NY Times wrote:WASHINGTON — President Obama on Wednesday ended nearly two years of “evolving” on the issue of same-sex marriage by publicly endorsing it in a television interview, taking a definitive stand on one of the most contentious and politically charged social issues of the day.
“At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Mr. Obama told ABC News in an interview that came after the president faced mounting pressure to clarify his position.
In an election that is all but certain to turn on the slowly recovering economy and its persistently high jobless rate, Mr. Obama’s stand nonetheless injects a volatile social issue into the campaign debate and puts him at even sharper odds with his presumptive Republican rival, Mitt Romney, who opposes same-sex marriage and favors an amendment to the United States Constitution to forbid it.
Hours before the president’s announcement, Mr. Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, restated his opposition to same-sex marriage in an interview with KDVR-TV, a Fox News affiliate in Colorado.
“When these issues were raised in my state of Massachusetts, I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name,” Mr. Romney said. “My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights and the like are appropriate, but that the others are not.”
Public support for same-sex marriage is growing at a pace that surprises even professional pollsters as older generations of voters who tend to be strongly opposed are supplanted by younger ones who are just as strongly in favor. Same-sex couples are featured in some of the most popular shows on television, without controversy.
Yet time after time, when the issue is put to voters in states, they have chosen to ban unions between people of the same gender or to defeat measures that would legalize same-sex unions. Just Tuesday, North Carolinians voted overwhelmingly to add a ban to their state constitution, and Republican leaders in the Colorado House blocked a vote on legislation to allow civil unions; North Carolina and Colorado are considered swing states in presidential politics.
Nationwide, according to the pollster Andrew Kohut of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, a plurality of swing voters favors same-sex marriage, 47 percent to 39 percent, and outside the South the margin widens to a majority of 53 percent in favor and 35 percent opposed; in the South, a plurality of 48 percent opposes same-sex marriage. Swing voters generally do not have strong opinions on the subject, Mr. Kohut said, though in the South 30 percent of swing voters say they are strongly opposed.
Supporters of same-sex marriage were quick to praise the president’s decision to speak out.
“President Obama’s words today will be celebrated by generations to come,” said Chad Griffin, the incoming president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group. “For the millions of young gay and lesbian Americans across this nation, President Obama’s words provide genuine hope that they will be the first generation to grow up with the freedom to fully pursue the American dream. Marriage — the promise of love, companionship, and family — is basic to the pursuit of that dream.”
Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, called the president’s statement “a watershed moment in American history” that would aid efforts to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act barring federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York said, “No American president has ever supported a major expansion of civil rights that has not ultimately been adopted by the American people, and I have no doubt that this will be no exception.”
Some supporters saw the president’s announcement in more political terms.
Alright, I only quoted the first half of the article. The NY Times uses too many words. But this is good news! We have the first ever president to openly (as opposed to secretly like Ronnie "Leatherman" Reagan) support gay marriage. Obama has proven that... ...well, I guess he's proven that hes not a homophobic nutjob. Now we don't have to worry about that anymore. Good for him.
Frazzled wrote:Good thing Biden trapped him into it by going off the reservation. On the other hand who cares? Its a state issue.
The Civil War has demonstrated that letting the states handle extremely intricate social issues involving crazy bigots and victimized minorities isn't a good idea.
Of course, if you paid attention to his actions, this support he publicly announced wasn't exactly hidden.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rubiksnoob wrote:It is an issue because religious nutjobs can't seem to come to grips with the fact that the word of their god isn't the word of everyone else's.
Or that not everyone agrees with what their god says to begin with.
Melissia wrote:Of course, if you paid attention to his actions, this support he publicly announced wasn't exactly hidden.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rubiksnoob wrote:It is an issue because religious nutjobs can't seem to come to grips with the fact that the word of their god isn't the word of everyone else's.
Or that not everyone agrees with what their god says to begin with.
I look forward to your comments on polygamy. After all, we have to keep the views of those religious nutjobs out of politics.
I don't know many gay people, and I don't much care about gay people, I don't go to gay bars (although, I would happily go in one if the beer was cheap!) and I am not affected in any way by gay people.
That said, without sounding like a hippy or anything, considering what a fething awful selfish species we are, the only good thing to come out of our lives seems to be love. Be it love for a dog, love for a child, love for a spouse, its the only instance where people put others first, and care about another as much as they do for themselves.
For this reason, gay people should be allowed to marry each other. Love is one of the few redeeming qualities for our species, and I think it should be encouraged.
Also, good on him for finally coming out and saying it. In this day and age, I think it will help more than hinder..
In my books polygamy and polyandry are both fine, I'm not interested in either myself but I have no quarrel with those who participate in them. That said from what I've seen of polygamy the power normally goes to a man's head and he treats his wives like slaves, I do not agree with that.
mattyrm wrote: I don't know many gay people, and I don't much care about gay people, I don't go to gay bars (although, I would happily go in one if the beer was cheap!) and I am not affected in any way by gay people.
That said, without sounding like a hippy or anything, considering what a fething awful selfish species we are, the only good thing to come out of our lives seems to be love. Be it love for a dog, love for a child, love for a spouse, its the only instance where people put others first, and care about another as much as they do for themselves.
For this reason, gay people should be allowed to marry each other. Love is one of the few redeeming qualities for our species, and I think it should be encouraged.
Also, good on him for finally coming out and saying it. In this day and age, I think it will help more than hinder..
But then, America keeps on surprising me.
As I've said, why should they be spared the horror of marriage?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:I have no problem with polygamy, although I have no intention of participating. But what about Polyandry?
Polyethane? Polyandry is not in my handy petchem manual.
Polyandry = women having multiple husbands, as a counterpoint to Polygamy, which is where men have multiple wives. Although if polygamy and/or polyandry are legalized, they'd have to make it illegal to NOT reveal your marital status to potential dates or something..
Melissia wrote:Although if polygamy and/or polyandry are legalized, they'd have to make it illegal to NOT reveal your marital status to potential dates or something..
Melissia wrote:Polyandry = women having multiple husbands, as a counterpoint to Polygamy, which is where men have multiple wives. Although if polygamy and/or polyandry are legalized, they'd have to make it illegal to NOT reveal your marital status to potential dates or something..
Like married people don't currently cheat on their spouses? Why the heck would you want a law to cover that for a specific set of people? Or ANYONE for that matter? Is lying to get laid a Federal issue?
Melissia wrote:Although if polygamy and/or polyandry are legalized, they'd have to make it illegal to NOT reveal your marital status to potential dates or something..
That would be what you call...fraud.
I suspect a number of men (and women) already go on dates without disclosing their marital status.
Melissia wrote:Although if polygamy and/or polyandry are legalized, they'd have to make it illegal to NOT reveal your marital status to potential dates or something..
That would be what you call...fraud.
I suspect a number of men (and women) already go on dates without disclosing their marital status.
Melissia wrote:Polyandry = women having multiple husbands, as a counterpoint to Polygamy, which is where men have multiple wives.
That isn't correct, at all.
Polygamy (Greek: often married)= generic term to describe having multiple spouses without regard to gender.
Polyandry (Greek: multiple men) = One wife, multiple husbands
Polygyny (Greek: multiple women)= One husband, multiple wives
Melissia wrote:Polyandry = women having multiple husbands, as a counterpoint to Polygamy, which is where men have multiple wives.
That isn't correct, at all.
Polygamy (Greek: often married)= generic term to describe having multiple spouses without regard to gender.
Polyandry (Greek: multiple men) = One wife, multiple husbands
Polygyny (Greek: multiple women)= One husband, multiple wives
Well the first half is correct and the second half is a special case of the correct definition.
CptJake wrote:Why the heck would you want a law to cover that for a specific set of people?
It covers anyone who is married.
So now explain why the heck you want a Federal law to cover lying about your marriage status to pick up a date. Or do you ignore questions you don't like the answer to?
That just seems bizare to think that is a legitimate Federal issue.
I think I just heard Obama lose 5% or so of the black vote, and at least that of the hispanic vote.
See what happened when large minority voter turn out happened in California to elect Obama, they also spoke very loudy how they feel about gay marriage in 2008.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I think I just heard Obama lose 5% or so of the black vote, and at least that of the hispanic vote.
See what happened when large minority voter turn out happened in California to elect Obama, they also spoke very loudy how they feel about gay marriage in 2008.
It may surpress numbers going to the polls but it won't get them to flip and vote for Romney.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I think I just heard Obama lose 5% or so of the black vote, and at least that of the hispanic vote.
Hispanic, sure, but I have my doubts about the black vote being materially impacted.
I just did a paper on anti-gay rhetoric.
And well one of the articles i used as a source was explicitly about homophobia in black culture and hyper masculinity.
And yeah, there is massive homophobia in black culture(as is every racial culture)
Mainly because of the "Gangsta rap" culture that prevades through it that show women as objects, and a man that acts like a women deserves to be treated like one.
Granted, it all comes down to the individual in the race,
And god i hope i dont sound extremely racist here. but i probably Do.
More Ot: I can see the ad's now
"Obama supports gay marriage, he wants it tought in our schools the being gay is ok, he wants to take away your religious freedom. Vote for Romney, he believes in religious freedom"
Its funny how the anti-gay crowd turns it into an issue about religious freedom often, making it seem as if they are the ones being hurt by gay marriage.
I do have to wonder if the votes he would gain from gay marriage advocates will outbalance the ones he will lose from gay marriage opponents and voters traditionally opposed to it. Though I suppose he has a great many people with hard data telling him it does, and I'm just an idiot musing on the internets.
Personally, I don't think the government has any role in the marriage business at all, state or federal. I think it's a private contract between 2 consenting adults and their house of worship or a nonreligious equivalent capable of consecrating marriages.
Ouze wrote:I do have to wonder if the votes he would gain from gay marriage advocates will outbalance the ones he will lose from gay marriage opponents and voters traditionally opposed to it. Though I suppose he has a great many people with hard data telling him it does, and I'm just an idiot musing on the internets.
Personally, I don't think the government has any role in the marriage business at all, state or federal. I think it's a private contract between 2 consenting adults and their house of worship or a nonreligious equivalent capable of consecrating marriages.
I'd say he gains very little from it, because the majority of folks in that pool where going to vote for him anyways, but he may alienate quite a few moderate dems. But take a look at the California vote a couple years back. Whites where pretty even on it, 51 against to 49 for. Hispanics where pretty close as well. Blacks though... 70% voted against legalizing gay marriage. That could create a big rift over a small social issue if he tries to make a big push for it.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Who freaking cares who he alienates? Humanity needs this. Stop arguing numbers when people are more important.
As I told a friend earlier today, you can scream about how right or wrong it is all day long. It's not going to change a thing. Take the victories you can get. We can all hope for the perfect world, but it doesn't exist, and bitching about this is doing nothing but expanding your carbon footprint.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Who freaking cares who he alienates? Humanity needs this. Stop arguing numbers when people are more important.
Because the President did this for political reasons, so it should be analyzed under the political microscope.
He's trending left 6 months before the election, which is not a winning strategy.
I thought trending left ever in America wasn't a winning strategy...
It usually isn't, unless your in the primaries. His campaign strategy this year is confusing. It was flawless in 2008, but it seems to be real amateurish this time around.
So, the country will allow the Westboro Baptists to continue to peddle their filthy agenda and inflict deep emotional pain but it will not allow two consenting adults to wed based on the ratio of cocks to quims in the equation?
Something wrong with that vision of 'liberty and freedom for all'.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, the country will allow the Westboro Baptists to continue to peddle their filthy agenda and inflict deep emotional pain but it will not allow two consenting adults to wed based on the ratio of cocks to quims in the equation?
Something wrong with that vision of 'liberty and freedom for all'.
This will help with the youth vote. In all honesty the second "he" killed bin laden he pretty much guaranteed a second term. I think it's a smart move on his part though. Some black voters might stay home because of it but it's not like they're all of a sudden going to vote for Romney.
Crablezworth wrote:This will help with the youth vote. In all honesty the second "he" killed bin laden he pretty much guaranteed a second term. I think it's a smart move on his part though. Some black voters might stay home because of it but it's not like they're all of a sudden going to vote for Romney.
It is hardly a gaurantee. I think the moderates in this nation are going to be more concerned about his explanation for the 5 trillion in debt, and the extremely lack luster economy that we have after it. So far no one has really been forced to have him answer for it, but the debates are coming up, and Romney isn't going to be the Mr. Nice Guy that McCain was.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, the country will allow the Westboro Baptists to continue to peddle their filthy agenda and inflict deep emotional pain but it will not allow two consenting adults to wed based on the ratio of cocks to quims in the equation?
Something wrong with that vision of 'liberty and freedom for all'.
The country will also allow Nazis to march through a Jewish suburb, but won't allow me to take my neighbor's house by right of conquest.
Crablezworth wrote:This will help with the youth vote. In all honesty the second "he" killed bin laden he pretty much guaranteed a second term. I think it's a smart move on his part though. Some black voters might stay home because of it but it's not like they're all of a sudden going to vote for Romney.
It is hardly a gaurantee. I think the moderates in this nation are going to be more concerned about his explanation for the 5 trillion in debt, and the extremely lack luster economy that we have after it. So far no one has really been forced to have him answer for it, but the debates are coming up, and Romney isn't going to be the Mr. Nice Guy that McCain was.
Its funny the people with short term memory. Bush started this recession with his horribly expensive war, and continued deregulating the banks, and started the bail out of the banks. Obama inherited this mess and has done a decent job of it. It will be a sad day for america if Etch a Sketch gets elected. At least if Obama gets reelected on his second term when he no longer has to worry about getting elected again, he'll just go and put an end to this marriage issue and just say "marry who you want" No one should have to ask the government for permission to marry someone.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Who freaking cares who he alienates? Humanity needs this. Stop arguing numbers when people are more important.
Because he has more ability to influence and create policy as the sitting President of the United States then he does as a lame duck, sitting out the rest of his term, because he made well-meaning but politically poor decisions. I mean that last bit "in general" because I'm not sure yet where this puts him numberswise.
Crablezworth wrote:This will help with the youth vote.
I always LOL at the "youth vote". First off, he's already pretty firmly got them no matter what he does, and second, it doesn't matter because young people by and large don't actually vote anyway. It makes way more sense to pander to Matlock viewers (7 out of 10 of which show up to vote) vs the youth, 2 out of 3 of which stay home no matter who is running. I also suspect that the disproportionate percentage of young people unemployed will further hurt Obama (and it should, if Romney plays it right). I have no idea why anyone would think Obama has this one in the bag, I think it's going to be a very close election and it's very much in play.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, the country will allow the Westboro Baptists to continue to peddle their filthy agenda and inflict deep emotional pain but it will not allow two consenting adults to wed based on the ratio of cocks to quims in the equation?
Something wrong with that vision of 'liberty and freedom for all'.
The country will also allow Nazis to march through a Jewish suburb, but won't allow me to take my neighbor's house by right of conquest.
I'm being oppressed.
Wait, hold on...
You think that gay marriage is the same as stealing someone's house?
Some of my fellow democrats come up with strawmen republicans. You know, like completely exaggerated and crazy versions of them to try and make republicans look bad. Well, right now it feels like I"m talking to a real life strawman. You're something that Michael Moore or Bill Maher would make up. I'm 99% that you're trolling with this. At least, I hope you are.
CptJake wrote:So now explain why the heck you want a Federal law to cover lying about your marriage status to pick up a date. Or do you ignore questions you don't like the answer to?
Because marriage is discussed and regulated at the Federal level to begin with (see DoMA, tax benefits, rules regarding insurance, etc). Thus lying about your marital status to prospective partners is like lying about your tax records to prospective employers.
*shrug* I don't respect state rights due to the nature of state politics-- it tends to grab the most extreme examples of any particular view instead of the more moderate ones.
alarmingrick wrote:I'm glad he made his position public.
America takes one more step closer to coming out of the social darkages.
And yet we'll still have people who say that marriage should be between just a man and a woman and nothing else.
Suffice to say, I'd think it would be a better idea to make marriages a subset of civil unions; have the definition of union supersede that of a marriage or gay marriage or whatever and make the Federal law recognize civil unions as the legal form of partnerships and that marriage is simply one form of it.
alarmingrick wrote:I'm glad he made his position public.
America takes one more step closer to coming out of the social darkages.
And yet we'll still have people who say that marriage should be between just a man and a woman and nothing else.
Suffice to say, I'd think it would be a better idea to make marriages a subset of civil unions; have the definition of union supersede that of a marriage or gay marriage or whatever and make the Federal law recognize civil unions as the legal form of partnerships and that marriage is simply one form of it.
Sorry, but I feel marriage shouldn't be dictated by sexual preference, period.
If you start "making marriage a subset" of anything, then the (not)Right will
say "see, he's trying to change marriage", "lessen marriage" or what the hell
ever they dream up his current "socialist policy" is.
Barksdale wrote:And Obama attempts to take down another hundreds-years old institution. When will these lefties stop this fiasco??
What part of it is he taking down? He's just stated that he's for giving same-sex couples the same civil and legal rights that a heterosexual couple would have. It's not like treating a group of people like humans would destroy the entire concept of marriage.
Some people just need to stop worrying about the sex others are having.
alarmingrick wrote:Civil until "someone has to clean up this mess".
Sorry, but I feel marriage shouldn't be dictated by sexual preference, period.
If you start "making marriage a subset" of anything, then the (not)Right will
say "see, he's trying to change marriage", "lessen marriage" or what the hell
ever they dream up his current "socialist policy" is.
Such as it is, North Carolina just banned civil unions and same sex marriage of any kind, making heterosexual marriage the only defining partnership of the state.
For those who love each other but cannot enjoy a legal relationship because the state bans it, it becomes morally wrong. More importantly, I feel it does infringe upon constitutional laws that should not have the state interfere with what people do in their private lives, especially since it discriminates against a subset of people and potentially people of a specific sexual orientation (hey, sounds like an argument from a Conservative stand point, eh?).
w00t! Americas national leader bringin' the gay marriage controversy in the house like it's 1999 (in any other western nation). At this rate Alabama will reach 1980 in 30 years.
I always wonder why conservatives don't scratch their heads more often when they find themselves advocating the same moral standards as a theocracy in the middle east.
CptJake wrote:So now explain why the heck you want a Federal law to cover lying about your marriage status to pick up a date. Or do you ignore questions you don't like the answer to?
Because marriage is discussed and regulated at the Federal level to begin with (see DoMA, tax benefits, rules regarding insurance, etc). Thus lying about your marital status to prospective partners is like lying about your tax records to prospective employers.
*shrug* I don't respect state rights due to the nature of state politics-- it tends to grab the most extreme examples of any particular view instead of the more moderate ones.
That is so far a stretch. Honestly, to advocate that type of Gov't intrusion into and control of interpersonal interactions is scary. I honestly hope your skewed version of America never comes close to being realized.
And I thought Romney had no chance against Obama. To quote Winston Churchill after pearl harbor. "We've just won the war" (We = republicans in this case)
CptJake wrote:That is so far a stretch. Honestly, to advocate that type of Gov't intrusion into and control of interpersonal interactions is scary.
Why not? Aren't you a Republican? The party loves to regulate what people can and cannot do in interpersonal interactions.
I seriously doubt you can find any post made by me that asks or advocates for MORE gov't intrusion in anyone's life. Even on the 'piss test folks for welfare' topic I was very much against it because I feel (and so far the courts have agreed) that it violates the 4th ammendment and on the grounds that the solution to a poorly run gov't program is rarely another gov't program.
So go ahead and project whatever image you have in your head onto me, it won't come close to being reality.
And my comment stands. Advocating the level of control and intrusion by the gov't into the lives of individuals that you advocate is scary to me. That has nothing to do with your political party nor mine. It has to do with a massively different philosophy on the role of gov't.
CptJake wrote:I seriously doubt you can find any post made by me that asks or advocates for MORE gov't intrusion in anyone's life.
No, but I certainly can find plenty of conservatives who gladly do it.
For example, Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Lawrence v. Texas supreme court ruling which declared unconstitutional laws preventing sodomy, wanting the laws restored in the states that previously had them.
I guess he's allowed to get away with it because he's a "Libertarian" (hah, as if), though.
hotsauceman1 wrote:
And well one of the articles i used as a source was explicitly about homophobia in black culture and hyper masculinity.
Yeah, statistically African Americans are the racial group most strongly opposed to same-sex marriage, at about 55-60% depending on the polling methodology used. And, if I recall correctly, something like 70% of African American votes cast on Proposition 8 were in support. I'm not questioning that the black community tends to oppose gay marriage, I'm questioning whether or not it will matter given how popular Obama is within the black community.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Who freaking cares who he alienates? Humanity needs this. Stop arguing numbers when people are more important.
You act like it means gak. It doesn't its grandstanding.
He did insure Romney finally gets the conservative voters off their butts to go to the polls.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, the country will allow the Westboro Baptists to continue to peddle their filthy agenda and inflict deep emotional pain but it will not allow two consenting adults to wed based on the ratio of cocks to quims in the equation?
Something wrong with that vision of 'liberty and freedom for all'.
Don't like it, leave it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crablezworth wrote:Romney isn't going to be anything other than a guy with the personality of a dead moth.
hotsauceman1 wrote:I wouls say this.
"You dont want marriage to be defiled? Ok, No more marriage, everything is a civil union. You cant defile what desnt exist."
If you were a libertarian, you'd realize government has no place in the discussion to begin with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
CptJake wrote:That is so far a stretch. Honestly, to advocate that type of Gov't intrusion into and control of interpersonal interactions is scary.
Why not? Aren't you a Republican? The party loves to regulate what people can and cannot do in interpersonal interactions.
Ouze wrote:I do have to wonder if the votes he would gain from gay marriage advocates will outbalance the ones he will lose from gay marriage opponents and voters traditionally opposed to it.
There are essentially two prevailing arguments here.
One holds that, as the first President to openly support same-sex marriage, Obama will be able to generate greater voter engagement within the gay community and thus bring them out to vote. This might overcome any ill-will the same action generates among groups that do not support gay marriage, or (more accurately) oppose gay marriage, but the the only significant Democratic block that opposes gay marriage to a greater degree than it supports it is the black vote; where Obama is very popular.
Alternatively, this sort of late support may backfire, and alienate the gay community (and supporters of gay marriage) if they see it as political gamesmanship rather than genuine support for their cause. However, since most people aren't single issue voters, its questionable to what degree this will affect the actual rate of turn-out. In essence, it may convince people that would have voted to stay home, or it may only serve to heighten the indifference of the already indifferent.
You think that gay marriage is the same as stealing someone's house?
No more than I think gay marriage is the same as free speech.
Absurd examples are absurd.
d-usa wrote:I always wonder why conservatives don't scratch their heads more often when they find themselves advocating the same moral standards as a theocracy in the middle east.
I always wonder why liberals don't scratch their heads more often when they find themselves advocating the same moral (and legal) standards as repressive dictatorships.
djones520 wrote:
I'd say he gains very little from it, because the majority of folks in that pool where going to vote for him anyways, but he may alienate quite a few moderate dems. But take a look at the California vote a couple years back. Whites where pretty even on it, 51 against to 49 for. Hispanics where pretty close as well. Blacks though... 70% voted against legalizing gay marriage. That could create a big rift over a small social issue if he tries to make a big push for it.
My general opinion is that the net effect will be close to zero given that gay marriage has about 50% support across the United States, and is a fairly insignificant issue in this election. If he is pressed on the matter, and he most likely will be, he can point to the repeal of DADT as indicative of his support for gay rights and generate support from within the homosexual community and its supporters that should counteract any of the losses he sees in the black community (if he sees any at all).
Its also worth noting that this isn't the first time he's openly supported gay marriage, he openly supported when he ran for Illinois Senate in 1996, and has supported civil unions (marriage in all but name) since then.
You think that gay marriage is the same as stealing someone's house?
No more than I think gay marriage is the same as free speech.
Absurd examples are absurd.
d-usa wrote:I always wonder why conservatives don't scratch their heads more often when they find themselves advocating the same moral standards as a theocracy in the middle east.
I always wonder why liberals don't scratch their heads more often when they find themselves advocating the same moral (and legal) standards as repressive dictatorships.
Deflects the question and doesn't answer it, how unexpected
biccat wrote:
He's trending left 6 months before the election, which is not a winning strategy.
And, in a fairly predictable response, Romney is trending right; at least on this issue. The middle ground in the US politics gets smaller and smaller every year.
Of course, considering polling results regarding same-sex marriage, its difficult to conclude that the centrist position is superior here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote:
Would Civil Partnership not go down better in the States? It's not got Marriage in the Title, but it's pretty much the same thing.
You would think so, but probably not. Much of the gay community views it as a slap in the face, and the groups opposed to same-sex marriage generally still see it as marriage.
Medium of Death wrote:The UK doesn't have Gay Marriage. It has a Civil Partnership which is pretty much the same thing.
Would Civil Partnership not go down better in the States? It's not got Marriage in the Title, but it's pretty much the same thing.
Surely all the 'Sanctity of Marriage' types would back down if it wasn't technically a Marriage?
Civil partnership would be better and more appropriate. Everyone gets the same form. Its up to the respective people and their faiths if they want to call that a marriage.
Because Romney thinks marriage should be one-man-one-woman, and is generally against gay marriage?
source Romney was a leading voice against gay marriage as Massachusetts governor. The courts legalized gay marriage in the state during his tenure, but he supported a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
After gay marriage became legal, Romney sought to enforce a statute banning state officials from marrying gay couples from other states. In a speech to conservatives last winter, Romney touted that move, saying he prevented Massachusetts from becoming the "Las Vegas of gay marriage."
Romney said Wednesday he supports limiting benefits for same-sex couples.
"I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name," he told the Fox TV station in Denver. "My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not."
Medium of Death wrote:The UK doesn't have Gay Marriage. It has a Civil Partnership which is pretty much the same thing.
Would Civil Partnership not go down better in the States? It's not got Marriage in the Title, but it's pretty much the same thing.
Surely all the 'Sanctity of Marriage' types would back down if it wasn't technically a Marriage?
Maybe marginally better, but not by much. You gotta understand a huge portion of America is still opposed to even recognizing that homosexuals have the right to exist. Granted they are a minority (not a small minority mind you) but they're very loud, politically powerful and well motivated to vote.
Generally speaking if you're from Europe and asking yourself "Why doesn't the US just...?" in relations to human rights, equality or social justice issue you really have to put yourself in the mindset of "How well would this have gone over here, 50 years ago?"
It's unfortunate that the concept of Civil Partnership hasn't gone down well in the States. It's definitely addresses two important points of the whole debate.
Gay couples getting equal rights.
Religions not being stepped on.
At the end of the day Marriage means so many things to many people, if you can get the rights to be acknowledged as a couple surely that is the ultimate goal? Marriage doesn't mean anything (in practical terms) if it's not recorded by the State surely? They can put on whatever ceremony they want to celebrate it. Hell, i'm sure there are even pro gay religious leaders that would bless the ceremony for them if they wanted.
The whole 'all or nothing' stance for gay marriage isn't really going to get anybody anywhere. It's a shame Obama didn't advocate Civil Partnerships.
streamdragon wrote:Because Romney thinks marriage should be one-man-one-woman, and is generally against gay marriage?
source Romney was a leading voice against gay marriage as Massachusetts governor. The courts legalized gay marriage in the state during his tenure, but he supported a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
After gay marriage became legal, Romney sought to enforce a statute banning state officials from marrying gay couples from other states. In a speech to conservatives last winter, Romney touted that move, saying he prevented Massachusetts from becoming the "Las Vegas of gay marriage."
Romney said Wednesday he supports limiting benefits for same-sex couples.
"I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name," he told the Fox TV station in Denver. "My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not."
SEPARATE BUT EQUAL IS TOTALLY COOL RITE GUYZ?
(except not really equal)
My cousin said the same thing "I think they should have all the benefits of marriage, just not be called marriage"
Im like "Then why not call it marriage"
I have always beleived this, If your god is someone who wants to cause pain to others and not let love prosper, that is no god i want to worship.
Medium of Death wrote:It's unfortunate that the concept of Civil Partnership hasn't gone down well in the States. It's definitely addresses two important points of the whole debate.
Gay couples getting equal rights.
Religions not being stepped on.
At the end of the day Marriage means so many things to many people, if you can get the rights to be acknowledged as a couple surely that is the ultimate goal? Marriage doesn't mean anything (in practical terms) if it's not recorded by the State surely? They can put on whatever ceremony they want to celebrate it. Hell, i'm sure there are even pro gay religious leaders that would bless the ceremony for them if they wanted.
The whole 'all or nothing' stance for gay marriage isn't really going to get anybody anywhere. It's a shame Obama didn't advocate Civil Partnerships.
The moment the government provides certain benefits for marriage, then the issue is no longer what "marriage means to people". It's what marriage means in the face of the law. Separate but equal is not, will never be and should not have ever been, an acceptable position. This is and should be an all or nothing match in that regard.
Every time this arguement comes up the same tired old rhetoric comes out. There is literally no reason that gay people should not be allowed to be married, with all the privileges and rights thereto. None. No reason. If gay people getting married suddenly somehow makes your own marriage less meaningful, I'm forced to wonder what you based its value on in the first place. Clearly it's not being based on the love between two people, because if it was, you'd understand why homosexual people fight so hard for marriage; because they love someone.
I am white and my wife is black, it is crazy that not that long ago in history we would not have been able to marry. Heck, there are still people giving us dirty looks and some churches are still teaching that the races should not intermarry.
streamdragon wrote:Every time this arguement comes up the same tired old rhetoric comes out. There is literally no reason that gay people should not be allowed to be married, with all the privileges and rights thereto. None. No reason.
Governments can prefer certain relationships over others. I get treated differently because I decided to get married.
My neighbor, who didn't marry his SO, doesn't get treated differently, despite cohabitating and being in a long term relationship.
My other neighbor is a pair of roommates sharing a house while they go to college. They also don't get treated differently.
Another is a father living with his daughter, but they have a different set of benefits.
The government has decided that one type of relationship should receive benefits (for a variety of reasons), but has not extended those to other types of similarly situated relationships. There is nothing wrong with these types of determinations, and there is nothing wrong with determining that other types of relationships shouldn't receive benefits as well.
You are describing differences based on the type of relationship:
Marriage
Non-married
Roommates
Father-Daughter
This has nothing to do with the conversation, as the government is not dictating who is allowed to be in any of those relationships, EXCEPT marriage.
Imagine, instead, that the government is passing laws saying that certain groups can't be roommates. Or that certain groups can't have children. Then you might be at least remotely in the right ballpark.
streamdragon wrote:This has nothing to do with the conversation, as the government is not dictating who is allowed to be in any of those relationships, EXCEPT marriage.
No, those are relationships that the government does not confer special favor upon. Big difference.
streamdragon wrote:Imagine, instead, that the government is passing laws saying that certain groups can't be roommates. Or that certain groups can't have children. Then you might be at least remotely in the right ballpark.
I wasn't aware that the government had passed laws saying that gays can't marry.
What they say is that the government won't recognize as marriage unions between same-sex couples. I've worked for a number of years with a woman who considers herself married, even if it's not recognized in this state. We all refer to her SO as her wife.
streamdragon wrote:This has nothing to do with the conversation, as the government is not dictating who is allowed to be in any of those relationships, EXCEPT marriage.
No, those are relationships that the government does not confer special favor upon. Big difference.
Correct for non-married SOs (excepting, of course, states with common law marriage) and for roommates, but incorrect for father-daughter, which provides tax breaks and other benefits. But you knew that.
biccat wrote:I wasn't aware that the government had passed laws saying that gays can't marry.
What they say is that the government won't recognize as marriage unions between same-sex couples. I've worked for a number of years with a woman who considers herself married, even if it's not recognized in this state. We all refer to her SO as her wife.
She has yet to be arrested.
And yet she has no legal standing with that. If her SO were to be hurt, she would have no visitation rights, no say in medical care, and ultimately no right to anything involved.
streamdragon wrote:And yet she has no legal standing with that. If her SO were to be hurt, she would have no visitation rights, no say in medical care, and ultimately no right to anything involved.
This part of the argument has always interested me. Do homosexual couples lack the ability to generate wills, living wills, and powers of attorney? If so, what limits their capability? If not, why couldn't they address these issues if they chose to do so using currently available instruments?
streamdragon wrote:And yet she has no legal standing with that. If her SO were to be hurt, she would have no visitation rights, no say in medical care, and ultimately no right to anything involved.
You're right.
Neither do roommates. Or cohabitating non-married couples. Or a number of other relationships.
The government favors certain relationships and grants them certain rights. Marriage is simply another one of those relationships.
biccat wrote:The government has decided that one type of relationship should receive benefits (for a variety of reasons), but has not extended those to other types of similarly situated relationships. There is nothing wrong with these types of determinations, and there is nothing wrong with determining that other types of relationships shouldn't receive benefits as well.
But the benefits you refer to in those cases are typically purely economic, tax-related type benefits, yes? None of the rationales for those discriminators are couched in quasireligious, moral based reasons?
streamdragon wrote:And yet she has no legal standing with that. If her SO were to be hurt, she would have no visitation rights, no say in medical care, and ultimately no right to anything involved.
You're right.
Neither do roommates. Or cohabitating non-married couples. Or a number of other relationships.
The government favors certain relationships and grants them certain rights. Marriage is simply another one of those relationships.
That only a select group of people get to participate in.
d-usa wrote:That only a select group of people get to participate in.
By golly, you're right! It's almost like the government favors certain relationships while disfavoring others. If only some brilliant mind had said that already...
Ouze wrote:But the benefits you refer to in those cases are typically purely economic, tax-related type benefits, yes? None of the rationales for those discriminators are couched in quasireligious, moral based reasons?
Sure. But it doesn't matter. There is at least a rational basis for government favoring heterosexual marriages over homosexual marriages; and that rational basis doesn't exist for other types of discrimination (e.g. anti-miscegenation laws).
Not sure what you mean, I have all those documents to ensure my intent is met and I've been married to my wife for over 20 years. She has those documents too. We also have the 'in case we both get capped' documents.
Nothing 'separate but equal' when the EXACT SAME protections and instruments can be used by everyone.
If the intent is SO gets to make medical decisions, THEY CAN DO SO. Right now. Today. If they want to leave their wordly goods and cash to their SO, THEY CAN DO SO. Right now. Today.
So can the hetero couples that don't get married. They have THE SAME protections IF they take advantage of them. To NOT take advantage of these instruments is frankly asinine if you are concerned about the effects of not having done so.
streamdragon wrote:This has nothing to do with the conversation, as the government is not dictating who is allowed to be in any of those relationships, EXCEPT marriage.
No, those are relationships that the government does not confer special favor upon. Big difference.
Correct for non-married SOs (excepting, of course, states with common law marriage) and for roommates, but incorrect for father-daughter, which provides tax breaks and other benefits. But you knew that.
A more direct analogy would be conferring benefits to men raising female children, but not extending the same benefits to men raising male children.
That said, biccat is right that the state can favor certain relationships over others, the problem is that such a point doesn't actually address whether or not there is good reason to do so in the case of same-sex marriage. Its a weak attempt at deflection.
biccat wrote:
Sure. But it doesn't matter. There is at least a rational basis for government favoring heterosexual marriages over homosexual marriages; and that rational basis doesn't exist for other types of discrimination (e.g. anti-miscegenation laws).
Miscegenation lead directly to a great deal of violence and conflict, making it illegal in the interests of dissuading people from such behavior is rational if the desire is to reduce the prevalence of miscegenation related violence and conflict. This rationale was eventually invalidated by civil unrest that followed from the CRM, causing a shift in policy.
One can develop a rational basis for essentially any form of favoritism so the presence of that alone is irrelevant, the question is whether or not that rational basis is in consistence with the state's interest as inclusive of the wishes of the body politic. Viewed in this sense the only rational basis the state could have refusing to recognize homosexual marriage is popular sentiment, indicating that as support for same-sex marriage increases, the rational basis will cease to exist much as it did regarding miscegenation.
Not sure what you mean, I have all those documents to ensure my intent is met and I've been married to my wife for over 20 years. She has those documents too. We also have the 'in case we both get capped' documents.
Nothing 'separate but equal' when the EXACT SAME protections and instruments can be used by everyone.
If the intent is SO gets to make medical decisions, THEY CAN DO SO. Right now. Today. If they want to leave their wordly goods and cash to their SO, THEY CAN DO SO. Right now. Today.
So can the hetero couples that don't get married. They have THE SAME protections IF they take advantage of them. To NOT take advantage of these instruments is frankly asinine if you are concerned about the effects of not having done so.
Difference being: you can do it, and if you don't you are still married which gives you many rights.
They have to do it, and if they don't they are fethed.
Ok question. If we allow gay marriage, will polygamy follow.
I find that arguement ALOT, but i cant for the life of me find a counter argument that doesn't use my own statements against me.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Ok question. If we allow gay marriage, will polygamy follow.
I find that arguement ALOT, but i cant for the life of me find a counter argument that doesn't use my own statements against me.
Give me a rational reason why Polygamy would follow after Gay Marriage.
Because, The argument "People should be with who they want" doesnt just include same sex couples, it should include other couples as well. If we keep the whole "Govt out of our love lives" angle then why shuld polygamy be legal
That's the best. I could counter with how polygamy tends to hurt women in the relationship and relegate them to breeding machines.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Ok question. If we allow gay marriage, will polygamy follow.
I find that arguement ALOT, but i cant for the life of me find a counter argument that doesn't use my own statements against me.
In time. All it needs is a few good lawsuits and a special interest.
Medium of Death wrote:The UK doesn't have Gay Marriage. It has a Civil Partnership which is pretty much the same thing.
Would Civil Partnership not go down better in the States? It's not got Marriage in the Title, but it's pretty much the same thing.
Surely all the 'Sanctity of Marriage' types would back down if it wasn't technically a Marriage?
In the UK, people increasingly call it "Gay Marriage" even though legally it is a Civil Partnership.
Amusingly, there is a movement to have Civil Partnership made available to non-same-sex couples, to allow them to be "married in all but name".
Some form of state registration of marriages and civil partnerships is necessary when legal privileges are granted to people who are married and denied to people who are not married.
Not sure what you mean, I have all those documents to ensure my intent is met and I've been married to my wife for over 20 years. She has those documents too. We also have the 'in case we both get capped' documents.
Nothing 'separate but equal' when the EXACT SAME protections and instruments can be used by everyone.
If the intent is SO gets to make medical decisions, THEY CAN DO SO. Right now. Today. If they want to leave their wordly goods and cash to their SO, THEY CAN DO SO. Right now. Today.
So can the hetero couples that don't get married. They have THE SAME protections IF they take advantage of them. To NOT take advantage of these instruments is frankly asinine if you are concerned about the effects of not having done so.
Difference being: you can do it, and if you don't you are still married which gives you many rights.
They have to do it, and if they don't they are fethed.
BUT my point was and remains, the whole SO can't make medical decisions or inherit argument makes no sense, because, again, using the same instruments ANYONE can use, the SO can make medical decisions and inherit. Go back to my original post on it.
CptJake wrote:
streamdragon wrote:And yet she has no legal standing with that. If her SO were to be hurt, she would have no visitation rights, no say in medical care, and ultimately no right to anything involved.
This part of the argument has always interested me. Do homosexual couples lack the ability to generate wills, living wills, and powers of attorney? If so, what limits their capability? If not, why couldn't they address these issues if they chose to do so using currently available instruments?
I stand by it. That part of the argument makes no sense. All it does is show laziness or ignorance on the part of certain people who don't take advantage of existing mechanisms to protect their loved ones regardless of sexual orientation. This isn't a gay/straight issue. It is a 'I don't care enough about you to fill out a POA and will' issue.
Any other legal/tax issues you want to bring up may be worth discussing, but this 'issue' is too easy to address, and it affects straight non-married folks the same way it affects the homosexual folks.
Show me the form a homosexual fills out so that if their military SO is killed, they get the flag.
There is no form that allows me to add my non-married spouse to my healthcare plan. I can only add spouses or children.
You can nitpick the specifics of the benefits all you like, but the fact remains that unless ALL benefits are the same, you have created a state of "separate but (not really) equal".
Go back to the topic which discussed the end of DADT here on Dakka. I specifically brought up it was WRONG to end DADT the way they did BECAUSE as implemented it would not allow homosexuals to have dependents get the same privilleges.
Again, I am only arguing that the 'my SO can't make medical decsions or inherit' argument is asinine. It is. You can bring up OTHER arguments and should. BUT that argument is asinine because the solution is the SAME for everyone, homosexual or straight.
Bluntly, if you don't give enough of a crap about your loved one to do a POA and will, don't blame the Gov't.
By the way, there are a lot of health care plans that allow the addition of a Life Partner. I suggest shopping for the plan that best fits YOUR requirements vice depending on the Gov't to fix YOUR problems.
You can make medical decisions for your SO by getting married.
They cannot get married and have to jump through hoops and fill out state specific forms to get the same healthcare powers you get by getting married.
Just because you can fill out the same form doesn't mean that it is right that they have to fill out a form for any state that they may have an emergency in.
Let's say they do have all their papers, go on vacation in Hawaii and have a horrible accident. They would most likely have their documents with them, and even if they did it would often mean that it is not valid in that state. So a road trip along route 66 would require a trip to the attorney to draw up legal documents for how many states?
Of course you don't have to do any of that, because you are married.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Ok question. If we allow gay marriage, will polygamy follow.
I find that arguement ALOT, but i cant for the life of me find a counter argument that doesn't use my own statements against me.
There is already polygamy going on, whats your point?
hotsauceman1 wrote:Ok question. If we allow gay marriage, will polygamy follow.
I find that arguement ALOT, but i cant for the life of me find a counter argument that doesn't use my own statements against me.
There is already polygamy going on, whats your point?
The real issue here is people want the government to have permission to say who can and can not get married.
Imagine how much fun it would be if you go to get married and they don't give you a license.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chowderhead wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:Ok question. If we allow gay marriage, will polygamy follow.
I find that arguement ALOT, but i cant for the life of me find a counter argument that doesn't use my own statements against me.
There is already polygamy going on, whats your point?
He's talking about legalized polygamy.
weird I thought it was legal in Nevada.
But really whats the problem with polygamy? If you want to have more than 1 wife who does it hurt? or if a woman wants more than one husband. As long as everyone is consenting adults they should be able to do so.
What I find humorous about that whole argument is it usually comes from the religious people who don't want gay marriage so they use it as a slippery slope argument, Even though their bible tells them how to treat all your wives, the bible endorses polygamy.
Medium of Death wrote:The whole 'all or nothing' stance for gay marriage isn't really going to get anybody anywhere. It's a shame Obama didn't advocate Civil Partnerships.
He did for a very long time. He changed his mind when realizing something very important: "separate but equal" is not actually equal in practice, just like it wasn't equal during the segregation era.
This is especially true given that the same conservative whackjobs are also doing things like...
... trying to remove insurance reform that DOES allow for homosexual SOs to use their insurance to cover their lover (because they want homosexuals to suffer).
... trying to write federal laws that nullify the supreme court ruling that declared sodomy laws illegal (because they want to jail and punish homosexuals).
... trying to enforce a law which directly defies the constitution so that states can deny married couples any and all benefits under law, as long as the married couple is homosexual (because they want homosexuals to suffer).
... trying to pass laws that make adoption by homosexual couples illegal (even though psychological and sociological studies prove that homosexual couples raise well adjusted kids).
... trying to put DADT back on the books so that they can force homosexual soldiers to lie to their fellow servicemen and women (because they want homosexuals to suffer and don't care about how it reduces the effectiveness of the military).
These are sick, demented people. Welcome to the US legislative body.
Frazzled wrote:Nero plays the hard while Rome burns. The real unemployment rate is still at 11%.
Whcih is lower than it was when his term started. You can argue that there hasn't been enough improvement ,but there HAS been improvement.
No thanks to the Republicans, who have been enforcing massive amounts of job cuts to the public sector which have done a lot to counteract the various job increases in the private sector.
But they don't like it when you point out the fact that whenever you fire someone who works in the public sector, it adds to the unemployment rate.
Melissia wrote:But they don't like it when you point out the fact that whenever you fire someone who works in the public sector, it adds to the unemployment rate.
So to take your argument the other way, if we allowed the governement to double its expenditures, increase its payroll headcount by 100%, and drop the unemployment rate to ~3% within the span of months, the US would be a better place?
Melissia wrote:But they don't like it when you point out the fact that whenever you fire someone who works in the public sector, it adds to the unemployment rate.
So to take your argument the other way, if we allowed the governement to double its expenditures, increase its payroll headcount by 100%, and drop the unemployment rate to ~3% within the span of months, the US would be a better place?
That all depends on why the headcount was increased. A massive public works project could easily make the US a better place-- building and repairing roads and railroads, renovating aged sewage infrastructure, replacing aging phone lines and internet infrastructure with newer infrastructure, rebuilding or renovating old government buildings so that they're more energy efficient and better looking, public art projects, improving the efficiency of our power grids and power lines, etc etc etc. All of them would improve the country and make it a better place to live, while also employing many people who otherwise would have been an unproductive drain on society.
That'd make the country a better place, and it could also be used to stimulate private sector employment at the same time (private sector companies contracted to design the new buildings and infrastructure, or to put in and manage high-tech parts of them such as sensors, solar panels, and the like, or to provide skilled labor, nevermind the increased consumption and economic demand that would be a direct result of the increased employment, and the benefits that they would have from the infrastructure itself).
Frazzled wrote:Nero plays the hard while Rome burns. The real unemployment rate is still at 11%.
Whcih is lower than it was when his term started.
No, its not. Not by a good bit. Don't let facts get in the way though.
No thanks to the Republicans, who have been enforcing massive amounts of job cuts to the public sector which have done a lot to counteract the various job increases in the private sector.
Good. Show me two government workers and I'll show one who should be fired.
No thanks to the Republicans, who have been enforcing massive amounts of job cuts to the public sector which have done a lot to counteract the various job increases in the private sector.
Good. Show me two government workers and I'll show one who should be fired.
Melissia wrote:But they don't like it when you point out the fact that whenever you fire someone who works in the public sector, it adds to the unemployment rate.
So to take your argument the other way, if we allowed the governement to double its expenditures, increase its payroll headcount by 100%, and drop the unemployment rate to ~3% within the span of months, the US would be a better place?
That all depends on why the headcount was increased. A massive public works project could easily make the US a better place-- building and repairing roads and railroads, renovating aged sewage infrastructure, replacing aging phone lines and internet infrastructure with newer infrastructure, rebuilding or renovating old government buildings so that they're more energy efficient and better looking, public art projects, improving the efficiency of our power grids and power lines, etc etc etc. All of them would improve the country and make it a better place to live, while also employing many people who otherwise would have been an unproductive drain on society.
That'd make the country a better place, and it could also be used to stimulate private sector employment at the same time (private sector companies contracted to design the new buildings and infrastructure, or to put in and manage high-tech parts of them such as sensors, solar panels, and the like, or to provide skilled labor, nevermind the increased consumption and economic demand that would be a direct result of the increased employment, and the benefits that they would have from the infrastructure itself).
Melissia wrote:But they don't like it when you point out the fact that whenever you fire someone who works in the public sector, it adds to the unemployment rate.
So to take your argument the other way, if we allowed the governement to double its expenditures, increase its payroll headcount by 100%, and drop the unemployment rate to ~3% within the span of months, the US would be a better place?
That all depends on why the headcount was increased. A massive public works project could easily make the US a better place-- building and repairing roads and railroads, renovating aged sewage infrastructure, replacing aging phone lines and internet infrastructure with newer infrastructure, rebuilding or renovating old government buildings so that they're more energy efficient and better looking, public art projects, improving the efficiency of our power grids and power lines, etc etc etc. All of them would improve the country and make it a better place to live, while also employing many people who otherwise would have been an unproductive drain on society.
That'd make the country a better place, and it could also be used to stimulate private sector employment at the same time (private sector companies contracted to design the new buildings and infrastructure, or to put in and manage high-tech parts of them such as sensors, solar panels, and the like, or to provide skilled labor, nevermind the increased consumption and economic demand that would be a direct result of the increased employment, and the benefits that they would have from the infrastructure itself).
No thanks to the Republicans, who have been enforcing massive amounts of job cuts to the public sector which have done a lot to counteract the various job increases in the private sector.
Good. Show me two government workers and I'll show one who should be fired.
That doesn't make sense...
Translation: Government employees are slow an bureaucratic. Half could be fired with no impairment to efficiency. Don't believe me? Go to the local DPS, tax assessor, or UK equivalent of social security office.
I had the misfortune of having to register and transfer some cars and had to deal with the local tax assessor. Outside of a nursing home, I've literally never seen anyone LITERALLY move that slowly (plus they were, er huge). Saw a few bolt out for lunch at the crack of 10.15 (must have been lunch they didnt't come back) and they sure grabbed their purses and bailed fast.
Sure business sucks (United I am flinging poo in your general direction), but they don't ALL suck.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Melissia wrote:
sourclams wrote:
Melissia wrote:But they don't like it when you point out the fact that whenever you fire someone who works in the public sector, it adds to the unemployment rate.
So to take your argument the other way, if we allowed the governement to double its expenditures, increase its payroll headcount by 100%, and drop the unemployment rate to ~3% within the span of months, the US would be a better place?
That all depends on why the headcount was increased. A massive public works project could easily make the US a better place-- building and repairing roads and railroads, renovating aged sewage infrastructure, replacing aging phone lines and internet infrastructure with newer infrastructure, rebuilding or renovating old government buildings so that they're more energy efficient and better looking, public art projects, improving the efficiency of our power grids and power lines, etc etc etc. All of them would improve the country and make it a better place to live, while also employing many people who otherwise would have been an unproductive drain on society.
That'd make the country a better place, and it could also be used to stimulate private sector employment at the same time (private sector companies contracted to design the new buildings and infrastructure, or to put in and manage high-tech parts of them such as sensors, solar panels, and the like, or to provide skilled labor, nevermind the increased consumption and economic demand that would be a direct result of the increased employment, and the benefits that they would have from the infrastructure itself).
Check your Facebook. Marx wants to friend you.
Who cares?
It sounds like a pretty good idea...
Of course it does if you're not a student of math, consequences, economics, etc. etc.
No thanks to the Republicans, who have been enforcing massive amounts of job cuts to the public sector which have done a lot to counteract the various job increases in the private sector.
Good. Show me two government workers and I'll show one who should be fired.
That doesn't make sense...
Translation: Government employees are slow an bureaucratic. Half could be fired with no impairment to efficiency. Don't believe me? Go to the local DPS, tax assessor, or UK equivalent of social security office.
I had the misfortune of having to register and transfer some cars and had to deal with the local tax assessor. Outside of a nursing home, I've literally never seen anyone LITERALLY move that slowly (plus they were, er huge). Saw a few bolt out for lunch at the crack of 10.15 (must have been lunch they didnt't come back) and they sure grabbed their purses and bailed fast.
Sure business sucks (United I am flinging poo in your general direction), but they don't ALL suck.
Both of my parents have worked for both private and public sectors in the UK.
According to them they are pretty much the same private just gets paid more.
Melissia wrote:A massive public works project could easily make the US a better place-- building and repairing roads and railroads, renovating aged sewage infrastructure, replacing aging phone lines and internet infrastructure with newer infrastructure, rebuilding or renovating old government buildings so that they're more energy efficient and better looking, public art projects, improving the efficiency of our power grids and power lines, etc etc etc.
So employ ditch-diggers, fence posters, and artists, basically? Raise minimum wage effectively to $15/hour and massively boost unskilled labor headcounts? Frankly the implosion of massive Greek and Southern Italian public expenditures-based economies provide an unignorable case study for the long term sustainability of this sort of FDR-esque stimulus. What happens when a career based on ditchdigging at $15/hour comes to an inevitable end when the stimulus ceases? What valuable skills has that individual been imparted with? Remember that public works didn't end the Depression, it took the self-imposed austerity measures and the mid-WWII industrial rampup to do so.
Melissia wrote:A massive public works project could easily make the US a better place-- building and repairing roads and railroads, renovating aged sewage infrastructure, replacing aging phone lines and internet infrastructure with newer infrastructure, rebuilding or renovating old government buildings so that they're more energy efficient and better looking, public art projects, improving the efficiency of our power grids and power lines, etc etc etc.
So employ ditch-diggers, fence posters, and artists, basically? Raise minimum wage effectively to $15/hour and massively boost unskilled labor headcounts? Frankly the implosion of massive Greek and Southern Italian public expenditures-based economies provide an unignorable case study for the long term sustainability of this sort of FDR-esque stimulus. What happens when a career based on ditchdigging at $15/hour comes to an inevitable end when the stimulus ceases? What valuable skills has that individual been imparted with? Remember that public works didn't end the Depression, it took the self-imposed austerity measures and the mid-WWII industrial rampup to do so.
The forgotten problem is that these jobs aren't just created. You're taking money out of the system via taxes to do it, now or later. That money would be used in the actual econmics to generate goods and services that people actually want, not more stifling paper pushing bureaucrats. Unless of course you like the GSA spending your money in Vegas.
Frazzled wrote:Nero plays the hard while Rome burns. The real unemployment rate is still at 11%.
Which is lower than it was when his term started.
No, its not. Not by a good bit. Don't let facts get in the way though.
The estimated real unemployment rate when Obama started was 13-16%, with some estimates as high as 20%. Which is greater than the current 11%, at least according to normal math.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Of course, if the US had actually spent a trillion on infrastruscture we might see some benefit. We didn't.
Yes we did (perhaps not that exact amount of money, but quite a bit regardless). It helped lift us out of the Great Depression.
Melissia wrote:The estimated real unemployment rate when Obama started was 13-16%, with some estimates as high as 20%. Which is greater than the current 11%, at least according to normal math.
The U6 unemployment rate in January 2009 was 14.2%. In April 2012 it is 14.5%. If you want to be generous and use February 2009, the U6 unemployment rate was 15.1%.
In January 2009 the employment level (seasonally adjusted) was 142,187 thousand. In April 2012, it is 141,865 thousand. Again, if you want to be generous, in February 2009 the unemployment level was 141,660 thousand.
The only reason the unemployment level has been dropping is because the participation rate has dropped. Check out the table on page 4: the number of employed workers dropped from March 2012 to April 2012 by 169 thousand! And yet the unemployment rate decreased from 8.3 to 8.1%. This is possible because the civilian labor force dropped by 342 thousand workers.
d-usa wrote:You can make medical decisions for your SO by getting married.
They cannot get married and have to jump through hoops and fill out state specific forms to get the same healthcare powers you get by getting married.
Just because you can fill out the same form doesn't mean that it is right that they have to fill out a form for any state that they may have an emergency in.
Let's say they do have all their papers, go on vacation in Hawaii and have a horrible accident. They would most likely have their documents with them, and even if they did it would often mean that it is not valid in that state. So a road trip along route 66 would require a trip to the attorney to draw up legal documents for how many states?
Of course you don't have to do any of that, because you are married.
So again, too lazy or ignorant to take care of their loved one is your reasoning for needing Gov't intervetion. Crappy reason. A POA is not some state specific form, and in your unlikely 'disaster in Hawaii' scenario, a married hetero couple would not have their marriage license, living wills, or specific POAs on hand and would have to 'jump through hoops' to take care of a horrible accident too, and the unmarried hetero couple has the same issue as the unmarried homosexual couple.
You can keep coming up with silly scenarios, but the bottom line is there are good points to argue, good valid points. This isn't one. If you can't 'jump through hoops' as you put it (or fill out a very simple to execute POA to be accurate) for your loved one, that is on you. Frankly regardless of sexual orientation you are going to screw your loved one if you do not take proper precautions. POAs, living wills and a normal will are just smart. If you REALLY care for your loved ones you make sure you do these things. Regardless of the sex of the parents, if both get capped how are underaged kids taken care of? Without setting up the proper documents you can't be sure. Again, it is just smart. To think that non married couples of ANY sexual orientation shouldn't or can't do these things is asinine. To think their inability or unwillingness to do these things is best fixed by the Federal Gov't is asinine.
By the way, these types of issues affect married couples too. For example, I cannot deposit money into my wife's IRA without a POA allowing me to act on her behalf.
Frazzled wrote:That money would be used in the actual econmics to generate goods and services that people actually want, not more stifling paper pushing bureaucrats.
CptJake wrote:So again, too lazy or ignorant to take care of their loved one is your reasoning for needing Gov't intervetion.
So if a straight couple is married it isn't government intervention to get their benefits, but if it is a gay couple it is?
Its government intervention.
Which seems to be an argument that government shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage at all.
Exactly.
bingo
Of course, no one in politics ever actually seriously suggests this, not even Ron Paul (then again, given that Ron Paul is a conservative nut on par with Santorum, this is hardly surprising).
But I must admit, it actually kinda sounds rather petty and spiteful instead of principled at first glance (though I'm not claiming it actually is, as I can certainly understand the libertarian point here), as if you're saying "if we are going to allow gays to marry, then we're going to take marriage away from EVERYONE!"
CptJake wrote:So again, too lazy or ignorant to take care of their loved one is your reasoning for needing Gov't intervetion.
So if a straight couple is married it isn't government intervention to get their benefits, but if it is a gay couple it is?
Its government intervention.
Which seems to be an argument that government shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage at all.
Exactly.
bingo
Of course, no one in politics ever actually seriously suggests this, not even Ron Paul (then again, given that Ron Paul is a conservative nut on par with Santorum, this is hardly surprising).
But I must admit, it actually kinda sounds rather petty and spiteful instead of principled at first glance, as if you're saying "if we are going to allow gays to marry, then we're going to take marriage away from EVERYONE!"
NNNNNNNN! Wrong answer thank you for playing. Excellent projection of your own fears and biases though.
Government should stay out of the marriage business. If Julia wants to marry a goat thats her and her religion's call. Aint go all to do with rights or liberties though.
If you want to amalgamate these rights for efficiency into a social contract than there's no issue here for libertarians. Go for it.
Samus_aran115 wrote:
Yeah, I don't know either. God, I love this country, but man, we have some serious widespread idiocy here.
Dont worry about it, thats everywhere.
In fact.. everywhere is the fething same. I don't know why we cling to this notion of a difference, we should just rename the entire English speaking world "Megacity X" and accept the fact that there is feth all difference other than ridiculous things like.. slightly odder shaped cars or slightly different coffee.
Melissia wrote:Of course, no one in politics ever actually seriously suggests this, not even Ron Paul (then again, given that Ron Paul is a conservative nut on par with Santorum, this is hardly surprising).
Ron Paul - October 2011: "Biblically and historically, the government was very uninvolved in marriage. I like that. I don't know why we should register our marriage to the federal government. I think it's a sacrament"
biccat wrote:
Ron Paul - October 2011: "Biblically and historically, the government was very uninvolved in marriage. I like that. I don't know why we should register our marriage to the federal government. I think it's a sacrament"
We don't register marriage to the federal government.
Ouze wrote:If this is what the OT is like now, can you image what it's gonna be like in October and November?
Ouze wrote:If this is what the OT is like now, can you image what it's gonna be like in October and November?
A veritable rum and wiener dog filled thrill ride of adventure!!!
On the positive it won't be as good as our Avengers Mother Day Eve Extravanagnza, replete with wine, then booze at the Brewhouse whilst we watch said movie. i'm going to get pizza and Merlot with a nice desert wine chaser. Yee ha!
Speaking of mothers day (off topic yay) I sold one of my books (the other one was being replaced with a new edition, so I'm gonna have to sell it on ebay or something) and I think I have enough to get her a belated mothers day gift. Which is nice, as I haven't had enough to give gifts since Dec last year.
As I understand the situation, the controversy is that some churches object to the government using the word marriage for civil licensed contractual life partnerships between people who would not be allowed to marry according to the rites of the specific churches.
Samus_aran115 wrote:
Yeah, I don't know either. God, I love this country, but man, we have some serious widespread idiocy here.
Dont worry about it, thats everywhere.
In fact.. everywhere is the fething same. I don't know why we cling to this notion of a difference, we should just rename the entire English speaking world "Megacity X" and accept the fact that there is feth all difference other than ridiculous things like.. slightly odder shaped cars or slightly different coffee.
Admit it mattyrm, your soft stance on this subject was a direct result of your man-dates with Alby, wasn't it?!?!
Personally I disagree. Personally, I even think same-sex relationships should happen. I think it is unnatural to feel sexually of romantic attraction.to a person of the same gender as you.
I disagree with.Obama or anyone else who encourage same-sex marriage/civil union. I also disagree with same sex relationships romantic, sexual or otherwise, believing it is unnatural to.feel attraction to others of the same sex as yourself.
Deadshot wrote:Personally I disagree. Personally, I even think same-sex relationships should happen. I think it is unnatural to feel sexually of romantic attraction.to a person of the same gender as you.
I think he's saying he doesn't agree with same sex relationships because it's unnatural.
If we're going the natural root, about 1500 species have been observed to engage in homosexual behaviour, and in 500 it's a very well documented phenomenon, including most primates (our closest living ancestors).
I disagree with.Obama or anyone else who encourage same-sex marriage/civil union. I also disagree with same sex relationships romantic, sexual or otherwise, believing it is unnatural to.feel attraction to others of the same sex as yourself.
In short, Obama is wrong , IMHO.
Thankfully your opinion is in the ever increasing minority.
It could be argued that allowing severely mentally or physically handicapped infants to live is also unnatural on the basis that there is a good chance they will never be able to take care of themselves on their own. That is a pointless argument to make though, since there is no evidence that homosexuality is unnatural.
Tell me, what is natural? Conjoined twins? Are children born with their heart outside their bodies natural?
I disagree with.Obama or anyone else who encourage same-sex marriage/civil union. I also disagree with same sex relationships romantic, sexual or otherwise, believing it is unnatural to.feel attraction to others of the same sex as yourself.
Aside from spouting religious hatred and pseudoscientific falsehoods?
Amaya wrote:
Deadshot wrote:Let me explain.
I disagree with.Obama or anyone else who encourage same-sex marriage/civil union. I also disagree with same sex relationships romantic, sexual or otherwise, believing it is unnatural to.feel attraction to others of the same sex as yourself.
In short, Obama is wrong , IMHO.
Thankfully your opinion is in the ever increasing minority.
It could be argued that allowing severely mentally or physically handicapped infants to live is also unnatural on the basis that there is a good chance they will never be able to take care of themselves on their own. That is a pointless argument to make though, since there is no evidence that homosexuality is unnatural.
Tell me, what is natural? Conjoined twins? Are children born with their heart outside their bodies natural?
Mainly because it is natural? We're not the only species to engage in homosexual behaviour, we've done it for millenia... To be honest this is largely only a problem in certain societies. Many societies in existence, and that have existed have seen no problem with homosexual behaviour. Feth, those manliest of men the Spartans had it built into their society/military structure.
I am entitled to my opinion. And yes, conjoined twins and "herat outside the body" are unnatural as they are not how humans are supposed to be.
Religious hatred are outside my control. I don't take action, I don't bully homosexuals, I don't bomb their houses. I can live with them, I just disagree with it, so you can't call.me a homophobic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lux_Lucis wrote:
Deadshot wrote:And tell.me how I am wrong?
Mainly because it is natural? We're not the only species to engage in homosexual behaviour, we've done it for millenia... To be honest this is largely only a problem in certain societies. Many societies in existence, and that have existed have seen no problem with homosexual behaviour. Feth, those manliest of men the Spartans had it built into their society/military structure.
And where are they now?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I wasn't stereotyping homosexual men as unmanly, or women are not feminine, all I am saying is I don't thinks its right
Deadshot wrote:I am entitled to my opinion. And yes, conjoined twins and "herat outside the body" are unnatural as they are not how humans are supposed to be.
Religious hatred are outside my control. I don't take action, I don't bully homosexuals, I don't bomb their houses. I can live with them, I just disagree with it, so you can't call.me a homophobic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lux_Lucis wrote:
Deadshot wrote:And tell.me how I am wrong?
Mainly because it is natural? We're not the only species to engage in homosexual behaviour, we've done it for millenia... To be honest this is largely only a problem in certain societies. Many societies in existence, and that have existed have seen no problem with homosexual behaviour. Feth, those manliest of men the Spartans had it built into their society/military structure.
And where are they now?
You are entitled to your opinions, it would just be good if they were based on fact rather than unwarranted prejudice.
Yes the decay of their society was entirely because they practised homosexuality, had nothing to do with stagnation and conquest, like all empires.
Quite a few tribal groups practice it across the world, and many super-powers through-out history have (Ancient Rome and Greece, as well as quite a few Renaissance city-states as examples). Plato: '[homosexuality] is shameful to barbarians because of their despotic governments, just as philosophy and athletics are, since it is apparently not in the best interests of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or physical unions, all of which love is particularly apt to produce'
Amaya wrote:Did he really just try to claim that the Greeks are no longer a world power because they practiced pederasty?
Oh yeah. And yeah CthuluIsSpy is right, although they did practice that as well, in Athens at least.
Anyways, I'm going to heed my own advice and not try and change someone's opinion since it rarely works.
Back on topic (oh the ironies of the Off-Topic Forum), looking in from the outside it looks like clarifying his position is pretty gutsy of Obama since this seems to be a pretty divisive issue over there (although since I don't live there I may be wrong).
And I agree, governments should not be involving themselves in such things. If a church wants to refuse to sanctify a same-sex marriage then I think that's their choice, but if there are going to be tax benefits for married couples (or groups for polygamists) then that should just be a legal state that has nothing to do with religion.
Amaya wrote:Did he really just try to claim that the Greeks are no longer a world power because they practiced pederasty?
Wait what? Where did that come from?
I think you need to recheck your definition of pederast.
It is not a synonym for homosexuality.
No I did not. I am just saying that they are no longer a superpower.
As I understand it, the idea behind was that you fight harder for those you love. If you love your conrades, you fight harder to ensure they did.not die. While a good.concept, it is flawed in that you fight because you have to. Love is an illusion like all emotions. We, like other animals, have a primary goal in ensuring that our own genes survive. If impossible we preserve our species. Homosexuality supports neither. You do not pass on your genes or create more humans for the species.
Amaya wrote:Did he really just try to claim that the Greeks are no longer a world power because they practiced pederasty?
Wait what? Where did that come from?
I think you need to recheck your definition of pederast.
It is not a synonym for homosexuality.
No I did not. I am just saying that they are no longer a superpower.
As I understand it, the idea behind was that you fight harder for those you love. If you love your conrades, you fight harder to ensure they did.not die. While a good.concept, it is flawed in that you fight because you have to. Love is an illusion like all emotions. We, like other animals, have a primary goal in ensuring that our own genes survive. If impossible we preserve our species. Homosexuality supports neither. You do not pass on your genes or create more humans for the species.
Homosexuality exists in most (if not all) social animals, because it builds beneficial social bonds that help the group in times of need, thus helping protect the group. Nature does not just play one card repeatedly.
Though, back onto the topic. Obama did need some balls to do that, I 'll say that. Churches and religion are powerful allies and dangerous enemies. Going against a religion will earn you enemies and he may lose the elction because.of die-hard religous people hating him. Then again, he could win it by more homosexuals returning the favour of support.
Deadshot wrote:I do actually. Bribimg helps in the short run. Short run is better to.me than long. The long run will change depending on the short.
Seriously? Please go read some history and world politics. Just check out the entirety of Africa and most of the Middle East, especially the People's Democratic Republic of the Congo. Corruption is largely a vicious cycle.
Deadshot wrote:I do actually. Bribimg helps in the short run. Short run is better to.me than long.
So you agree that a company laying off its most skilled workers and then giving its corporate executives a bonus is a good thing because it benefits the company in the short term as the stockholders for some reason become happy (and you don't care about the long term, where the company has effectively destroyed its ability to compete)?
Though I will say, if you like bribery so much, there's always Mexico. It's a wonderful place to live, if you don't mind the drug lords bribing cops and government officials to ignore their kidnappings, gang-rapes, and public executions.
Deadshot wrote:I do actually. Bribimg helps in the short run. Short run is better to.me than long. The long run will change depending on the short.
...Are you high? A corrupt government is not a good one. They are generally unstable and a threat to its own people. Please refer to the aforementioned drug lords in mexico for more details.
The only real reason he did it was to generate more donations from Hollywood. It puts him in a bad position because Blacks and Hispanics historically trend away from supporting gay rights.
Strategically he did the best thing in stating that he supports it, but he didn't say he was going to do anything about it.
Kinda like Snikrot coming from the back table edge against a leafblower list. They might glance that Chimera enough to wreck it and kill the guys inside, but not really.
Yes, you are. You are not, however, entitled to decide what is or isn't natural. Not for anyone outside of you that is.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
...Are you high?
Do you have to say it like it's a bad thing?!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
UsdiThunder wrote:The only real reason he did it was to generate more donations from Hollywood. It puts him in a bad position because Blacks and Hispanics historically trend away from supporting gay rights.
But I think the Black and Hispanic communities have way more to lose if the President loses, than just that one issue.
Melissia wrote:Yes, this is a much less important issue for many Hispanics than the reduction of benefits that they would get under a Republican president.
Or issues like build that fence on your way out, if you don't mind, hombre.
A nice little quote from 2011, featuring the man himself. From Clint Eastwood, with the customary cursing altered of course:
"These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage? I don't give a [feth] about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of."
"They go on and on with all this bull[scat] about 'sanctity' -- don't give me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want."
Although he is a registered Republican, Eastwood doesn't consider himself a conservative. He has supported California's former Democratic Gov. Gray Davis and Democratic Rep. Sam Farr.
"I was an Eisenhower Republican when I started out at 21, because he promised to get us out of the Korean War, and over the years, I realized there was a Republican philosophy that I liked. And then they lost it. And libertarians had more of it. Because what I really believe is, let's spend a little more time leaving everybody alone."
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.
Original Article or
A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.
Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.
While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 - 518) explained that, "we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life". This is not a case of simple "adelphopoiia." In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as "erastai,” or "lovers". In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.
Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.
Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.
Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".
Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.
Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.
The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).
While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.
At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.
Prof. Boswell's academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.
For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.
It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and committment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ.
And yes, conjoined twins and "herat outside the body" are unnatural as they are not how humans are supposed to be.
... I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.
They are natural as they, you know, happen naturally. They are abnormal but that's different from unnatural surely ?
Of course clothes, vehicular transport, typing messages on a screen to communicate with people you've never met from all across the world and most medical procedures are also unnatural, do you think we shouldn't do or use them too then ?
Interesting article reds8n, thanks for posting. I'm curious when the practice generally started to disappear and when the overall opinion in most churches shifted to what it is today.
I have to say, after what - about ninety seven of these gay marriage debates here, the only point I think is interesting is that most seem to think hetero and homosexual relationships are better bestiality because animals can't give consent ( I think they are better 'cause banging animals is weird), which means that we're all enabling literally countless cases of animal rape since animals can't consent and yet we just go on letting them bang each other. In many cases, we work hard to make sure that happens.
Hmm. I have no idea where I am going with this. Stupid massive amounts of rum.
Bromsy wrote:I have to say, after what - about ninety seven of these gay marriage debates here, the only point I think is interesting is that most seem to think hetero and homosexual relationships are better bestiality because animals can't give consent ( I think they are better 'cause banging animals is weird), which means that we're all enabling literally countless cases of animal rape since animals can't consent and yet we just go on letting them bang each other. In many cases, we work hard to make sure that happens.
Hmm. I have no idea where I am going with this. Stupid massive amounts of rum.
I would prefer a referendum than just a straight pass. Also, I would much prefer the term Cival Partnership.
People seem to hate conservatism a lot these days. I'm sick of people saying "Do what you want, it's their lives" but when the conservative view is put on the table they run to the hill shouting "Oh my, Biggot, biggot." Conservatives like me are being lenient. If I was put in Government I would have Conserative areas which Conservative families can live in peace without being called "Biggoted".
Hate speech is free speech. Athiests can make all sorts of absurd claims about religons yet we can't sue them for "Hate speech". Throw politcal correctness out of the windows, it is unneeded and it ends with unnessacary court cases. If you call me a homophobe, you are cleary a conservaphobe. End of line, intil the LGB(T) Community changes it's message from:
Spoiler:
To something a lot more presentable and more appealing to Conservatives then I will take this seriously. It makes me wonder if people who oppose it should make a black and white flag with circles on it as a joke. Seriously quit the flag concept, it's not working, to me it seems like you want your own little Nation. Make a presentable argument and stop spamming the same thing over and over again. Also, the Flamboyancy is a big turn off for a lot of older and younger people, that needs to stop.
So basically as long as they act and behave like you want them to, you're okay with possibly thinking they might be human beings. How frelling generous of you.
But thanks for the images I tend to forget how wonderful conservative messages are:
Spoiler:
I'm hardly a "conservaphobe". I don't give two shazbots what you do with your life. You can spend all day praying and doing whatever else you do.
What I have a problem with, is when you try forcing that frelling puritanism on the rest of the nation. I'm more than content to let you live your life how you want, so why can't you return the favor and let others live how they want?
Someone once described Puritanism to me as "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, might be happy". I laughed when I first heard it, but seeing what "christians" in this nation have become...
rockerbikie wrote:I would prefer a referendum than just a straight pass.
Popular referendums are, quite possibly, one of the single worst things to ever befall democratic governments.
rockerbikie wrote:
I'm sick of people saying "Do what you want, it's their lives" but when the conservative view is put on the table they run to the hill shouting "Oh my, Biggot, biggot."
Yes, that's called having your views challenged, its generally what follows from giving voice to your convictions.
rockerbikie wrote:
Conservatives like me are being lenient. If I was put in Government I would have Conserative areas which Conservative families can live in peace without being called "Biggoted".
I won't lie, if your first reaction is to isolate yourself from anyone that's different, then you're not doing yourself any favors in the "I'm not a bigot." department.
rockerbikie wrote:Seriously quit the flag concept, it's not working, to me it seems like you want your own little Nation.
You know that flags are used by groups other than nations, right?
streamdragon wrote:What I have a problem with, is when you try forcing that frelling puritanism on the rest of the nation. I'm more than content to let you live your life how you want, so why can't you return the favor and let others live how they want?
So basically as long as they act and behave like you want them to, you're okay with possibly thinking they might be human beings?
streamdragon wrote:What I have a problem with, is when you try forcing that frelling puritanism on the rest of the nation. I'm more than content to let you live your life how you want, so why can't you return the favor and let others live how they want?
So basically as long as they act and behave like you want them to, you're okay with possibly thinking they might be human beings?
I could have sworn that what he was saying was " I will tolerate you as long as you tolerate me."
Must have been my brainwashed liberal mind that made me misunderstand.
d-usa wrote:
I could have sworn that what he was saying was " I will tolerate you as long as you tolerate me."
Must have been my brainwashed liberal mind that made me misunderstand.
There's always a problem when you start talking about tolerance in that you're necessarily asking another, presumably intolerant, person to modify his behavior; thereby casting the person requesting tolerance as intolerant. This same basic issues crops up almost every time any sort of political or social buzz word is used, "freedom" is a good example.
Of course, we can always just move into the debate over whether or not sexuality is more important to any given person than their views on the sexuality of any other particular person, which generally favors the argument for the legalization of same-sex marriage much more.
rockerbikie wrote:I would prefer a referendum than just a straight pass. Also, I would much prefer the term Cival Partnership.
People seem to hate conservatism a lot these days. I'm sick of people saying "Do what you want, it's their lives" but when the conservative view is put on the table they run to the hill shouting "Oh my, Biggot, biggot." Conservatives like me are being lenient. If I was put in Government I would have Conserative areas which Conservative families can live in peace without being called "Biggoted".
Hate speech is free speech. Athiests can make all sorts of absurd claims about religons yet we can't sue them for "Hate speech". Throw politcal correctness out of the windows, it is unneeded and it ends with unnessacary court cases. If you call me a homophobe, you are cleary a conservaphobe. End of line, intil the LGB(T) Community changes it's message from:
Spoiler:
To something a lot more presentable and more appealing to Conservatives then I will take this seriously. It makes me wonder if people who oppose it should make a black and white flag with circles on it as a joke. Seriously quit the flag concept, it's not working, to me it seems like you want your own little Nation. Make a presentable argument and stop spamming the same thing over and over again. Also, the Flamboyancy is a big turn off for a lot of older and younger people, that needs to stop.
rockerbikie wrote:I would prefer a referendum than just a straight pass.
Popular referendums are, quite possibly, one of the single worst things to ever befall democratic governments.
rockerbikie wrote:
I'm sick of people saying "Do what you want, it's their lives" but when the conservative view is put on the table they run to the hill shouting "Oh my, Biggot, biggot."
Yes, that's called having your views challenged, its generally what follows from giving voice to your convictions.
rockerbikie wrote:
Conservatives like me are being lenient. If I was put in Government I would have Conserative areas which Conservative families can live in peace without being called "Biggoted".
I won't lie, if your first reaction is to isolate yourself from anyone that's different, then you're not doing yourself any favors in the "I'm not a bigot." department.
rockerbikie wrote:Seriously quit the flag concept, it's not working, to me it seems like you want your own little Nation.
You know that flags are used by groups other than nations, right?
I was offered a flier in the street once for a Gay Rights Festival. I said no politely. He said if I say no, I'm a biggot. Then I said, I'm a conservative, leave me alone, I don't want anything to do with the festival. Then the stupid accusations get shot at me. Is that fair? I accept the existance. Also, nobody got the flag joke. The Flag has no meaning like other Flags, the Aborginal flag has a meaning for each colour. The flag is just a mess. I accept homosexuals in the community but saying that I convict them by not allowing Gay Marriage is too extreme.
Of course fox news tries to push the "gay pride parade" images around, they get people riled up and thus get people to watch their channels. But you don't see fox news showing images like this:
rockerbikie wrote:Athiests can make all sorts of absurd claims about religons yet we can't sue them for "Hate speech"
Name me one mainstream atheist view of Religion that is "absurd" please. I'm genuinely interested to hear the retort.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:I would prefer a referendum than just a straight pass.
Popular referendums are, quite possibly, one of the single worst things to ever befall democratic governments.
True enough old chap.
The general public know more about the X factor than politics.
I only like the idea of a referendum if the people that want to vote in it get forced to pass an exam pertinent to the topic being discussed before they do so!
rockerbikie wrote:I would prefer a referendum than just a straight pass. Also, I would much prefer the term Cival Partnership.
People seem to hate conservatism a lot these days. I'm sick of people saying "Do what you want, it's their lives" but when the conservative view is put on the table they run to the hill shouting "Oh my, Biggot, biggot." Conservatives like me are being lenient. If I was put in Government I would have Conserative areas which Conservative families can live in peace without being called "Biggoted".
Hate speech is free speech. Athiests can make all sorts of absurd claims about religons yet we can't sue them for "Hate speech". Throw politcal correctness out of the windows, it is unneeded and it ends with unnessacary court cases. If you call me a homophobe, you are cleary a conservaphobe. End of line, intil the LGB(T) Community changes it's message from:
Spoiler:
To something a lot more presentable and more appealing to Conservatives then I will take this seriously. It makes me wonder if people who oppose it should make a black and white flag with circles on it as a joke. Seriously quit the flag concept, it's not working, to me it seems like you want your own little Nation. Make a presentable argument and stop spamming the same thing over and over again. Also, the Flamboyancy is a big turn off for a lot of older and younger people, that needs to stop.
so you want to put all the conservatives in interment camps? Cool.
If you use your bible to justify any position you hold, you open it up to criticism, that is not hate speech. Showing how the bible endorsed slavery is not bashing your religion, its your religion, you should know what your book says. If their is morally repugnant stuff in your bible, maybe you should send it in for a remake.
You have no right to tell anyone to stop anything, they can be as flamboyant as they want to be. If you don't like it, thats your problem. If you think you have some sort of right to tell them how to live, then you are being the bigot.
rockerbikie wrote:I would prefer a referendum than just a straight pass. Also, I would much prefer the term Cival Partnership.
People seem to hate conservatism a lot these days. I'm sick of people saying "Do what you want, it's their lives" but when the conservative view is put on the table they run to the hill shouting "Oh my, Biggot, biggot." Conservatives like me are being lenient. If I was put in Government I would have Conserative areas which Conservative families can live in peace without being called "Biggoted".
Hate speech is free speech. Athiests can make all sorts of absurd claims about religons yet we can't sue them for "Hate speech". Throw politcal correctness out of the windows, it is unneeded and it ends with unnessacary court cases. If you call me a homophobe, you are cleary a conservaphobe. End of line, intil the LGB(T) Community changes it's message from:
Spoiler:
To something a lot more presentable and more appealing to Conservatives then I will take this seriously. It makes me wonder if people who oppose it should make a black and white flag with circles on it as a joke. Seriously quit the flag concept, it's not working, to me it seems like you want your own little Nation. Make a presentable argument and stop spamming the same thing over and over again. Also, the Flamboyancy is a big turn off for a lot of older and younger people, that needs to stop.
so you want to put all the conservatives in interment camps? Cool.
If you use your bible to justify any position you hold, you open it up to criticism, that is not hate speech. Showing how the bible endorsed slavery is not bashing your religion, its your religion, you should know what your book says. If their is morally repugnant stuff in your bible, maybe you should send it in for a remake.
You have no right to tell anyone to stop anything, they can be as flamboyant as they want to be. If you don't like it, thats your problem. If you think you have some sort of right to tell them how to live, then you are being the bigot.
I am not Christian. Christianity is not conservatism. I am Asatruan. I'm pointing out, if they want me to take the idea of Gay Marriage seriously, then they should not act like that.
You have no right to tell anyone to stop anything.
Let's pick on this for a second. So, you have no right to stop a person comitting suicide or something else which is not too smart. Nice thinking buddy.
Melissia wrote:Of course fox news tries to push the "gay pride parade" images around, they get people riled up and thus get people to watch their channels. But you don't see fox news showing images like this:
Spoiler:
(yes, I know it's from a soap opera)
Because it wouldn't benefit their ratings.
There's plenty of other pictures, but they get ignored because they don't support their worldview.
rockerbikie wrote:Athiests can make all sorts of absurd claims about religons yet we can't sue them for "Hate speech"
Name me one mainstream atheist view of Religion that is "absurd" please. I'm genuinely interested to hear the retort.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:I would prefer a referendum than just a straight pass.
Popular referendums are, quite possibly, one of the single worst things to ever befall democratic governments.
True enough old chap.
The general public know more about the X factor than politics.
I only like the idea of a referendum if the people that want to vote in it get forced to pass an exam pertinent to the topic being discussed before they do so!
Religon is the cause of all Wars. Compulsary voting is better than Intellectual Voting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote:So because some gay people act in a way you dislike, all of them don't deserve to be taken seriously.
Lovely.
Also your last point was pants on head idiotic.
He said, you have no right to stop someone from doing something. He did not say within reason did he so?
rockerbikie wrote:I would prefer a referendum than just a straight pass. Also, I would much prefer the term Cival Partnership.
People seem to hate conservatism a lot these days. I'm sick of people saying "Do what you want, it's their lives" but when the conservative view is put on the table they run to the hill shouting "Oh my, Biggot, biggot." Conservatives like me are being lenient. If I was put in Government I would have Conserative areas which Conservative families can live in peace without being called "Biggoted".
Hate speech is free speech. Athiests can make all sorts of absurd claims about religons yet we can't sue them for "Hate speech". Throw politcal correctness out of the windows, it is unneeded and it ends with unnessacary court cases. If you call me a homophobe, you are cleary a conservaphobe. End of line, intil the LGB(T) Community changes it's message from:
Spoiler:
To something a lot more presentable and more appealing to Conservatives then I will take this seriously. It makes me wonder if people who oppose it should make a black and white flag with circles on it as a joke. Seriously quit the flag concept, it's not working, to me it seems like you want your own little Nation. Make a presentable argument and stop spamming the same thing over and over again. Also, the Flamboyancy is a big turn off for a lot of older and younger people, that needs to stop.
so you want to put all the conservatives in interment camps? Cool.
If you use your bible to justify any position you hold, you open it up to criticism, that is not hate speech. Showing how the bible endorsed slavery is not bashing your religion, its your religion, you should know what your book says. If their is morally repugnant stuff in your bible, maybe you should send it in for a remake.
You have no right to tell anyone to stop anything, they can be as flamboyant as they want to be. If you don't like it, thats your problem. If you think you have some sort of right to tell them how to live, then you are being the bigot.
I am not Christian. Christianity is not conservatism. I am Asatruan. I'm pointing out, if they want me to take the idea of Gay Marriage seriously, then they should not act like that.
You have no right to tell anyone to stop anything.
Let's pick on this for a second. So, you have no right to stop a person comitting suicide or something else which is not too smart. Nice thinking buddy.
If the person wants to commit suicide, let him. quite a few people prefer the term euthanasia. If you come across someone dying with a DNR bracelet, would you give them cpr?
rockerbikie wrote:I would prefer a referendum than just a straight pass. Also, I would much prefer the term Cival Partnership.
People seem to hate conservatism a lot these days. I'm sick of people saying "Do what you want, it's their lives" but when the conservative view is put on the table they run to the hill shouting "Oh my, Biggot, biggot." Conservatives like me are being lenient. If I was put in Government I would have Conserative areas which Conservative families can live in peace without being called "Biggoted".
Hate speech is free speech. Athiests can make all sorts of absurd claims about religons yet we can't sue them for "Hate speech". Throw politcal correctness out of the windows, it is unneeded and it ends with unnessacary court cases. If you call me a homophobe, you are cleary a conservaphobe. End of line, intil the LGB(T) Community changes it's message from:
Spoiler:
To something a lot more presentable and more appealing to Conservatives then I will take this seriously. It makes me wonder if people who oppose it should make a black and white flag with circles on it as a joke. Seriously quit the flag concept, it's not working, to me it seems like you want your own little Nation. Make a presentable argument and stop spamming the same thing over and over again. Also, the Flamboyancy is a big turn off for a lot of older and younger people, that needs to stop.
so you want to put all the conservatives in interment camps? Cool.
If you use your bible to justify any position you hold, you open it up to criticism, that is not hate speech. Showing how the bible endorsed slavery is not bashing your religion, its your religion, you should know what your book says. If their is morally repugnant stuff in your bible, maybe you should send it in for a remake.
You have no right to tell anyone to stop anything, they can be as flamboyant as they want to be. If you don't like it, thats your problem. If you think you have some sort of right to tell them how to live, then you are being the bigot.
I am not Christian. Christianity is not conservatism. I am Asatruan. I'm pointing out, if they want me to take the idea of Gay Marriage seriously, then they should not act like that.
You have no right to tell anyone to stop anything.
Let's pick on this for a second. So, you have no right to stop a person comitting suicide or something else which is not too smart. Nice thinking buddy.
If the person wants to commit suicide, let him. quite a few people prefer the term euthanasia. If you come across someone dying with a DNR bracelet, would you give them cpr?
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people with Mental Ilnesses or Personality Disorders. People who you can help. DNR are used in rare cases for incurable illnesses.
rockerbikie wrote:I would prefer a referendum than just a straight pass. Also, I would much prefer the term Cival Partnership.
People seem to hate conservatism a lot these days. I'm sick of people saying "Do what you want, it's their lives" but when the conservative view is put on the table they run to the hill shouting "Oh my, Biggot, biggot." Conservatives like me are being lenient. If I was put in Government I would have Conserative areas which Conservative families can live in peace without being called "Biggoted".
Hate speech is free speech. Athiests can make all sorts of absurd claims about religons yet we can't sue them for "Hate speech". Throw politcal correctness out of the windows, it is unneeded and it ends with unnessacary court cases. If you call me a homophobe, you are cleary a conservaphobe. End of line, intil the LGB(T) Community changes it's message from:
Spoiler:
To something a lot more presentable and more appealing to Conservatives then I will take this seriously. It makes me wonder if people who oppose it should make a black and white flag with circles on it as a joke. Seriously quit the flag concept, it's not working, to me it seems like you want your own little Nation. Make a presentable argument and stop spamming the same thing over and over again. Also, the Flamboyancy is a big turn off for a lot of older and younger people, that needs to stop.
so you want to put all the conservatives in interment camps? Cool.
If you use your bible to justify any position you hold, you open it up to criticism, that is not hate speech. Showing how the bible endorsed slavery is not bashing your religion, its your religion, you should know what your book says. If their is morally repugnant stuff in your bible, maybe you should send it in for a remake.
You have no right to tell anyone to stop anything, they can be as flamboyant as they want to be. If you don't like it, thats your problem. If you think you have some sort of right to tell them how to live, then you are being the bigot.
I am not Christian. Christianity is not conservatism. I am Asatruan. I'm pointing out, if they want me to take the idea of Gay Marriage seriously, then they should not act like that.
You have no right to tell anyone to stop anything.
Let's pick on this for a second. So, you have no right to stop a person comitting suicide or something else which is not too smart. Nice thinking buddy.
If the person wants to commit suicide, let him. quite a few people prefer the term euthanasia. If you come across someone dying with a DNR bracelet, would you give them cpr?
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people with Mental Ilnesses or Personality Disorders. People who you can help. DNR are used in rare cases for incurable illnesses.
You didn't specify any of that, quit moving the goal post.
rockerbikie wrote:I would prefer a referendum than just a straight pass. Also, I would much prefer the term Cival Partnership.
People seem to hate conservatism a lot these days. I'm sick of people saying "Do what you want, it's their lives" but when the conservative view is put on the table they run to the hill shouting "Oh my, Biggot, biggot." Conservatives like me are being lenient. If I was put in Government I would have Conserative areas which Conservative families can live in peace without being called "Biggoted".
Hate speech is free speech. Athiests can make all sorts of absurd claims about religons yet we can't sue them for "Hate speech". Throw politcal correctness out of the windows, it is unneeded and it ends with unnessacary court cases. If you call me a homophobe, you are cleary a conservaphobe. End of line, intil the LGB(T) Community changes it's message from:
Spoiler:
To something a lot more presentable and more appealing to Conservatives then I will take this seriously. It makes me wonder if people who oppose it should make a black and white flag with circles on it as a joke. Seriously quit the flag concept, it's not working, to me it seems like you want your own little Nation. Make a presentable argument and stop spamming the same thing over and over again. Also, the Flamboyancy is a big turn off for a lot of older and younger people, that needs to stop.
so you want to put all the conservatives in interment camps? Cool.
If you use your bible to justify any position you hold, you open it up to criticism, that is not hate speech. Showing how the bible endorsed slavery is not bashing your religion, its your religion, you should know what your book says. If their is morally repugnant stuff in your bible, maybe you should send it in for a remake.
You have no right to tell anyone to stop anything, they can be as flamboyant as they want to be. If you don't like it, thats your problem. If you think you have some sort of right to tell them how to live, then you are being the bigot.
I am not Christian. Christianity is not conservatism. I am Asatruan. I'm pointing out, if they want me to take the idea of Gay Marriage seriously, then they should not act like that.
You have no right to tell anyone to stop anything.
Let's pick on this for a second. So, you have no right to stop a person comitting suicide or something else which is not too smart. Nice thinking buddy.
If the person wants to commit suicide, let him. quite a few people prefer the term euthanasia. If you come across someone dying with a DNR bracelet, would you give them cpr?
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people with Mental Ilnesses or Personality Disorders. People who you can help. DNR are used in rare cases for incurable illnesses.
You didn't specify any of that, quit moving the goal post.
You automatically jumped the gun and thought of the most emphasisable situations. Also, your avoiding talking about Mental Illnesses and Personality Disorders.
rockerbikie wrote:I would prefer a referendum than just a straight pass. Also, I would much prefer the term Cival Partnership.
People seem to hate conservatism a lot these days. I'm sick of people saying "Do what you want, it's their lives" but when the conservative view is put on the table they run to the hill shouting "Oh my, Biggot, biggot." Conservatives like me are being lenient. If I was put in Government I would have Conserative areas which Conservative families can live in peace without being called "Biggoted".
Hate speech is free speech. Athiests can make all sorts of absurd claims about religons yet we can't sue them for "Hate speech". Throw politcal correctness out of the windows, it is unneeded and it ends with unnessacary court cases. If you call me a homophobe, you are cleary a conservaphobe. End of line, intil the LGB(T) Community changes it's message from:
Spoiler:
To something a lot more presentable and more appealing to Conservatives then I will take this seriously. It makes me wonder if people who oppose it should make a black and white flag with circles on it as a joke. Seriously quit the flag concept, it's not working, to me it seems like you want your own little Nation. Make a presentable argument and stop spamming the same thing over and over again. Also, the Flamboyancy is a big turn off for a lot of older and younger people, that needs to stop.
so you want to put all the conservatives in interment camps? Cool.
If you use your bible to justify any position you hold, you open it up to criticism, that is not hate speech. Showing how the bible endorsed slavery is not bashing your religion, its your religion, you should know what your book says. If their is morally repugnant stuff in your bible, maybe you should send it in for a remake.
You have no right to tell anyone to stop anything, they can be as flamboyant as they want to be. If you don't like it, thats your problem. If you think you have some sort of right to tell them how to live, then you are being the bigot.
I am not Christian. Christianity is not conservatism. I am Asatruan. I'm pointing out, if they want me to take the idea of Gay Marriage seriously, then they should not act like that.
You have no right to tell anyone to stop anything.
Let's pick on this for a second. So, you have no right to stop a person comitting suicide or something else which is not too smart. Nice thinking buddy.
If the person wants to commit suicide, let him. quite a few people prefer the term euthanasia. If you come across someone dying with a DNR bracelet, would you give them cpr?
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people with Mental Ilnesses or Personality Disorders. People who you can help. DNR are used in rare cases for incurable illnesses.
You didn't specify any of that, quit moving the goal post.
You automatically jumped the gun and thought of the most emphasisable situations. Also, your avoiding talking about Mental Illnesses and Personality Disorders.
What about them, I thought I covered that with if a person wants to commit suicide, then let him.
rockerbikie wrote:I would prefer a referendum than just a straight pass. Also, I would much prefer the term Cival Partnership.
People seem to hate conservatism a lot these days. I'm sick of people saying "Do what you want, it's their lives" but when the conservative view is put on the table they run to the hill shouting "Oh my, Biggot, biggot." Conservatives like me are being lenient. If I was put in Government I would have Conserative areas which Conservative families can live in peace without being called "Biggoted".
Hate speech is free speech. Athiests can make all sorts of absurd claims about religons yet we can't sue them for "Hate speech". Throw politcal correctness out of the windows, it is unneeded and it ends with unnessacary court cases. If you call me a homophobe, you are cleary a conservaphobe. End of line, intil the LGB(T) Community changes it's message from:
Spoiler:
To something a lot more presentable and more appealing to Conservatives then I will take this seriously. It makes me wonder if people who oppose it should make a black and white flag with circles on it as a joke. Seriously quit the flag concept, it's not working, to me it seems like you want your own little Nation. Make a presentable argument and stop spamming the same thing over and over again. Also, the Flamboyancy is a big turn off for a lot of older and younger people, that needs to stop.
so you want to put all the conservatives in interment camps? Cool.
If you use your bible to justify any position you hold, you open it up to criticism, that is not hate speech. Showing how the bible endorsed slavery is not bashing your religion, its your religion, you should know what your book says. If their is morally repugnant stuff in your bible, maybe you should send it in for a remake.
You have no right to tell anyone to stop anything, they can be as flamboyant as they want to be. If you don't like it, thats your problem. If you think you have some sort of right to tell them how to live, then you are being the bigot.
I am not Christian. Christianity is not conservatism. I am Asatruan. I'm pointing out, if they want me to take the idea of Gay Marriage seriously, then they should not act like that.
You have no right to tell anyone to stop anything.
Let's pick on this for a second. So, you have no right to stop a person comitting suicide or something else which is not too smart. Nice thinking buddy.
If the person wants to commit suicide, let him. quite a few people prefer the term euthanasia. If you come across someone dying with a DNR bracelet, would you give them cpr?
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people with Mental Ilnesses or Personality Disorders. People who you can help. DNR are used in rare cases for incurable illnesses.
You didn't specify any of that, quit moving the goal post.
You automatically jumped the gun and thought of the most emphasisable situations. Also, your avoiding talking about Mental Illnesses and Personality Disorders.
What about them, I thought I covered that with if a person wants to commit suicide, then let him.
mattyrm wrote:Name me one mainstream atheist view of Religion that is "absurd" please. I'm genuinely interested to hear the retort.
I'm pretty sure Dawkins argued that religion is child abuse.
Thats not absurd though, its truth.
/sigh So teaching Children morals through stories is wrong now. /clap
What I believe he means that children are indoctrinated into a religion at a young age. Anything they hear is fact. By getting them to learn it so young they take it as gospel, no pun intended, and refuse to believe anything else in later life. There are exceptions obviously. By forcing them, it can be construed as child abuse.
sirlynchmob wrote:if you can claim without evidence his statement is absurd, then I can also state it to be absolute truth.
Of course you can.
And it says a lot about you that you choose to do so.
Ditto
I would hope it does.
My country values religious freedom. I suspect yours does too. Most civilized people have recognized that it is a good thing to allow people to have their own religious beliefs.
Unfortunately, lately we've had bigots like Dawkins emerge into the public scene who spout their hatred and desire to revoke the religious liberty that so many are afforded by their fellow citizens. Tyranny, however, is never a good thing. Even if done for noble reasons.
mattyrm wrote:Name me one mainstream atheist view of Religion that is "absurd" please. I'm genuinely interested to hear the retort.
I'm pretty sure Dawkins argued that religion is child abuse.
Thats not absurd though, its truth.
/sigh So teaching Children morals through stories is wrong now. /clap
shifting the goal post again eh? You get better moral stories from the grimm brothers
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:Thats not absurd though, its truth.
Well, that wasn't unexpected.
if you can claim without evidence his statement is absurd, then I can also state it to be absolute truth.
The fact is you called it Child Abuse. Which is unacceptable and it makes you look like an uneducated virulent youth.
I didn't, dawkins did. as such though, he made a claim, If his data supports his conclusions then it is child abuse. I don't read dawkins so I'm not sure what research he did on the subject, but its more likely to be true, then absurd.
rockerbikie wrote:The fact is you called it Child Abuse. Which is unacceptable
I don't necessarily agree that it's child abuse, but I think you need a better argument than "it's unacceptable".
Although I know many religious folk who have argued that inducting a child in to a cult is child abuse. Brainwashing and all that.
Seeing no other way is not that smart. Religon is a good way to teach a child before he/she has the intectual ability to comprehend what they are doing. Calling it Child Abuse is not acceptable.
mattyrm wrote:Name me one mainstream atheist view of Religion that is "absurd" please. I'm genuinely interested to hear the retort.
I'm pretty sure Dawkins argued that religion is child abuse.
Biccat, your a smart fella, surely you don't think that counts as "absurd" either?
I mean, you can disagree.. I think I do as well, as I wouldn't say it is abuse per say, but its definately not absurd to have that opinion. He gives many many logical reasons about how he came to this conclusion.
As always, I think its a wee bit strong with Richard, but it most definately isnt absurd. Check out "converts corner" on his website, literally thousands of people who were raised devout will tell you exactly why it isnt. I remember hearing a girl on the radio saying she had nightmares when she was five because her best friend was going to go to hell.
Anyway, as I said, I dont think you really believe it is "absurd" you just disagree with it. And that's fine, so do I, I think he is being a bit too strong with his argument.
If I'm wrong however and you do indeed think it is totally absurd, then, not only have you hugely gone down in my estimation, you have just lost an argument.
sirlynchmob wrote:if you can claim without evidence his statement is absurd, then I can also state it to be absolute truth.
Of course you can.
And it says a lot about you that you choose to do so.
Ditto
I would hope it does.
My country values religious freedom. I suspect yours does too. Most civilized people have recognized that it is a good thing to allow people to have their own religious beliefs.
Unfortunately, lately we've had bigots like Dawkins emerge into the public scene who spout their hatred and desire to revoke the religious liberty that so many are afforded by their fellow citizens. Tyranny, however, is never a good thing. Even if done for noble reasons.
and quite a few religious bigots who think their book somehow gives them the right to tell others how to live their lives.
mattyrm wrote:Name me one mainstream atheist view of Religion that is "absurd" please. I'm genuinely interested to hear the retort.
I'm pretty sure Dawkins argued that religion is child abuse.
Thats not absurd though, its truth.
/sigh So teaching Children morals through stories is wrong now. /clap
What I believe he means that children are indoctrinated into a religion at a young age. Anything they hear is fact. By getting them to learn it so young they take it as gospel, no pun intended, and refuse to believe anything else in later life. There are exceptions obviously. By forcing them, it can be construed as child abuse.
Forcing them until they are old enough to know better(Teenaged years) is probably a good thing. Law is based of religon yet we religon abuse, does that mean Law is Child Abuse? No. Religon has taught us a lot of good in our lives. Sure, it has it bad moments with religous zealots but it has people who will help you out. When was the last time you saw an Athiest soup kitchen.
mattyrm wrote:Name me one mainstream atheist view of Religion that is "absurd" please. I'm genuinely interested to hear the retort.
I'm pretty sure Dawkins argued that religion is child abuse.
Thats not absurd though, its truth.
/sigh So teaching Children morals through stories is wrong now. /clap
What I believe he means that children are indoctrinated into a religion at a young age. Anything they hear is fact. By getting them to learn it so young they take it as gospel, no pun intended, and refuse to believe anything else in later life. There are exceptions obviously. By forcing them, it can be construed as child abuse.
Forcing them until they are old enough to know better(Teenaged years) is probably a good thing. Law is based of religon yet we religon abuse, does that mean Law is Child Abuse? No. Religon has taught us a lot of good in our lives. Sure, it has it bad moments with religous zealots but it has people who will help you out. When was the last time you saw an Athiest soup kitchen.
Its a great thing we don't have laws based on christianity. Most of their laws are so horrid even they don't want to acknowledge them. or are you advocating that children need to be taken to the river and stoned, and if you marry a woman and she wasn't a virgin she should be stoned, and that slavery is ok?
mattyrm wrote: Biccat, your a smart fella, surely you don't think that counts as "absurd" either?
You really don't think conflating religion with child abuse is "absurd"?
Do you think it would be absurd to conflate homosexuality with child abuse?
mattyrm wrote: I mean, you can disagree.. I think I do as well, as I wouldn't say it is abuse per say, but its definately not absurd to have that opinion. He gives many many logical reasons about how he came to this conclusion.
At the risk of raising the spectre of Godwin, lots of people have logical reasons why they reach absurd conclusions. As I said before, if what Hitler said about the Jews was correct, then the Holocaust was justified. But he started from a false premise. As does Dawkins. And that's what makes the position absurd.
mattyrm wrote: Anyway, as I said, I dont think you really believe it is "absurd" you just disagree with it. And that's fine, so do I, I think he is being a bit too strong with his argument.
If I'm wrong however and you do indeed think it is totally absurd, then, not only have you hugely gone down in my estimation, you have just lost an argument.
Sorry, it really is absurd. It's absurd because he's advocating for punishment of people based on the fact that they have religious beliefs and they want their children to have religious beliefs.
If you don't think it's absurd, what type of comment would rise to the level of absurdity? How about "atheists are immoral"?
sirlynchmob wrote:and quite a few religious bigots who think their book somehow gives them the right to tell others how to live their lives.
And if they every try to impose their religious beliefs on others, you'll see me standing beside you opposing them. Because like I said, tyranny is bad, even if done for noble reasons.
mattyrm wrote:Name me one mainstream atheist view of Religion that is "absurd" please. I'm genuinely interested to hear the retort.
I'm pretty sure Dawkins argued that religion is child abuse.
Thats not absurd though, its truth.
/sigh So teaching Children morals through stories is wrong now. /clap
What I believe he means that children are indoctrinated into a religion at a young age. Anything they hear is fact. By getting them to learn it so young they take it as gospel, no pun intended, and refuse to believe anything else in later life. There are exceptions obviously. By forcing them, it can be construed as child abuse.
Forcing them until they are old enough to know better(Teenaged years) is probably a good thing. Law is based of religon yet we religon abuse, does that mean Law is Child Abuse? No. Religon has taught us a lot of good in our lives. Sure, it has it bad moments with religous zealots but it has people who will help you out. When was the last time you saw an Athiest soup kitchen.
Its a great thing we don't have laws based on christianity. Most of their laws are so horrid even they don't want to acknowledge them. or are you advocating that children need to be taken to the river and stoned, and if you marry a woman and she wasn't a virgin she should be stoned, and that slavery is ok?
Within reason. /facepalm Also, by Christian standards that is a huge defiance of the 10 Commandments, so is treat someone how you like to be treated.
mattyrm wrote: Biccat, your a smart fella, surely you don't think that counts as "absurd" either?
You really don't think conflating religion with child abuse is "absurd"?
Do you think it would be absurd to conflate homosexuality with child abuse?
mattyrm wrote: I mean, you can disagree.. I think I do as well, as I wouldn't say it is abuse per say, but its definately not absurd to have that opinion. He gives many many logical reasons about how he came to this conclusion.
At the risk of raising the spectre of Godwin, lots of people have logical reasons why they reach absurd conclusions. As I said before, if what Hitler said about the Jews was correct, then the Holocaust was justified. But he started from a false premise. As does Dawkins. And that's what makes the position absurd.
mattyrm wrote: Anyway, as I said, I dont think you really believe it is "absurd" you just disagree with it. And that's fine, so do I, I think he is being a bit too strong with his argument.
If I'm wrong however and you do indeed think it is totally absurd, then, not only have you hugely gone down in my estimation, you have just lost an argument.
Sorry, it really is absurd. It's absurd because he's advocating for punishment of people based on the fact that they have religious beliefs and they want their children to have religious beliefs.
If you don't think it's absurd, what type of comment would rise to the level of absurdity? How about "atheists are immoral"?
sirlynchmob wrote:and quite a few religious bigots who think their book somehow gives them the right to tell others how to live their lives.
And if they every try to impose their religious beliefs on others, you'll see me standing beside you opposing them. Because like I said, tyranny is bad, even if done for noble reasons.
so you are for gays being allowed to marry, good for you.
rockerbikie wrote:Forcing them until they are old enough to know better(Teenaged years) is probably a good thing. Law is based of religon yet we religon abuse, does that mean Law is Child Abuse? No. Religon has taught us a lot of good in our lives. Sure, it has it bad moments with religous zealots but it has people who will help you out. When was the last time you saw an Athiest soup kitchen.
There are literally dozens if not hundreds in DC. On the other hand, the Catholic church suspended all aid (or at the least, threatened to suspend all aid; I'm not sure if they actually went through with it) in DC when DC passed a law allowing gay marriage.
mattyrm wrote:Name me one mainstream atheist view of Religion that is "absurd" please. I'm genuinely interested to hear the retort.
I'm pretty sure Dawkins argued that religion is child abuse.
Thats not absurd though, its truth.
/sigh So teaching Children morals through stories is wrong now. /clap
What I believe he means that children are indoctrinated into a religion at a young age. Anything they hear is fact. By getting them to learn it so young they take it as gospel, no pun intended, and refuse to believe anything else in later life. There are exceptions obviously. By forcing them, it can be construed as child abuse.
Forcing them until they are old enough to know better(Teenaged years) is probably a good thing. Law is based of religon yet we religon abuse, does that mean Law is Child Abuse? No. Religon has taught us a lot of good in our lives. Sure, it has it bad moments with religous zealots but it has people who will help you out. When was the last time you saw an Athiest soup kitchen.
Its a great thing we don't have laws based on christianity. Most of their laws are so horrid even they don't want to acknowledge them. or are you advocating that children need to be taken to the river and stoned, and if you marry a woman and she wasn't a virgin she should be stoned, and that slavery is ok?
Within reason. /facepalm Also, by Christian standards that is a huge defiance of the 10 Commandments, so is treat someone how you like to be treated.
what does reason have to do with the bible, its not my fault your god is a monster and put in some really horrid stuff into his book.
the 10 commandments really? so thats the only part of the bible worth following? and just because a secular nation believes killing someone is wrong and that just happens to work with a commandment, it means all our laws are based on religion? /epic facepalm.
Maybe if god hadn't wasn't the first 3 on "i'm shallow, worship me" he could have worked in don't sexually abuse children, or just codemn rape.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
streamdragon wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:Forcing them until they are old enough to know better(Teenaged years) is probably a good thing. Law is based of religon yet we religon abuse, does that mean Law is Child Abuse? No. Religon has taught us a lot of good in our lives. Sure, it has it bad moments with religous zealots but it has people who will help you out. When was the last time you saw an Athiest soup kitchen.
There are literally dozens if not hundreds in DC. On the other hand, the Catholic church suspended all aid (or at the least, threatened to suspend all aid; I'm not sure if they actually went through with it) in DC when DC passed a law allowing gay marriage.
They did the same thing in new york. the salvation army is the worst for it. everyone thinks donating to their santas for xmas makes them a good person, but the salvation army takes most of that money to fund bigoted agendas.
sirlynchmob wrote:
what does reason have to do with the bible, its not my fault your god is a monster and put in some really horrid stuff into his book.
the 10 commandments really? so thats the only part of the bible worth following? and just because a secular nation believes killing someone is wrong and that just happens to work with a commandment, it means all our laws are based on religion? /epic facepalm.
Maybe if god hadn't wasn't the first 3 on "i'm shallow, worship me" he could have worked in don't sexually abuse children, or just codemn rape.
mattyrm wrote:Name me one mainstream atheist view of Religion that is "absurd" please. I'm genuinely interested to hear the retort.
I'm pretty sure Dawkins argued that religion is child abuse.
Thats not absurd though, its truth.
/sigh So teaching Children morals through stories is wrong now. /clap
What I believe he means that children are indoctrinated into a religion at a young age. Anything they hear is fact. By getting them to learn it so young they take it as gospel, no pun intended, and refuse to believe anything else in later life. There are exceptions obviously. By forcing them, it can be construed as child abuse.
Forcing them until they are old enough to know better(Teenaged years) is probably a good thing. Law is based of religon yet we religon abuse, does that mean Law is Child Abuse? No. Religon has taught us a lot of good in our lives. Sure, it has it bad moments with religous zealots but it has people who will help you out. When was the last time you saw an Athiest soup kitchen.
Its a great thing we don't have laws based on christianity. Most of their laws are so horrid even they don't want to acknowledge them. or are you advocating that children need to be taken to the river and stoned, and if you marry a woman and she wasn't a virgin she should be stoned, and that slavery is ok?
Within reason. /facepalm Also, by Christian standards that is a huge defiance of the 10 Commandments, so is treat someone how you like to be treated.
what does reason have to do with the bible, its not my fault your god is a monster and put in some really horrid stuff into his book.
the 10 commandments really? so thats the only part of the bible worth following? and just because a secular nation believes killing someone is wrong and that just happens to work with a commandment, it means all our laws are based on religion? /epic facepalm.
Maybe if god hadn't wasn't the first 3 on "i'm shallow, worship me" he could have worked in don't sexually abuse children, or just codemn rape.
I don't not believe in Jesus or Jehovah. I believe in the Aesir and the Vanir gods. Like I said, I'm not christian. My gods expouse true virtues:
1) Courage
2) Truth
3) Honour
4) Fidelity
5) Discipline
6) Hospitality
7) Industriousness
8) Self Reliance
9) Perseverance
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:
Deadshot wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
biccat wrote:
mattyrm wrote:Name me one mainstream atheist view of Religion that is "absurd" please. I'm genuinely interested to hear the retort.
I'm pretty sure Dawkins argued that religion is child abuse.
Thats not absurd though, its truth.
/sigh So teaching Children morals through stories is wrong now. /clap
What I believe he means that children are indoctrinated into a religion at a young age. Anything they hear is fact. By getting them to learn it so young they take it as gospel, no pun intended, and refuse to believe anything else in later life. There are exceptions obviously. By forcing them, it can be construed as child abuse.
Forcing them until they are old enough to know better(Teenaged years) is probably a good thing. Law is based of religon yet we religon abuse, does that mean Law is Child Abuse? No. Religon has taught us a lot of good in our lives. Sure, it has it bad moments with religous zealots but it has people who will help you out. When was the last time you saw an Athiest soup kitchen.
Its a great thing we don't have laws based on christianity. Most of their laws are so horrid even they don't want to acknowledge them. or are you advocating that children need to be taken to the river and stoned, and if you marry a woman and she wasn't a virgin she should be stoned, and that slavery is ok?
Within reason. /facepalm Also, by Christian standards that is a huge defiance of the 10 Commandments, so is treat someone how you like to be treated.
what does reason have to do with the bible, its not my fault your god is a monster and put in some really horrid stuff into his book.
the 10 commandments really? so thats the only part of the bible worth following? and just because a secular nation believes killing someone is wrong and that just happens to work with a commandment, it means all our laws are based on religion? /epic facepalm.
Maybe if god hadn't wasn't the first 3 on "i'm shallow, worship me" he could have worked in don't sexually abuse children, or just codemn rape.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
streamdragon wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:Forcing them until they are old enough to know better(Teenaged years) is probably a good thing. Law is based of religon yet we religon abuse, does that mean Law is Child Abuse? No. Religon has taught us a lot of good in our lives. Sure, it has it bad moments with religous zealots but it has people who will help you out. When was the last time you saw an Athiest soup kitchen.
There are literally dozens if not hundreds in DC. On the other hand, the Catholic church suspended all aid (or at the least, threatened to suspend all aid; I'm not sure if they actually went through with it) in DC when DC passed a law allowing gay marriage.
They did the same thing in new york. the salvation army is the worst for it. everyone thinks donating to their santas for xmas makes them a good person, but the salvation army takes most of that money to fund bigoted agendas.
Just because something is not Anarchistically Left, it is not Bigoted. Most Charities do that, Green Peace is a lovely example, so is 40 vision.
biccat wrote:
Sorry, it really is absurd. It's absurd because he's advocating for punishment of people based on the fact that they have religious beliefs and they want their children to have religious beliefs.
If you don't think it's absurd, what type of comment would rise to the level of absurdity? How about "atheists are immoral"?
Is he advocating punishment? I like Richard Dawkins generally, he seems well spoken and gentle, I doubt he has said "we should do X to them" and I would be surprised if that was the case. All I have heard him say of the matter, is that in his opinion, forcing a Religion onto a child is a form of child abuse because the child gets no say on the matter, can get morals from simply being raised taught right from wrong, and importantly takes the lessons literally because they are so young, thus, a tiny child hears about a realm of fire and suffering and torture, asks a parent if "Jenny from school" will go there because she isn't a Catholic and is told "sadly yes, she will suffer for ever" and becomes terrified to the point that they have nightmares.
As I said, its fine to disagree, and its absolutely not absurd, because tens of thousands of people will come out and say "Yes, my parents raised me X and as a result I am scarred by it"
Now, because no doubt millions of Religious people will say "Well I was raised devout and I am fine" its fine to disagree like you and I do. I would not say that it is a form of abuse, but it definitely isn't absurd because a reasonable argument can be made.
I, and surely anyone with any sense, defines absurd as "utterly ridiculous" if a reasonable argument can be made, or even a "relatively weak" one, surely by definition it cant be absurd?
Anyway, were OT, and neither of us will change the others mind, so why bother eh?
rockerbikie wrote:Forcing them until they are old enough to know better(Teenaged years) is probably a good thing. Law is based of religon yet we religon abuse, does that mean Law is Child Abuse? No. Religon has taught us a lot of good in our lives. Sure, it has it bad moments with religous zealots but it has people who will help you out. When was the last time you saw an Athiest soup kitchen.
There are literally dozens if not hundreds in DC. On the other hand, the Catholic church suspended all aid (or at the least, threatened to suspend all aid; I'm not sure if they actually went through with it) in DC when DC passed a law allowing gay marriage.
They did the same thing in new york. the salvation army is the worst for it. everyone thinks donating to their santas for xmas makes them a good person, but the salvation army takes most of that money to fund bigoted agendas.
I think one of their highlights is refusing to take toys based on Harry Potter (magic is evil!), Twilight (vampires are evil!) or anything similar theme. When they did recieve them, instead of giving them out to another agency (like Toys for Tots or something), they simply destroyed them. Nice.
biccat wrote:
Sorry, it really is absurd. It's absurd because he's advocating for punishment of people based on the fact that they have religious beliefs and they want their children to have religious beliefs.
If you don't think it's absurd, what type of comment would rise to the level of absurdity? How about "atheists are immoral"?
Is he advocating punishment? I like Richard Dawkins generally, he seems well spoken and gentle, I doubt he has said "we should do X to them" and I would be surprised if that was the case. All I have heard him say of the matter, is that in his opinion, forcing a Religion onto a child is a form of child abuse because the child gets no say on the matter, can get morals from simply being raised taught right from wrong, and importantly takes the lessons literally because they are so young, thus, a tiny child hears about a realm of fire and suffering and torture, asks a parent if "Jenny from school" will go there because she isn't a Catholic and is told "sadly yes, she will suffer for ever" and becomes terrified to the point that they have nightmares.
As I said, its fine to disagree, and its absolutely not absurd, because tens of thousands of people will come out and say "Yes, my parents raised me X and as a result I am scarred by it"
Now, because no doubt millions of Religious people will say "Well I was raised devout and I am fine" its fine to disagree like you and I do. I would not say that it is a form of abuse, but it definitely isn't absurd because a reasonable argument can be made.
I, and surely anyone with any sense, defines absurd as "utterly ridiculous" if a reasonable argument can be made, or even a "relatively weak" one, surely by definition it cant be absurd?
Anyway, were OT, and neither of us will change the others mind, so why bother eh?
That is true. Political debates are like the Special Olympics, you all think you win in the end.
Purplefood, the comic and my comment was not in regards to pornography destroying marriages.
It was the number of men who will watch Lesbian porn or find girls kissing hot
yet will deny gay couples rights
insult, degrade, attack gay men.
But it is hot when chicks do it.
Or can use the mentality of one of my gaming members, "most gay chicks don't look like the girls in lesbian movies". New qualification.have to look sexy to get married.
Piston Honda wrote:Purplefood, the comic and my comment was not in regards to pornography destroying marriages.
It was the number of men who will watch Lesbian porn or find girls kissing hot
yet will deny gay couples rights
insult, degrade, attack gay men.
But it is hot when chicks do it.
Or can use the mentality of one of my gaming members, "most gay chicks don't look like the girls in lesbian movies". New qualification.have to look sexy to get married.
You'd be suprised by all the people who hate Lesbians who shave their heads or act a bit more like men.
all to do with rights or liberties though.
