it, which is virtually impossible.
I got married in a courthouse. There was not a single mention of any god or religion in it. Taking religion out of legal marriage isn't that hard. I also have friends who were marriage by a Druid Priest, their marriage is recognized by the government. The Christian Church does not have a monopoly on marriage. Religion in general does not have a monopoly on marriage. Yes, your pastor may have the ability to perform a marriage that is recognized legally, but he is not the only one.
Not to mention the civil suits where people would be suing every church that didn't marry them.
Churches are private, religious entities and therefore enjoy certain privileges. I believe the ability to marry or not marry anyone they wish is one of them. Besides, who in their right mind would attend, let alone marry in, a church that doesn't want them?
Had prop 8 failed, and I stayed in California, then the teachers would be required to teach both sides of marriage. That is NOT fair to me and my family!
I've mentioned this a dozen times. You don't have to send your kids to a different school. You have the right to contest what your child is being taught and you have the right to pull your child from a lesson (especially for religious reasons). I don't care if you're a single parent or part of the Cleaver family, if you really care what your kids are being taught, you will get involved to at least some extent with your child's school (at least enough to make it clear that you don't want your kids being taught about same-sex marriage).
You're telling people how they MUST think. That your truths are imperative and never wrong.
Now, who's the pot? You've (collective) done the same thing by voting no on Prop 8 because by doing so, you're forcing your view that same-sex marriage is not valid and does not deserve the same rights that hetero marriage has.
But how does that give you the right to mock my "analysis"? Or to tell me that my thinking is faulty.
If you feel you're being personally attacked, you do have the option to flag the comment for review by the mods.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I refuted black out down below if you wish to see my final arguments. I guess BO just isn't good enough to defend himself? Why do you guys feel the need to respond for him. Personally, I like his response better than both of yours to his statements. He knows how to defend it.
Anyway I hope you're right about the school part and I'm not forcing my views upon people. Read below to my response to black out. I can't guarantee that if you respond to it I'll reply. I'm sick of going in circles.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
Personally, I like his response better than both of yours to his statements. He knows how to defend it.
If you think I'm defending something poorly, then challenge it. That's the whole point of this place.
I guess BO just isn't good enough to defend himself?
I have my own questions for you and my own challenges. Like was mentioned before, this is an open forum.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
...and so I will reply to you, below.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
It should also be noted that the only thing really changing with the "pro-gay marriage" laws is that a gay couple can legally marry.
Guess what? You don't need a church or pastor to get legally married and be recognized as such by the US government.
It's that legal marriage that is being looked at, not the religious ceremony. If a pastor/church doesn't want to marry two people, they don't have to. That is what people need to learn.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
You claim that there is a huge difference between gay marriages and heterosexual marriages...what exactly is the difference that you find to be so damaging to children?
I am currently in a gay relationship, and I can't see any difference.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Its the same terrible damages as interacial marriages cause those kids.
Talk about a loaded statement... I was going to go on but sarcasm does not always type as well and you can never tell your audience online.
... Hmmm, I wonder how hard it would be to be half straight and half gay and what they would term that...
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
I think it's called bisexual! ;)
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
:rofl:
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
There is a difference between gay marriages and straight marriages for the obvious reasons that one is of the same sex the other is not. That is all I meant by that. I'm not talking about love. I can recognize two men or women raising a child(ren) together who love each other is a positive thing. Everyone needs love and wants to feel accepted for who they are. A child should be loved in this way no matter what, but I personally feel the institution of marriage is between a man and a woman due to my religious beliefs. I don't see why the governement needs to step in at a school setting? Why can't it be left up to the family, whether that family is straight or gay it doesn't matter. It's not that it's damaging to children, it's that we differ possibly in our beliefs and the whole definition of "marriage" itself.
It's a good thing your religious beliefs have nothing to do with civil rights as they are granted in the Constitution. That said, the Constitution should not be changed to reflect your religious beliefs, as there is a separation of church and state.
And your response begs the question, if there's no real difference between the relationships, why is one wrong and damaging to children but the other isn't?
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Go up a few comments and you'll find your answer. I responded to someone else with the answer to that question.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
But that's okay, as I wasn't asking you anyway. I was asking BrownEyedGirl to defend a ridiculous statement.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I think we can agree to disagree.
Also, I think that we should do a proposition to remove government from becoming involved in marriage at all.
The government recognizing homosexuals and/or heterosexuals marriages is wrong to begin with. That means the government playing a role in our religions. How is that separation of State and Church? Our system is flawed already.
And I don't believe I actually said that the Constitution should be changed to reflect my religious beliefs or anyone’s for that matter, but I can see how you might have inferred that due to the fact my debating skills need work. I'm not afraid to admit this. Lol. I am open to new ideas and I think my perspective can be changed with good evidence, etc.
"There are two sides to every question." -Protagoras-
Voting Yes on Prop 8 is voting to change the state constitution to reflect your religious ideals.
And if there is no government involvement in marriage, then only those who go to church would be allowed to get married. Atheists or non-practicing people of any faith would be unable to marry. The church does not own marriage. As Blackout has pointed out MANY times before, marriage has always been a legal contract between two people, though in the past it was more of a contract between two families, as the women were property.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I think I was looking at it too black and white. Who am I to tell someone they can't get married? I think we do need to make laws that encompass everyone: Jews, Muslims, Christians, wiccan, etc. We shouldn't be making laws for one religous view for what one religious definition of marriage is. We can't make laws for one sect that the masses have to obey. That is why I won't vote yes now and what I have come to realize. Our country was founded on Christian values, but being free of religious persecution means being free to be whatever religion we want. So laws should be geared to govern the masses, not for one view when there is multiple.
"There are two sides to every question." -Protagoras-
It is sometimes difficult to change one's opinion, even in the face of facts. I appreciate the thought you put into this.
The process by which you came to this conclusion would make an excellent blog topic, by the way.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
*hugs*
You're amazing. I just thought I'd let you know that. Thank you very much for being open minded enough to be willing to change your opinion.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
It's always in the name of "protecting our children." Every single one of my gay friends was the biological child of heterosexual parents, whose sexual preference did in no way influence theirs - because as they all said, it was never a "choice" for them. Every major medical association agrees on this one.
More children are damaged during divorce proceedings between married heterosexual couples (who have already degraded the institution of marriage without any help from homosexual couples). With heterosexuals acting so flippant towards the institution (what's the divorce rate now? 50%?) , I don't see how preventing homosexual couples who actually want to marry is doing anything to preserve the value of marriage.
Well hey I come from a divorced family myself so I know all about it! I know probably better than most.
I'm not saying that a heterosexual couple who is married is "better" than a gay couple that is married or not married somehow. I think children are damaged during any divorce proceeding or breakup be it in a heterosexual or homosexual relationship when there is a kid involved between two parents. Plus, who is to say a couple with a kid in a same sex marriage won't get a divorce or break up?
We all have our own values, morals, beliefs or none and that is fine with me. I don't want to lopped into some statistic about divorce rate however for being heterosexual.
And I agree with you people like to do things "in the name of our children," but what is wrong with that sometimes? I would rather stand up for what I believe in and what I feel is right. Just like I feel it is right schools should not teach about marriage for either side and instead teach things like accepting everyone for who they are. Maybe then "our children" would stop the hate towards the gay communities and have respect for people who are homosexual.
"There are two sides to every question." -Protagoras-
Plus, who is to say a couple with a kid in a same sex marriage won't get a divorce or break up?
No one is, but the people who want to change state and even federal Constitutions are pushing to do so "to preserve the sanctity of marriage," something around half of them, themselves, perverted by getting married two, three, or even more times.
And I agree with you people like to do things "in the name of our children," but what is wrong with that sometimes?
If that was the real motive behind doing things, then that's fine. However, the vast majority of times (when stated by a party/advocate group/lobbyist), that line is little more than a facade to cover up real motives (typically money and/or power/control) and get people to agree with them.
Maybe then "our children" would stop the hate towards the gay communities and have respect for people who are homosexual.
How about just teaching them to not hate at all and to have respect for people? Then it wouldn't matter what color, race, or gender they are or what sexual preferences they have.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
You know, it's interesting to think about that when you're seeking to prove something right you'll find the answer. These major medical companies, can you verify whether or not they were trying to prove nature vs nurture? Did they have a completely non-biased opinion? Did they have scientist from both spectrum of religion ranging from atheist to Christian? The answer most likely is no to all of the above. So does that mean that the information that it's natural to be gay is an absolute and a law like gravity? I'm not convinced.
On the second point, I believe we as citizens of the US of A have diluted the sanctity of marriage. California would just like to take it one step further. More and more everyday my opinion is changing to the fact that a marriage certificate is nothing but a piece of paper. We are taking away from it's meaning and foundation. I hope we all realize before it's too late what we're doing.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
What's "sacred" about legal marriage? Marriage has, more often than not, been about political or financial contracts. Most marriages weren't between "one man and one woman." Typically, it was one man and many women. Even Islam teaches that a man can have more than one wife if he can support them.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Another man's trash is another man's treasure. I believe in the sacredness of marriage. However, you may not. It's simply the vantage point and perspective of a human being.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
You still haven't answered my question: what's sacred about marriage between one man and one woman? I still fail to see how Blackout's or Ediblewoman's or my ex-stepmother's relationship with their same-sex partners in any way, shape or form affects my opposite-sex relationship with my husband.
Remember, what gets written into law only has to do with the secular, legal contract and the privileges that go along with it.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
You'll just say that my belief is nullified because it's directly related to my religion. I believe marriage is sacred because it's becoming one with my wife under God. I believe that God administers his blessing upon my marriage and I feel that if anyone can get married that becomes less significant.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
So... Blessings from God are only significant if you don't have to share them with everyone? If you can pick and choose who's worthy enough for God, because God is somehow incapable of choosing?
I don't get it.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
God tells us who he'd bless within marriage. Now some will say that there isn't many verses against homosexuality in the bible. This statement is true. However, God clearly condones heterosexual marriage. And there is a verse within the bible that says If it's not for me, it's against me. So if God does not clearly condone homosexual marriage then it's against him.
And God won't bless something he doesn't condone. My marriage will also be private. It will be between God, my wife, and me. It's a sacred bond between three of us and I know it'll be indescribable. God is what makes my marriage sacred to me.
If you need me to clarify further just ask :)
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
God condemns any number of things in the Bible as well. Does that mean it is against him to go against these rulings as well? How do you feel about shellfish, pork, mixing meat and milk, eating blood, wearing linen and wool in the same garment, etc etc?
If the opposite is also not true, how do you feel about genetic recombination, vaccines, in vitro fertilization, mass-produced goods, electricity, gas-powered motors, flying, etc? None of those are condoned by God in the Bible, so they MUST be against him, hmm?
Oh, and there is a few instances of incest in the Bible; does that mean God condones that as well? You argue that homosexuality is equivalent to incestuous relationships and polygamy, both of which are very present in the Bible, so doesn't that make homosexuality ok as well?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Historically all those types of food got people sick. And they didn't understand that. Just because I'm christian doesn't mean I'm stupid. We've learned to sterilize those foods and drink.
As for the second part were those things in the time the bible was written? How is that even legitimate? Are you just trying to mock me because of my faith?
Plus, God does say that homosexual activity in the old testament in immoral. He also condemned incest and they had polygamy back then due to birth rate.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
Actually, there's no word in Greek or Hebrew for homosexuality. Therefore, it never actually mentioned homosexuality. The recount of "men turned to men in lust" is about a Roman pagan holiday where people took part in large, public orgies. "Homosexuals," like "witches," in the Bible are a product of biased mistranslation.
Also, marriage wasn't a Christian institution until the 1400s.
And if you want to go on about what God does and doesn't condone, I hope you don't plan on getting a Christmas tree, go to a large, extravagant church, or celebrate Easter with Easter eggs. Those are all pagan things and holidays, and God condemns being like the pagans.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I'm sorry, but I'm not willing (or particularly comfortable) with saying information from gaia is reliable. His arguments seem to be intelligent and plausibly may be true. I hope that one day I will be able to determine it. However I still believe that if you're seeking to find truth, you do what you can to prove that truth. He has a biased opinion. I'd have to hear arguments on both sides from multiple points of view to sift through BS.
Oh and thanks, didn't know I wasn't allowed to celebrate the birth of Christ the way I like to. Or his birth. I don't celebrate Easter with eggs but I do have a Christmas tree. It's a wonderful thing to turn a pagan idea into a symbol of jubilation. It allows me to celebrate a fantastic event in the history of time.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
He has a biased opinion. I'd have to hear arguments on both sides from multiple points of view to sift through BS.
How is his opinion biased? And would this not add to your "hearing arguments on both sides from multiple points of view"?
It's a wonderful thing to turn a pagan idea into a symbol of jubilation.
Who says a Pagan idea isn't already a symbol of jubilation?
Oh and thanks, didn't know I wasn't allowed to celebrate the birth of Christ the way I like to. Or his birth.
It's your Bible that tells you you're not supposed to, I'm only relaying that message.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Au contraire. I'm showing you how your argument is pointless. I believe in the Bible too, thank you very much.
You claimed that if God does not condone a certain thing, then he MUST condemn it. Thus, anything that is not in the Bible is not condoned, and thus is condemned. I'm just showing that times have changed, and there are many things that aren't mentioned in the Bible. Are these things to be condemned? After all, if it isn't for him, it must be against him. There is no neutral, in your argument.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Jesus would have said that he condoned homosexual marriages. Period. Paul tells us three times in the New Testament that homosexuality is wrong. If you'd like I'd love to look the versus up again for you, however I have my cat in my lap and don't want to go get my bible. [I have to add a little humor to this discussion.
I'm curious, with the above in mind, would you say that Paul was wrong? Or perhaps the translation was incorrect? If the translation were incorrect, why hasn't anyone illuminated this fact to us within the church[FYI if you're outside the church (church = Christian) and are actively trying to justify homosexuality through the bible, it would be easier. Just as if I were trying to say the sky is definitely green (I'm sure I could come up with a convincing argument too.), it would change the fact that it's blue.)? Martin Luther proves that if there were a discrepancy within the bible or the church as an organization, somebody [who's willing to die for it even] would be willing to stand up. That person would feel it's their duty, and it would be their duty, to tell us that we've been mistaken. Something like that would spread like a wild fire I think, specially here in America.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
If the translation were incorrect, why hasn't anyone illuminated this fact to us within the church
The same reason why "witches" hasn't been corrected, why the Bible was used to justify segregation in the 60s and why it was used to justify slavery in the 18th century -- the translators were biased and the Church (as a political entity) continues to use it to further their own motives (regardless of what God thinks). Don't believe me? Bear in mind that the number of books in the Bible differs depending on what sect is in question, because it was the Church that decided what "should" and "shouldn't" go into the Bible. And that doesn't include the books that were lost during the Crusades.
The Bible also says to not put on extravagant displays like the Pagans did, yet that's exactly what Catholics have done with their grand cathedrals. It also says to not do what the Pagans do, yet the Christmas tree, wreath, candles, mistletoe, and Easter eggs, Easter bunnies, chicks, pastel colors associated with Easter and a host of other traditions associated with supposedly Christian holidays are actually Pagan traditions! It could even be argued that the idea of Jesus being born at Christmastime is in itself a Pagan idea, since that's when the god is born again in many of the god/goddess faiths (such as the Celts). Yet I've only ever seen one church that recognizes that such holidays are, in fact (and blatantly, I might add), non-Christian. Hell, the Christians are the ones fighting tooth and nail to keep people saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays."
That person would feel it's their duty, and it would be their duty, to tell us that we've been mistaken.
That is precisely why there are 300+ different Christian sects. And the fact that any large, tradition-based entity is going to be hard-pressed to change. Keep the status-quo, keep the sheep in the flock, keep people from questioning, and most importantly, keep the Bible from being questioned. If any of those falters, the Church loses people.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
No... but getting married in a courthouse, which has nothing to do with religion, is the same as getting married by a pastor or minister or priest in the church (providing the person has the legal capacity to sign a marriage contract). So, how does two people marrying in a courthouse have anything to do with you marrying in a church? And like sawaboof said... why is it less significant if more people can have that blessing that you think you get when you get married? I would think that you would want to spread the blessings around....
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
It does affect me and it's due to my love for other people as well. It's a love for my fellow Christians, for Jews, for Muslims, Mormons etc. It's love for non Christians. I'd feel guilty if I condoned activity that God would declare sinful, and even more so when it comes into territory in which I'm apart of. I voted yes because I would like to share that blessing and I believe that God would administer it to a homosexual couple.
I'm sure I've lost you with just that paragraph for I'm going more into theology and logic than I am with what people consider factual. But I'll dwell further into the matter so that you can understand my position. As I said above, I feel that when I get married it will be God, my wife and I. That is a sacred bond to me and I would feel like the world would be attempting to take that away from me.
And again a reiterate, I believe civil unions should have same legal par as marriage does. If they chose to live that lifestyle, that's fine. It's not for me to tell them how to be unless they ask me, or allow me to offer that information. Therefore, it's right for the state to legally recognize them as a couple but not in the same way as I do. Marriage is traditional and homosexual partnerships is a newer concept to USA. I don't see anything wrong with creating a new institution, which mirrors marriage, via civil unions.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
Separate but equal does not work. The period just prior to the civil rights movement of the 60's proved that quite well, I think.
I'm not sure I understand you. You believe in a certain God. So, according to what you just said to me, people who 'marry' against that God's wishes are belittling your marriage, right?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
That was something entirely different. It's not even close to the same. That was a segregation of EVERYTHING! Schools, eateries, public places, BATHROOMS. I'm not even close to suggesting we do any of these things with homosexual folk.
And in a sense yes. I feel that if anyone can get married than a marriage slip is just a piece of paper. Just like I don't think heterosexuals should ever have a right to civil unions. The homosexual community created it and it's theirs. Not to share with anyone and is sacred in it's own right.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
Your marriage is as significant as you make it, not anyone else.
It doesn't matter if it's separation of everything or one thing, "separate but equal" does not work. Period.
I feel that if anyone can get married than a marriage slip is just a piece of paper.
You gonna start banning Atheists or Buddhists from marrying then? They don't believe in your God, so they too would fall under "just anyone."
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
My marriage will be significant now so that fact is irrelevant.
And just because the civil union is a different type and/or practice of marriage, does that mean it's separate? It's just a different type of union.
Also you're steering down a different path... I just said that marriages between homosexuals would make my marriage feel less significant. This is due to how my God defined marriage. These other religions, (or lack thereof) due not step into that realm necessarily.
To be honest, I feel you're attacking me based upon my beliefs and you're steering away from logic. I'm going to end this. I'm going to agree to disagree because we are going no where.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
They are not just another type of union. As has been explained to you so many times before, civil unions deny us 1000+ rights that marriage would give us. LEGAL rights, not anything religious. Rights that the government grants, rights that have nothing to do with your church and everything to do with equality. If they can come up with a civil union that gives us every single right marriage is granted, then I will be okay with it. Until then, please quit saying civil unions are just as equal as marriage, because you are wrong and spreading it around is lying.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Okay, then you seem to have missed my point. That's probably my fault though. I have been responding to you all at half par or less. Yes I did say civil unions are just another union. What I mean to say specifically is why aren't you trying to promote that (or another form of union) to be at same legal par with marriage?
[Also fyi: I never said civil unions were the same as marriage.] I think it'd be easier for the homosexual community to create a new institution then to change the current definition and current parameters of marriage.
However, as I think about the topic more and more, it keeps coming back to my faith.
Let me ask you something edible woman, think about the person you love the most.
[Before reading ahead, just think of this from a logical point. I'm trying to explain my personal views in a light that you may understand where I'm coming from. I know I can come off as a jerk and a closed minded man, but I hope this will explain more as to why I do and say some of the things I do. Specifically in regards to homosexuality in general.]
If you had to cause them a moment of pain, or just simple suffering [uncomfortableness], at the chance of eternal joy, rest, and contentedness, would you do that action to cause that brief uncomfortableness?
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
Are you asking if I would dump my partner to save her soul?
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Please don't get skeptical. You don't have to agree with me but I respect your views. I even understand your views. I'm just asking for the pendulum to swing both ways.
For a brief moment, assume the following is absolute truth to you (just for this tiny paragraph) and think about how you'd react to the scenario . At the sacrifice of your relationship, you can save your partner's soul for the rest of eternity. She'll be in a happy and joyous place when she dies. There's even a chance you'll get to be there with her forever too.
I believe it's imperative to understand and know your opposition's position. I took into consideration the repercussions of prop 8. I wish I could have gone about the topic more tactfully then just outlawing gay marriage but it was the choice put upon my plate. Also, I know it's hard to think in those terms when you don't believe it true. However, I do believe it true. If there's even the most remote chance I can save you and your partners souls for the rest of eternity, then that's what I am going to do. It's not because I hate you or your partner in anyway, but rather the opposite.
Also, just like your opinion, mine's not going to change too easily. It is hard to say what is absolute truths in this world. However, I believe only one thing can be true. You can call a tree a bush all you want, but it's still going to be a tree.
My point is this, I just want you to understand where I'm coming from. We don't have to agree and even society doesn't have to agree with me. I also think that we could argue till we're blue in the face but we're not going to change each others opinions. So I end with this, it was a good debate, you brought up excellent points, but we must agree to disagree (lest we both change our personal beliefs.)
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
So those arguments have long since been evaluated and dismissed by me.
The major flaw in that appeal is that the only soul I could be saving is my own. I have no control over whether dumping my partner would lead her to become "heterosexual." She would most likely have another relationship with another woman. Know why? Because she's gay. We are who we are.
And I have long since decided that there is no way God wants me to live a lie and be suicidal. I believe that coming out is exactly what saved my soul. I'm sorry, but your definition of salvation was hell to me. I tried it for twenty-some tortuous years.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
What I mean to say specifically is why aren't you trying to promote that (or another form of union) to be at same legal par with marriage?
Since what's in question here is legal marriage, why should they have to?
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Because the federal government and the people of California have set the parameters and definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. And since I would like the rights of homosexual couples to be recognized, it's the alternative way I see to have that come to realization.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
I still fail to understand why everyone is so adamant about duplicating laws (and having to duplicate more laws regarding marriage as they are passed) for no other reason than they don't want gays to say they're "married." At that point, the argument is solely semantics and is, for all intents and purposes, pointless. If they're the exact same thing, why not just call it the same thing? Is a duck not called a duck regardless of the color of his feathers?
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
How am I attacking you, personally? You're the one that keeps insisting that your marriage would be "less significant" if homosexuals could get married.
You say your marriage is less significant because you believe your God doesn't condone gay marriage. Yet you don't have an issue with someone who's not of your religion to get married. What's so vastly different about a gay couple and a non-Christian couple that gay couples "step into that realm" but non-Christians don't? Sin is sin, remember? And besides, if God blesses "righteous" marriages, then he's probably not blessing the married Atheists any more than he'd be blessing the married lesbians.
Civil unions, as have been explained a hundred times, are separate, are different, and are not equal. I think you're confusing "civil union" with "legal marriage" (and legal marriage, by the way, is what's being changed, here. Your religion is not affected unless you choose to have it be).
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Fine, I agree with you on a couple issues here. Yes you're right, if sometime in the future homosexual marriage is authorized, my marriage will not be affected. And yes it may or may not affect my religion. I can't determine that without it happening.
However, civil unions CAN be the same. The homosexual community is just CHOOSING to try to attain homosexual marriage vs building up civil unions (or whatever new type of union they'd like to create) in terms of social recognition and legal aspects. I would like to see the definition and parameters of marriage remain as the dictionary has defined it as. I don't see anything wrong with that as long as we afford this good American citizens with alternative avenues in which to obtain there basic rights. If the people on "my" side aren't even willing to allow homosexuals to create their own union that has the same par as marriage, then I will vote to allow homosexuals to also use the term marriage.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
See, here's the thing, as dragonwolf pointed out. Any man and woman can get married now. They don't need anything except whatever the cost of a marriage license is. So if all these other people can get married (including Britney with her 56 hour or whatever it was marriage), how do you still think your marriage is going to be sacred? Could it be that you put meaning into it, and not other people? If that's the case, what's the point in not allowing homosexuals to marry?
I'm sorry, I really don't understand how my parent's marriages affect the sanctity of yours. I don't even understand why you would base the sanctity of your marriage on how other people's marriages work out...
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I'm going to try and put this as simply as possible. If homosexual couples can get married then who can't get married? (I have a whole separate blog on the married issue, but I will say one more time: I could care less if a civil union (or whatever they'd like to call it) was at the same legal par and social recognition as marriage.)
Also I'm not saying heterosexual couples abuse marriage too. I wish everyone held it in a higher place in their hearts. I wish people wouldn't be so willing to divorce or to abuse the institution of marriage. However, all I can do is control my actions and my course in life.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas
That's the point. Any two consenting adults that are unrelated (as the laws currently stand; per your other blog I don't have any particular objection to changing additional laws). What's the point in restricting legal marriage in the first place? I can understand and support your church restricting marriage, but the government should not. If all you can do is control your own life, what does it really matter what other people do? How does it belittle your decisions and your life?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
If homosexual couples can get married then who can't get married?
Assuming the act is between consenting, unrelated adults, no one. That's the point of a fundamental right. (And yes, marriage is considered a fundamental right.)
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Prop 22 brought into question civil liberties, which must never be violated under any circumstances. Prop 22 violated these liberties. Prop 8 will again call into question the first amendment and will open the door for people to discriminate against anyone. Prop 8 only says marriage will be redefined in the Constitution. It says nothing about education or non-profit status. Prop 8 is wrong. Prop 8 also will inhibit same-sex couples in financial matters because they will not be "married".
Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.