The shameful gay marriage ban. [Archive] - Page 12

Adam Crocker

07-08-2005, 10:53 PM

Well took awhile for me to get back to this argument but...

But it is a polarized issue. Not wanting gays to have the same rights as straights comes from a place where you need to feel homosexuality is wrong or that a gay relationship is less than a straight one. For religious reasons, for historical tradition or because it makes you feel uncomfortable.

When you put down gay marriage you are putting down real live people that I know and care about. When you make statements about gays in general I take that as statements about gays I know. Views such as these actively hurt people that I care about. They create a dangerous environment for people I love and strangers I've never met.

It comes down to when do you stop being polite. If someone makes an anti-semitic comment do you respond calmly and politely?

The problem is that I haven't actually seen Screwtape, Anthony!, or Spack make such comments. It's a different matter if it's guys like Phelps, Doboson, or trickster, since those guys are pretty mean-spirited towards gays and clearly close-minded bigots. Yes, they've disagreed with gay marriage, but I haven't seen them put it down in the manner you are claiming here. So far all I've seen is your comments being needlessly snipey towards these posters, even when they haven't been mean spirited. And I find that you often do this in regards to debating their religion's views rather than why gay marriage should be legal in civil law.

I've never seen the bloody point of arguing against Catholicism considering homosexuality a sin because it's hair-spliting on a matter of faith, and thus will never go anywhere. In contrast, Boldido, another Christian, chimed in on this thread to say that there are many things he regards as sinful but feels there is no place for them civil law. That's what the focus of the argument should be because frankly that's what actually matters here. And if you want to see these attitudes change, being insulting about it isn't going to get anywhere at all.

That's the thing, there's ALWAYS a personal stake involved in these issues.

Damn straight.

If the government just changed the thing, it would have been less divisive and combative.

Considering how some people on this thread reacted to the vote in Canadian Parliament, I'm not so sure that would be the case.

Finally, I will take responsibility for showing my hand earlier on the point of my vote being informed by my Catholic faith. However, this also seems to attract anger like warm dog poo attracts flies. I think the word "catholic" has inspired deeper issues and has sidetracked the debate of "conscience and voting".

Probably, but your original statement was that Christians don't separate their religion from matters of public policy, when at least one Christian has chimed in to say they do. Moreover, you claimed to do so out of desire to ensure the salvation of your fellow man. Frankly I find wanting to adjust the law in order to save other people's souls a bit creepy personally speaking. As do others looking at state religious policy in medieval and early modern Europe or in Arabia.

My soul is up to me to save if I feel it needs it. Same with others. The government and civil law should only be concerning itself with matters necessary to relatively orderly functioning of the country and society, while not impinging on the rights of the individual. You're free to vote with your religious beliefs anyways, but I raised that as something to consider as I find it's a double-edged sword.

Adam Crocker

07-08-2005, 11:26 PM

If people are truly serious about everybody being treated as "equals" then it only stands to reason that the government find a solution that puts everyone on the same playing field without slapping one goup in the face.

And how pretell does gay marriage slap you in the face? Especially moreso than gays being unable marry and thousand some legal rights (and responsibilities) that go with it?

If you think that your values trump another persons, be they secular or religious— you don't really believe in equality.

Dude, as an argument against equal rights that's unbelievably and dismally lame.

Here's the deal though. The Church's mandate isn't to just sit in a pew, say a few prayers, eat their little "piece 'o Jesus" and go home. The Church has a responsibility to humanity, not just to those who are Catholic. It has a job to be concerned about the fate and spiritual health of everyone. Its been called to do so.

That's fine by me, but check my argument again. I was bringing up what I saw as the problem in voting for laws on the basis of ensuring your fellow man's salvation.

And there are legitimate arguments to make for both sides. What good is a faith that is enforced and mandated? On the other hand, how can we just stand there and let a sin and a falsity pass?

Well that's the question, when should a "sin" be disallowed by law? It's pretty clear on murder, given it's obviously harmful effects of depriving another of a life. And while I am pro-choice, the same case can be made about abortion depending on how one defines when life begins.

However, can the same said about pre-marital sex? That's a sin. So is sodomy. Should there be laws against defining what sex acts consenting adults can and cannot do in the bedroom? Working on a Sunday, when it is the Sabbath? Laws against graven images and idolatry, which would certainly be a falsity in Catholic theology? One of the reasons for why the idea of separation church and state developed in the Age of Enlightenment, which eventually fed into the development of liberal democracies, was ensuring equal freedoms and rights among people irregardless of their religious creed. And this meant keeping it out of enforcing religious doctrine.

That's why I had that debate with Spack, because I feel that matter of sin isn't simply the best reason for forbidding something under the law. While it may be sinful to the Church, but the law isn't there police against sin. And as it stands it's damn wrong and improperly discriminatory to deny gays marriage (or civil unions if you want to call civil marriage that) as it exists under civil law.

Which brings me to my next point...

What is really being asked for here is validation— not merely in the law but also in the culture.

If you think this is what is being asked, then you haven't been paying attention. A poster recently came on this thread pointing out he faces separation from the man he loves because they cannot marry with his partner obtaining citizenship. And trying to keep him in the country has put them into debt and damaged his health. Yet if it was a man and a woman they could go off and marry, the foreign partner would obtain citizenship, and no one would complain because they love each other and its recognized that they care enough about each other to live together and not be separated.

So I have to ask, why is recognizing this such a problem when its two men or two women?

After 12,000+ posts I have doubts he even leaves his desk.

I'm thinking I'll start to feel "icky" at around 2,000.

Considering that you've been complaining about Boothby's needlessly insulting demeanour, I have to say I find this post disappointingly ironic.

Ian Boothby

07-09-2005, 01:12 AM

The problem is that I haven't actually seen Screwtape, Anthony!, or Spack make such comments. It's a different matter if it's guys like Phelps, Doboson, or trickster, since those guys are pretty mean-spirited towards gays and clearly close-minded bigots. Yes, they've disagreed with gay marriage, but I haven't seen them put it down in the manner you are claiming here. So far all I've seen is your comments being needlessly snipey towards these posters, even when they haven't been mean spirited. And I find that you often do this in regards to debating their religion's views rather than why gay marriage should be legal in civil law.

I've never seen the bloody point of arguing against Catholicism considering homosexuality a sin because it's hair-spliting on a matter of faith, and thus will never go anywhere.

My feelings on the matter are when a person states in a post that the act of homosexuality is a sin, it doesn't matter if you yell it, say it politely or put it on top of a tasty cake. When you do this it's in the category same as a racial slur. The way they state it may be polite but how can you say it isn't mean spirited?

They may not be cruel people. They may play with their pets and give to charity. Be great people. But claiming (often casually and off handedly) that a person who lives their life according to the way they were born are committing a sin, and that the act of being gay is evil, hurts people in the same way racism does. Are all racists mean spirited? No. I'm sure we all have a relative, maybe Grampa who is a great guy but doesn't trust people of a certain race. You might let a comment of two of his even slide at Thanksgiving dinner but you better make sure he doesn't spread that view to your kids.

There is no difference between racism and anti-gayism. They are weeds of the same seed. People use the same arguments for why gay marriage is wrong that they used for racially mixed marriage.

I debate religion because that is the basis for most anti-gay marriage arguments. Just as it was used for mixed race and faith marriage.

Would you let someone who came on the board tell you why being Jewish was a sin? How he didn't hate the Jews but that behaving like a Jew was a sin? Would you be polite with this person or get a bit snarky?

Some things deserve snark. Prejudice is one of them.

Pixies Chick

07-09-2005, 06:23 AM

... Probably, but your original statement was that Christians don't separate their religion from matters of public policy, when at least one Christian has chimed in to say they do. Moreover, you claimed to do so out of desire to ensure the salvation of your fellow man. Frankly I find wanting to adjust the law in order to save other people's souls a bit creepy personally speaking. As do others looking at state religious policy in medieval and early modern Europe or in Arabia.

My soul is up to me to save if I feel it needs it. Same with others. The government and civil law should only be concerning itself with matters necessary to relatively orderly functioning of the country and society, while not impinging on the rights of the individual. You're free to vote with your religious beliefs anyways, but I raised that as something to consider as I find it's a double-edged sword.

I kind of agree. I also think that it's Christians thinking that they're getting something that they're not.

It's just not practical to use the Bible as a lawbook. If a group chooses to enforce this as being God's Will, how do they know the manner in which God wants gay marriage banned, who enforces it, and what the punishment is for violating it? When we're talking about laws it's too easy to go with a kneejerk up-or-down based on your particular religious tradition, but it's delusional to think that the law is according to Biblical guidance because I've read it, and implementation is not in there. How can they claim to know that God wants them to call the State's wrath down on individuals over this issue? "Render onto Caeser that which is Caesar's..." and all that. None of us is Moses on the Mount. It's humans who write laws. That's where the Constitution and Bill of Rights provide human guidance in how we govern each other. If anyone claims that God is cosponsor of their bill, he he or she is not being honest about the choices that humans made in crafting the legislation.

Some things deserve snark. Prejudice is one of them.

Can't argue with that.

EdContradictory

07-09-2005, 06:34 AM

My feelings on the matter are when a person states in a post that the act of homosexuality is a sin, it doesn't matter if you yell it, say it politely or put it on top of a tasty cake. When you do this it's in the category same as a racial slur. The way they state it may be polite but how can you say it isn't mean spirited?

They may not be cruel people. They may play with their pets and give to charity. Be great people. But claiming (often casually and off handedly) that a person who lives their life according to the way they were born are committing a sin, and that the act of being gay is evil, hurts people in the same way racism does.
Exactly.

From their perspective, they believe you are going to hell. They believe you are going to, and deserve to, burn forever in a pit of fire.

Why should you be polite to someone who thinks that about you?

Honestly, I think it's ruder than calling someone a racial slur.

I mean, you're condemning them to what in your mindset is the worst thing possible. And you believe they deserve it.

Screw that.

Boldido

07-09-2005, 06:37 AM

Some things deserve snark. Prejudice is one of them.

I think Tom put it best though, Ian. It doesn't help. It actually does harm. It might make you feel better and allow you to thump your chest with pride by saying, "ugh, me yell at bigots. me help gay friends." But in the end, all you do is make people dig in their heels, including people that may be very close to coming around to our side, if not necessarily from the same direction that you are coming from.

If you want to calmly and rationally engage in debate and point out what has been pointed out time and time again, that nothing about a gay marraige weakens a straight marraige and hold their feet to the fire by rationally pointing out the flaws in their arguments, then go for it. I've seen enough of your posting to know that your are more than smart enought to do so.

If you just want to yell at people because their views hurt people's feelings and in the process, completely denigrate their belief system, then SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!! YOU'RE NOT HELPING!!!!!! We will never see gay marraige without the support from some Christians, period. Many gays are Christian too. I guess you just don't know, or don't care about any of them. You are just being selfish by making yourself feel better at the expense of others, including those you claim to be helping.

EdContradictory

07-09-2005, 07:17 AM

If you just want to yell at people because their views hurt people's feelings and in the process, completely denigrate their belief system, then SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!! YOU'RE NOT HELPING!!!!!!

I am kind of sick of seeing this right-wing fed crap that more or less boils down to: if you are not tolerant of someone's intolerance, you are intolerant yourself.

Prejudiced people don't deserve respect. Their belief systems do not deserve respect. And they don't deserve a helping hand to get over it. All they need to do is keep their crap to themsleves and let the rest of us enjoy our life.

You can bitch about PCism if you want, but the fear of public shaming by being publically denounced as a a bigot for the most part shut up the bigoted for almost a decade.

Then they unfortunately got smart and turned the argument around.

Boldido

07-09-2005, 07:38 AM

I am kind of sick of seeing this right-wing fed crap that more or less boils down to: if you are not tolerant of someone's intolerance, you are intolerant yourself.

Prejudiced people don't deserve respect. Their belief systems do not deserve respect. And they don't deserve a helping hand to get over it. All they need to do is keep their crap to themsleves and let the rest of us enjoy our life.

You can bitch about PCism if you want, but the fear of public shaming by being publically denounced as a a bigot for the most part shut up the bigoted for almost a decade.

Then they unfortunately got smart and turned the argument around.

I was going to answer this with a rant, but instead, I just have a few questions.

How do you think we will achieve gay marraige?

Do you think its enough to have it be a states issue or do we need to be successful at the federal level to achieve equality?

Have you or Ian or anyoneelse ever publicly shamed someone, either here on the forum or in real life, into seeing the error of their ways on this issue?

What do you think is the most effective way to eliminate homophobia in an individual?

EdContradictory

07-09-2005, 08:02 AM

How do you think we will achieve gay marraige?
Government gets out of giving marriages and just does civil unions.

Do you think its enough to have it be a states issue or do we need to be successful at the federal level to achieve equality?
It's likely going to have to be a federal issue. Otherwise someone will lose their spousal rights in the move to another state.

Have you or Ian or anyoneelse ever publicly shamed someone, either here on the forum or in real life, into seeing the error of their ways on this issue?
I haven't shamed anyone one way or the other. But I also don't show a bigot or their belief system any respect.

There seems to be some belief that because someone's bigoted anti-homosexual beliefs are based in religion that those beliefs deserve some level of consideration or respect. That's bull.

People also used religion as a basis for their racist beliefs in the past. If someone's a racist because of their religious beliefs would you show their belief system respect? No. So why why are we supposed to be nice to the religious anti-homosexual bigots?

What do you think is the most effective way to eliminate homophobia in an individual?
They have to make the effort to get to know a homosexual.

Have you ever coddled a bigot into realizing the error of their ways?

I believe there are more than enough true, kind, fair Christians who are not bigoted towards homosexuals that we can get passed what we need to.

I also believe that the younger generations coming up don't see anything wrong with it at all and gay marriage is really just inevitable. I'd just rather see it sooner rather than later.

Boldido

07-09-2005, 08:55 AM

Government gets out of giving marriages and just does civil unions.

Can you name one government that has does this? No way is this going to happen. I would suggest that federal legislation, akin to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a couple of court decisions are a much more realistic option.

To garner support for a federal Civil Rights Bill, we need politicians of courage and vision. To get them we need to do two things. First, we need to show them that there is a great deal of support for gay rights in the straight community. We need to make it as safe as possible for them to support gay rights. We don't do this by simultaneously attacking Christianity. If we try to take the evangelicals head on, we will lose. Second, we need to get them to stay home. We don't do this by openly attacking their religion. We win when we go to the voting booths and they stay home. This past election showed the effectiveness of that strategy in spades. We need to make it work for us instead of against us.

It's likely going to have to be a federal issue. Otherwise someone will lose their spousal rights in the move to another state.

Agreed.

I haven't shamed anyone one way or the other. But I also don't show a bigot or their belief system any respect.

There seems to be some belief that because someone's bigoted anti-homosexual beliefs are based in religion that those beliefs deserve some level of consideration or respect. That's bull.

People also used religion as a basis for their racist beliefs in the past. If someone's a racist because of their religious beliefs would you show their belief system respect? No. So why why are we supposed to be nice to the religious anti-homosexual bigots?

While Christianity has seen a decline, Christians still make up for more than 77% of Americans. To intentionally disrespect their belief system will not accomplsh anything other than to make you and Ian feel better. You acknowledge the need to have the support of some christians to accomplish our goals, and while I agree that there are many Christians who are not bigoted towards gays, I don't think the number is nearly as high as we need it to be. To win more people over, we would be much more effective stressing the importance of a government that should treat everyone equally, rather than engaging in the vitriolic chest thumping that I have seen throughout this thread. If no one responded to Anthony or Spackling or Screwtape, we would succeed in eliminating any power their arguments might have. If we can control the scope of the debate or at least the focus, we win more than half the battle. The argument shouldn't be whether it should be okay for gays to marry. As long as the argument is framed in those terms, the Christians will keep winning, because there are more of them. If instead, the argument is changed to why should the government treat one group differently than another, then the battle becomes easier.

They have to make the effort to get to know a homosexual.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!! We are the ones looking for change, the burden is on us. You are correct that it is important for people who are opposed to gay marraige to interact with and socialize with gay people, but are wrong as to whose burden it is. The burden is on gays and gay friendly straights. If you are gay, it is important to be out so that people who know and like and respect you know that the person they know and like and respect is also homosexual. As straights, its important to talk openly about our gay friends and to invite as wide a spectrum of people as we can to our social functions. I know many people in Polk county that don't know any openly gay people, but by inviting them to my annual Halloween party I they have not choice but to interact with my gay friends. I can easily let people know about my best friend who is gay, or my trainer who is a lesbian. I can talk about going to gay days or to a gay pride dinner in St. Pete. By doing so, I let people know in no uncertain terms where I stand on the issue of gay rights and hopefully, make them a little more comfortable in supporting gay rights as well.

Have you ever coddled a bigot into realizing the error of their ways?
No, but I have made many people who have said stupid homophobic things in my presence think twice about their arguments without ever getting angry, losing my cool or personally attacking them in any way. I remember one of my old secretaries saying that guys kissing was gross. I talked with her for a good twenty minutes about why that wasn't true and choice vs. birth arguments. I honestly think it was the first time she was faced with someone who didn't think the same way she did. Did I change her opinion? No. If more and more people have the same conversation with her, will she change her point of view? Its possible, I did.

I believe there are more than enough true, kind, fair Christians who are not bigoted towards homosexuals that we can get passed what we need to.

I've already said that I don't think we have the numbers.

I also believe that the younger generations coming up don't see anything wrong with it at all and gay marriage is really just inevitable. I'd just rather see it sooner rather than later.

On this we are agreed as well. Although I understand that there is no shortage of anti-gay rights neo-cons on campuses these days.

anthony!

07-09-2005, 09:01 AM

I'm in New York. I'll buy YOU a beer (I don't drink).

Your on. PM me.

Adam Crocker

07-09-2005, 09:03 AM

My feelings on the matter are when a person states in a post that the act of homosexuality is a sin, it doesn't matter if you yell it, say it politely or put it on top of a tasty cake. When you do this it's in the category same as a racial slur.

They are not the same bloody thing. You seem to have a problem realizing that religious people do distinguish between the act (sin) and person themselves. I masturbate, but many Christians regard it as sinful. Does that mean they are dehumanizing me? Not really, and I've seen a few Christians on the Comm board speak up in favour of gay marriage even though they have stated it is a sin, partly because they believe that matters of faith may be different than matters of civil law.

But also partly because they regard themselves as sinners so they feel they shouldn't pass judgment on other sinners to the point of denying them their humanity the way the likes of Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and Fred Phelps do. And I while I've seen guys like Anthony! deny that marriage is necessarily a civil right or that there should be civil marriage I haven't seem them actually dehumanize gays. I have seen however them dig their heels in on acknowledging anything on the other side of the gay marriage debate because of your continual and unproductive badgering.

I am kind of sick of seeing this right-wing fed crap that more or less boils down to: if you are not tolerant of someone's intolerance, you are intolerant yourself.

See my above rant. I agree with Boldido's "right-wing crap" despite being a full-on, bleeding heart lefty because he's right. He's shown himself to be a far better debater and more tolerant person than most of the regular YABS posters in this thread no matter what side of the debate they fall on.

Boldido

07-09-2005, 09:13 AM

See my above rant. I agree with Boldido's "right-wing crap" despite being a full-on, bleeding heart lefty because he's right. He's shown himself to be a far better debater and more tolerant person than most of the regular YABS posters in this thread no matter what side of the debate they fall on.

Note to self: Add DJ Ghetto Fabulous Adam Flex to my Christmas card list. Thanks man, I appreciate the kind words.

I can see where Ed and Ian are coming from, and feel many of the same things myself, but in the long run, I think its counterproductive to the overall good.

Of all the people I know who are getting pimped by no gay marraige, I think Tom and Desi are getting it worst of all. If he asks not to engage in vitriolic attacks in these debates and in this cause, who the hell are we to argue otherwise?

Adam Crocker

07-09-2005, 09:19 AM

You acknowledge the need to have the support of some christians to accomplish our goals, and while I agree that there are many Christians who are not bigoted towards gays, I don't think the number is nearly as high as we need it to be. To win more people over, we would be much more effective stressing the importance of a government that should treat everyone equally, rather than engaging in the vitriolic chest thumping that I have seen throughout this thread. If no one responded to Anthony or Spackling or Screwtape, we would succeed in eliminating any power their arguments might have. If we can control the scope of the debate or at least the focus, we win more than half the battle. The argument shouldn't be whether it should be okay for gays to marry. As long as the argument is framed in those terms, the Christians will keep winning, because there are more of them. If instead, the argument is changed to why should the government treat one group differently than another, then the battle becomes easier.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!! We are the ones looking for change, the burden is on us. You are correct that it is important for people who are opposed to gay marraige to interact with and socialize with gay people, but are wrong as to whose burden it is. The burden is on gays and gay friendly straights.

[...]

No, but I have made many people who have said stupid homophobic things in my presence think twice about their arguments without ever getting angry, losing my cool or personally attacking them in any way.

I agree with you completely. All well said.

anthony!

07-09-2005, 09:32 AM

Dude, as an argument against equal rights that's unbelievably and dismally lame.

You're right. I think the value of treating people equally trumps the value of treating some people worse than others because they were born different.

I'm intolerant of intolerance. I'm bigoted against bigoted people. I don't know how I'll ever be able to live with myself.

I'd say letting everyone marry whatever willing partner they wish - or marry nobody at all, if they choose - would be pretty much "same playing field."

As far as coming up with something nobody will object to, that's pretty much impossible, so it's not worth even considering.

It's not like all religious folk even have a problem with gay marriage, so you can't even claim much any sort of universality to your "group" other than "this group of guys who gets offended when everyone doesn't want to do what we tell them they should do."

But it is possible to come to a rationale solution that no one likes, but still gives everyone what they want. Without federal marriage, NO one gets recognized as "married" in the eyes of the government.

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

If government is really interested in treating its citizens equally and not endorsing any one particular religion or philosophy it should pull itself out of the argument all together. By accepting divorce, rejecting polygamy, accepting gay marriage— it is effectively endorsing one ideology's definition of marriage over another. That's not equal. The mere fact that we seek endorsement and validation from our government for any matter of individual consequence throws true equality into question, IMHO.

This has nothing to do with me being Catholic. Our collective views on marriage are so many light years away from the Church's it was pointless to legally argue it even a few hundred years ago or so. As soon as divorce became possible, the Catholic view on marriage was effectively destroyed. I don't like it one bit, but there you have it.

It should be an either/or thing. Either you define marriage as "SOMETHING" and then keep it, enforce it, and (most importantly) consistently never CHANGE it...or, you say marriage is "NOTHING" and don't endorse any meaning, because so many make up their own definitions in their mind. Instead, we are once again going for a relative and fuzzy approach, in which people are trying to change and redefine marriage to match their own personal ideology— be it secular or religious. That's horseshit and hypocritical— as has always been the pissing contest between the two beliefs.

Spack is right— it should never have come to a vote. I wouldn't expect or ask people to contradict their own conscience and second guess themselves in the name of a constantly in flux belief system. Government should step in and end this debate permanently, instead of adding more fuel to the fire. It clearly has the power to do so, and it saddens me that taking the law away from marriage is something more people don't seriously consider. It's only fair.

TCJohnson

07-09-2005, 09:35 AM

Government gets out of giving marriages and just does civil unions.

In a perfect world this is an ideal solution. This ain't a perfect world, and this won't happen in a hundred years. Too much would have to change before this happens.

anthony!

07-09-2005, 09:37 AM

In a perfect world this is an ideal solution. This ain't a perfect world, and this won't happen in a hundred years. Too much would have to change before this happens.

No it isn't a perfect world, but there is an opportunity here to teach both sides, and the citizenry— what treating people EQUALLY really looks like.

Noah Johnson

07-09-2005, 10:10 AM

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

If government is really interested in treating its citizens equally and not endorsing any one particular religion or philosophy it should pull itself out of the argument all together. By accepting divorce, rejecting polygamy, accepting gay marriage— it is effectively endorsing one ideology's definition of marriage over another. That's not equal.

You're making a tremendous leap here, equating any and all ideology with religion. Which is not how the law works.

Look, the primary arguments against gay marriage are, when you boil them down, religiously based. Which is fine, you get to have that opinion, but according to the rules our government has set, you don't get to have that opinion enshrined in law, because religion does not set public policy in this country. That kind of sucks for you, yeah, but there are really good reasons for that rule.

Our position, however, is that equality under the law means exactly that. This is calling for our government to actually play by the rules it set for itself. It is not based in religion, it is based in respect for the laws and principles of our nation. Equal rights is a vital ideal of this country, and while we've never lived up to it as well as we might have, we must always strive to do better.

These two positions are not the same, under the law. According to the exact part of the First Amendment you quoted, your position has a much, much weaker legal standing than ours. Mind you, I also think your position is morally wrong, but as regards the law, that's actually beside the point.

anthony!

07-09-2005, 10:33 AM

You're making a tremendous leap here, equating any and all ideology with religion. Which is not how the law works.

Look, the primary arguments against gay marriage are, when you boil them down, religiously based. Which is fine, you get to have that opinion, but according to the rules our government has set, you don't get to have that opinion enshrined in law, because religion does not set public policy in this country. That kind of sucks for you, yeah, but there are really good reasons for that rule.

Our position, however, is that equality under the law means exactly that. This is calling for our government to actually play by the rules it set for itself. It is not based in religion, it is based in respect for the laws and principles of our nation. Equal rights is a vital ideal of this country, and while we've never lived up to it as well as we might have, we must always strive to do better.

These two positions are not the same, under the law. According to the exact part of the First Amendment you quoted, your position has a much, much weaker legal standing than ours. Mind you, I also think your position is morally wrong, but as regards the law, that's actually beside the point.

I'd strongly disagree. The amendment's goals are geared to prevent government from endorsing on religion over another. Whether you want to call it religion or ideolgy— its still government endorsement over a matter of vast cultural importance.

Mind you, I'm not advocating my specific opinion to be codified into law. I'm advocating reasonable solution that would respect the law, but not do broad damage to the various religions and their place in the culture.

Pixies Chick

07-09-2005, 10:42 AM

You're making a tremendous leap here, equating any and all ideology with religion. Which is not how the law works...

That's exactly right. I think it's folly to assume that religion is translatable directly into law, or that law comes from ideology. Law also comes from practical realities, which ideology and religion may or may not address.

Marriage is not just a religious institution. It's also a cultural one, and a practical arrangement that facilitates community and government actions. For example, when gay or straight people marry, it makes it clear who has custody, inheritance, property rights, and so on. So what is the point of asking the state for a separate and equal civil arrangement that will be treated by society in every respect equivalent to marriage, but isn't marriage?

As someone who had a civil ceremony, I will never agree to call my marriage something other than a marriage.

Jared_Humpherys

07-09-2005, 10:53 AM

J Dog

07-09-2005, 11:19 AM

I think Indiana is going to ban it.

But, although I am for gay rights, I'm, uh... sorta... against... marriage.

I don't know why, but...

The 666th Post. I'm freaked out.

Adam Crocker

07-09-2005, 12:16 PM

The 666th Post. I'm freaked out.

ZOINKS SCOOB! :eek:

anthony!

07-09-2005, 12:16 PM

anthony!, you're making a leap in judgement here that I just can't understand. How is government giving gays the same civil rights as everyone else in violation of your faith? Remember, church and state are seperate. You're claiming that marriage has to be legitimized by the church in order to have those rights bestowed on the married couple, and that ignoring that is to take away the church's rights.

Church and state are separate, but the government still has a responsibility to protect its citizenry, whether they be religious or athiest or whatever. By taking one side of the argument, government does harm to religion and its citizens therein, IMHO.

My argument isn't in regards to whether the church (or any church) legitimizes a marriage. My argument is to take government legitimization out of the equation and let individual faiths (or non-faiths) act on their own personal conviction. Would that not solve the issue for gay people and yet leave all the innumerable opinions on marriage left to the faiths? Seems like a fair compromise, as opposed to attacking the broadly believed in parameters of marriage, not to mention a sacrement under Catholicism.

That doesn't make sense. Protecting others from your evangelical attempts to govern their lives does not violate your personal rights. You have the right to practice your own religion, true, but to somehow insist that because your faith is evangelical in nature that you get to impose on the rights of others, and to stop that is against your rights, is absurd. I hate having to make this comparison, but that's like saying that a Muslim extremist has the right to kill Americans because a twisting of his faith says it's okay. If we stop the extremist from blowing himself up and killing innocents, by your rules, aren't we violating his religious freedom?

Did you read my earlier posts? I don't seek to govern other peoples lives. People need to come to their own (hopefully) educated opinions.

And just to clarify: Catholics evangelize, but they aren't evangelical. There's a difference between evangelizing and forcing. Evangelizing is intended to convert and persuade, not rule. I'm not even a big fan of the word. This country has pretty much tainted it.

I don't give a rat's rosy rear end whether or not we call it marriage or try to have it legitimized by the church: The gays deserve the same rights as straights do. Call it Civil Unions. Hell, call it "Happy Fun Rainbow Life Bond" for all I care, but let them have their civil rights.

Giving gays the right to marry is no more a violation of a church's rights than interracial marriage is a violation of the KKK's.

So in one post you've compared the Church to the KKK and Muslim fundamentalists. Thanks. Incidently, both the KKK and Muslim fundamentalists would happily kill Catholics. I don't see the Church telling people to go gay bash.

Gay CITIZENS deserve the same "rights" as straight CITIZENS do, but in such a way that isn't at a cultural cost. Thats what I'm advocating. If your going to allow gays to "marry" it shouldn't come at a cost. That cost will be felt in the religions, as people continue to further "worship" law and popular opinion over the teaching of their own faith. Allowing gay marriage in my view does as much harm as does banning it. Its an endorsement of one view over the other, when the law out to be indifferent to both the self-proclaimed "needs" of gay people and the "needs" of religions.

I want to see everyone on the same legal playing field too, but without wounding one group over another.

Thats why I've essentially been saying either you allow EVERYONE to marry, or you allow NO one to marry. Allowing everyone to marry in my view does unfair, unnecesarry (though perhaps unintentional) harm to religion. On the other hand, no one getting "married" but instead creating simple contracts between themselves would afford gay people the legal protections and privelages they seek without culturally confronting religion.

I'm not debating WHETHER citizens should be equal under the law, I'm arguing for a safer, smoother, less confrontational way to go about it.

Jared_Humpherys

07-09-2005, 12:46 PM

I say the KKK analogy still stands, as they are opposed to interracial marriages for religious reasons. I never said the KKK and Catholicism were the same(though I probably could have just stuck with the fact that up until a few decades ago, churches were strongly against interracial marriages, too). The Muslim extremist example may have been a bit heavy-handed; if so, I apologize. However, I was trying to apply the blanket statements you made considering religious freedom to something you probably wouldn't find yourself agreeing with.

However, I still have trouble with your reasoning on some things. You're implying that by making a decision on this, the government would be seen to endorse a certain set of beliefs. Why? It's the government, and they are seperate from the church. The very fact that we have "under God," "in God we trust," and the Ten Commandments on display in public office are far more of an endorsement for a faith than allowing gays the right to marry would be. Allowing interracial marriage was not a faith-endorsing decision, and neither was banning polygamy(my dad is Mormon. Though Mormons haven't had ploygamy in a lllllllooooonnnnnggg time, I've been told that the ban was done for legal reasons: too many legal complications involved).

Let them have their Civil Rights. It won't violate the sanctity of hetero marriages. After all, many hetero weddings are done in churches, under the eyes of God, and that's something that the government can't touch.

JerrBear81

07-09-2005, 01:23 PM

Jeff Brady

07-09-2005, 01:28 PM

Gay CITIZENS deserve the same "rights" as straight CITIZENS do, but in such a way that isn't at a cultural cost. Thats what I'm advocating. If your going to allow gays to "marry" it shouldn't come at a cost. That cost will be felt in the religions, as people continue to further "worship" law and popular opinion over the teaching of their own faith. Allowing gay marriage in my view does as much harm as does banning it. Its an endorsement of one view over the other, when the law out to be indifferent to both the self-proclaimed "needs" of gay people and the "needs" of religions.

I don't understand. What is the cost to religion?

Boldido

07-09-2005, 01:39 PM

I don't understand. What is the cost to religion?

Don't ask. The answer is that there isn't one. Anthony and Spackling and others will say ad nauseum that it does harm, but are not able to show one single concrete example.

They don't seek constituional amendments prohibiting divorce, which does much more damage to the instituion of marraige than gay marraige ever could.

They don't seek criminal punishment for extramarital relationships, which also do far more damage than gay marraige could.

They just spout the party line over and over and over again.

Ignore their ignorance and answer this question instead: When was the last time you talked to someone you thought was a homophobe? Did the topic of homosexuality come up? How did you handle it?

How are you part of the solution?

Pixies Chick

07-09-2005, 02:12 PM

I can use this same argument for why not giving gays marriage rights does harm to the US's citizens.

My view on it is this:

People who are in love tend to want to make sure that if anything happens to them, that the person/s (Family counts) they love are well taken care of. Government has tied certain rights to marriage in such a way that you won't need to spend money to make sure your loved one is taken care of due to your untimely death.

A lawyer friend of mine online told me that in order for gays to get the same benefits that married straight people get without marriage, they could be spending up to 20,000 dollars worth of beauracracies. And still this stuff can be contested by a family trying to win a "moral victory". Yet one term, recognized by the government, called marriage makes it much easier, much less costly, and much harder for some family to contest. How is that fair and equal rights?

This is very, VERY important.

But first - an analogy to disprove that this has to do with religious prejudice:

I'm an environmentalist at heart. Computer screens are full of toxic chemicals, and they're clogging up landfills. I could suggest we establish a bureaucratic system by which each person is only allowed to buy one computer screen every five years. Gonna happen? Nope. People are free to spend their money on whatever they want in America, unless it's illegal, and computers are not illegal.

So if I go around ranting and raving that the people who won't let me set up rationing boards and won't let me monitor store purchases are against the environment, who's gonna believe that? It's a bad idea, and that's why it would fail. It's not how we do things in America.

Now, if I decide that it is a bad idea, does that mean that I am now turning my back on the environment? No - a bad idea isn't a principle - it's a bad idea. To stand up for the principle, I have to drop the bad idea and come up with a better one.

So those who want the U.S. to be in the business of keeping gays from marrying or adopting, or whatever else they might do that I'm sure is none of my business, there's a question of why it is that the business of government should be that instead of something else.

We are at war, for heaven's sake. Why should our resources be devoted to establishing a duplicate system of marriage instead of a system for protecting our ports?

Jared_Humpherys

07-09-2005, 02:25 PM

We are at war, for heaven's sake. Why should our resources be devoted to establishing a duplicate system of marriage instead of a system for protecting our ports?

As Lewis Black said:

"You're getting upset about gays being married? After 9/11? Look, on the list of things we have to wrry about now, Gay marriage is on page 6, after 'Are we eating too much garlic as a people?'"

JerrBear81

07-09-2005, 03:07 PM

This is very, VERY important.

But first - an analogy to disprove that this has to do with religious prejudice:

I'm an environmentalist at heart. Computer screens are full of toxic chemicals, and they're clogging up landfills. I could suggest we establish a bureaucratic system by which each person is only allowed to buy one computer screen every five years. Gonna happen? Nope. People are free to spend their money on whatever they want in America, unless it's illegal, and computers are not illegal.

So if I go around ranting and raving that the people who won't let me set up rationing boards and won't let me monitor store purchases are against the environment, who's gonna believe that? It's a bad idea, and that's why it would fail. It's not how we do things in America.

Now, if I decide that it is a bad idea, does that mean that I am now turning my back on the environment? No - a bad idea isn't a principle - it's a bad idea. To stand up for the principle, I have to drop the bad idea and come up with a better one.

So those who want the U.S. to be in the business of keeping gays from marrying or adopting, or whatever else they might do that I'm sure is none of my business, there's a question of why it is that the business of government should be that instead of something else.

We are at war, for heaven's sake. Why should our resources be devoted to establishing a duplicate system of marriage instead of a system for protecting our ports?

I don't think people should give up because we are at war. Besides that, there is still life back here at the US. Should that be ignored because we're at war?

On a sidenote cause it's on my mind: let's not forget that you can't be openly gay in the military. God forbid we make soldiers uncomfortable with the idea that they're serving with gays during a time of war!

anthony!

07-09-2005, 03:21 PM

Don't ask. The answer is that there isn't one. Anthony and Spackling and others will say ad nauseum that it does harm, but are not able to show one single concrete example.

They don't seek constituional amendments prohibiting divorce, which does much more damage to the instituion of marraige than gay marraige ever could.

I'd love a constitutional admendment getting rid of divorce. If anything I'd rather see that happen than worry and fight over gay marriage.

They don't seek criminal punishment for extramarital relationships, which also do far more damage than gay marraige could.

Yes, but I don't seek the criminalization of all forms of sexual activity outside of church teaching. People have their free will, and they're more than welcome to take their chances in the bedroom. Its just not practical to have a sex police. Kind of overkill anyhow.

They just spout the party line over and over and over again.

Bollocks. I don't know what party line your talking about. If I were a full fledged Republican, I wouldn't be talking about getting rid of marriage all together. I'd be using ridiculous phrases like "protecting the family" or whatever.

Ignore their ignorance and answer this question instead: When was the last time you talked to someone you thought was a homophobe? Did the topic of homosexuality come up? How did you handle it?

How are you part of the solution?

Is their a point to that?

Tom

07-09-2005, 03:35 PM

I'd love a constitutional admendment getting rid of divorce.
Jesus Christ, that's scary as hell.

anthony!

07-09-2005, 03:36 PM

I don't understand. What is the cost to religion?

In the most simple of terms: people, Catholics included, will believe the law as "truth" before they believe the church. It will reinforce relative, individualistic notions of what marriage is, contrary to the teaching of the church. Don't like the line the church feeds you, well who cares!... the law says your right. That does damage to our teaching, to our ability to carry our message, not to mention keeping the followers we have.

Interestingly, as much fighting as their is on this issue— its only indicative of a deeper problem. We Catholics have failed to educate not just non-Catholics, but our own. We're the ones who've ceded so much intellectual ground to relativism in the last hundred years or so. When so many Catholics don't even know what transubstantiation is or believe in it, you really have to beat your head against a wall and do a bit of soul searching.

At least from my point of view, losing the legal battle over gay marriage could actually have some unforseen benefits for the church. Perhaps it will finally put pressure on Catholicism to really get nitty gritty with education and teaching. My Sunday school education blew chunks big time— and it wasn't until I did the heavy lifting and met people like myself did I come to be more supportive of the Catholic faith. Instead of learning about concepts like papal infalibility and the saints I was holding hands and going to inane retreats. Ugh.

PatrickG

07-09-2005, 03:39 PM

If people look for anything approximating truth (much less Truth) from their government, we're all doomed.

Not just speaking of THIS government in the U.S. I mean any kind of government.

anthony!

07-09-2005, 03:44 PM

If people look for anything approximating truth (much less Truth) from their government, we're all doomed.

Not just speaking of THIS government in the U.S. I mean any kind of government.

No shit. We do live in a world where people buy anything Oprah tells them to after all...

We constantly allow other forces to cloud our vision. TV, art, law, literature, marketing, money, technology etc. all can be used to drive us unintentionally down destructive paths. Its just par for the course in life.

Jared_Humpherys

07-09-2005, 03:49 PM

JerrBear81

07-09-2005, 03:51 PM

In the most simple of terms: people, Catholics included, will believe the law as "truth" before they believe the church. It will reinforce relative, individualistic notions of what marriage is, contrary to the teaching of the church. Don't like the line the church feeds you, well who cares!... the law says your right. That does damage to our teaching, to our ability to carry our message, not to mention keeping the followers we have.

Interestingly, as much fighting as their is on this issue— its only indicative of a deeper problem. We Catholics have failed to educate not just non-Catholics, but our own. We're the ones who've ceded so much intellectual ground to relativism in the last hundred years or so. When so many Catholics don't even know what transubstantiation is or believe in it, you really have to beat your head against a wall and do a bit of soul searching.

At least from my point of view, losing the legal battle over gay marriage could actually have some unforseen benefits for the church. Perhaps it will finally put pressure on Catholicism to really get nitty gritty with education and teaching. My Sunday school education blew chunks big time— and it wasn't until I did the heavy lifting and met people like myself did I come to be more supportive of the Catholic faith. Instead of learning about concepts like papal infalibility and the saints I was holding hands and going to inane retreats. Ugh.

Yea, so if we keep things the way they are now, without anything being TRULY equal in rights, how is that being fair to those of us who want equal rights?

PatrickG

07-09-2005, 03:51 PM

At least from my point of view, losing the legal battle over gay marriage could actually have some unforseen benefits for the church. Perhaps it will finally put pressure on Catholicism to really get nitty gritty with education and teaching. My Sunday school education blew chunks big time— and it wasn't until I did the heavy lifting and met people like myself did I come to be more supportive of the Catholic faith. Instead of learning about concepts like papal infalibility and the saints I was holding hands and going to inane retreats. Ugh.

I'm not so sure there was anything wrong with your church from that description.

Concepts like papal infalibility, original sin, the lives of the saints, calvinism, predestination, pre-millenialism, post-millenialism, transubstantiation...

I don't think they have any place in Christianity.

This isn't an attack on Catholics or Orthodox who are well known for their detailed approaches. I think the protestants do it to.

They act as lawyers, interpreting their holy text as a book of law until they've written volumes upon volumes of additional code.

Heck, Paul was doing it in the first century.

I find any take that doesn't emphasize the words of Jesus FIRST (marked in handy red letters in many editions) to be rebelling against the spirit of Christianity.

It's like saying you love Shakespeare but what you really love are Eliot and Goethe's critiques.

At some point, you have to get a machete and chop your way back to where it began or you're something else entirely.

Past the protestant theologians, past the bishops, past the popes, until it's just you and God.

I think that's true of any religion.

But then, I don't believe in intercessors so that puts me at odds with just about everybody, doesn't it?

anthony!

07-09-2005, 04:06 PM

Concepts like papal infalibility, original sin, the lives of the saints, calvinism, predestination, pre-millenialism, post-millenialism, transubstantiation...

I don't think they have any place in Christianity.

That's a typically western view, to be honest...your missing a lot of the point. Original sin, papal infalibility and transubstantiation are pretty distinct and necessary to Catholicsm. Without it, no Catholic faith. There's no point. Its just warm and fuzzy notions. There's a lot of reason and rationale behind those concepts you mentioned that strike at the heart of what makes the church actually work.

Predestination, pre-millenialism, post-millenialism aren't Catholic— so its pretty useless for me to add 2 cents.

anthony!

07-09-2005, 04:16 PM

So what? The government gives you the right to practice your religion. If you can't keep your own followers, tough. You have the right to practice, preach, have your holidays, and spread pamphlets. The government has the prerogative to assign rights to its citizens without the church's say-so.

Sounds like you want special treatment to me, and that ain't Kosher.

Which would be why I said what I said in a latter post.

Interesting you should say that its the government's perogative to assign rights...I guess that throws out the notion that gay marriage is something people MUST have, by your logic. Hmmmm...

I can't help but notice that so many people I meet treat religion as if its a club or something you just sign up for...to me its as inherent and necessarry to my personhood as skin color, ethnicity and shit....even sexual orientation. It hurts to see so many people walk away so seemingly careless...

PatrickG

07-09-2005, 04:18 PM

I suppose.

I'm not terribly certain why there need to be branches of Christianity anyway.

I mean, the real importance of those concepts, as you explain it, seems to be to separate Catholics from the other branches.

And I know Baptists who have said the same thing about Original Sin, Presbyterians who've said the same thing about predetermination, etc.

Problem is, that's a brand marketing approach.

Nobody ever says they're in favor of presdestination being taught because it's essential to them being right. I don't know anybody who flat out says that people will go to Hell for being a post-millenialist no matter how heated the debate may get.

So if it's about maintaining your distinction, why?

Or IS it about being right? Because if you believe that someone cannot be a Christian without it, then I see how it's worth fighting for.

But otherwise, it just seems like a lot of people who should bloody well put aside their differences but who are too busy beating the hell out of eachother to stop for a minute and remember that there are people who disagree them on more substansive issues in the world who maybe, just maybe, a coalition could be able to persuade more or care for better.

Jared_Humpherys

07-09-2005, 04:22 PM

Which would be why I said what I said in a latter post.

Interesting you should say that its the government's perogative to assign rights...I guess that throws out the notion that gay marriage is something people MUST have, by your logic. Hmmmm...

You're forgetting the function of government: to serve all the people it represents. My statement only acknowledged that it is the government's job to legitimize rights, not the church(and if the government fails, it is the citizen's perogative to rebel and initiate a new government).

So actually, they all still must have those rights. You misunderstood me.

PatrickG

07-09-2005, 04:31 PM

See, I think the government exists to recognize rights and when it fails to do so, people should refuse to recognize the government.

That's why the government must recognize rights -- because people will break away, expatriate or rebel if it doesn't.

Tom

07-09-2005, 04:32 PM

I can't help but notice that so many people I meet treat religion as if its a club or something you just sign up for...to me its as inherent and necessarry to my personhood as skin color, ethnicity and shit....even sexual orientation. It hurts to see so many people walk away so seemingly careless...The reason so many people see it that way is because unlike race, ethnicity or even sexual orientation, everyone knows someone (usually a lot of someones) who have walked away from their religion or changed their religion.

You can walk away. I'm not suggesting you should, but I'll always point out that you can.

anthony!

07-09-2005, 04:42 PM

The reason so many people see it that way is because unlike race, ethnicity or even sexual orientation, everyone knows someone (usually a lot of someones) who have walked away from their religion or changed their religion.

You can walk away. I'm not suggesting you should, but I'll always point out that you can.

A gay person CAN have sex with a woman, even though that wouldn't change their orientation.

A Catholic person CAN deny the church, but that wouldn't stop the church from being what it is and technically it wouldn't stop them from being Catholic.

There are many people much smarter than me who could more properly express it, I'm sure. But then, after today's beat down— whats the point?

Jared_Humpherys

07-09-2005, 04:46 PM

Tom

07-09-2005, 04:49 PM

A gay person CAN have sex with a woman, even though that wouldn't change their orientation.

A Catholic person CAN deny the church, but that wouldn't stop the church from being what it is and technically it wouldn't stop them from being Catholic.Your analogy makes no sense. A gay person can have straight sex but they'll still be gay. A Catholic can walk away from the church but they'll still be -- no, wait. They won't be a Catholic anymore. That's the point.
There are many people much smarter than me who could more properly express it, I'm sure. But then, after today's beat down— whats the point?Y'know, I expressed earlier my desire not to see insults and nastiness on this thread but I gotta say, Anthony: boo-frikken-hoo. You keep choosing to come back to this thread. If you don't like the conversation, stay out of it. Constantly whining about your "beat downs" in a thread where I have been compared to rapists, murders, pedophiles, alcoholics and drug abusers dozens of times makes you look, frankly, a little ridiculous.

anthony!

07-09-2005, 04:51 PM

You're forgetting the function of government: to serve all the people it represents. My statement only acknowledged that it is the government's job to legitimize rights, not the church(and if the government fails, it is the citizen's perogative to rebel and initiate a new government).

So actually, they all still must have those rights. You misunderstood me.

Assuming that the rights your bemoaning over are true and of a true value. I don't think thats necessarilly the case here. People regularly fight over something as inane as government-sanctioned butt sex, however I've yet to see people truly get up in arms and "rebel" over easily conceivable rights to food, housing, medical care, work,education and other matters of social justice. But it does fit with the irrational growing sense of entitlement more and more citizens seem to have...

JerrBear81

07-09-2005, 04:52 PM

anthony!

07-09-2005, 04:52 PM

Your analogy makes no sense. A gay person can have straight sex but they'll still be gay. A Catholic can walk away from the church but they'll still be -- no, wait. They won't be a Catholic anymore. That's the point.

Not in the eyes of the Church. Even those who are excommunicated are only seen as "outside" the church.

JerrBear81

07-09-2005, 04:53 PM

Assuming that the rights your bemoaning over are true and of a true value. I don't think thats necessarilly the case here. People regularly fight over something as inane as government-sanctioned butt sex, however I've yet to see people truly get up in arms and "rebel" over easily conceivable rights to food, housing, medical care, work,education and other matters of social justice. But it does fit with the irrational growing sense of entitlement more and more citizens seem to have...

I guess we should just ignore the preamble of the Constitution then :rolleyes:

Tom

07-09-2005, 04:54 PM

Not in the eyes of the Church. Even those who are excommunicated are only seen as "outside" the church.
You're still not making any sense. It doesn't matter what the church thinks. If someone wants to walk away from the church, THEY CAN. I did. And because I did, it simply doesn't matter what the church thinks.

anthony!

07-09-2005, 04:55 PM

Y'know, I expressed earlier my desire not to see insults and nastiness on this thread but I gotta say, Anthony: boo-frikken-hoo. You keep choosing to come back to this thread. If you don't like the conversation, stay out of it. Constantly whining about your "beat downs" in a thread where I have been compared to rapists, murders, pedophiles, alcoholics and drug abusers dozens of times makes you look, frankly, a little ridiculous.

Not by me.

Similarly though, Catholics have also been portrayed as rapists, murderers, pedophiles and alcoholics...not sure about the drug abusing though...

And by the by, I've logged one "whine". First and last, I can assure you.

JerrBear81

07-09-2005, 04:55 PM

Tom

07-09-2005, 05:02 PM

Not by me.I didn't say it was.
Similarly though, Catholics have also been portrayed as rapists, murderers, pedophiles and alcoholics...not sure about the drug abusing though...And that would be a good point to make - IF I WAS ACTUALLY COMPLAINING ABOUT IT LIKE YOU WERE.
And by the by, I've logged one "whine". First and last, I can assure you.I beg (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?p=1575907#post1575907) to (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?p=1580209#post1580209) differ. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?p=1538772#post1538772)

Samurai

07-09-2005, 05:03 PM

A gay person CAN have sex with a woman, even though that wouldn't change their orientation.

A Catholic person CAN deny the church, but that wouldn't stop the church from being what it is and technically it wouldn't stop them from being Catholic.

There are many people much smarter than me who could more properly express it, I'm sure. But then, after today's beat down— whats the point?
I'll try...

To many people, their religion isn't just something they were dragged to 3 or 4 times a tear on holidays as a kid... it's a core part of their personal beliefs, the basis for much of their worldview and morality. Changing or dropping their religion would require a massive alteration of their entire worldview, and doing that is frankly unrealistic.

Could one of the Atheists here suddenly wake up tomorrow and decide to become a truly devout believer in and follower of a religion? Maybe you could fake it a while, but I mean in your heart, you really believe and have faith? I doubt it, and if you did, it would shift your whole paradigm. I know I couldn't do it...

So telling a person like that to not vote on anything colored by their religion is a fallacy... their moral basis and worldview is shaped by their religion, just as yours are shaped by whatever secular morality or philosophy you follow.

Let's say your main philosophical belief is the Golden Rule... do unto others as you'd have done to you. Now imagine everyone complained that it should be illegal to vote on any policy due to your belief in that rule, and that you should stop using it as a basis for determining right from wrong when you vote because not everyone agrees with it, and if you vote for things that reflect your belief in the Golden Rule, you are effectively forcing your philosophy on others, who are non-believers. Could you or would you just stop it? What if you believe the Golden Rule is so perfectly logical and good that really, everyone ought to live by it, or at least respect it? If you did give in, could you really, in your mind and heart, seperate it from the rest of your beliefs and reliably say "this vote has nothing at all to do with my belief in the Golden Rule", or would it be too intertwined with your core views of the world to be seperable?

Hope this description is appropriate Anthony... add or change stuff if you want.

anthony!

07-09-2005, 05:04 PM

You're still not making any sense. It doesn't matter what the church thinks. If someone wants to walk away from the church, THEY CAN. I did. And because I did, it simply doesn't matter what the church thinks.

It does matter what the church thinks, given the position and nature of the church. You can turn your back on it, deny it or whatever and that wouldn't change how the church would still see you.

Heck, all 1 billion Catholics could walk away— and their would still be a church. The whole point of Catholicism is the establishment of a church on earth that spans time and space as mediator between God and humans.

I've gotta add that is not my intention to insult anybody or change anybody or whatever. It just really really hacks me off when so many go on the warpath and bash something either a.) I care deeply about and b.) they don't truly understand.

Tom

07-09-2005, 05:06 PM

It does matter what the church thinks, given the position and nature of the church. You can turn your back on it, deny it or whatever and that wouldn't change how the church would still see you.

Heck, all 1 billion Catholics could walk away— and their would still be a church. The whole point of Catholicism is the establishment of a church on earth that spans time and space as mediator between God and humans.

I've gotta add that is not my intention to insult anybody or change anybody or whatever. It just really really hacks me off when so many go on the warpath and bash something either a.) I care deeply about and b.) they don't truly understand.
*thumpthumpthump*

I have to believe at this point that you're being deliberately obtuse but I'll type slowly this time:

UNLIKE RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION, ONE CAN WALK AWAY FROM THEIR RELIGION. HOW DO I KNOW THIS? BECAUSE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HAVE DONE SO.

anthony!

07-09-2005, 05:06 PM

I beg (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?p=1575907#post1575907) to (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?p=1580209#post1580209) differ. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?p=1538772#post1538772)

fist link: a fact

second link: hmmm...probably a poke at Kramer, who was poking at Screwtape....I shall call this a half joke/half defense of someone I respect

third link: a joke

Tom

07-09-2005, 05:07 PM

fist link: a fact

second link: hmmm...probably a poke at Kramer, who was poking at Screwtape....I shall call this a half joke/half defense of someone I respect

third link: a joke
Oh come on. You're just being argumentative for the sake of it at this point.

Spike-X

07-09-2005, 05:09 PM

Church and state are separate, but the government still has a responsibility to protect its citizenry, whether they be religious or athiest or whatever. By taking one side of the argument, government does harm to religion and its citizens therein, IMHO.

I humbly disagree. I fail to see how letting same-sex couples marry does any harm to your religion or the practice thereof.

My argument isn't in regards to whether the church (or any church) legitimizes a marriage. My argument is to take government legitimization out of the equation and let individual faiths (or non-faiths) act on their own personal conviction.

So basically, if you can't have it all to yourselves, nobody can have it? That's rather immature and mean-spirited, don't you think?

Gay CITIZENS deserve the same "rights" as straight CITIZENS do, but in such a way that isn't at a cultural cost.

The only cultural "cost" that I can see here is your own particular religion's opinion no longer being backed up by the weight of the law.

There's always a "cultural cost" that happens when people are granted equal rights. Black people are no longer regarded as property, as inferior. Women are no longer regarded as unfit to have a say in the running of the country they live in. Those were huge culture shocks at the time. Does that mean it shouldn't have happened?

Thats what I'm advocating. If your going to allow gays to "marry" it shouldn't come at a cost. That cost will be felt in the religions, as people continue to further "worship" law and popular opinion over the teaching of their own faith.

If a person's faith can be altered by one law changing, I would suggest that it really wasn't that strong to begin with.

It's interesting how the so-called "defenders of marriage" suggest such a huge change - that is, removing the state recognition of marriage altogether - in order to continue to hvae their own particular prejudices reinforced. It would seem to me that what you are proposing would result in a much larger change in the definition of marriage than simply allowing same-sex couples to marry.

anthony!

07-09-2005, 05:12 PM

Oh come on. You're just being argumentative for the sake of it at this point.

No really! Thats what it was! :confused:

Samurai

07-09-2005, 05:13 PM

*thumpthumpthump*

I have to believe at this point that you're being deliberately obtuse but I'll type slowly this time:

UNLIKE RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION, ONE CAN WALK AWAY FROM THEIR RELIGION. HOW DO I KNOW THIS? BECAUSE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HAVE DONE SO.
For one of 2 reasons: either their religion never really mattered much in the 1st place (dragged to church twice a year as a kid, Easter and Christmas, that's it) or they underwent a big change in their worldview and philosophy. (Note: switching to a slightly different denomination of the same religion doesn't count here... that's fine-tuning their beliefs and choice of sect, not giving up their religion.)

Tom

07-09-2005, 05:13 PM

Spike-X

07-09-2005, 05:15 PM

Tom

07-09-2005, 05:15 PM

For one of 2 reasons: either their religion never really mattered much in the 1st place (dragged to church twice a year as a kid, Easter and Christmas, that's it) or they underwent a big change in their worldview and philosophy. (Note: switching to a slightly different denomination of the same religion doesn't count here... that's fine-tuning their beliefs and choice of sect, not giving up their religion.)
Sam, add every qualifier you'd like, it still doesn't change my point that (I'll try all bold this time) UNLIKE RACE, ETHNICITY, OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION, PEOPLE CAN WALK AWAY FROM THEIR RELIGION.

anthony!

07-09-2005, 05:16 PM

*thumpthumpthump*

I have to believe at this point that you're being deliberately obtuse but I'll type slowly this time:

UNLIKE RACE, ETHNICITY OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION, ONE CAN WALK AWAY FROM THEIR RELIGION. HOW DO I KNOW THIS? BECAUSE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HAVE DONE SO.

Still wouldn't change the truth, thats my whole point.

Millions of people walking over to a tree and calling it a rock wouldn't make it so.

Look I don't want to get circular with this. We both strongly disagree on the nature of law, natural law, rights, sex, relgion, etc. I respect that you have a totally differing philosophy and ideology than I do. Can we leave at that? *offers hand to shake*

anthony!

07-09-2005, 05:17 PM

How is it the government's responsibility to reinforce your church's teachings?

It's not. But its not government's role to take an action that harms it either.

Tom

07-09-2005, 05:18 PM

Look I don't want to get circular with this.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

It's far, far, too late for that.

Spike-X

07-09-2005, 05:18 PM

Jesus Christ, that's scary as hell.
Really? Are you saying it would be harmful in some fashion to force people to stay in abusive, loveless marriages? To have children brought up in homes full of bitterness and resentment, where the only reason their parents are staying together is because they have to?

That's just crazy talk.

Sarcasm aside, though, I find it interesting how, on the one hand, Anthony wants the government to stay out of the business of marriage altogether, yet on the other hand wants the government to have the power to force people to stay together once they get married.

Tom

07-09-2005, 05:19 PM

anthony!

07-09-2005, 05:20 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

It's far, far, too late for that.

And there goes the respect...

Samurai

07-09-2005, 05:20 PM

It's interesting how the so-called "defenders of marriage" suggest such a huge change - that is, removing the state recognition of marriage altogether - in order to continue to hvae their own particular prejudices reinforced. It would seem to me that what you are proposing would result in a much larger change in the definition of marriage than simply allowing same-sex couples to marry.
Because right now, state marriage and church marriage are intertwined. The general view of marriage in both of them happen to agree, so there's not much of a problem, and that has always been acceptable to the public. Now 1 of those parties is being heavily lobbied to alter the definition of marriage in such a way that it includes not just an expansion of the traditional definition of marriage, but something believed by the church to be a great sin. That is considered blasphemy. So if govt decides it does want to recognize that, they'd rather see the govt get out of the "marriage" business altogether and call the civil unions something else, leaving "marriage" to be determined by the church. Not hard to understand that reasoning at all, and really, it wouldn't bug me much if that happened...

Tom

07-09-2005, 05:21 PM

And there goes the respect...And here comes the whining.

And one point: I can, should and do respect your right to have a different set of beliefs. You're owed that. What you are emphatically not owed is any respect for the beliefs themselves or how you attempt to argue them.

anthony!

07-09-2005, 05:27 PM

Sarcasm aside, though, I find it interesting how, on the one hand, Anthony wants the government to stay out of the business of marriage altogether, yet on the other hand wants the government to have the power to force people to stay together once they get married.

Sure. Why would I oppose a law that brings society closer solidifying marriage? It certainly would be more consistent with all the bull about "protecting" marriage. And from a practicality stand point, I bet people would think long and hard about getting married if they knew they couldn't get out of it.

People want it all their way, regardless of philosophy or moral truth. Not only do they want the ability to come in and out of sex (no pun intended) and relationships as they please, they also don't really want anyone to give them any grief over it, even if they can't really make a rational argument for why they do what they do. I'm not going to oppose efforts to stop that and get people to understand the weight and importance of sex, relationships and marriage.

Samurai

07-09-2005, 05:28 PM

Sam, add every qualifier you'd like, it still doesn't change my point that (I'll try all bold this time) UNLIKE RACE, ETHNICITY, OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION, PEOPLE CAN WALK AWAY FROM THEIR RELIGION.
And some people claim to be "cured" of homosexual urges while straight girls have lesbian flings all the time too... I guess they prove you can "walk away from your sexual orientation"? (I won't even bring up Michael Jackson changing his race... ;) ) Point is, race/ethnicity is different from sexual orientation (which has a genetic predisposition, but one that can be denied) which is different from religion (which, although not inborn, is often ingrained from a very young age and can be changed with difficulty).

Spike-X

07-09-2005, 05:30 PM

It's not. But its not government's role to take an action that harms it either.
So if your church had believed a hundred years ago that women shouldn't vote (I have no idea what the Catholic church's position on the issue was, I'm just presenting a hypothetical here), the government would have been wrong to grant women the right to vote?

Spike-X

07-09-2005, 05:33 PM

Sure. Why would I oppose a law that brings society closer solidifying marriage? It certainly would be more consistent with all the bull about "protecting" marriage. And from a practicality stand point, I bet people would think long and hard about getting married if they knew they couldn't get out of it.

People want it all their way, regardless of philosophy or moral truth. Not only do they want the ability to come in and out of sex (no pun intended) and relationships as they please, they also don't really want anyone to give them any grief over it, even if they can't really make a rational argument for why they do what they do. I'm not going to oppose efforts to stop that and get people to understand the weight and importance of sex, relationships and marriage.
So it's okay for the government to stick its nose into marriage as long as they're reinforcing your beliefs, not other people's. Gotcha.

anthony!

07-09-2005, 05:34 PM

And here comes the whining.

And one point: I can, should and do respect your right to have a different set of beliefs. You're owed that. What you are emphatically not owed is any respect for the beliefs themselves or how you attempt to argue them.

I should have learned from you run-in the other day with Screwtape. Ya give 'em an inch and try to compromise...

Dr. Killbydeath

07-09-2005, 05:35 PM

As long as they enforce the general beliefs of the country without hurting anyone, pretty much. Church and State are meant to be separate, thus those beliefs against gay marriages are meaningless unless they are the beliefs of the majority, and even so, those beliefs can be seen are harmful to others.

Tom

07-09-2005, 05:36 PM

I should have learned from you run-in the other day with Screwtape. Ya give 'em an inch and try to compromise...
Another whine.

Tom

07-09-2005, 05:39 PM

And some people claim to be "cured" of homosexual urgesOperative word being "claim" - and even that's not accurate. Recipients of reparative therapy all admit that they still have homosexual urges, they've just been trained to suppress them. That's not walking away.
while straight girls have lesbian flings all the time too...And I had 3 girlfriends. "Flings" don't change orientation.
I guess they prove you can "walk away from your sexual orientation"?Guess again.
(I won't even bring up Michael Jackson changing his race... ;) ) You just did. He's still the same race. If I went out and got the tan to end all tans, that wouldn't make me any more black.

anthony!

07-09-2005, 05:40 PM

And some people claim to be "cured" of homosexual urges while straight girls have lesbian flings all the time too... I guess they prove you can "walk away from your sexual orientation"? (I won't even bring up Michael Jackson changing his race... ;) ) Point is, race/ethnicity is different from sexual orientation (which has a genetic predisposition, but one that can be denied) which is different from religion (which, although not inborn, is often ingrained from a very young age and can be changed with difficulty).

Of course, thanks to the Humanist Church of Science and Technology so many seem to put their faith in, soon you sure CAN walk away from sexual orientation, ethnicity, sex, race or whatever AND have sex with your cousins. If you want you could become a black asian she-male with great calf implants. Shit, we'll just all become chameleons and have one big orgy while laughing at those blood-sucking papist fools obsessing over original sin and loving thy neighbor.

anthony!

07-09-2005, 05:42 PM

Another whine.

A lesson learned. So much for coming together in the name of respect and mutual understanding.

Spike-X

07-09-2005, 05:43 PM

Of course, thanks to the Humanist Church of Science and Technology so many seem to put their faith in, soon you sure CAN walk away from sexual orientation, ethnicity, sex, race or whatever AND have sex with your cousins. If you want you could become a black asian she-male with great calf implants. Shit, we'll just all become chameleons and have one big orgy while laughing at those blood-sucking papist fools obsessing over original sin and loving thy neighbor.
Holy shit, he's snapped.

What the hell are you on about?

Tom

07-09-2005, 05:44 PM

A lesson learned. So much for coming together in the name of respect and mutual understanding.
It doesn't surprise me that you're being so selective since you've proven that semantics are more important than facts to you, but let me reiterate: I respect your right to have a differing set of beliefs. I do not respect the beliefs themself, nor do I respect the way you argue them. This is pretty much exactly the same tack and position you've taken with me, so will you please get the hell over yourself and stop whining about it?

Tom

07-09-2005, 05:45 PM

Holy shit, he's snapped.

What the hell are you on about?
When you can't come up with a response based in reason, then an unreasonable response will have to do, I guess.

Spike-X

07-09-2005, 05:49 PM

OREGON SENATE TAKES HISTORIC STEP TOWARD EQUALITY

‘Simple fairness means the same rights, protections and responsibilities for everyone,’ said HRC President Joe Solmonese.

WASHINGTON — The Oregon Senate made history today by passing S.B. 1000 — a bill that would grant critical rights and protections to same-sex couples and their children as well as banning discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

“Simple fairness means the same rights, protections and responsibilities for everyone,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “By passing this important legislation, the Oregon Senate has said that every family needs the same rights and protections and that no one should face discrimination simply because of who they are. These are American values that should be enshrined in our laws.”

HRC is working closely with Basic Rights Oregon — the statewide LGBT advocacy group — on a coordinated grassroots strategy for the passage of the civil union and anti-discrimination bill. This effort has included on-the-ground staff support and generating constituent contacts to legislators.

“The Senate’s historic vote today reflects the values of an overwhelming majority of Oregonians who believe that discrimination against gay and lesbian people and their families is wrong,” said Roey Thorpe, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon. “Now is the time for Oregon to take this historic vote one step further by not only condemning discrimination, but prohibiting it in the law.”

The bill will now move to the House where a “reciprocal benefits” bill has been introduced that only grants a few rights to couples and does not address discrimination protections that are a critical part of S.B. 1000.

“Fair-minded leaders must ensure that protections are not handed out piecemeal,” said Solmonese. “Given Nike’s historic support, Governor Kulongoski’s steadfast backing, and endorsements from business and religious leaders from across the state, the Legislature should hasten the passage of S.B. 1000.”

Oregon voters passed a constitutional amendment in November excluding same-sex couples from marriage, but did not deal with the issue of civil unions.

“Supporters of the amendment argued that the Legislature should consider civil unions for same-sex couples," said Solmonese. "It is time for them to make good on their word."

The Human Rights Campaign is the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender political organization with members throughout the country. It effectively lobbies Congress, provides campaign support and educates the public to ensure that LGBT Americans can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.

anthony!

07-09-2005, 05:50 PM

Must...fight urge...to respond....there's too many of them!....head bursting...too much nonsensical relativist philosophy...ack!

Tell the kids...I love them!...*faints dead*

Tom

07-09-2005, 05:50 PM

too much nonsensical relativist philosophy...ack!

This would be that "respect" thing you were going on about, right?

Spike-X

07-09-2005, 05:51 PM

Must...fight urge...to respond....there's too many of them!....head bursting...too much nonsensical relativist philosophy...ack!

Tell the kids...I love them!...*faints dead*
You're carrying on about "nonsensical" after that last little rant?

Whatever.

Spike-X

07-09-2005, 05:52 PM

And could you tell me more about that "sex with cousins" thing? I have one who I always thought would be a bit of a goer...

Noah Johnson

07-09-2005, 05:56 PM

This would be that "respect" thing you were going on about, right?
Ah, now you're just kicking him when he's down. Last time I saw a guy fighting with that few legs left to stand on, it was the Black Knight in Monty Python.

Glad to hear Oregon passed that civil unions law. There was an interesting shift in the rhetoric 'round here about that law. Back when they were pushing a "no gay marriage" amendment, all the right-wing folks were saying how they have nothing against gays, really, they just don't want to change the definition of the word marriage. That's all we heard, over and over, "redefining marriage." And then the civil union law was introduced, and suddenly, from the right we're hearing "The voters of this state already rejected gay marriage, and this is just the same thing with a different name." Whoa, hang on there, Cletus. Wasn't the name the whole thing you were allegedly upset about?

Now, I don't want to say that this means their real agenda is just picking on a minority... oops, just said it. Damn this habit of stating the glaringly obvious.

Spike-X

07-09-2005, 06:00 PM

Now, I don't want to say that this means their real agenda is just picking on a minority... oops, just said it. Damn this habit of stating the glaringly obvious.

How dare you accuse bigots of being bigots. Your intolerance of intolerance is truly shocking.

TCJohnson

07-09-2005, 06:03 PM

Listen to people with the last name Johnson...we know of which we speak.

Adam Crocker

07-09-2005, 06:41 PM

I should have learned from you run-in the other day with Screwtape. Ya give 'em an inch and try to compromise...

What compromise? All I saw Tom do was point out Screwtape's blatant evasion of his arguments rather than actually addressing them. That's fair game as far as debating is concerned.

...even if they can't really make a rational argument for why they do what they do.

Have you actually been paying attention to the arguments Tom and I had made earlier?

So far your arguments in the last few posts have boiled down to that the government should get out of marriage because it doesn't reinforce the Catholic Church's version of marriage. Supposedly ideas about marriage and marital practices that differ from those endorsed in Catholicism makes it harder for the Church to teach and enforce its beliefs about marriage, therefore people might change their minds about what constitutes marriage.

You're essentially asking for special treatment for your faith because your worried people might not adhere to it. It's the not the government's job or the purpose of the law to create conditions more favourable for your religion. It's there to protect the rights of its citizens, administer the country, and pass laws through the legislative branch. As far as that applies to religion, that is to not infringe on and protect religion's freedom of worship, the functioning of religious institutions such as Churches and Mosques, freedom to publish religious materials, etc.

It's not there to hold a religion's hand and ensure that nothing challenges its views. And religion certainly doesn't have an exclusive claim on marriage if the history of it in Europe prior to the Fourth Lateran Council of 1214 is anything to go by.

And in all this time you've been complaining about people not presenting logical arguments for gay marriage or something similar, as Tom or I did awhile back, and dismissing people out of hand for "relativist philosphy." What is "relativist philosophy"? It sounds like one of those terms like "moral relativism," "far leftism," "fascism" or any number of meaningless buzzwords I've seen people from either end of the political spectrum bandy about as way of dismissing arguments out of hand rather than actually address them.

Samurai

07-09-2005, 06:41 PM

Ah, now you're just kicking him when he's down. Last time I saw a guy fighting with that few legs left to stand on, it was the Black Knight in Monty Python.

Glad to hear Oregon passed that civil unions law. There was an interesting shift in the rhetoric 'round here about that law. Back when they were pushing a "no gay marriage" amendment, all the right-wing folks were saying how they have nothing against gays, really, they just don't want to change the definition of the word marriage. That's all we heard, over and over, "redefining marriage." And then the civil union law was introduced, and suddenly, from the right we're hearing "The voters of this state already rejected gay marriage, and this is just the same thing with a different name." Whoa, hang on there, Cletus. Wasn't the name the whole thing you were allegedly upset about?

Now, I don't want to say that this means their real agenda is just picking on a minority... oops, just said it. Damn this habit of stating the glaringly obvious.
Polls have always shown that about 1/3 of the country wants no gay marriage and no civil unions... they consider them the same thing. 1/3 of the country will accept civil unions, but NOT gay marriage. And 1/3 of the country want both/either or. Stop thinking of everyone who disagrees with you as 1 monolithic block... I bet most people never actually "changed their minds" on anything... it's just that once "marriage" was out of the picture, those people who cared only about that dropped away and you were left arguing with the 1/3 who wanted neither...

Adam Crocker

07-09-2005, 06:50 PM

Now, I don't want to say that this means their real agenda is just picking on a minority... oops, just said it. Damn this habit of stating the glaringly obvious.

Well considering how all the other votes on gay marriage bans have included bans on civil unions AND civil unions are opposed by the leading opponents of gay marriage in the religious right, I'd say you're dead on the money.

Spackling Compound

07-09-2005, 06:58 PM

Ok, again, against gay marriage here. Voted against it. Still would vote against it.

But, maybe the perspective that has been a bit cloudy that has brought about the ire of the posters on both sides could be defining the issue.

So if the issue isn't really about homosexuals marrying BUT about the government itself choosing to not decide if gays should or should not marry and thus making those who oppose it seem to be "on the side of the anti-gay government" and those who vote for it to be "opposed to the anti-gay regime", then I would have to say that I can see the point of the folks who are wanting homosexuals to marry over the point of those who oppose it.

What the pro-gay marriage posters here are saying is "If you voted against gay marriage, you voted with the anti-gay government that denies rights to others" and that, in a warped sense, would have made me take a different tact.

I wouldn't have voted at all.

Corrina

07-09-2005, 07:18 PM

Still wouldn't change the truth, thats my whole point.

It won't change the truth IN THE EYES OF THE CHURCH.

And that so-called truth has absolutely nothing to do with a person choosing to walk away. It's like someone becoming an American citizen and giving up right to their citizenship in another country and that other country saying "sorry, you're not American, you are one of us still."

Like that foreign country, the church can think what it wants but it really has absolutely no standing on any aspect of a former Catholic's life once they walk away.

Evan Waters

07-09-2005, 07:31 PM

Except no one hear is exactly proposing sex police.

If gay people want gay relationships no one is going to physically stop them. And the legalities and such that everyone cries foul over could easily be corrected in policy change.

What is really being asked for here is validation— not merely in the law but also in the culture.

What's being asked for is hospital visitation, default inheritance, wrongful death claims, legal immigrant status, evidentiary immunity... the rights that come with marriage.

The people who oppose gay marriage are in favor of denying those rights to gay couples. They are imposing their morality on them. They are the oppressors.

Whereas if gays were allowed to marry, they wouldn't be imposing on anyone- they would simply be enjoying the rights they deserve. It would harm noone.

Noah Johnson

07-09-2005, 07:33 PM

Stop thinking of everyone who disagrees with you as 1 monolithic block...

Fair enough, there was some of that in the argument I was advancing. Good point. There were, however, some clear public cases of people who were all about the definition when that was a workable tactic, and then turned right around and said "We already voted on this, it's the same thing by another name." Which, I think we can agree, is blatantly dishonest and indicates their agenda was never about the definition of marriage (not that that makes sense either) but just about wanting to make sure gay people get screwed over.

Tom

07-09-2005, 07:40 PM

Oh, and by the way...I'll try...

To many people, their religion isn't just something they were dragged to 3 or 4 times a tear on holidays as a kid... it's a core part of their personal beliefs, the basis for much of their worldview and morality. Changing or dropping their religion would require a massive alteration of their entire worldview, and doing that is frankly unrealistic.

Nope. Don't quite buy it.

Don't get me wrong, I am vehemently not suggesting to anyone that they walk away from the church. To be honest, I'd never do such a thing.

But.

I was most definitely not a Holiday Catholic. Twelve years of Catholic education, the last four with the Jesuits. Choir, altarboy, First Holy Communion, Confirmation, Confession every 2 weeks, no meat on Fridays - the works. One of the most memorable events from my childhood was attending Pope John Paul II's outdoor Mass in Philadelphia 25 years ago. My night time reading ritual from the time I could read until my late teens included the Bible or some form of religious reading for children (and some for adults). Every Good Friday for at least ten years, I read my Grandmother's tattered copy of Sister Emmerich's The Dolourous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the book upon which Mel Gibson's film is entirely based. For my First Holy Communion, I got a boxed set of a comic version of the Old and New Testament and that was in fact what led to my comics habit. I read it voraciously. I still picture all the figures of the Bible the way they were originally drawn for me and to be honest, I'd love to have a copy of it again.

I left the church in college, and hard as it might be to believe, my sexuality had almost nothing to do with it. Several years of hard and painful examination and questioning finally led me to say with no small amount of relief, "No, I'm sorry. I don't believe that." It was by no means an easy road to take. This is not meant to be an offensive analogy, but for me, it was like trying to get gum out of your hair.

So no, it's not easy and once again, I am not suggesting anyone do so, but it is possible and it is realistic.