Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Though I do know some people that go out of their way to have the biggest, juiciest steak they can on good Friday, as a "celebration of god's love towards men" because obviously god loves us if he gave us so many tasty animals to eat.

Melissia wrote:

nomsheep wrote:The billboard was a Dick move.

So was the "year of the bible" crap.

True.

I'd suggest having a "year of evolution" but I think the idea of change scares these people.

You say that as if they all think the same or are still in the majority.

I'd back you 100% in a year of evolution.

Nom

They have a huge impact on the Republican party regardless.

I mean hell, the majority of Americans are okay with homosexual marriage, for that matter, but you still have politicians talking as if America is some backwater religious fundamentalist hellhole like, say, Iran.

Is there not a way to work within the system on order to change it in the way the majority want? (Legitimate question politics are not my strong point)

A government should be controlled by its people not the people by its government

Nom

Yes, but it's hard to motivate people to vote for something they like and far easier to motivate them for something they dislike. "Meh, gay marriage doesn't effect me, I don't care either way" isn't as powerful a motivator as "OMG PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE THE SINNERS ARE COMING THE SINNERS ARE COMING!".

Polonius wrote:I was saying that the term perverted has a secular, even psychological, meaning.

I understand the distinction that you're trying to make, as far as folks who for example hear a politician say "gays are perverts." I'm using the word "perversion" in the sense of "corruption of a divinely intended purpose." Yes, this is sin. But sin is not some ephemeral or hypothetical concept in Catholicism that can be hand-waved away as "religious" or "theological." Sin is a social matter. For example, the impoverishment of the many for the sake of the obscenely wealthy few -- this is transparent perversion and sin. The trouble with homosexuality as sin is that most people are used to thinking of sin as crime (or some other actionable liability). In order for something to be a sin, we have to establish a harm. Do gay couples break more laws or can they not raise children as well? This doesn't seem to be the case, as more and more people are forced to admit. So if there is no harm, how can it be a crime? That's the sense in which a lot of people understand words like "perversion," I agree. A pervert is a criminal and it makes no sense to call people a criminal because they're gay. But there's a big difference between a criminal and a sinner -- the difference, however, is not that the sinner is not really guilty.

The problem with that comes when they focus so much on others that they ignore their own sins.

Any time someone says "I'm proud of being '[insert Christian denomination here]" I facepalm because they just sinned and probably don't even know it.

Agreed. This whole line of thought about homosexuality as perversion and sin has no bearing on how Catholics ought to treat gay people, except insofar as barring them from sacremental marriage. And even that is not really a "punishment." People who want to marry someone of the same sex are simply not eligible for sacramental marriage.

Melissia wrote:Yes, but it's hard to motivate people to vote for something they like and far easier to motivate them for something they dislike. "Meh, gay marriage doesn't effect me, I don't care either way" isn't as powerful a motivator as "OMG PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE THE SINNERS ARE COMING THE SINNERS ARE COMING!".

So find something equally as compelling as the sinners are coming then? It shouldn't be that hard Canada has gay marriage and so do the UK (to a degree) so there must be ways and means.

Same with anything that needs changing (equality for all, etc ) there has to be a way, right?

Nom

Course there's a way.

Canada's gay marriage came through the courts, not through democratic action.

But the problem with this is your requirement of "A government should be controlled by its people not the people by its government" is that the courts themselves are not necessarily beholden to the public (and I'd argue that making them too much so would result in miscarriage of justice and corruption), though they are there to protect the public in a sense.

Melissia wrote:...I mean hell, the majority of Americans are okay with homosexual marriage.

I love this.... the way she paints this picture as if 53% of Americans is some overwhelming majority, and that we Americans are just ok with it. Just because people view that something should be legal doesn't mean they are "ok" with it. Many people feel like abortion should be legal but aren't "ok" with it.

Those percentages go way down as the demographic gets older/wiser

GG.

Canada's legislature was IIRC required by the courts to change its laws to more fit its constitution, and this is what they came up with:

1. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
2. Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Somehow I doubt many Americans would have a problem with this, but actually getting it pushed through congress, even a state one (or perhaps especially a state one in many states) is a nightmare.

GG has a good point. Not far from half of all American would probably have an issue with that definition.

Melissia wrote:Course there's a way.

Canada's gay marriage came through the courts, not through democratic action.

Didn't know that.

But the problem with this is your requirement of "A government should be controlled by its people not the people by its government" is that the courts themselves are not necessarily beholden to the public (and I'd argue that making them too much so would result in miscarriage of justice and corruption), though they are there to protect the public in a sense.

There are obviously limits. For example murder is wrong no matter how many want it.

But when it comes to civil and human rights I honestly believe its the people that should decide and make things equal for everyone. YMMV.

Nom

Manchu wrote:GG has a good point. Not far from half of all American would probably have an issue with that definition.

45% according to that gallup poll, a small (three percentage poitns or so?) decrease. But in comparison, support for gay marriage increased by nine points in one year. Other polls have similar results.

But my point still stands:

Melissia wrote:Yes, but it's hard to motivate people to vote for something they like and far easier to motivate them for something they dislike. "Meh, gay marriage doesn't effect me, I don't care either way" isn't as powerful a motivator as "OMG PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE THE SINNERS ARE COMING THE SINNERS ARE COMING!".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nomsheep wrote:But when it comes to civil and human rights I honestly believe its the people that should decide and make things equal for everyone. YMMV.

So you think that Abe Lincoln was wrong? Or that the Supreme Court ruled wrongly in Brown v. Board of Education? And so many other executive orders and court rulings which sided with civil liberties were all wrong, because they weren't "the people" deciding?

It's easy to say "let the people decide" when you're not the one being oppressed.

generalgrog wrote:

Melissia wrote:...I mean hell, the majority of Americans are okay with homosexual marriage.

I love this.... the way she paints this picture as if 53% of Americans is some overwhelming majority, and that we Americans are just ok with it. Just because people view that something should be legal doesn't mean they are "ok" with it. Many people feel like abortion should be legal but aren't "ok" with it.

Those percentages go way down as the demographic gets older/from a time when religion was more prevalent

GG.

Fixed that for you.

Melissia wrote:

nomsheep wrote:But when it comes to civil and human rights I honestly believe its the people that should decide and make things equal for everyone. YMMV.

So you think that Abe Lincoln was wrong? Or that the Supreme Court ruled wrongly in Brown v. Board of Education? And so many other executive orders and court rulings which sided with civil liberties were all wrong, because they weren't "the people" deciding?

It's easy to say "let the people decide" when you're not the one being oppressed.

Old honest Abe was right but he didn't act alone. Others must have stood with him or he'd have never succeeded.

And thankfully I have the fortune to not be oppressed by anyone and I'm glad of that.

Melissia wrote:They have a huge impact on the Republican party regardless.

I mean hell, the majority of Americans are okay with homosexual marriage, for that matter, but you still have politicians talking as if America is some backwater religious fundamentalist hellhole like, say, Iran.

I have to disagree with you there, Melissa. To my knowledge, every time it got put to a vote among the people, it got put down.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6383353/ns/politics/t/voters-pass-all-bans-gay-marriage/#.T24ILKN5mSM

Getting off topic.........in the off topic forum?

GG

Relapse wrote:I have to disagree with you there, Melissa. To my knowledge, every time it got put to a vote among the people, it got put down.

You're arguing something entirely different than I am, so I'm not really sure you disagree.

Because my statement is based off of polling data and people being asked questions, and as I said, it's simply easier to motivate someone based off of hate as opposed to "I'm fine with that", especially at the state level where these things don't get much press. A small group of highly motivated voters can sway the vote away from the way the majority feels (this is what the religious right claim is the "gay agenda", IE homosexuals "subverting" the majority somehow... even though in reality it goes the other way, with highly motivated backwards religious voters subverting the majority).

Your objection would be relevant if 100% of people voted ,but they don't.

It's pretty likley that the people that feel strongly about gay marriage are more likley to oppose it.

It's simple self interest. There are people that feel that they're threatened by gay marriage, but aside from gays that want to marry, few people see a benefit.

Florists, maybe.

generalgrog wrote:

Melissia wrote:...I mean hell, the majority of Americans are okay with homosexual marriage.

I love this.... the way she paints this picture as if 53% of Americans is some overwhelming majority, and that we Americans are just ok with it. Just because people view that something should be legal doesn't mean they are "ok" with it. Many people feel like abortion should be legal but aren't "ok" with it.

Those percentages go way down as the demographic gets older/wiser

GG.

If you're going to call someone out for conflating two disparate concepts, you might want to avoid doing so yourself; especially when its done so starkly. Indeed, older people tend to approve of gay marriage at a lower rate than younger people, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with wisdom, which further doesn't necessarily arise from age.

If older people are more likely to be racist than younger people, is it because they're wiser than younger people?

Phanatik wrote:
Supposition.
Do you have any evidence to support that you understand the mind of god and/or his intentions?

Do you?

Because it appears below that you believe that you do.

Phanatik wrote:
God created sickness. God created sick man. Man has no choice but to be sick. God commands Man get well or suffer.

Also supposition.

Sickness, wellness, and suffering need not carry the same meaning when the discussion regards some sort of ultimate purpose. In essence, one can be "sick" and "suffer", or be not "well", in the long run if one is not sick, does not suffer, or is well in the short run.

Melissia wrote:

Relapse wrote:I have to disagree with you there, Melissa. To my knowledge, every time it got put to a vote among the people, it got put down.

You're arguing something entirely different than I am, so I'm not really sure you disagree.

Because my statement is based off of polling data and people being asked questions, and as I said, it's simply easier to motivate someone based off of hate as opposed to "I'm fine with that", especially at the state level where these things don't get much press. A small group of highly motivated voters can sway the vote away from the way the majority feels (this is what the religious right claim is the "gay agenda", IE homosexuals "subverting" the majority somehow... even though in reality it goes the other way, with highly motivated backwards religious voters subverting the majority).

Your objection would be relevant if 100% of people voted ,but they don't.

Everytime gay marraige gets put on a referendum there is always a huge news coverage, along with major rallies from both sides, so I also have to disagree with the statement these referendums are not well known.

Good dodge.

generalgrog wrote:

Melissia wrote:...I mean hell, the majority of Americans are okay with homosexual marriage.

I love this.... the way she paints this picture as if 53% of Americans is some overwhelming majority, and that we Americans are just ok with it. Just because people view that something should be legal doesn't mean they are "ok" with it. Many people feel like abortion should be legal but aren't "ok" with it.

Those percentages go way down as the demographic gets older/wiser

GG.

That's because most of us don't give a damn who your humping, as long as you don't do it on a park bench.

Seriously, if a gay guy walks up to me and starts talking to me, I don't care. The moment he starts hitting on me is when the problem starts.

Slarg232 wrote:The moment he starts hitting on me is when the problem starts.

I'm not gay, or even bi, but I've taken great pleasure in making many an overly aggressive former or current frat boy feel uncomfortable after watching them push a little too hard with the ladies.

In a phrase:

"Hey, honey."

Yeah seriously.

If a woman told a stereotypical man "stop hitting on me", no matter the reason why she said it, he'd be deeply offended... anywhere from "I'm married" to "I'm not interested" to "I'm lesbian", same emotionally offended response.

Thankfully most men aren't the stereotypical man, but still.

Melissia wrote:Good dodge.

Artful?

Certainly!

It sure wasn't actually answering the point.

Melissia wrote:Certainly!

It sure wasn't actually answering the point.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were putting across. It wouldn't be the first time in my lifeand probably won't be the last.