Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » World Watch » Will same sex marriage really hurt anybody? (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: Will same sex marriage really hurt anybody?
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron, if homosexuality is a sin and so homos can't get married how do you feel about a man and a woman that both 'deny the existence of god' get married? Isn't that insulting to you?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
Ron, if homosexuality is a sin and so homos can't get married how do you feel about a man and a woman that both 'deny the existence of god' get married? Isn't that insulting to you?

KE

KnightEnder, are you suggesting that not all marriages in the United States involve christians?

Worse, are you suggesting that, since some marriages don't involve christians, it's unreasonable for Ron to demand that all marriages adhere to christian law?

Because I for one am shocked and appalled by that outrageously reasonable point!

Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hitoshi
Member
Member # 4146

 - posted      Profile for Hitoshi     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Jesse, homosexual behavior is clearly identified by the Bible as sinful; but it is no greater a sin than many others. It certainly is not "the unpardonable sin." The problem is when you try to legislate that gay partnerships constitute marriage. That is a direct rebellion against the divine authority of our Creator. All who believe the Bible is the Word of God have to take issue with that. What right do gays have to subvert our religion?

Perhaps I missed the part in the Constitution where it said that my life must be lived according to the principles of your faith? What right do you have to make me a slave to your morality? Though my life and my being may be a subversion or a rebellion of your God's divine law, that law is not the law that governs this nation. My soul will answer for any of my actions in this life in the next, and only God may render that judgment. But in this life, and in this country, I am given the choice to live my life according to the morals in which I believe, respecting the law, and do not have to live by whatever morality your religion would deign me to live under.
Posts: 166 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T:man
Member
Member # 6309

 - posted      Profile for T:man   Email T:man       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rallan lol...
Posts: 36 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jimskater
Member
Member # 181

 - posted      Profile for jimskater   Email jimskater   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From the LA Times, this morning, which condemns the tactics used by the proponents of Prop 8, and, in turn, strongly recommends a no vote:

quote:
Take the story of Catholic Charities. The service arm of the Roman Catholic Church closed its adoption program in Massachusetts not because of the state's gay marriage law but because of a gay anti-discrimination law passed many years earlier. In fact, the charity had voluntarily placed older foster children in gay and lesbian households -- among those most willing to take hard-to-place children -- until the church hierarchy was alerted and demanded that adoptions conform to the church's religious teaching, which was in conflict with state law. The Proposition 8 campaign, funded in large part by Mormons who were urged to do so by their church, does not mention that the Mormon church's adoption arm in Massachusetts is still operating, even though it does not place children in gay and lesbian households.

How can this be? It's a matter of public accountability, not infringement on religion. Catholic Charities acted as a state contractor, receiving state and federal money to find homes for special-needs children who were wards of the state, and it faced the loss of public funding if it did not comply with the anti-discrimination law. In contrast, LDS (for Latter-day Saints) Family Services runs a private adoption service without public funding. Its work, and its ability to follow its religious teachings, have not been altered.

Another "Yes on 8" canard is that the continuation of same-sex marriage will force churches and other religious groups to perform such marriages or face losing their tax-exempt status. Proponents point to a case in New Jersey, where a Methodist-based nonprofit owned seaside land that included a boardwalk pavilion. It obtained an exemption from state property tax for the land on the grounds that it was open for public use and access. Events such as weddings -- of any religion -- could be held in the pavilion by reservation. But when a lesbian couple sought to book the pavilion for a commitment ceremony, the nonprofit balked, saying this went against its religious beliefs.

The court ruled against the nonprofit, not because gay rights trump religious rights but because public land has to be open to everyone or it's not public. The ruling does not affect churches' religious tax exemptions or their freedom to marry whom they please on their private property, just as Catholic priests do not have to perform marriages for divorced people and Orthodox synagogues can refuse to provide space for the weddings of interfaith couples. And Proposition 8 has no bearing on the issue; note that the New Jersey case wasn't about a wedding ceremony.

That last sentence should probably have continued: but rather about a tax exemption granted because of a guarantee of public use.

Full text here:

LA Times on Prop 8

Posts: 805 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've been debunking these deceptive arguments every time I hear them, but what I'm consistently seeing is that people use these arguments are being used as a crutch - a way to justify being anti-SSM to themselves and to others. I have not convinced a single person to change their vote by showing them the misleading nature of these arguments. It's very frustrating.
Posts: 3462 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's honestly what it almost always comes down too. Seccular arguments are easily destroyed one by one, and reasonably intelligent opponents of SSM admit those arguments have been destroyed.

It doesn't change any opinions though, because those arguments have never been based in reason but are nearly universally just *rationalizations* used by fearfull people, most of whom have been raised in an assortment exceedingly homophobic sub-cultures.

So, all I can say today is -

Do we want another Stuart Matis and Clay Whitmer or another Spencer Jones and Tyler Barrick?

Those are the two options. The rest is distraction.

Google the names if you don't recognize them.

[ November 03, 2008, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jess, you mean "religious arguments" not "secular arguments" right?

I know what you mean but I'd hate for anybody unsure or on the anti-ssm side to misunderstand.

(Unless you are making some other point that I totally misses?)

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, he means "secular arguments." In other words, he means to say that all the secular arguments against same-sex marriage have been easily destroyed.
Posts: 21359 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, okay. Thanks Tom.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jimskater
Member
Member # 181

 - posted      Profile for jimskater   Email jimskater   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jesse, I did the googling.

:sigh:

All I can say is -- thank God my parents moved us to the San Fransisco area when I was 15. I don't think I'd have had as easy a time in Chicago, in 1980. (Not that it was "easy" in San Mateo.)

On another note:

Something dawned on me this weekend. The woah moment: when I realized that my father is one of a small pool of parents who can say that his two gay children are both legally married. That number looks even smaller when you realize that the marriages took place in two different states, 4 years apart.

[ November 04, 2008, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: jimskater ]

Posts: 805 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
neuropsychguy
New Member
Member # 6343

 - posted      Profile for neuropsychguy   Email neuropsychguy       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hitoshi:
What right do you have to make me a slave to your morality?

I'll ask the same question of you. What right do you have to make me a slave to YOUR morality? Why should I, if I lived in California, Connecticut, or Massachusetts, be required to recognize a particular set of morals that states that marriage is no longer just between man and woman but also man and man or woman and woman?

Why is it OK to assert that a non-religious belief is valid but a religious one is not? You can't argue "separation of church and state" because that phrase is not in the Constitution. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.

Posts: 3 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why should I, if I lived in California, Connecticut, or Massachusetts, be required to recognize a particular set of morals that states that marriage is no longer just between man and woman but also man and man or woman and woman?
Why should you be required to acknowledge that women are allowed to vote?
Posts: 21359 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or, more closely related, why should you be required to acknowledge that couples not married in a Christian church are married?

The answer, of course, is that you are not required to do so. Except legally.

Legally, we require people to do all sorts of things that may be contractory to their religions. Not consume peyote, for example. Or not perform human sacrifices (for all you Aztecs out there [Wink] ). Things that might not be palatable according to a person's religion, but still are considering important to society.

You can still say that people of the same sex are not married, as much as you like. In that respect, it is not infringing on your freedom of speech or religion. Don't try to make it sound like it is.

Because only in matters of secular law would you have to treat same-sex couples as married. Because they have fulfilled the lawful requirements of such: they have a piece of paper that says they are married.

It is the cost of living in a free and democratic society.

Posts: 8153 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You can't argue "separation of church and state" because that phrase is not in the Constitution.
Nor is "separation of powers" or "checks and balances." Are those also extra-Constitutional concepts? The phrase "separation between church and state" was used by some of the authors of the Constitution to describe the purpose of the first amendment establishment and free exercise clauses.
Posts: 3462 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. "

Yes, it does, or it means nothing.

If the law serves to force one person to obey the religious tenents of another, there is no freedom *of* religion.

You're free to claim that same-sex couples or Catholics or Mormons or whoever you want isn't really married. Knock yourself out with that.

You can't force government to say the same - our laws do not exist to serve your version of the Word of the Great Sky Daddy.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
neuropsychguy
New Member
Member # 6343

 - posted      Profile for neuropsychguy   Email neuropsychguy       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
" Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion."

Yes, it does, or it means nothing.


The only governments in modern times that have "freedom" from religion have been Communist.

There is a huge difference between freedom from religion and freedom of religion. Freedom from religion means that religious beliefs have no part in our government (which is silly because the Constitution was founded on religious principles) and anyone who is religious should not let their religious beliefs influence their policies. This again is ludicrous because a person's morals/ethics would be impossible to separate from her religious beliefs. The end goal of freedom from religion is the abolishment of all religion. I know that would make some people happy but that is the opposite of what the Constitution states.

Freedom of religion means this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - Congress can not make a state religion (i.e., official church for the country) and cannot interfere with the free exercise of a religion. Now, a particular religion cannot do something that is against the will of the majority but other than that, the government should not interfere. The end goal of freedom of religion is for governments and religions to coexist peacefully.

Posts: 3 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Now, a particular religion cannot do something that is against the will of the majority...
Or the rights of a minority.
Posts: 21359 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
neuropsychguy
New Member
Member # 6343

 - posted      Profile for neuropsychguy   Email neuropsychguy       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Why should I, if I lived in California, Connecticut, or Massachusetts, be required to recognize a particular set of morals that states that marriage is no longer just between man and woman but also man and man or woman and woman?
Why should you be required to acknowledge that women are allowed to vote?
Just for your info (sorry, that sounded a little condescending, I don't mean it that way), religious groups were the main ones that were fighting for woman's suffrage. It was also mainly religious groups fighting for civil rights (MLK was a preacher after all). Many religions - there are plenty of wacky ones out there - are firm supporters of civil rights. Sure, some people opposed them in the name of religion but they have a messed up view of religion.

How does women voting change the fundamental nature of societies? Allowing same-sex couples to "marry" changes the foundation of societies - families. This is not a religious concept, even the UN has stated that the family - husband, wife, and children - is the fundamental unit of all societies and civilizations (As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.” Source: United Nations, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III), 10 December 1948).

Marriage has never been solely about personal fulfillment, it's about having children. Some cannot have kids, which is fine, and some choose not to have kids and that's their choice but they are still in the vast minority. Why are we so willing to redefine marriage, to change what constitutes the fundamental unit of society, all so a few same-sex couples can "marry"? Let's let same-sex couples have domestic partnership rights and things like that but we need to seriously consider the possible ramifications of allowing same-sex "marriages." We already devalue marriages enough as it is with our high divorce rates, why make the situation worse by redefining what exactly a marriage it?

This isn't the place for me to list off all the research that shows that the best outcome for kids and societies is having intact nuclear families - father, mother, and children. Even a cursory literature search of research databases will show that that is the ideal.

Is same-sex "marriage" a civil rights issue? No, gays and lesbians already have the right to marry (someone from the other sex, but that should go without saying because that is what marriage means). If they don't want to marry, then they can choose to stay single or they can enter a domestic partnership or a civil union with a same-sex partner. I'm all for allowing visitation, work, and other similar rights, I just don't think we should redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

Posts: 3 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This isn't the place for me to list off all the research that shows that the best outcome for kids and societies is having intact nuclear families - father, mother, and children. Even a cursory literature search of research databases will show that that is the ideal.
That research only shows that it is superior to single-parent households. It does not show that it is superior to households with two parents of the same gender.
Posts: 3462 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How does women voting change the fundamental nature of societies? Allowing same-sex couples to "marry" changes the foundation of societies - families.
At the time, it was thought that women voters would change the fundamental nature of society. Historically, people have been very, very bad at predicting which changes would make the sky fall.
Posts: 21359 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Freedom from religion means that religious beliefs have no part in our government (which is silly because the Constitution was founded on religious principles) and anyone who is religious should not let their religious beliefs influence their policies.
This is your reading. If you want it to mean that, feel free. But this whole discussion is based on a conflation of two distinct meanings of the word 'freedom'.

The meaning of 'freedom' in the legal context is as defined in the constitution, and as identified (although not exclusively) in the bill of rights (let's talk american for now). The phrase "freedom of religion" relates to one of those 'freedoms' or 'rights' identified in the bill of rights; specifically it relates to the establishment clause of the 1st amendment that prohibits the government from (effectively) establishing a state religion, which broadly means "don't make laws that give preference one religion over another".

On the other hand, in the phrase "freedom from religion", the word 'freedom' does not have the same meaning: it refers to, at its most basic, the absence of religious coersion at the hands of someone, but in this context, of the government.

Where the two concepts overlap is that, in order to be truly free to worship as one wishes, one must be free from governmental religious coersion, since the government has a monopoly on the use of coersive force in society. And since the government is constrained from specific religious coersion, practically that means that the government is constrained from any religious coersion.

BTW - welcome to Ornery, neuropsychguy - you are wrong.

Posts: 10295 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hitoshi
Member
Member # 4146

 - posted      Profile for Hitoshi     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by neuropsychguy:
quote:
Originally posted by Hitoshi:
What right do you have to make me a slave to your morality?

I'll ask the same question of you. What right do you have to make me a slave to YOUR morality? Why should I, if I lived in California, Connecticut, or Massachusetts, be required to recognize a particular set of morals that states that marriage is no longer just between man and woman but also man and man or woman and woman?
The two are not comparable. In one, morality is directly controlling the options available to me in life; in the other, it is not. Your legal recognition of my marriage does not take away any of the choices you would otherwise have, while the reverse is not true. You are forcing me to follow the precepts of a religion that I do not believe in.

[ November 05, 2008, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Hitoshi ]

Posts: 166 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"be required to recognize a particular set of morals that states that marriage is no longer just between man and woman but also man and man or woman and woman?"

The same you're required to acknowledge the legal validity of many things you may not agree with. If you have a right not to have to acknowledge two gays as married according tot he state - not your church - why doesn't a religious jew not have the right to not acknowledge a female official? why do we have the right to enforce our morality on him?

Just as a catholic employer must accord married benefits to a thrice married dude, so must you to Adam married to steve. Oh, you feel terribly strongly about it? so do we.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's some information you might be interesred in.

Marriage protection 2008

Florida’s Amendment 2 passed with over 60% of the vote. Called the “Florida Marriage Protection Amendment” it states that, “Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

Arizona’s Proposition 102, which says, “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state,” was also passed 56.5% to 43.5%. This was the second time the same-sex “marriage” ban has come before Arizona voters.

California Proposition 8 is simple and straightforward. It contains the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000 by over 61% of California voters: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Four judges in San Francisco overturned millions of people’s votes in 2000 to protect marriage (over 61%)

In this Prop 8 contention, the only mention of hate came from the No on 8 people.

California’s Proposition 8 writes the original first definition of marriage into the state constitution to protect it from further changes by the Supreme Court, who overturned the 2000 Californian vote (over 61%) to protect marriage in May 2008.

Since 1998, a total of 30 states have passed laws restricting marriage to it’s original first definition.

What I find interesting is that the Legislature of California, the ones who were elected to make the laws, are silent.

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Four judges in San Francisco overturned millions of people’s votes in 2000 to protect marriage (over 61%)
You do realize that it's their *job* to review the Constitutionality of laws regardless of how many people agree with the law. When the Supreme Court wiped out anti miscegenation laws, 70% of the population disagreed with the decision. Was it the wrong decision?

Also, that 61% vote occured during a primary election when the Democratic candidate was running unopposed. Many more Republicans went to the polls than Democrats in what has long been a very liberal-leaning state, skewing the results heavily conservative. Yeah, it's their own fault for not voting, but that 61% is not quite the cultural mandate that you might think it is.

quote:
Since 1998, a total of 30 states have passed laws restricting marriage to it’s original first definition.
Wow! That's more states than legally permitted slavery! You've got a ways to go before you catch up with Jim Crow laws, though. I know you can do it!

quote:
What I find interesting is that the Legislature of California, the ones who were elected to make the laws, are silent.
You are grossly misinformed. Twice the CA legislature passed laws legalizing SSM and both times gov Swarzenegger vetoed the legislation, stating that he wanted to the courts to decide the issue.
Posts: 3462 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rich
Member
Member # 6346

 - posted      Profile for rich   Email rich       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Same sex marriages will hurt many, many people. They'll hurt the churches that charge an arm and a leg to perform a civil service. (However, we can assume florists will see an uptick in business.)

Same sex marriages will destroy home values as the same sex married couple moves into the neighborhood with their design sense and overall neatness, thus emphasizing my own rundown, ill-kempt property.

Same sex married couples will make us question our own marriage as we see that same sex partners who have lived together for decades are actually happy, thus destroying our belief that all homosexuals want to have sex with us no matter how ugly or stupid we actually are.

Lastly, same sex marriages are dangerous because it makes us question how it could even be possible that rational, reasonable people could be happy when they are so clearly an abomination under God's eyes (or eye; maybe God only needs one eye since He's God).

The only reason to be against same sex marriage is because of religious views. Any other reason is just smoke and mirrors.

Posts: 6 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MattP quote
" Many more Republicans went to the polls than Democrats in what has long been a very liberal-leaning state"
________________________________________________
I was born, raised and, still live in California.
It seems like the Democrats who didn't vote, may not have thought it was that important.

You are grossly misinformed, there are Democrats who feel that marriage is important also. That's a problem you encounter when you stereotype groups. Like African Americans, Irish, Italians etc. It looks like some of the people in this forum stereotype chuches as all hateful, and anyone that voted for Prop 8, as hateful. These uniformed conclusions are glaring.

I've never cared for politicians who say “If he's elected, or if he does such and such, this bad thing will happen" ..as if they can tell the future. It's a load of crap, I TELL YOU! The same goes for those who think that the people who voted for Prop 8 are hateful. Do the No on 8s think they can read minds? Et Tu Es Crapola.

There were and are Democrats who voted to keep marriage as it was originally established, and the majority of vote was not from anger, or hate. Even though, that is what the radical part of the No on 8s want you to believe.

These protests and demonstrations, and damaging church property are just what they want to happen. These radical factions of the No on 8s are instigating the emotion involved until it becomes hate and destruction.

Take a deep breath, step back and clear your head. Don't act like the red-necks, skin-heads and, racists you despise.

This election process is suppose to be a peaceful way to resolve things.

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It seems like the Democrats who didn't vote, may not have thought it was that important.

I already covered that - "it's their own fault..." I'm not sure why you're going for a glib quip at something I said when I've acknowledge the point in the next sentence.

quote:
You are grossly misinformed, there are Democrats who feel that marriage is important also.
Please explain how I am misinformed. Be specific. I said nothing about what Democrats feel is important. Democrats, on average, are more sympathetic to SSM than Republicans. When fewer Dems show up, less support for SSM is reflected in the polls. If you weren't aware of that, then I'm sorry for not being more clear.

quote:
It looks like some of the people in this forum stereotype chuches as all hateful, and anyone that voted for Prop 8, as hateful.
Not hateful, at least not all of them. It's hard to judge everyone's motivations, though I think a lot of people either went the way their churches said to go or they were convinced by the specious arguments presented by the "yes" campaign. Certainly the support wasn't there prior to the "yes" campaign. Polls immediately after the legalization of SSM indicated double-digit opposition to an amendment banning SSM.

quote:
I've never cared for politicians who say “If he's elected, or if he does such and such, this bad thing will happen"
Funny, that's the form of many of the arguments presented by the "yes" side. "If this doesn't pass then <insert terrible consequence>."

[ November 08, 2008, 03:05 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3462 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jimskater
Member
Member # 181

 - posted      Profile for jimskater   Email jimskater   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Matt,

Can I pick the terrible consequence & where to stick it?

[Razz] [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 805 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Knock yourself out. [Smile]
Posts: 3462 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jimskater
Member
Member # 181

 - posted      Profile for jimskater   Email jimskater   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hanging chad, left nostril.

[Razz]


Gesundheit

[ November 08, 2008, 05:29 AM: Message edited by: jimskater ]

Posts: 805 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
________________________________________
It seems like the Democrats who didn't vote, may not have thought it was that important.
________________________________________
Matt quote
I already covered that - "it's their own fault..." I'm not sure why you're going for a glib quip at something I said when I've acknowledge the point in the next sentence.
______________________________________________
My answer
I guess I missed it but you said it was their own fault. I said they may not have thought it was important. I didn’t blame anyone.

quote:
________________________________________
You are grossly misinformed, there are Democrats who feel that marriage is important also.
________________________________________
Matt quote
Please explain how I am misinformed. Be specific. I said nothing about what Democrats feel is important. Democrats, on average, are more sympathetic to SSM than Republicans. When fewer Dems show up, less support for SSM is reflected in the polls. If you weren't aware of that, then I'm sorry for not being more clear.
My answer
Yes that’s just my point ( now you write “on average”), before your implication was if all dems voted it would have turned out different. We don’t know. There seems to be some impression ( not necessarily from you) that some Democrats don’t vote the same as some Repubs, and don’t attend church. There also is an impression that people who go to church regularly can’t think for themselves. That’s like putting them in a category of less than other humans. I will agree though, that some of the guys on TV like Pat Robertson and others, give church and religion a bad name, and if that’s the main impression people get of today’s religions and churches, that’s messed up. I can’t stand them. Their arrogance, and superiority complexes are so obvious.
Many churches teach the importance of family. Marriage constitutes the beginning of the family. Dozens of churches in and outside California want to maintain the traditional family unit. There were similar measures in other states, but the focus is on California in a do or die effort from the GLB groups.
Someone wrote in an Arizona paper they feel the reason the ban was passed by bigger margins in Arizona and Florida was because the gay organizations focused all their time and money in California. Have you noticed on TV and Cable News it’s mostly if not all about California. It’s strange to me, that they are almost silent about the other two states.
quote:
________________________________________
It looks like some of the people in this forum stereotype chuches as all hateful, and anyone that voted for Prop 8, as hateful.
________________________________________
Matt quote
Not hateful, at least not all of them. It's hard to judge everyone's motivations, though I think a lot of people either went the way their churches said to go or they were convinced by the specious arguments presented by the "yes" campaign. Certainly the support wasn't there prior to the "yes" campaign. Polls immediately after the legalization of SSM indicated double-digit opposition to an amendment banning SSM.

My answer
I never said all the people on this forum were hatefull. [Wink]

Many people went rogue from their church and voted no.

Also in 1977, marriage between a man and a woman was already in the state constitution. I don’t know for sure but I think this all started when someone wanted to take it out. But either way the cry that this gay marriage right is being taken away is not quite true.
quote:
________________________________________
I've never cared for politicians who say “If he's elected, or if he does such and such, this bad thing will happen"
________________________________________
Matt quote
Funny, that's the form of many of the arguments presented by the "yes" side. "If this doesn't pass then <insert terrible consequence>."
______________________________________________________________

My answer
True I didn’t think those arguments were valid. But I do think if gay couples have all the rights that Married couples have what’s the big deal. I have a gay friend who feels that way also.
I have a gay friend: not like on Stephen Colbert were he shows a picture of himself smiling with his arm around him and pointing to him.
I know other gays who feel the same way.
He was the best man at my wedding. He and I can joke about it, that he was really the best girl.

I’m tired of writing. I’m stopping now ( I can’t do this too long for physical reasons)

One more thing to clear up rumors: This church organization did not give any money to Yes on 8. The members only did. These so-called leaders who gave money were members who are not employed by the church. Perhaps the confussion comes when a Bishop or a Stake President of the church here in California donated money. These people do not get paid to fill these positions and handle the day to day responsibilities of their ward or stake. Unlike other churches, this church has a non-paid ministry. These people because of their various abilities are asked to fill these positions, and they voluntarily fill them. They have full time jobs and fill these jobs also. Also though the church organization could participate in the tax exempt status every other church participates in, it does not. It pays it’s full share of taxes. This is just one reason why this church is especially unique.

Here’s a quote from Gordon B. Hinckely former president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who passed away earlier this year.
“I believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out.
Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married.”
Read whatever you want into it. You don’t have to agree.
If you’d really like to know the integrity this man has you could read the book he wrote, some time ago, titled “Standing for Something”. I think he was a great man.

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Star Pilot:

"our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage..."

(which gives gay people equal protection under the law)

"should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance or abuse of (them)...."


Pardon me, but how can anyone say, Please don't interpret my harm of you has a reason to think that I don't like you, don't tolerate you, and don't abuse you?

In catholicism, that's called "jesuitry."

As I've never noticed it in my own Mormon faith prior to this so I have no idea what to call it.

Stupidity?

Blindness?

[ November 08, 2008, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Munga
Investigate beyond the talking points. They already have equal protection in every way.

Are you saying because people don't want gays to call their union marriage, it is hurting them?
To me the hurt seems to be a perception that is snow balling.

I went to catholic school for 12 years.I know a bit about them. My senior year Father Lavada was my religion teacher. He is now Cardinal Lavada, lives at the Vatican, and is in charge of all Catholic Church Doctrine. Sorry to say our class terrorized him.

I don't like some of the attitudes I see every Sunday in LDS church. Some are just a bit too pompous. But it's like I was told when I was first baptized LDS, Mormons are like everyone else with weaknesses and attitudes. I don't like the way some of them approached this prop 8. I'm not supposed to judge them, but I have.

You know. I'm assuming you know. This life is a small part of a much bigger picture. There's more going on here than any of us can yet begin to comprehend. Some of the best times I've had have been with my gay friends. I've sincerely struggled with this, because there are real people involved. Please don't judge me, because I've studied the origin of marriage, and can't feel that the union of a gay couple should be called marriage.

Here's something true about the role Mormons played in this California episode.

SACRAMENTO 7 November 2008
(This news release was issued by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento)

The following statement was released today by Bishop William Weigand, head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento and former Bishop of Salt Lake City, in response to attacks on (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) for supporting California’s Proposition 8, defending the traditional definition of marriage:

“Catholics stand in solidarity with our Mormon brothers and sisters in support of traditional marriage — the union of one man and one woman — that has been the major building block of Western Civilization for millennia.

“The ProtectMarriage coalition, which led the successful campaign to pass Proposition 8, was an historic alliance of people from every faith and ethnicity. LDS were included — but so were Catholics and Jews, Evangelicals and Orthodox, African-Americans and Latinos, Asians and Anglos.

“Bigoted attacks on Mormons for the part they played in our coalition are shameful and ignore the reality that Mormon voters were only a small part of the groundswell that supported Proposition 8.

“As the former bishop of the Diocese of Salt Lake City, I can attest to the fact that followers of the Mormon faith are a good and generous people with a long history of commitment to family and giving to community causes.

“I personally decry the bigotry recently exhibited towards the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — coming from the opponents of Proposition 8, who ironically, have called those of us supporting traditional marriage intolerant.

“I call upon the supporters of same-sex marriage to live by their own words — and to refrain from discrimination against religion and to exercise tolerance for those who differ from them. I call upon them to accept the will of the people of California in the passage of Proposition 8.”

SOURCE: Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento

Isn't it interesting how Mormons always get the shaft? It may mean something. [Confused]

I'm greatful someone who knows the truth stepped forward.

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Star,

Are you saying that absolutely equal protection for gays is available as cheap and easy as an Elvis wedding?

[ November 09, 2008, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by neuropsychguy:
Freedom of religion means this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - Congress can not make a state religion (i.e., official church for the country) and cannot interfere with the free exercise of a religion. Now, a particular religion cannot do something that is against the will of the majority but other than that, the government should not interfere. The end goal of freedom of religion is for governments and religions to coexist peacefully.

And how is taking one particular segment of one religion's interpretation of "Marriage" and making that the law of the land not explicitly establishing that belief as more valid than any of a number of others that do not hold to the same precepts?
Posts: 10151 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
No, he means "secular arguments." In other words, he means to say that all the secular arguments against same-sex marriage have been easily destroyed.

When you really get down to it, the religious ones don't hold water either- most are based on translations of the Bible made by people who wanted to insert an anti-gay bias. There is no solid word against it in the New Testament, and the only strong reference in the Old is from a morality code that's included for historical purposes, not because it's something that Christians are expected to follow. (Specifically because the New Covenant replaces it)

That's barely even touching on the fact that Jesus all but directly speaks out against using secular law to enforce religious law; the fight against such was one of the major themes of his ministry.

Posts: 10151 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Munga quote
Are you saying that absolutely equal protection for gays is available as cheap and easy as an Elvis wedding?
____________________________________________

I'll get back to you on that "...little mama."

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"most are based on translations of the Bible made by people who wanted to insert an anti-gay bias. There is no solid word against it in the New Testament, and the only strong reference in the Old is from a morality code that's included for historical purposes, not because it's something that Christians are expected to follow. (Specifically because the New Covenant replaces it)"

Um, no. Sorry, coulda been nice, but no. Only by willfully ignoring stuff can you make christianity or judaism accepting of (active) homosexuality. You can reason it all you like, but the OT edict is clear, immutable, and carries the death penalty.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1