|
|
|
|
|
| Wisconsin Ban
Posted: 6/5/2008 10:39:53 PM |
The whole point is about RIGHTS and who has options to them and who are being denied them.
Admittedly, religious types are fine with denying rights. They're fine with exclusion. With labeling perfectly natural (yes, there are gay animals) behavior as being wrong, sins, abominations. Because of religions inerrant sexism, homophobia, and inability to think for oneself (you're part of a flock remember); persecution of people lifestyles and mindsets are completely rational behavior. To think that religious people have shunned, ostracized and even murdered people for having different beliefs is archaic animalistic thinking, or lack thereof.
Because of religion, the human race is stymied. Held back from rational thought of equality for everybody. Thin how many people have been murdered, shunned to the point of suicide, by the mindset that who they are is wrong or bad. Religion is a crutch for a crippled mind, and that people here can look down at others because of their sexual preference, which is not anyone's business in the first place. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/6/2008 1:31:43 AM | AP,
You claim to speak for true Christians. So do those other folks.
No, I claimed only what is Biblical, I speak for myself alone.
If we're all condemned to hell if we don't conform with your beliefs anyway, does it really matter much whether we wait for God to do it to us in the afterlife or if your coreligionists speed things along by pressing us heretics, using iron maidens on us, or stoning to death those of us they suspect of being gay for "sinning against God?"
Huh? "conform with my beliefs"? I never wrote anything even vaguely similar to that. (generalizations are generally uncool)
Again, I'd like to repeat myself, *ehem*
I do not hate or dislike homosexuals, and I have participated here only to point out that many here are speaking hatefully towards Christians, the very act they oppose of. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/6/2008 5:18:22 AM |
There is no importance given to them then what is given to any other relationship that can be brought to be by two men adopting kids or having a female birth a baby for them or for two women to have sperm injected into them or having a fertilized egg implanted or adopting kids. A marriage certificate is a common document for any human union.
Oh okay, I've got you now. You want to feel more special than "the gays"... you want your relationship with a woman to be deemed "more important" than the relationship of the gay couple down the street. Obviously, Britney Spears' marriages were more sanctified, holy and just gosh darn all around better than the marriages of lesbian couples who have been together 20-30 years. Could it be because you think you're better somehow? That you're doing it the "right, traditional" way and they're not doing the same... and doesn't that really boil down that it's something you have that you don't want THEM to have?
Please cut it out with the "slippery slope" arguments. Do you even know that is what you are doing? It is a completely fallacious argument. Look it up. No one is buying it here. And by the way your view of the future is absolutely bizzare! Is that really what you are afraid of? Who has warped your head? Which preacher fed you that?
It's not the most bizarre thing I've heard on this topic. Someone actually told me that if gay marriages were allowed then people would all turn gay and no babies would be born. Sigh.
To point out the ridiculousness of that one, I jumped up and got my coat. When they asked where I was going, I told them that I was going to go out and find me a good lesbian before they were all taken and that they should hurry up and do the same. When they said "my god, I'd never do that" I asked them what made them so sure, since just a minute before they were arguing that gay marriage would make them want to...
Has absolutely NOTHING to do with being American, Canadian, European, Japanese, etc., etc. It has to do whith what a society is willing to accept and what it won't and finally what the law tells that society it will or won't have to accept.
So you believe that society as a whole should dictate how/when/ where each individual should live? Wasn't your country founded because of a few of the pesky minority that thought it was wrong for the government to interfere in their lives and dictate how they should live? That were persecuted and treated as lesser beings without the same legal protections as the majority.. simply for being different?
So....you won't be defining morality by calling those who reject the lefty gay agenda since they sincerely feel it's immoral ? You won't be defining morality for them either , correct?
Nobody is saying that you don't have a right to dislike the idea. We're saying that your personal beliefs have no bearing on the rest of the population, and that denying a segment of the population something that the rest have simply because you "don't like it" isn't a good enough reason to outlaw it.
You must be incensed that the lefties would like to re-define the meaning of marriage by forcing this gay marriage crap down the MAJORITIES throat under the guise of morality?
I hear this a lot, and I've never been satisfied with the answer.. maybe you'll be the first. How is a gay couple marrying shoving it down your throat? I've never heard of a situation yet where some wild gay men hopped up on adrenaline from participating in a gay pride parade hog-tied anyone, threw them into a truck and forced them to be a witness to a legal ceremony.
I'm sure you mean that you don't like it, and you don't want to see it (ah, there you go again.. I don't like it and I don't want them to have it).. but wouldn't that be YOUR problem?
I do not hate or dislike homosexuals, and I have participated here only to point out that many here are speaking hatefully towards Christians, the very act they oppose of.
How is it hateful to point out the very real history of the Christian churches and to tell them that their beliefs and their book are not to be forced on the rest of the population in a just society? No one is telling you to not be Christian or to believe as we do, we're telling you that we don't want to be forced to live the "Christian way", especially through law. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/6/2008 9:02:44 AM | Whenever there is an issue like this that I am trying to understand and on which I'm trying to decide what to think, I usually ask myself, "Who, if anyone, is this issue harming or helping depending on which way it is decided?"
On gay marriage, I don't see that anyone is harmed by allowing it. It does not prevent anyone who is opposed from living their lives as they wish. On the other hand, not allowing it is preventing some people from living as they wish and gaining both the rights and the obligations of marriage, which is generally considered to be a social good.
Discomfort with the idea does not constitute harm to the holder of the idea. Expressing that discomfort is fine, but if that expression crosses the line into hate, then it harms the targeted group as it results in intimidation, fear, etc.
People were uncomfortable sharing a bus with black people. People were uncomfortable with allowing women to vote. People were opposed to birth control. All of those things harmed a group of people unfairly, because some people were too uncomfortable or biased to support basic human rights. Often it is because they're uncomfortable losing control over the lives of others, or losing some perceived advantage - it is a form of slavery, really, to deny people rights on that basis.
So, I think it is a matter of basic human rights to allow gay people to marry, even if many people are uncomfortable with the idea. I will also remind you that the purpose of law and the business of judges is not to ratify the will of the majority, but to protect the minority from its tyranny. Finally, tradition - which some have used to argue against this - can also be a form of tyranny. Tradition allowed slavery, allowed women to be denied the vote, etc. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/6/2008 9:28:04 AM | Apartheid....
I'm sure that given the chance , whites in South Africa would have loved to live and let live with blacks . Unfortunately , South African whites have a long history of seeing outside forces using blacks to mess them up by turning black against white.
Africa is very mineral rich continent so that powerful outside forces were bent on wars and chaos in a plot of gaining control of these resources.
Being well aware of the political exploitation of blacks , the apartheid governments of Africa were very interested in keeping separate of blacks since the result of an integrated society would be never ending social strife. (much like America has)
Basically, these governments saw apartheid as the only means of keeping a stable and functional society. (which has proven very true )
The same holds true of many in the southern US , having suffered bitter defeat in the civil war essentially to the international bankers of the north , many southerners were well aware of the fact that blacks are very vulnerable to exploitation , resulting in a movement for "separate but equal"
The fact is that in Africa as in America , the ruling elite at the very pinnacle of power work behind the scenes to exploit the natural conflicts of these two very different races.
The e$tablishment has placed in whites a never ending "white guilt " and in blacks a victim identity , when the vast majority of whites and blacks would love to just get along while living in a peaceful and productive society.
Unfortunately the e$tablishment has no interest in resolving these conflicts , so that this constant racial strife is probably going to go on for a very long time to come.
(this is why black agitators get constant press coverage)
What is the answer ?
Just being aware of the nature of the problem would be a good start.
*whoops* wrong thread , but might as well leave it here .....it might be cause for some lefties to reflect just a little bit . | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/6/2008 9:32:41 AM |
Again, I'd like to repeat myself, *ehem*
I do not hate or dislike homosexuals, and I have participated here only to point out that many here are speaking hatefully towards Christians, the very act they oppose of.
I second the motion !
I'm not a great adherent to any organised religion , but , I am sympathetic and I do see that ...
Lefty hypocrisy knows no bounds ! | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/6/2008 11:03:23 AM |
I do not hate or dislike homosexuals, and I have participated here only to point out that many here are speaking hatefully towards Christians, the very act they oppose of.
There is a difference between denouncing the hateful practices of people who claim to be Christians and speaking hatefully about Christians. Sometimes people aren't as clear about that distinction as they could be. But then, some so-called Christians aren't all that clear about their faith vs. their own personal desire to wield power.
There are extremists and hypocrites of all persuasions, and that includes both self-styled Christians and self-styled Lefties.
The post about "divide and conquer" tactics of elites is certainly worth considering here. So is the one about looking at actual harm vs. discomfort. Even when an idea is extremly challenging to the majority, that doesn't mean it is wrong. What shape is the world?
There was a day when the Pope would have had you burned for saying "round." Why? Not because of anything that Jesus said, but because _any_ new idea could form the basis of a heresy that might undermine the power of the Church.
If we choose to recognize that there is no rational basis for denying the legal benefits and obligations of secular marriage to homosexual couples or even polyamorous groups, there is _nothing_ immoral about that.
If your moral code excludes same-sex intercourse, you might ask yourself what Jesus or even Paul would have said had he known then what we know now. But even then, what right would I have to tell you that you couldn't marry if the only reason you wanted to was to grow old together with your partner and ensure that she or he inherited your property? | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/6/2008 11:46:03 AM | A part of something that I wrote earlier that Brani took out of context......
"There is no importance given to them then what is given to any other relationship that can be brought to be by two men adopting kids or having a female birth a baby for them or for two women to have sperm injected into them or having a fertilized egg implanted or adopting kids. A marriage certificate is a common document for any human union."
Brandi's response to my partial quote that she took "out of context.".......
"Oh okay, I've got you now. You want to feel more special than "the gays"... you want your relationship with a woman to be deemed "more important" than the relationship of the gay couple down the street. Obviously, Britney Spears' marriages were more sanctified, holy and just gosh darn all around better than the marriages of lesbian couples who have been together 20-30 years. Could it be because you think you're better somehow? That you're doing it the "right, traditional" way and they're not doing the same... and doesn't that really boil down that it's something you have that you don't want THEM to have?"
If you respond to something I write Brandi, use it in the context that I wrote it in.....not the context that you are twisting it to mean......purposeful ignorance is bliss to some.
Now for the slippery slope again........
Late 18th, early 19th centuries, women begin to stand up for equality out of the home like for voting rights, job rights, etc. Now some of the wisemen of the day whom were able to see a possible catalyst in the making understood if women got what they were after, one day their would be equality with men. BUT, all the rest of the guys who believed that thought to be a "SLIPPERY SLOPE" and that women would never get out of the home and would always remain barefoot and pregnate house wives were so, so wrong weren't they. The minority was correct. It was a "slippery slope"/catalyst in the making that has come to frutition 100 years later.
Some women felt they could hold elected offices of goverment just as well as a man and do just as good of a job. Most men laughed at this. After all, most men in the late 1800's to early 1900's knew women were good for two things and only that....keeping up a house and having babies. They weren't smart enough to run a position of goverment anywhere even if a woman here or there had shown "extra" smarts above all other women. But as women were allowed into certain job areas, some of the wisemen of the time saw and declared a "slippery slope"/catalyst in the making that most all other men laughed at as never possibly happening.
There are some really ignorant trains of thinking happening here that are so unbelieveable it is like living in the purposeful ignorant times of bliss in the eras mentioned above.
This thing of marriage and who has a right to the certificate will one day be so beyond hetros and homos but "the most" do not see it. It is just a slippery slope theory to them like it was to those who believed the same way but of different issues 100 years ago.
For the moment it is about homosexuals fighting for the same certificate hetros have. But this will evolve into other areas of what and whom a human can or can't be married to. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/6/2008 12:13:10 PM | Oh please, I can't take this any more.
BUT, all the rest of the guys who believed that thought to be a "SLIPPERY SLOPE" and that women would never get out of the home and would always remain barefoot and pregnate house wives were so, so wrong weren't they. The minority was correct. It was a "slippery slope"/catalyst in the making that has come to frutition 100 years later.
It's quite obvious to me that in spite of the definition provided to you earlier in the thread that you still don't understand exactly what a slippery slope argument is. In the context of your example, the slippery slope argument would have been the men saying that if women get the vote the men would have to stay at home with the children, that women would start drowning their children in droves and that the devil would possess them.
It would be like my saying that if someone eats one donut, they next thing you know they'll eat everything in sight and have to be buried in a piano box. You take the tiniest thing and blow it up to the extreme to make it out to be a bigger deal than it is.It's a fear tactic people use to oppose progress... and generally the people who fall for it don't exactly fit into the genius category.
Which brings me to another pet peeve... using large words and doublespeak to cover the fact that you really have nothing intelligent to say.
BTW, if "homos" getting married will result in polygamy and bestiality we should take a look at what led to them being married in the first place.... "heteros" getting married. Someone really should have put a stop to it 2000+ years ago! Look what they've done! | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/6/2008 12:32:52 PM | I read a quote in the National Magazine called "THE WEEK" sorry I do not have a link I read this at work. The quote was a letter to the editor staiting " I feel this is a sad day for democracy when the court can over turn at their whim what a majority of voters feel was the right move to make." I am sorry but some issues should never have to be voted on ( i.e. Gay marriage) IGay marriage in no way effects straight people so denying them the right to marriage is just hateful and discrimatory.
The reason a vote would fail on Gay marriage is obvious. We have a "MORAL MAJORITY" that amorally discrimnates agains t people anytime it has the ability to do so. A lot of this "moral majority" is either grosley misinformed, blatently got their nose stuck in the bible, or both.They basically tried to take the rights away from others based on what they think they know. All the stereo tyopes and misconceptions...and even the feeling that it is a sigmn that it is the end of the world..or that we need to turn them gays straight. So they voted to keep the ban on gay marriage viable. I am glad that our california supreme court overturned this civil rihts violation. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/6/2008 2:53:00 PM | Owwwoooo......gettin' sharp with the tongue eh Brandi??? If you had made an original statement against what I had wrote in context, you would have fared better the first time. And then you go on the attack to prove how intelligent you are and how un-intelligent I am??? Your getting better all the time, keep typing Brandi, I am enjoying this. Whats next....name calling???
Brandi wrote....
"It's quite obvious to me that in spite of the definition provided to you earlier in the thread that you still don't understand exactly what a slippery slope argument is. In the context of your example, the slippery slope argument would have been the men saying that if women get the vote the men would have to stay at home with the children, that women would start drowning their children in droves and that the devil would possess them."
The following is from the Wikipedia......
Slippery slope
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the logical argument. For the novel, see The Slippery Slope.
In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope is one of the classical informal fallacies. It suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later without establishing or quantifying the relevant contingencies.
In your above statement what you claim of husbands becoming the wife was really lame. Once again showing your tunnel vision for wanting to understand what you want to read from something and not what was actually written.
I am now aware you really are un-read of the woman's movement of the late 1800's and early 1900's and how the men of that time saw things. So I shall explain again for you to see if you will listen better this time.
Men were not afraid of becoming house husbands. Men who saw the long term possibilities were afraid that women would end up doing what they did on the job be it the private sector or goverment sector. They worried if women took on more and more rights that had always been denied them, taking them away from the home where they had always been bare foot and pregnate, they worried for who would take care of the home and kids if the wife was not there. The men of this time did not even dream in 60 to 70 years down the road men would begin to become house husbands while the wife worked. So most men in this time era scoffed and laughed at the mere thought that women would become what they have now. But the few that saw the possibilities, they put forth the theorys of "slippery slope/catalyst theories that if women recieved more and more freedoms, it would change society to the core. But most men laughed at these few "future" thinkers just as you and others do now.
You and others have the very same, very ignorant mentality that this issue right now is only about gays getting rights to a marriage document and that is it. It'll never be a catalyst to anything else. To you and other ignorant thinkers this issue now is solely about gays having that marriage certificate and all other forms of marriage shall never come to the surface because everyone in your view point knows all other forms of marriage outside of hetros and homos are evil, detestable, illegal and will never ever be accepted by society in any future.
Nice pipe dream Brandi......have at it. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/6/2008 4:41:32 PM |
The following is from the Wikipedia......
Slippery slope
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the logical argument. For the novel, see The Slippery Slope.
In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope is one of the classical informal fallacies. It suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later without establishing or quantifying the relevant contingencies.
And from that SAME PAGE:
Arguers also often link the slippery slope fallacy to the straw man fallacy in order to attack the initial position:
1. A has occurred (or will or might occur); therefore
2. B will inevitably happen. (slippery slope)
3. B is wrong; therefore
4. A is wrong. (straw man)
This form of argument often provides evaluative judgments on social change: once an exception is made to some rule, nothing will hold back further, more egregious exceptions to that rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope To review:
A will occur, therefore B will inevitably happen, and B is wrong, therefore A is wrong.
Hmmm, sound familiar?
Too funny.
OT: In my view...the court's decision is laudable and applaudable. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/6/2008 5:14:01 PM |
In your above statement what you claim of husbands becoming the wife was really lame. Once again showing your tunnel vision for wanting to understand what you want to read from something and not what was actually written.
Lame? Of course it's lame to you, you don't want a reasonable discussion. As a matter of fact, I know quite a bit about the women's suffrage movement. I know, for example, that men (and women) who were against the vote argued that women and men belonged in different "spheres" (circles of responsibility that involved a strict delineation of men and women's places in the world), that women should be considered to have a say in Parliament through their husband's involvement, they were told that they were evil and mentally ill, that women would risk the integrity of any elections because they might hide extra ballots in their sleeves or skirts, or that they may get hurt at the rowdy polling stations amongst the much bigger stronger men. There were more, but I'm sure including some of the base arguments and some of the more ridiculous will suffice.
They may not have used my obviously exaggerated example, but many did suggest that women having the vote would encourage them to abandon their families and/or refuse to have children and the human race would die out.
Truth is, they didn't want things to change... (they didn't want women to have what they had)... and they used every ridiculous argument they could to try and ensure that didn't happen. Just like those who argue against homosexual marriage ... you're just as wrong now as they were then. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/6/2008 6:50:32 PM | I do not hate or dislike homosexuals, and I have participated here only to point out that many here are speaking hatefully towards Christians, the very act they oppose of.
How is it hateful to point out the very real history of the Christian churches and to tell them that their beliefs and their book are not to be forced on the rest of the population in a just society?
The following posts are but a couple of direct quotes from posters that were anything but mere history lectures.
yet Xians casually disregard nearly all the rest, if not ALL the rest, of Levitical law (because presumably they feel belief in Jesus's life and death removed them from having to pay attention to it -- as Paul basically said). In the Xian Bible / NT, there were 3 references to homosexuality (possibly) or at least sexually "immoral" behavior, and those were in letters by Paul / Saul -- who was a woman-hater and who some speculate MAY have had homosexual tendencies himself. Jesus himself , in the Gospels, never mentions much less condemns it. In fact he seems to make a point of associating himself with pariahs and outcasts ,etc; so what makes Xians think he'd be so quick to embrace ancient (and it was ancient even when he was alivee fact that majority of people are influenced by their superstitious religious views is all the example needed. The debate about gay marriage stems from this.
You've been listening to too many bigoted so-called conservative Christians who are more interested in perpetuating their superstitious worldviews and the power they derive from them than they are in simple human compassion or the honoring of love.
No one is telling you to not be Christian or to believe as we do, we're telling you that we don't want to be forced to live the "Christian way", especially through law. Why would you feel the need to tell me that? I have no desire to force my beliefs onto anyone. You falsely assume that all Christians wish to. Again, exposing prejudice.
I do not hate or dislike homosexuals, and I have participated here only to point out that many here are speaking hatefully towards Christians, the very act they oppose of.
There is a difference between denouncing the hateful practices of people who claim to be Christians and speaking hatefully about Christians. Sometimes people aren't as clear about that distinction as they could be.
If by that you mean, sometimes people falsely judge and/or hatefully refer to believers as "superstitious or "so-called Christians", (a statement that exposes judgment of another's faith) tsk-tsk, then I understand.
If your moral code excludes same-sex intercourse, you might ask yourself what Jesus or even Paul would have said had he known then what we know now.
Err..In Christianity, Jesus is viewed as Deity, therefore we believe that He Is not bound by time as we are, He knew what would happen in 2008 and therefore He would have "known what we now know" when He was on Earth. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/6/2008 9:18:01 PM | It was lame Brandi because in order for you to support that there is no "snow ball" here, n0 "slippery slope" here, no "catalyst" you HAD to take it a reverse direction to support your theory that in the last 2,000 years all has been as it's been concerning marriage till homosexuals wanted a piece of the pie and when and if they achieve that goal, all will go back to the way it was except for an addition to the rule of who a marriage certificate belongs to. THAT is your stance. THAT is your theory.
The catalist for women having achieved the rights and freedoms that they have worked for to date, were the signs some rebellious types began to carry declaring they wanted voting rights. That small group of women that grew and grew are thought to be the catalyst, slippery slope, the snowball for why women have evolved to where they are in our time era.
I am not wrong no matter how much you believe I am. What is wrong, is your's and others train of thinking that there is no catalyst that has brought us to the point that we are at with homosexuals fighting for a right to a marriage certificate and that you think homosexuals are the only faction that will be fighting for a piece of this certificate. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/7/2008 6:13:35 AM |
with homosexuals fighting for a right to a marriage certificate and that you think homosexuals are the only faction that will be fighting for a piece of this certificate.
Again, you're assuming because homosexuals will have rights then others will jump on the band wagon. Is that what you're saying? What I read from you is that because homosexuals get rights, the trend of giving out new rights will not stop at homosexuals and other factions will also follow with wanting more rights, right? And it's apparent that you don't want to give people rights. You want to keep people repressed, right? Tell me I'm wrong, because that's what I see in your words. You compassionate and caring person you. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/7/2008 8:43:51 AM |
yet Xians casually disregard nearly all the rest, if not ALL the rest, of Levitical law (because presumably they feel belief in Jesus's life and death removed them from having to pay attention to it -- as Paul basically said). In the Xian Bible / NT, there were 3 references to homosexuality (possibly) or at least sexually "immoral" behavior, and those were in letters by Paul / Saul -- who was a woman-hater and who some speculate MAY have had homosexual tendencies himself. Jesus himself , in the Gospels, never mentions much less condemns it. In fact he seems to make a point of associating himself with pariahs and outcasts ,etc; so what makes Xians think he'd be so quick to embrace ancient (and it was ancient even when he was alivee fact that majority of people are influenced by their superstitious religious views is all the example needed. The debate about gay marriage stems from this.
I don't see anything hateful in this...
You've been listening to too many bigoted so-called conservative Christians who are more interested in perpetuating their superstitious worldviews and the power they derive from them than they are in simple human compassion or the honoring of love.
There are many different types of Christians.... why would you be offended by the bigoted remark? As for superstitious, you don't consider god a spiritual being? You may want to look up the meaning of the word because , technically, believing in something intangible IS superstition.
Why would you feel the need to tell me that? I have no desire to force my beliefs onto anyone. You falsely assume that all Christians wish to. Again, exposing prejudice.
Little touchy about being a Christian and very quick to attack aren't you? It was a general (not just directed at you) statement... like it or not, Christians in general vote according to their beliefs. There are many Christians who vote for people simply because "He/she is a god-fearing man/woman. Some, even, vote on one single issue because they feel so strongly about it that they don't even care about the others. Like abortion or even gay marriage.
If by that you mean, sometimes people falsely judge and/or hatefully refer to believers as "superstitious or "so-called Christians", (a statement that exposes judgment of another's faith) tsk-tsk, then I understand.
Not my quote, but again, why so touchy? He didn't say that ALL Christians were so-called Christians... he was talking about the so-called ones who say they follow the teachings of Jesus, yet their actions don't match their words. You know, like the ones who beat their families , gamble away their savings, sleep around and think it's all okay because they "go to church" on Sunday. Or even the ones who would do the exact opposite of what Jesus did... and judge each other with scorn and hate.
Err..In Christianity, Jesus is viewed as Deity, therefore we believe that He Is not bound by time as we are, He knew what would happen in 2008 and therefore He would have "known what we now know" when He was on Earth.
Actually, I know many Christians who don't believe that... as a matter of fact most saw him simply as a prophet who passed on his father's (as the true deity) message. I see what your problem is now... you believe that you're part of a privileged group known as "Christians" to such an extent that an attack on any is a personal attack on you. It's that old "us against them" mentality... shame.
It was lame Brandi because in order for you to support that there is no "snow ball" here, n0 "slippery slope" here, no "catalyst" you HAD to take it a reverse direction to support your theory that in the last 2,000 years all has been as it's been concerning marriage till homosexuals wanted a piece of the pie and when and if they achieve that goal, all will go back to the way it was except for an addition to the rule of who a marriage certificate belongs to. THAT is your stance. THAT is your theory.
Don't presume to tell me what my stance is when it's clear that when you back yourself into a corner you use vague and roundabout statements with no clear theory yourself. I'm saying that using the slippery slope argument is NOT an intelligent tactic, and has no place in the gay marriage debate. You may wish it to be, you may even even believe it to be, but it simply isn't. If that were the case no changes at all in society would take place, because face it, if you do one thing, ANYTHING could happen. With no proof that it would happen whatsoever, you're saying that gay marriage will lead to people marrying their dogs would be as stupid as me saying that allowing people to drink at 18 will lead to gang rapes.
The catalist for women having achieved the rights and freedoms that they have worked for to date, were the signs some rebellious types began to carry declaring they wanted voting rights. That small group of women that grew and grew are thought to be the catalyst, slippery slope, the snowball for why women have evolved to where they are in our time era.
Oddly enough, I've never seen ONE argument that women's suffrage would lead to bigger and better things. These women just wanted to vote. They argued that it wasn't fair that educated, rich female business owner could not vote on issues directly affecting them while poor males who couldn't sign a piece of paper could. They wanted the chance to vote on laws that would affect them legally, like those against prostitution or workhouses. They believed so strongly in this right that they were jailed, and some locked in mental institutions and tortured for daring to go against TRADITION (hmmm, where have I seen that word before on this thread?).
So unless you're against women having the vote, you're arguing the wrong side of your own argument. YOU are the just like the men/women back then who said that allowing rights to the women would lead to the most ridiculous, made-up things they could in order to scare people into siding with them. YOU are like those who said that once it changed, the world would end as we know it and would snowball out of control (oh, the horror!).
The catalist for women having achieved the rights and freedoms that they have worked for to date, were the signs some rebellious types began to carry declaring they wanted voting rights. That small group of women that grew and grew are thought to be the catalyst, slippery slope, the snowball for why women have evolved to where they are in our time era.
THE main catalyst to gay marriage is obviously marriage itself. If there were no marriage, then "the gays" wouldn't want it. Maybe we should outlaw that, because it's leading to gay marriage and will obviously lead to people marrying 3 people or their pets. Maybe... just maybe... even their trucks. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/7/2008 10:20:29 AM | Get mad baby wrote....
"Again, you're assuming because homosexuals will have rights then others will jump on the band wagon. Is that what you're saying? What I read from you is that because homosexuals get rights, the trend of giving out new rights will not stop at homosexuals and other factions will also follow with wanting more rights, right? And it's apparent that you don't want to give people rights. You want to keep people repressed, right? Tell me I'm wrong, because that's what I see in your words. You compassionate and caring person you."
We are all assuming homosexuals will have marriage certificate rights sooner or later, state by state as it is happening slowly but surly. A pattern has began and that is the acceptance of same sex marriages to be equated with hetro marriages. So we are actually beyond assuming.
Of my own opinion, yes, when and if homosexuals conquer the traditional thinking of whom a marriage certificate does not apply to, in most states, and most states have come to re-write constitutions making a marriage certificate equal and valid to hetros and homos, yes, it is my opinion the polygamous groups are going to step forth and they will fight as hard or harder then the gay groups fought to have their day of recognition. And when it happens, supporters of either or both hetros and homos will have to come forth to the ballots and decide if they should remain bigoted, hatefilled, anti-polygamous polygamousphobia types or should they do as others did for homosexuals and allow polygamous groups there part to the marriage document homos fought for. Yes. I do believe that will happen.
And what you read of my words you do read them incorrectly. I personally have my own beliefs. But my beliefs are not based on biogotry and anti-gayisms. But when it comes to rights, if we are going to redefine marriage, we should let the new definition include hetros, homos, and polygamy. For the new definition to include just hetros and homos and not polygamy, that will show just how many true hypocritical bigots live in this country.
Brandi wrote...
"Don't presume to tell me what my stance is..."
So lets see, you can tell me my thoughts and how I feel and what my stances are but you turn around and tell me I should not do that to you????? Your such a hypocrite you can't even see it. YOU have DECLARED that there is no catalyst here. YOU have DECLARED there is no slippery slope. YOUR STANCE are your own words!!
If you think there is no catalyst it is not hard to see what your stance is. If there is no catalyst (as you have stated) then all has been well and fine as life defines itself untill a group of people in the sixties decided that their life style did not no longer need to be a hidden agenda because that young group knew everyone knew that homosexuality thrived behind closed doors. So they opened those closed doors and fought for acceptance the same way that groups fought for shacking up to be accepted. Commun type living (an off shoot of polygamy) fought for acceptance. Free love fought for acceptance. I was raised as a teen in the 60's and 70's so I know well of what I speak here from first hand knowledge. Pro-homosexuals of the 60's are the reason (catalyst) for why they are now fighting for a marriage certificate. BUT, I am sure Brandi that you will disagree with that. For your thinking a catalyst cannot be seen as existing least you might have to admit that one action can have a direct influence upon how other things in the present and future will react to it for their own purposes.
Your own words.....
"THE main catalyst to gay marriage is obviously marriage itself."
You should take time to find an old warrior from the sixties Brandi who fought to have homosexuality freed from the closet. The one thing they will tell you if asked, is that their fight at that time had nothing to do with the right to be married but to be accepted. But their fight then enabled their acceptance into society that now enables them to fight for rights to a marriage certificate. OH.....my bad.....a catalyst can't be found here according to your thinking huh. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/7/2008 11:18:51 AM | montanan:
You are incorrect to equate the rights of gay people with those of would-be polygamists, for the reason that a marriage between two people only is a contract that recognizes the equal rights of both parties. Polygamy on the other hand, more correctly referred to as polygyny it says here, usually involves one male marrying several wives, and is an arrangement clearly conceived to serve the interests of men. For example, the polygynous male benefits from a posse of helpers to do the housework whilst he spends the day out with his mates cruising strip clubs - then when he arrives home later that evening after drinking a skinful he has a choice of female flesh to beat the sh!t out of before he decides which one to sleep with that night. (I may be using slight poetic license here as I strive to imagine the typical polygynous relationship.)
This marital arrangement originates from societies where womens' rights are severely curtailed. This is evident from the fact that these selfsame cultures do not support and promote polyandry, (this being one woman with several husbands) in fact in the case of Saudi Arabia the wives aren't even allowed to drive cars or leave the house without male company.
Can you really see polygyny catching on in civilised countries like ours where the trend is towards equal rights that do not discriminate on the basis of gender? I feel it is a red herring, that is unrelated to the question of gay marriage. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/7/2008 11:49:18 AM | Excellent post Clarence......if we were still in the era's predating 1900.
There are to many articles, to many interveiws that have shown in our time and day, there are polygamous couples, one man and two or more women who live together, willingly, for whom say it is a union that usually benefits them for financial reasons first and other reasons secondarily. There are no forced issues and if kids are a product of these polygamous settings the single father is not marrying his daughters. These relationships in our day and time carry on just like any hetro or homosexual relationship and comes with all the ammenities the others are given to like disagreements, vacations, child rearing, family times, etc. And if any of the female partners want to leave, they leave. Because usually only one of the women are legally married to the single male so that does not cause a lot of legal disputes if a woman wants to leave.
Polygamy is a growing (though small) aspect of human unions in our societies here in the USA. More and more people are turning to it every year. There is much on the web if you insert the right google words to research the topic.
My opinion of polygamy fighting for their marital rights to the marriage certificate is based on the present factual evidence of the growing polygamous culture we have that exists now.........not upon what existed in the days of female servitude as you so educatedly informed us of that did once exist within polygamous unions.
If you think the idea of polygamists wanting a part of the marriage certificate does not exist, check out the following that represents the gress roots of this movement....It has been in existance for a while and is growing in popularity. Their time will come. To think not is trully to think ignorance.
"By Joyce Price of the Washington Times
http://www.polygamy.com/Practical/Polygamy-Could-Help-Moms-Who-Work.htm
Group doesn’t blatantly support practice but says it’d help 1990’s woman.
The Utah Chapter of the National Organization of Women says polygamy can be a solution for the problems of working mothers.
“It seems like a pretty good idea for professional women, who can proceed with their careers and have someone at home they can trust to watch their children. It solves the day care problem” said Luci Malin, vice chairman of Utah NOW in a telephone interview Monday.
“This isn’t blatant support for polygamy...But maybe it can work for some people, and maybe it can make raising children easier” for those trying to juggle careers and motherhood” said Ellen George, state secretary for Utah NOW.
The Utah NOW leaders, non of whom is a Mormon, made their comments in response to questions about a report to the summer of issue of Women’s Quarterly magazine. It said that “Utah chapter of NOW embraces polygamy,” in which a man takes multiple wives, as a way of helping career women.
The Mormon Church excommunicates members who practices polygamy.
Current and past officials of the Utah’s NOW chapter, quotes in Women’s Quarterly, said they see no reason why the national organization would not support polygamy, provided those involved in such arrangements are consenting adults.”
And.............
"Polygamy: The Ultimate Feminist Lifestyle by Elizabeth Joseph
http://www.polygamy.com/Practical/Ultimate.htm
I've often said that if polygamy didn't exist, the modern American career woman would have invented it.
Because, despite its reputation, polygamy is the one lifestyle that offers an independent woman a real
chance to "have it all".
One of my heroes is Dr. Martha Hughes Cannon, a physician and a plural wife who in 1896 became the
first woman legislator in any U.S. state or territory. Dr. Cannon once said, "You show me a woman who
thinks about something besides cookstoves and washtubs and baby flannels, and I will show you nine
times out of ten a successful mother". With all due respect, Gloria Steinem has nothing on Dr. Cannon.
As a journalist, I work many unpredictable hours in a fast-paced environment. The news determines my
schedule. But am I calling home, asking my husband to please pick up the kids and pop something in the
microwave and get them to bed on time just in case I'm really late? Because of my plural marriage
arrangement, I don't have to worry. I know that when I have to work late my daughter will be at home
surrounded by loving adults with whom she is comfortable and who know her schedule without my telling
them. My eight-year-old has never seen the inside of a day-care center, and my husband has never eaten
a TV dinner. And I know that when I get home from work, if I'm dog-tired and stressed-out, I can be
alone and guilt-free. It's a rare day when all eight of my husband's wives are tired and stressed at the
same time.
It's helpful to think of polygamy in terms of a free-market approach to marriage. Why shouldn't you or
your daughters have the opportunity to marry the best man available, regardless of his marital status?
I married the best man I ever met. The fact that he already had five wives did not prevent me from doing
that. For twenty-three years I have observed how Alex's marriage to Margaret, Bo, Joanna, Diana, Leslie,
Dawn, and Delinda has enhanced his marriage to me. The guy has hundreds of years of marital
experience; as a result, he is a very skilled husband.
It's no mystery to me why Alex loves his other wives. I'd worry about him if he didn't. I did worry in the
case of Delinda, whom I hired as my secretary when I was practicing law in Salt Lake City. Alex was in
and out of my office a lot over the course of several months, and he never said a word about her. Finally,
late one night on our way home from work, I said, "Why haven't you said anything about Delinda?"
He said, "Why should I?"
I said, "She's smart, she's beautiful. What, have you gone stupid on me?"
They were married a few months later.
Polygamy is an empowering lifestyle for women. It provides me the environment and opportunity to
maximize my female potential without all the tradeoffs and compromises that attend monogamy. The
women in my family are friends. You don't share two decades of experience, and a man, without those
friendships becoming very special.
I imagine that across America there are groups of young women preparing to launch careers. They sit
around tables, talking about the ideal lifestyle to them in their aspirations for work, motherhood, and
personal fulfillment. "A man might be nice," they might muse. "A man on our own terms," they might
add. What they don't realize is that there is an alternative that would allow their dreams to come true.
That alternative is polygamy, the ultimate feminist lifestyle.
From a speech given by Elizabeth Joseph at "Creating a Dialogue: Women Talking to Women", a
conference organized by the Utah chapter of the National Organization for Women. Joseph is an
attorney, a journalist, and lives in Big Water, Utah.
May 1997 | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/7/2008 12:04:28 PM | If the following statement were constitutional, we would still have slavery today.
But what I am against is small minorities that push what they think is well and correct upon the majority that show they think contrary to that minority whether the case be gay marriages or the extinction of animals. Let the people have the information to digest and let the people vote the matter out. That is how it should be in issues that will affect the populace as a whole.
It is patently unconstitutional to deny rights to one group that other consenting adults have. It would be illegal to have interracial marriages as well & maybe even illegal for handicapped people to marry & reproduce. Why would it ever be OK to have someone else's religious beliefs shoved up the various orifices of others & that is essentially what the whole ban on gay marriage is about in essence. Some people are of the religious belief that that being gay is evil. To me, I think those people are being pretty darned presumptuous about what God intended when gay people are born. What do you think God has in mind for those who are born as both genders (hermorphrodite)? God made them as they are & I for one do not presume to know why. I just figure God knows a heck of a lot more than I do about that kind of situation & to say that something God makes is "bad" is pretty arrogant for a measly human.
...& no I am not gay or even bi. I am a stauch supporter of the Constitution & the Bill of Rights. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/7/2008 12:41:56 PM | Auroraa said....
"If the following statement were constitutional, we would still have slavery today.".....But what I am against is small minorities that push what they think is well and correct upon the majority that show they think contrary to that minority whether the case be gay marriages or the extinction of animals. Let the people have the information to digest and let the people vote the matter out. That is how it should be in issues that will affect the populace as a whole."
First you have as others have derailed the main point of that statement. That statement had to do with various things that small minorities THINK and FEEL are good for them should be accepted by everyone as the topic is accepted by them. Please note an important word in that statement..."push"...meaning to force, (not to be voted on) meaning to MAKE the majority accept something as law that they, the majority, have shown through votes, they do not want to accept as law.
The reference to slavery is becoming so tiredsome. Slavery was accepted as a way of life in America soon after English colonists first settled Virginia. People seem to think that most of America was all for slavery. WRONG!!!! Do some fricking history reading!!!! Of the 15 states of the 30 + states existing in America where slavery was legal prior to the Civil war, the MAJORITY was against slavery. Of the 15 slave states at that time supporting slavery ONLY one in four familes had one or more slaves.
Point being is that in January of 1865 when the 13th amendment was adopted by Congress it was adopted and set forth as a law BECAUSE the majority of Americans were AGAINST slavery. No minority fought to have slavery abolished as many seem to think happened.
Now back to my statement, what we have is a minority that wants something that the majority does not want them to have. So the minority did the legal thing and took it to the ballot in many states to see how the people felt. In every voting instance the majority showed they were not ready for a change. So now all pro-supporters of same sex marriages feel a child like need to brand all non-pro supporters bigots, anti-homosexuals, homophobias, hate mongers and many other names they are fond of tossing around. The real crutch of this issuse is that this is not just religions that are against same sex marriages having a piece of the marriage license given to hetros but non-religious people are also against it. There are same sex couples who are against it because they don't care any more for a certificate then hetro couples that are also shacking up to advoid that certificate. BUT......according to the sweet pipe dream thinking of all pro-same sex marriage thinkers ONLY religious types are against the issue and no one else is.
Sheesh......stupid is, stupid does...... | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/7/2008 2:56:44 PM |
But my beliefs are not based on biogotry and anti-gayisms. But when it comes to rights, if we are going to redefine marriage, we should let the new definition include hetros, homos, and polygamy. For the new definition to include just hetros and homos and not polygamy, that will show just how many true hypocritical bigots live in this country.
You are bigoted as well as intolerant. If you don’t understand something, it is inherently bad or scary. If someone thinks different from you, they also are to be ostracized.
You run from facts and encourage a ‘club like’ atmosphere with other less educated individuals, or the people of only one book. It is the one 'good' book where our bigots get their postures and talking points. These folks are normally not too educated and very scared of things which they don’t agree with. They don’t have the brains to convince of of their argument; they are limited to schoolyard taunts and juvenile rants. I truly wonder about the mentality of those who rationalize exclusion and hate. They are very, very troubled Americans. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/7/2008 3:07:02 PM | yet Xians casually disregard nearly all the rest, if not ALL the rest, of Levitical law (because presumably they feel belief in Jesus's life and death removed them from having to pay attention to it -- as Paul basically said). In the Xian Bible / NT, there were 3 references to homosexuality (possibly) or at least sexually "immoral" behavior, and those were in letters by Paul / Saul -- who was a woman-hater and who some speculate MAY have had homosexual tendencies himself. Jesus himself , in the Gospels, never mentions much less condemns it. In fact he seems to make a point of associating himself with pariahs and outcasts ,etc; so what makes Xians think he'd be so quick to embrace ancient (and it was ancient even when he was alivee fact that majority of people are influenced by their superstitious religious views is all the example needed. The debate about gay marriage stems from this.
I don't see anything hateful in this...
Then perhaps I can be of some assistance.
In the first sentence of this post we are told "Xtians disregard scripture whenever convenient because we feel we can". -------->
yet Xians casually disregard nearly all the rest, if not ALL the rest, of Levitical law (because presumably they feel belief in Jesus's life and death removed them from having to pay attention to it Stating that Christians believe or regard only the scripture they choose to makes them hypocrites, does it not? If I were to call you a hypocrite, would you consider that a hateful remark? I dare say yes.
Next
In the second sentence we see that the Christian founding father of Apologetics and the author of most of the New Testament is referred to as a "woman hater", meaning Christians condone sexism by following a religion that supports a sexist front runner of the faith. If I were to call you a sexist, I again dare say that you would think that a hateful remark, coming from a hateful gal who goes around calling folks sexist hypocrites. No?
As for superstitious, you don't consider god a spiritual being? You may want to look up the meaning of the word because , technically, believing in something intangible IS superstition.
I took your advice and looked the word superstition up.
Come to find out, I am now more offended than before.
Superstition -(Latin superstes, "standing over", "set above") is a belief or notion, void of reason or knowledge. The word is often used pejoratively to refer to irrational beliefs of others, and its precise meaning is therefore subjective.
So if I were to state that I believe that your religious views were void of reason or knowledge (making you ignorant) or that your faith was irrational, something I have no possible way of knowing, would you not be offended?
Why would you feel the need to tell me that? I have no desire to force my beliefs onto anyone. You falsely assume that all Christians wish to. Again, exposing prejudice.
Little touchy about being a Christian and very quick to attack aren't you? I do not wish to attack anyone, actually what I am doing is defending. (which is what Christian apologists do)
Err..In Christianity, Jesus is viewed as Deity, therefore we believe that He Is not bound by time as we are, He knew what would happen in 2008 and therefore He would have "known what we now know" when He was on Earth.
Actually, I know many Christians who don't believe that... as a matter of fact most saw him simply as a prophet who passed on his father's (as the true deity) message. Actually, that is false. Below I have provided the Christian Creed, which is universally excepted as truth and sums up our beliefs quite nicely. I have highlighted the sentence referring to Jesus as God 3 times directly and twice indirectly.
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.
He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.
He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.
We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life.
*alteration mine | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 6/7/2008 3:22:00 PM | Get mad baby in resorting to name calling said.....
"You are bigoted as well as intolerant."
You have option here get mad baby. You can either prove that I am a bigot and intolerant of other people's belief of homosexuals having a right to a marriage certificate that at the present is for hetrosexuals in this issue or you can leave the statement as it is to show your intelligence level befits all those screaming at the tops of their lungs that "....because people disagree with my type of thinking on this matter they are nothing but homophobic, bigoted hate filled anti-homosexuals and all come from a lousy Christian back ground!!!!"
I understand more of this issue then you will ever give me credit for knowing about. And because you don't give me any credit for knowing what I speak of, that does prove in what you write that you are an EXTREMELY judgemental type person, for you are ready to call names and such first instead of asking questions to get answers. Yourself and others in this thread have made an immeadiate judgement that if someone is not for same sex marriage, they MUST then be homophobic, bigoted hate filled anti-homosexuals and all come from a lousy Christian back ground!!!! To you and others in this thread that think this way there is just no chance that someone can disagree with same sex marriages and NOT BE a homophobic, bigoted hate filled anti-homosexual and still come from a lousy Christian back ground!!! THAT train of thinking that you are guided by fits the definition of a BIGOT. Disagreeing about same sex marriages does not fall under the definition of a BIGOT. I am sure it does in your dictionary but then that does explain the way you think in this pre-judged matter.
You should also watch the words you write with that are so describing yourself unknowingly to yourself apparently.......
Get mad baby said....
".....they are limited to schoolyard taunts and juvenile rants......" | |
|
|
| Page 9 of 12
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
|
Home
login 
