|
Prop 8 Correctly Upheld
Go to post
|
157 |
Chatterbox
|
Tue May 26, 2009 8:28 pm
|
|
mrsculedhel GunsmithKitten Besides, I'm under the impression, especially given the Iowa decision, that the anti-gay marriage folks are winning the battle but losing the war. We're fighting the battle through the courts where we CAN win, instead of trying to compete with the PR juggernaut that Christians can mobilize on a moment's notice.
California may be a lost battleground for now, but we've got plenty of other places to win. If we do this smart, we'll be making the Christians moan "Give me back my legions!"
No, I am thinking you will find support among Christians in the exact same manner as the earlier civil rights issue.
So long as churches do not feel threatened that homosexuals are going to demand that all churches perform marriage rights, Christians will agree that those churches who get Loki mean that Gay men and Lesbians have the identical liberties they have.
But the conversation cannot begin with "******** you bigots!" Those are the word used at the END of a conversation.
I don't understand where anyone is getting that idea. Isn't it common knowledge that every individual church can decide who can and cannot get married there? To say nothing of marriages between people from different religious backgrounds -- I've never heard of anyone trembling in their slippers over Anglican churches performing ceremonies between Catholics or anything. It strikes me as really more of a Catholic concern -- Catholic churches are the only ones I've ever heard of refusing to perform marriages between a Catholic and non-Catholic. Isn't it obvious that gay marriage is a strictly legal issue? Or do I just come from an unusually progressive place where these things are known?
|
|
Prop 8 Correctly Upheld
Go to post
|
157 |
Chatterbox
|
Tue May 26, 2009 8:16 pm
|
|
Queer Insurrection Good. Marriage is stupid, the less people clinging to a sexist, religious institution, the better. Now we just gotta outlaw hetero-marriage and we'll be making some progress!
See above -- marriage is not a religious institution.
|
|
Prop 8 Correctly Upheld
Go to post
|
157 |
Chatterbox
|
Tue May 26, 2009 8:13 pm
|
|
mrsculedhel Civil rights appealed to the sense of fair play among the religious before it was generally caught on by everyone else. There are atheists and unchurched people who do not believe in Gay Marriage.
Does anyone know when marriage became officially a secular, covenant in America? Was it from the very beginning of the new Republic or during the colonial times?
This is a really complicated question -- not only because the separation between Church and state has not historically always been clear, but also because of other existing legal discrimination, particularly against women but also more specifically against persons of various races or sexual orientations.
Until 1990, for example, a person could be prevented from immigrating to the USA solely on the basis of being homosexual, and could be deported if they were found out to be one after entering the country. And before then, it wasn't until 1981 that the law treated both partners in a marriage as equal. 1969 was the first time the law allowed divorce by mutual consent -- i.e. "no fault." Before then, the laws are just all over the place, prohibiting interracial marriage (life imprisonment being the punishment), and even marriage between Asians.
Gay marriage isn't some kind of massive "first step" changing laws that have been stable since Colonial times. The laws have never been stable. You can't find a ten year period when something didn't change radically in how the government treats marriage laws.
|
|
So, think someone could explain to me this "empathy" thing?
Go to post
|
169 |
Extended Discussion
|
Tue May 26, 2009 7:50 pm
|
|
Cuban There's a great misconception credit to pop entertainment & literature comparing sociopaths to madmen. I cannot empathize either, but I can comprehend what feelings & methods are appropriate according to circumstances. Not to say I hide what I truly feel (which is void) but I know how to cause & prevent friction.
An advantage (being a sociopath) is being the neutral party by defaut. To acknowledge & comprehend the spectrum of emotions & reactions prove so much easier, specificially to anticipate & employ to one's own gain. I relish this!
That sounds like me.
I have found, in my own experience, that a lot of what people call "empathy" is needless waste of emotional energy with little to no gain. The same results -- altruism, for example -- could just as easily be achieved through logic, and with less mess and misunderstandings.
|
|
Prop 8 Correctly Upheld
Go to post
|
157 |
Chatterbox
|
Tue May 26, 2009 7:41 pm
|
|
AsuraSyn I am Chickenman AsuraSyn Poysonful Cuppycake I think we shouldn't have marriage at all. P: 
Legally speaking, we're not supposed to. The whole freedom of religion thing is also freedom from theocratic rule. If everyone has a right to their religion, then no laws can be made around a religious construct, in this vernacular, marriage.
Strictly speaking there should be no legal definition of marriage nor any attached rights to the ceremony.
That's not correct, though. Marriage was not invented by any religion. No religion -- nor even the collective of ALL religions -- owns "marriage." It is not a religious construct. It is a legal agreement -- be that law made by government or religious authorities -- which bestows certain rights and recognitions.
There is absolutely no valid reason for a state that is not supposed to be governed by religious constructs to therefor be able to deny a LEGAL marriage (as opposed to a religious marriage) from any member of society who is of consenting age.
The US law does not require a religious ceremony to be performed for straight couples. Many churches do, however, require that a couple be LEGALLY married and present a marriage certificate prior to performing the service.
From a legal point of view, religious and legal marriage are two completely separate processes. The law does not give a damn whether two legally married persons have their marriage consecrated by any religious authority in any church.
Unless you're queers. Then the state sees the church, and the great unwashed masses, don't like you so they bend over for their orders and deny you your right to said legal binding.
Exactly my point.
That's why Prop 8 should be considered illegal and unconstitutional.
|
|
Prop 8 Correctly Upheld
Go to post
|
157 |
Chatterbox
|
Tue May 26, 2009 7:38 pm
|
|
AsuraSyn Poysonful Cuppycake I think we shouldn't have marriage at all. P:
Legally speaking, we're not supposed to. The whole freedom of religion thing is also freedom from theocratic rule. If everyone has a right to their religion, then no laws can be made around a religious construct, in this vernacular, marriage.
Strictly speaking there should be no legal definition of marriage nor any attached rights to the ceremony.
That's not correct, though. Marriage was not invented by any religion. No religion -- nor even the collective of ALL religions -- owns "marriage." It is not a religious construct. It is a legal agreement -- be that law made by government or religious authorities -- which bestows certain rights and recognitions.
There is absolutely no valid reason for a state that is not supposed to be governed by religious constructs to therefor be able to deny a LEGAL marriage (as opposed to a religious marriage) from any member of society who is of consenting age.
The US law does not require a religious ceremony to be performed for straight couples. Many churches do, however, require that a couple be LEGALLY married and present a marriage certificate prior to performing the service.
From a legal point of view, religious and legal marriage are two completely separate processes. The law does not give a damn whether two legally married persons have their marriage consecrated by any religious authority in any church.
|
|
Prop 8 Correctly Upheld
Go to post
|
157 |
Chatterbox
|
Tue May 26, 2009 7:20 pm
|
|
mrsculedhel I am Chickenman mrsculedhel I am Chickenman mrsculedhel Jaydoggy
Exactly, an appeal to majority is a logical falisy.
Not saying I agree with Prop 8, but in America, the majority still has a right to its fallacies.
Why?
If no one ever caught on that the majority doesn't always have a right to be wrong, we'd still be British.
Not arguing, but this was the basis for the appeal being upheld by the Ninth District Court, which I might remind you is the most liberal court in the Republic.
That doesn't answer my question. Or have almost anything to do with what I said.
Please darling, I know you have a headache, but don't take it out on me. Yes, I know that the American Revolution was based on minority interest in disengaging from England.
Your argument is with the California Supreme Court, not with me.
My argument is with someone saying that the majority has a right to its fallacies.
If you're just here to state facts -- or at least opinions of other people -- without justifying them, what's the point?
|
|
Prop 8 Correctly Upheld
Go to post
|
157 |
Chatterbox
|
Tue May 26, 2009 7:15 pm
|
|
mrsculedhel I am Chickenman mrsculedhel Jaydoggy Trorbes Kurochan1 What people fail to know is that there would have been protests and such if prop 8 was reversed as well. That would go against 51% of the voters, think about it.
Sometimes in the fight for rights, what the majority wants isn't what is best.
Exactly, an appeal to majority is a logical falisy.
Not saying I agree with Prop 8, but in America, the majority still has a right to its fallacies.
Why?
If no one ever caught on that the majority doesn't always have a right to be wrong, we'd still be British.
Not arguing, but this was the basis for the appeal being upheld by the Ninth District Court, which I might remind you is the most liberal court in the Republic.
That doesn't answer my question. Or have almost anything to do with what I said.
|
|
Prop 8 Correctly Upheld
Go to post
|
157 |
Chatterbox
|
Tue May 26, 2009 7:10 pm
|
|
mrsculedhel Jaydoggy Trorbes Kurochan1 What people fail to know is that there would have been protests and such if prop 8 was reversed as well. That would go against 51% of the voters, think about it.
Sometimes in the fight for rights, what the majority wants isn't what is best.
Exactly, an appeal to majority is a logical falisy.
Not saying I agree with Prop 8, but in America, the majority still has a right to its fallacies.
Why?
If no one ever caught on that the majority doesn't always have a right to be wrong, we'd still be British.
|
| Posts blocked: 1 |
