but all of this is useless masturbation anyways, anything i say won't convince you, because you have your eyes firmly shut, feeling righteous in your cause, and that what you are offering is fair.
it's the same with my extended family, i was furious when they donated money to the yes on 8 campaign, but their church leaders sent down the command, and they, like a nice little flock, go and obey without thinking it out logically. but nothing i say will make them look at it with a fair even view, they are far too skewed.
it makes me very very sad.
That bolded phrase is an impossibility.
I personally don't feel like my eyes are shut. I am very much a free thinker (Philosophy major) and welcome any viewpoints. I don't think I have been unreasonable or illogical in my statements so I'm not sure why you are comparing me to sheep, but whatev. Regardless, thanks for the convo and for not getting pissed off. Most people just get all angry when having any sort of debate.
this is a very touchy subject that i am invested in on several fronts, so i get passionate about it, but i don't believe in hating someone just because they have an opposite view. and i grew up mormon so i know how large the stress upon the family is, so i can at least understand where your views are rooted in, even if i think they are very wrong, especially if you attempt to think of it logically and take all faith out of the equation.
and our laws and civil rights should not be based upon matters of faith.
and at least you didn't ask me straight out if i am a baby killer like my friend who just got back from his mission a few months ago did. hahahaha
Wait? ARE you a baby killer?
I understand your situation of having family that are members and you aren't. It sucks your family isn't cool about it. My brother is no longer a member of the church and our family still loves and accepts him for what makes him, him. The LDS church certainly doesn't teach exclusion and I'm sorry you have one of "those" mormon families.
As far as laws and civil rights not being based on faith, aren't many of our laws based on religious ones? Thats a hard line to draw also considering that a majority of this country believes in a god or belongs to some sort of faith. And considering we are the ones that make the laws according to our own conscience, most laws and civil rights WILL be based on some sort of faith until the majority of the country is no longer religious.
The real problem here is people getting benefits for being married. Fuck that noise.
well... yeah
but there do need to be legal provisions vis a vis any offspring
Legal provisions that outline the responsibility of the offspring's parents and/or legal guardians. Not husbands and wives.
True, but in many states if the biologically mother/father of the child dies that persons family can sue and get custody of the child regardless of whether or not stipulations were made for the partner to be guardian. The fact that many states deny gay couples the right to adopt complicates this.
Added: There have also been cases where in a relationship the child and parent (nonbiological) have bonded and are in a parent-child relationship the relationship ends and the nonbiological parent has been denied visitation or custody of the child because they have no legal right to it in many states.
Obi, why should your definition of marriage apply to people who aren't Mormon?
Trying this a 2nd time.
I responded last time with:
"Fair enough.
What's an ideal you find important in your life?"
and to take it a bit further:
Why should your ideals apply to people who aren't you?
I'm not advocating "my ideals" but I do believe that citizens of the United States are all afforded equal rights by the Constitution. And while marriage is not specifically in the Bill of Rights, marriages are recognized by the U.S. Government and even if you get married in a church you must still file the necessary paperwork with the government for it to be a legally recognized marriage.
This being the case I don't feel that it's right, or even constitutional for gay couples to be denied the right to get legally married at a court of law or even in a church that agrees to perform the ceremony. I respect the right of any religious organization to refuse to perform a wedding to gay couples, because it's their right to do so according to the Constitution.
Marathon on
0
Options
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
edited February 2009
DO YOU LIKE YOUR HARDCORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR-RR-RR-RR-RRR-RRR-RRE
*dancemusic*
Weaver on
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
The real problem here is people getting benefits for being married. Fuck that noise.
well... yeah
but there do need to be legal provisions vis a vis any offspring
Legal provisions that outline the responsibility of the offspring's parents and/or legal guardians. Not husbands and wives.
True, but in many states if the biologically mother/father of the child dies that persons family can sue and get custody of the child regardless of whether or not stipulations were made for the partner to be guardian. The fact that many states deny gay couples the right to adopt complicates this.
Added: There have also been cases where after a long relationship and the child and parent (nonbiological) have bonded and are in a parent-child relationship the relationship ends and the nonbiological parent has been denied visitation or custody of the child because they have no legal right to it in many states.
Does allowing gays to marry really fix this issue? Sounds like another battle entirely. But again being able to adopt children isn't a civil right either.
Yeah, they are voting to deny equal rights to a minority. Which is wrong.
Morally wrong to you but not illegal. Look I think it sucks too but prop 8 passed democratically so unless it contradicts Cali's constitution no "dictating" took place here.
Not illegal, just unconstitutional. So hopefully it gets overturned.
Civil rights should never be left up to vote. The minority will always loose.
Discrimination by majority vote doesn't make discrimination right. It's still discrimination.
Prop 8 should have never ever exsisted.
Except marriage isn't a civil right. You need state approval and a license for it.
I need state approval and license to drive, vote, and teach too, and anyone can do those things.
I am opposed to Gay Driving.
It is not what God intended when he invented the automobile.
cars are not for dancing
And what if I get into a horrible car wreck and the other driver had AIDS, and his blood gets on me?
but all of this is useless masturbation anyways, anything i say won't convince you, because you have your eyes firmly shut, feeling righteous in your cause, and that what you are offering is fair.
it's the same with my extended family, i was furious when they donated money to the yes on 8 campaign, but their church leaders sent down the command, and they, like a nice little flock, go and obey without thinking it out logically. but nothing i say will make them look at it with a fair even view, they are far too skewed.
it makes me very very sad.
That bolded phrase is an impossibility.
I personally don't feel like my eyes are shut. I am very much a free thinker (Philosophy major) and welcome any viewpoints. I don't think I have been unreasonable or illogical in my statements so I'm not sure why you are comparing me to sheep, but whatev. Regardless, thanks for the convo and for not getting pissed off. Most people just get all angry when having any sort of debate.
this is a very touchy subject that i am invested in on several fronts, so i get passionate about it, but i don't believe in hating someone just because they have an opposite view. and i grew up mormon so i know how large the stress upon the family is, so i can at least understand where your views are rooted in, even if i think they are very wrong, especially if you attempt to think of it logically and take all faith out of the equation.
and our laws and civil rights should not be based upon matters of faith.
and at least you didn't ask me straight out if i am a baby killer like my friend who just got back from his mission a few months ago did. hahahaha
Wait? ARE you a baby killer?
I understand your situation of having family that are members and you aren't. It sucks your family isn't cool about it. My brother is no longer a member of the church and our family still loves and accepts him for what makes him, him. The LDS church certainly doesn't teach exclusion and I'm sorry you have one of "those" mormon families.
As far as laws and civil rights not being based on faith, aren't many of our laws based on religious ones? Thats a hard line to draw also considering that a majority of this country believes in a god or belongs to some sort of faith. And considering we are the ones that make the laws according to our own conscience, most laws and civil rights WILL be based on some sort of faith until the majority of the country is no longer religious.
oh no, my immediate family is just like me, though i did do it first was was pretty scared for a while.
it's the mormon relatives, and my dad's side.
my dad is pretty great, he showed me a source that helped sever any last doubts that i might have held that i was doing the wrong thing by going atheist (though he is an agnostic). it is great finally having someone to discuss it all with
Many moons ago, I was working a bar gig where I wouldn't get out until 4 or 5 in the morning; one Saturday, my girlfriend let me know that she had a yoga class the following day and would like some after class sex at eight or nine before we went out for Sunday Brunch. I'm thinking this is a winning hand and I can't lose. Saturday night, I work my shift, get home around 4:30, start some laundry, eat some chow (nothing on my stomach in fourteen hours) and rack out for a couple of hours before the lady gets there. Alarm goes off, I hop in the shower, hop out and make a jack and coke while lighting a smoke.
Who's that knocking at the door? I believe that would pussy, my friends.
I decide to open the door as I was, dripping with dew, towel artfully knotted to accentuate my package, cigarette in my mouth, cocktail in one hand and bottle of booze in the other.
"Well, hello there, Elders; I believe you may have the wrong house."
"I believe you may be right, sir. Have a blessed day."
This is the point where timing is everything: my girl walks up the stairs right as these guys are leaving and takes the whole situation in stride.
"Oh, good, you're awake; Let's get inside. Oh, (looks at the Mormons) you may leave now."
The real problem here is people getting benefits for being married. Fuck that noise.
well... yeah
but there do need to be legal provisions vis a vis any offspring
Legal provisions that outline the responsibility of the offspring's parents and/or legal guardians. Not husbands and wives.
True, but in many states if the biologically mother/father of the child dies that persons family can sue and get custody of the child regardless of whether or not stipulations were made for the partner to be guardian. The fact that many states deny gay couples the right to adopt complicates this.
Added: There have also been cases where after a long relationship and the child and parent (nonbiological) have bonded and are in a parent-child relationship the relationship ends and the nonbiological parent has been denied visitation or custody of the child because they have no legal right to it in many states.
Does allowing gays to marry really fix this issue? Sounds like another battle entirely. But again being able to adopt children isn't a civil right either.
The real issue is that being gay isn't really a reason to bar anyone from anything.
(Other than giving blood. It may not be PC, but the statistics of it apparently make sense.)
but all of this is useless masturbation anyways, anything i say won't convince you, because you have your eyes firmly shut, feeling righteous in your cause, and that what you are offering is fair.
it's the same with my extended family, i was furious when they donated money to the yes on 8 campaign, but their church leaders sent down the command, and they, like a nice little flock, go and obey without thinking it out logically. but nothing i say will make them look at it with a fair even view, they are far too skewed.
it makes me very very sad.
That bolded phrase is an impossibility.
I personally don't feel like my eyes are shut. I am very much a free thinker (Philosophy major) and welcome any viewpoints. I don't think I have been unreasonable or illogical in my statements so I'm not sure why you are comparing me to sheep, but whatev. Regardless, thanks for the convo and for not getting pissed off. Most people just get all angry when having any sort of debate.
this is a very touchy subject that i am invested in on several fronts, so i get passionate about it, but i don't believe in hating someone just because they have an opposite view. and i grew up mormon so i know how large the stress upon the family is, so i can at least understand where your views are rooted in, even if i think they are very wrong, especially if you attempt to think of it logically and take all faith out of the equation.
and our laws and civil rights should not be based upon matters of faith.
and at least you didn't ask me straight out if i am a baby killer like my friend who just got back from his mission a few months ago did. hahahaha
Wait? ARE you a baby killer?
I understand your situation of having family that are members and you aren't. It sucks your family isn't cool about it. My brother is no longer a member of the church and our family still loves and accepts him for what makes him, him. The LDS church certainly doesn't teach exclusion and I'm sorry you have one of "those" mormon families.
As far as laws and civil rights not being based on faith, aren't many of our laws based on religious ones? Thats a hard line to draw also considering that a majority of this country believes in a god or belongs to some sort of faith. And considering we are the ones that make the laws according to our own conscience, most laws and civil rights WILL be based on some sort of faith until the majority of the country is no longer religious.
oh no, my immediate family is just like me, though i did do it first was was pretty scared for a while.
it's the mormon relatives, and my dad's side.
my dad is pretty great, he showed me a source that helped sever any last doubts that i might have held that i was doing the wrong thing by going atheist (though he is an agnostic). it is great finally having someone to discuss it all with
Surprised Obi didn't catch that, earlier. Then again, it was around 10 pages ago.
Doobh on
Miss me? Find me on:
Twitch (I stream most days of the week) Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
The real problem here is people getting benefits for being married. Fuck that noise.
well... yeah
but there do need to be legal provisions vis a vis any offspring
Legal provisions that outline the responsibility of the offspring's parents and/or legal guardians. Not husbands and wives.
True, but in many states if the biologically mother/father of the child dies that persons family can sue and get custody of the child regardless of whether or not stipulations were made for the partner to be guardian. The fact that many states deny gay couples the right to adopt complicates this.
Added: There have also been cases where after a long relationship and the child and parent (nonbiological) have bonded and are in a parent-child relationship the relationship ends and the nonbiological parent has been denied visitation or custody of the child because they have no legal right to it in many states.
Does allowing gays to marry really fix this issue? Sounds like another battle entirely. But again being able to adopt children isn't a civil right either.
The states that allow gay marriage also (usually, I can't say always) allow adoption by gay couples. Then the nonbio parent can adopt the child and, at least in states that allow it, be recognized as a parent and have a right to custody and visitation. This also affords them protection from out-of-state relatives of the bio parent who might try and take custody of the child from the nonbio parent should the bio-parent die. They are then protected by the state.
VisionOfClarity on
0
Options
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
Yeah, they are voting to deny equal rights to a minority. Which is wrong.
Morally wrong to you but not illegal. Look I think it sucks too but prop 8 passed democratically so unless it contradicts Cali's constitution no "dictating" took place here.
Not illegal, just unconstitutional. So hopefully it gets overturned.
Civil rights should never be left up to vote. The minority will always loose.
Discrimination by majority vote doesn't make discrimination right. It's still discrimination.
Prop 8 should have never ever exsisted.
Except marriage isn't a civil right. You need state approval and a license for it.
I need state approval and license to drive, vote, and teach too, and anyone can do those things.
You do not need a license to vote you just need to register. Driving and teaching are not rights but privileges that certainly not anyone can do.
But it still applies. No where in any constitution does it lay out that marriage is a "right" but by your definition would be a privilege as well.
You seem to view it as a religious institution, making it a First Amendment right of anyone to practice marriage as they see fit.
If you seriously think it's ok to then have a legal institution surrounding it that gives credence to one type of ceremony and not another, then you don't understand or are unaware of the Establishment Clause.
edit: this is all a thought experiment anyway, the aim of which is to kick religion out of the debate, after which homophobes find themselves without a square inch of ground to stand on.
the point is you can't have it both ways. Either you are defending your sacred traditional institution and therefore good for you, we're defending this other progressive one and you can fuck right off trying to legislate otherwise, or you are just a bigot who thinks gay people are gross.
Ready for the obligatory statement of the thread? Here goes: I used to work under a gay man and had two gay co-workers. We hung out ALL the time. They were good dudes. I have nothing against them as people.
My statement about the whole rights thing is fairly unfounded, it was just a logical statement based on what I was responding to. Based on your knowledge, I was wrong, seeing as how I do know nothing about the Establishment Clause (D:).
The reality is that the sacred institution of marriage is important to me and, apparrently, the majority of california. Since we live and dictate the laws of the country through voting, beliefs are going to creep into the legislation. Just a fact of life. So until the majority don't find it important, marriage will only be between a man and woman because of democracy. Now civil unions, that would pass in a heartbeat and give homosexuals the same rights. I say we try to make it a federal thing while we are at it.
Many moons ago, I was working a bar gig where I wouldn't get out until 4 or 5 in the morning; one Saturday, my girlfriend let me know that she had a yoga class the following day and would like some after class sex at eight or nine before we went out for Sunday Brunch. I'm thinking this is a winning hand and I can't lose. Saturday night, I work my shift, get home around 4:30, start some laundry, eat some chow (nothing on my stomach in fourteen hours) and rack out for a couple of hours before the lady gets there. Alarm goes off, I hop in the shower, hop out and make a jack and coke while lighting a smoke.
Who's that knocking at the door? I believe that would pussy, my friends.
I decide to open the door as I was, dripping with dew, towel artfully knotted to accentuate my package, cigarette in my mouth, cocktail in one hand and bottle of booze in the other.
"Well, hello there, Elders; I believe you may have the wrong house."
"I believe you may be right, sir. Have a blessed day."
This is the point where timing is everything: my girl walks up the stairs right as these guys are leaving and takes the whole situation in stride.
"Oh, good, you're awake; Let's get inside. Oh, (looks at the Mormons) you may leave now."
My father's schtick when mormons, or anyone else who comes a-proslytizin', is to point at the mezzuzah on our door post, and say "this means you don't come here."
but all of this is useless masturbation anyways, anything i say won't convince you, because you have your eyes firmly shut, feeling righteous in your cause, and that what you are offering is fair.
it's the same with my extended family, i was furious when they donated money to the yes on 8 campaign, but their church leaders sent down the command, and they, like a nice little flock, go and obey without thinking it out logically. but nothing i say will make them look at it with a fair even view, they are far too skewed.
it makes me very very sad.
That bolded phrase is an impossibility.
I personally don't feel like my eyes are shut. I am very much a free thinker (Philosophy major) and welcome any viewpoints. I don't think I have been unreasonable or illogical in my statements so I'm not sure why you are comparing me to sheep, but whatev. Regardless, thanks for the convo and for not getting pissed off. Most people just get all angry when having any sort of debate.
this is a very touchy subject that i am invested in on several fronts, so i get passionate about it, but i don't believe in hating someone just because they have an opposite view. and i grew up mormon so i know how large the stress upon the family is, so i can at least understand where your views are rooted in, even if i think they are very wrong, especially if you attempt to think of it logically and take all faith out of the equation.
and our laws and civil rights should not be based upon matters of faith.
and at least you didn't ask me straight out if i am a baby killer like my friend who just got back from his mission a few months ago did. hahahaha
Wait? ARE you a baby killer?
I understand your situation of having family that are members and you aren't. It sucks your family isn't cool about it. My brother is no longer a member of the church and our family still loves and accepts him for what makes him, him. The LDS church certainly doesn't teach exclusion and I'm sorry you have one of "those" mormon families.
As far as laws and civil rights not being based on faith, aren't many of our laws based on religious ones? Thats a hard line to draw also considering that a majority of this country believes in a god or belongs to some sort of faith. And considering we are the ones that make the laws according to our own conscience, most laws and civil rights WILL be based on some sort of faith until the majority of the country is no longer religious.
oh no, my immediate family is just like me, though i did do it first was was pretty scared for a while.
it's the mormon relatives, and my dad's side.
my dad is pretty great, he showed me a source that helped sever any last doubts that i might have held that i was doing the wrong thing by going atheist (though he is an agnostic). it is great finally having someone to discuss it all with
Surprised Obi didn't catch that, earlier. Then again, it was around 10 pages ago.
Yeah, they are voting to deny equal rights to a minority. Which is wrong.
Morally wrong to you but not illegal. Look I think it sucks too but prop 8 passed democratically so unless it contradicts Cali's constitution no "dictating" took place here.
Not illegal, just unconstitutional. So hopefully it gets overturned.
Civil rights should never be left up to vote. The minority will always loose.
Discrimination by majority vote doesn't make discrimination right. It's still discrimination.
Prop 8 should have never ever exsisted.
Except marriage isn't a civil right. You need state approval and a license for it.
I need state approval and license to drive, vote, and teach too, and anyone can do those things.
You do not need a license to vote you just need to register. Driving and teaching are not rights but privileges that certainly not anyone can do.
But it still applies. No where in any constitution does it lay out that marriage is a "right" but by your definition would be a privilege as well.
You seem to view it as a religious institution, making it a First Amendment right of anyone to practice marriage as they see fit.
If you seriously think it's ok to then have a legal institution surrounding it that gives credence to one type of ceremony and not another, then you don't understand or are unaware of the Establishment Clause.
edit: this is all a thought experiment anyway, the aim of which is to kick religion out of the debate, after which homophobes find themselves without a square inch of ground to stand on.
the point is you can't have it both ways. Either you are defending your sacred traditional institution and therefore good for you, we're defending this other progressive one and you can fuck right off trying to legislate otherwise, or you are just a bigot who thinks gay people are gross.
Ready for the obligatory statement of the thread? Here goes: I used to work under a gay man and had two gay co-workers. We hung out ALL the time. They were good dudes. I have nothing against them as people.
My statement about the whole rights thing is fairly unfounded, it was just a logical statement based on what I was responding to. Based on your knowledge, I was wrong, seeing as how I do know nothing about the Establishment Clause (D:).
The reality is that the sacred institution of marriage is important to me and, apparrently, the majority of california. Since we live and dictate the laws of the country through voting, beliefs are going to creep into the legislation. Just a fact of life. So until the majority don't find it important, marriage will only be between a man and woman because of democracy. Now civil unions, that would pass in a heartbeat and give homosexuals the same rights. I say we try to make it a federal thing while we are at it.
So anything is okay as long as it's not legislated to be not okay?
Doobh on
Miss me? Find me on:
Twitch (I stream most days of the week) Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
The real issue is that being gay isn't really a reason to bar anyone from anything.
(Other than giving blood. It may not be PC, but the statistics of it apparently make sense.)
Oh I agree. But in this case they are moral arguments not civil rights arguments. People just need to choose their words more carefully. Throwing the term "civil right" where it does not really apply hurts your argument it doesn't help it.
but all of this is useless masturbation anyways, anything i say won't convince you, because you have your eyes firmly shut, feeling righteous in your cause, and that what you are offering is fair.
it's the same with my extended family, i was furious when they donated money to the yes on 8 campaign, but their church leaders sent down the command, and they, like a nice little flock, go and obey without thinking it out logically. but nothing i say will make them look at it with a fair even view, they are far too skewed.
it makes me very very sad.
That bolded phrase is an impossibility.
I personally don't feel like my eyes are shut. I am very much a free thinker (Philosophy major) and welcome any viewpoints. I don't think I have been unreasonable or illogical in my statements so I'm not sure why you are comparing me to sheep, but whatev. Regardless, thanks for the convo and for not getting pissed off. Most people just get all angry when having any sort of debate.
this is a very touchy subject that i am invested in on several fronts, so i get passionate about it, but i don't believe in hating someone just because they have an opposite view. and i grew up mormon so i know how large the stress upon the family is, so i can at least understand where your views are rooted in, even if i think they are very wrong, especially if you attempt to think of it logically and take all faith out of the equation.
and our laws and civil rights should not be based upon matters of faith.
and at least you didn't ask me straight out if i am a baby killer like my friend who just got back from his mission a few months ago did. hahahaha
Wait? ARE you a baby killer?
I understand your situation of having family that are members and you aren't. It sucks your family isn't cool about it. My brother is no longer a member of the church and our family still loves and accepts him for what makes him, him. The LDS church certainly doesn't teach exclusion and I'm sorry you have one of "those" mormon families.
As far as laws and civil rights not being based on faith, aren't many of our laws based on religious ones? Thats a hard line to draw also considering that a majority of this country believes in a god or belongs to some sort of faith. And considering we are the ones that make the laws according to our own conscience, most laws and civil rights WILL be based on some sort of faith until the majority of the country is no longer religious.
Confirmation bias.
"Thou shalt not kill" is in the Bible. It's also a useful law to have on the books to keep society functioning. Doesn't mean we got it from the bible.
We are not meant to make laws based on faith. We're meant to make laws for the reasons laid clear in the Constitution: to provide for the common good and ensure the public safety. Thus we do not have laws banning adultery, or promiscuity, because neither conflict with those ends. The legal institution of marriage is to provide people who want to become partners legal rights to become as family, and to provide for the raising of children. Since there's no reason gay marriages cannot do either of those things, and in no way does it harm the common good or threaten public safety, there's no justification for bigotry in the law.
Sure, as long as the majority of the country is somehow religious, we'll keep making laws based on faith, whether the Constitution prescribes them or not, but those laws have no place in a secular government.
The reality is that the sacred institution of marriage is important to me and, apparrently, the majority of california. Since we live and dictate the laws of the country through voting, beliefs are going to creep into the legislation. Just a fact of life. So until the majority don't find it important, marriage will only be between a man and woman because of democracy. Now civil unions, that would pass in a heartbeat and give homosexuals the same rights. I say we try to make it a federal thing while we are at it.
So it's ok for the majority to decide what minorities can and cannot do?
Many moons ago, I was working a bar gig where I wouldn't get out until 4 or 5 in the morning; one Saturday, my girlfriend let me know that she had a yoga class the following day and would like some after class sex at eight or nine before we went out for Sunday Brunch. I'm thinking this is a winning hand and I can't lose. Saturday night, I work my shift, get home around 4:30, start some laundry, eat some chow (nothing on my stomach in fourteen hours) and rack out for a couple of hours before the lady gets there. Alarm goes off, I hop in the shower, hop out and make a jack and coke while lighting a smoke.
Who's that knocking at the door? I believe that would pussy, my friends.
I decide to open the door as I was, dripping with dew, towel artfully knotted to accentuate my package, cigarette in my mouth, cocktail in one hand and bottle of booze in the other.
"Well, hello there, Elders; I believe you may have the wrong house."
"I believe you may be right, sir. Have a blessed day."
This is the point where timing is everything: my girl walks up the stairs right as these guys are leaving and takes the whole situation in stride.
"Oh, good, you're awake; Let's get inside. Oh, (looks at the Mormons) you may leave now."
My father's schtick when mormons, or anyone else who comes a-proslytizin', is to point at the mezzuzah on our door post, and say "this means you don't come here."
Stare them dead in the eye
Then when it's good and uncomfortable say slowly and clearly "Hail Satan"
but all of this is useless masturbation anyways, anything i say won't convince you, because you have your eyes firmly shut, feeling righteous in your cause, and that what you are offering is fair.
it's the same with my extended family, i was furious when they donated money to the yes on 8 campaign, but their church leaders sent down the command, and they, like a nice little flock, go and obey without thinking it out logically. but nothing i say will make them look at it with a fair even view, they are far too skewed.
it makes me very very sad.
That bolded phrase is an impossibility.
I personally don't feel like my eyes are shut. I am very much a free thinker (Philosophy major) and welcome any viewpoints. I don't think I have been unreasonable or illogical in my statements so I'm not sure why you are comparing me to sheep, but whatev. Regardless, thanks for the convo and for not getting pissed off. Most people just get all angry when having any sort of debate.
this is a very touchy subject that i am invested in on several fronts, so i get passionate about it, but i don't believe in hating someone just because they have an opposite view. and i grew up mormon so i know how large the stress upon the family is, so i can at least understand where your views are rooted in, even if i think they are very wrong, especially if you attempt to think of it logically and take all faith out of the equation.
and our laws and civil rights should not be based upon matters of faith.
and at least you didn't ask me straight out if i am a baby killer like my friend who just got back from his mission a few months ago did. hahahaha
Wait? ARE you a baby killer?
I understand your situation of having family that are members and you aren't. It sucks your family isn't cool about it. My brother is no longer a member of the church and our family still loves and accepts him for what makes him, him. The LDS church certainly doesn't teach exclusion and I'm sorry you have one of "those" mormon families.
As far as laws and civil rights not being based on faith, aren't many of our laws based on religious ones? Thats a hard line to draw also considering that a majority of this country believes in a god or belongs to some sort of faith. And considering we are the ones that make the laws according to our own conscience, most laws and civil rights WILL be based on some sort of faith until the majority of the country is no longer religious.
oh no, my immediate family is just like me, though i did do it first was was pretty scared for a while.
it's the mormon relatives, and my dad's side.
my dad is pretty great, he showed me a source that helped sever any last doubts that i might have held that i was doing the wrong thing by going atheist (though he is an agnostic). it is great finally having someone to discuss it all with
Oh, well, nvm then. Still sucks for extended family to be crappy. But thats with any family, really, and for a myriad of different reasons.
Posts
It covers adoption as well, correct?
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
When you adopt you become a legal guardian, no?
Wait? ARE you a baby killer?
I understand your situation of having family that are members and you aren't. It sucks your family isn't cool about it. My brother is no longer a member of the church and our family still loves and accepts him for what makes him, him. The LDS church certainly doesn't teach exclusion and I'm sorry you have one of "those" mormon families.
As far as laws and civil rights not being based on faith, aren't many of our laws based on religious ones? Thats a hard line to draw also considering that a majority of this country believes in a god or belongs to some sort of faith. And considering we are the ones that make the laws according to our own conscience, most laws and civil rights WILL be based on some sort of faith until the majority of the country is no longer religious.
True, but in many states if the biologically mother/father of the child dies that persons family can sue and get custody of the child regardless of whether or not stipulations were made for the partner to be guardian. The fact that many states deny gay couples the right to adopt complicates this.
Added: There have also been cases where in a relationship the child and parent (nonbiological) have bonded and are in a parent-child relationship the relationship ends and the nonbiological parent has been denied visitation or custody of the child because they have no legal right to it in many states.
I'm not advocating "my ideals" but I do believe that citizens of the United States are all afforded equal rights by the Constitution. And while marriage is not specifically in the Bill of Rights, marriages are recognized by the U.S. Government and even if you get married in a church you must still file the necessary paperwork with the government for it to be a legally recognized marriage.
This being the case I don't feel that it's right, or even constitutional for gay couples to be denied the right to get legally married at a court of law or even in a church that agrees to perform the ceremony. I respect the right of any religious organization to refuse to perform a wedding to gay couples, because it's their right to do so according to the Constitution.
*dancemusic*
Does allowing gays to marry really fix this issue? Sounds like another battle entirely. But again being able to adopt children isn't a civil right either.
Some people can thrive in the center of melee. If he can come up with a logical reason for denying gay marriage, then I'll be impressed.
And when the hell did I start being this combative?
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
And what if I get into a horrible car wreck and the other driver had AIDS, and his blood gets on me?
oh no, my immediate family is just like me, though i did do it first was was pretty scared for a while.
it's the mormon relatives, and my dad's side.
my dad is pretty great, he showed me a source that helped sever any last doubts that i might have held that i was doing the wrong thing by going atheist (though he is an agnostic). it is great finally having someone to discuss it all with
Who's that knocking at the door? I believe that would pussy, my friends.
I decide to open the door as I was, dripping with dew, towel artfully knotted to accentuate my package, cigarette in my mouth, cocktail in one hand and bottle of booze in the other.
"Well, hello there, Elders; I believe you may have the wrong house."
"I believe you may be right, sir. Have a blessed day."
This is the point where timing is everything: my girl walks up the stairs right as these guys are leaving and takes the whole situation in stride.
"Oh, good, you're awake; Let's get inside. Oh, (looks at the Mormons) you may leave now."
The real issue is that being gay isn't really a reason to bar anyone from anything.
(Other than giving blood. It may not be PC, but the statistics of it apparently make sense.)
Surprised Obi didn't catch that, earlier. Then again, it was around 10 pages ago.
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
The states that allow gay marriage also (usually, I can't say always) allow adoption by gay couples. Then the nonbio parent can adopt the child and, at least in states that allow it, be recognized as a parent and have a right to custody and visitation. This also affords them protection from out-of-state relatives of the bio parent who might try and take custody of the child from the nonbio parent should the bio-parent die. They are then protected by the state.
you told me our baby ran away and joined the circus
Ready for the obligatory statement of the thread? Here goes: I used to work under a gay man and had two gay co-workers. We hung out ALL the time. They were good dudes. I have nothing against them as people.
My statement about the whole rights thing is fairly unfounded, it was just a logical statement based on what I was responding to. Based on your knowledge, I was wrong, seeing as how I do know nothing about the Establishment Clause (D:).
The reality is that the sacred institution of marriage is important to me and, apparrently, the majority of california. Since we live and dictate the laws of the country through voting, beliefs are going to creep into the legislation. Just a fact of life. So until the majority don't find it important, marriage will only be between a man and woman because of democracy. Now civil unions, that would pass in a heartbeat and give homosexuals the same rights. I say we try to make it a federal thing while we are at it.
My father's schtick when mormons, or anyone else who comes a-proslytizin', is to point at the mezzuzah on our door post, and say "this means you don't come here."
aww yeah pastmormonHIGH5
So anything is okay as long as it's not legislated to be not okay?
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
I have black friends. That doesn't mean that I can run around saying the n-word.
just because i don't share their faith doesn't mean that i gotta be a dick
Oh I agree. But in this case they are moral arguments not civil rights arguments. People just need to choose their words more carefully. Throwing the term "civil right" where it does not really apply hurts your argument it doesn't help it.
It did.
Confirmation bias.
"Thou shalt not kill" is in the Bible. It's also a useful law to have on the books to keep society functioning. Doesn't mean we got it from the bible.
We are not meant to make laws based on faith. We're meant to make laws for the reasons laid clear in the Constitution: to provide for the common good and ensure the public safety. Thus we do not have laws banning adultery, or promiscuity, because neither conflict with those ends. The legal institution of marriage is to provide people who want to become partners legal rights to become as family, and to provide for the raising of children. Since there's no reason gay marriages cannot do either of those things, and in no way does it harm the common good or threaten public safety, there's no justification for bigotry in the law.
Sure, as long as the majority of the country is somehow religious, we'll keep making laws based on faith, whether the Constitution prescribes them or not, but those laws have no place in a secular government.
you bring the lamb's blood, i'll bring callius
Then why have them?
So it's ok for the majority to decide what minorities can and cannot do?
yesssss @ blood and callius
(gross blood)
Stare them dead in the eye
Then when it's good and uncomfortable say slowly and clearly "Hail Satan"
For some reason, Darth, you appear in my mind looking exactly like Nick Fury.
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Oh, well, nvm then. Still sucks for extended family to be crappy. But thats with any family, really, and for a myriad of different reasons.
yes it does!
OOOHHH I HATE THEM SO MUCH
also i'm not sure why marriage legislation gets to be put up for a vote
nobody got to vote on whether to free slaves, did they?