Gay Marriages

[lethal]

And it doesn't mean that anti-abortion people have to agree with it either.
One other thing here. It is the law as set forth by a Republican President, a Congress controlled by Republicans in both Houses, and a rightward leaning Supreme Court with the majority of Justices appointd by Republican Presidents.

Do you disagree that unborn babies do not have standing? It seems that you are asserting this position. I'd like to hear your arguments and the evidence behind this claim. After all, this is the law that has been unchanged even with complete Republican control at the federal level and Casey was decided by a majority conservative Supreme Court.

I think it means he gets your point and he agrees. Damn why does everyone have to be so combative in here, or is it just me?
If he agrees, then he is contradicting his earlier statement. I actually think he's being condescending with his remark.

Regardless. I believe ye110man is articulate enough to speak for himself. I'd like to hear his elaboration.

[Faithless]

I hate to say this, but somewhere in the course of this thread, someone took it away from being a thread about why Bush will/will not win the upcoming presidential election to being a tiresome thread about pro-choice/anti-abortion.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

exactly. again, no offense to those who voted on morals, but doing so is basically imposing your moral standards on others who don't live by it.

*sigh* I'm not going to get into this again because I feel like we've been through this 20394815432 times. I'm not disrespecting the opposing opinions, I'm just saying it's gotten nowhere. Again, it's impossible to avoid imposing one's own moral standards any time someone participates in anything on the political continuum or in the process of decision-making that will affect groups of people. As Chinalama mentioned sometime ago, any time a law is passed moral standards are being imposed. Kitty keeps saying how God and faith should be left out of politics, including the innumerable occasions where political figures and voters would/will have to appeal to their own conscience and moral framework. If everyone was required to keep to this standard, wouldn't this be imposing the "moral standard" or "belief" that God either does not exist (Atheism) or is unimportant? Voters of faith who don't want to live in a society prescribing laws which ignore or trivialize the commands of the God they worship have the right to say so. It goes both ways. Anyways, this will be my first and last post in this thread. I don't care to argue or defend my position any further.

P.S. I am not a Bush fan, for all those people in here contributing for the sole purpose of trashing Bush and his supporters.

[Kuchana]

Well they tend to be the folks who want to judge us.

It's funny but doesn't the other side judge as well? The pot calling the kettle black.

[Arex]

While my morals weren't the most important issue (although it was up there), I can understand why some people decided to vote on their morals alone. Who is to fault them for that? Who should we be the judge of such people? While some people may not think of morals as a pressing issue, others definitely do and there's nothing wrong with that. It's their opinon and they're perfectly entitled to it. I happen to have a high opinion of morals yet that wasn't my driving issue but it was a factor in my decision. Just because this is an election doesn't mean that we all have to agree to vote pertaining to a certain issue or another. As you see, there was an obvious divide between those who voted for morals/terrorism and for those who wanted a change. Am I faulting people who voted for the latter? On the contrary. It shows a difference of opinion. This is one of the reasons why our country is a democracy because we don't have to agree on everything.We certainly do have a difference of opinion: I'm of the opinion that people who voted primarily on morals are idiots. And the people who voted for Bush based on his record on terrorism and in Iraq? They're idiots too. I'm of the opinion that these people need to open their eyes to see the bigger picture and maybe read up on current events. You obviously disagree. I can live with that.

RX

P.S. - I admit I'm judging them. But you'll never see me trying to deprive them of their rights simply because I disagree with them.

[Kuchana]

exactly. again, no offense to those who voted on morals, but doing so is basically imposing your moral standards on others who don't live by it.

Wait wait. You can turn that around with the liberal argument. How about when I feel if a liberal's viewpoint is being imposed upon me even if I don't want it live by it? Same thing.

This argument is futile because we're just going to constantly go back and forth with no agreement.

Democrats need to realise this and next time shoot some music videos for their candidates or throw the first pitch at some baseball games or something like that.

Are you being serious? I was thinking about the MTV voting drive and how that amounted up to nothing. I don't think even that will have an effect on changing people's morals or their viewpoint for that matter.

[TB4000]

True, it's never gonna end. I was just messing with you earlier, Kuchana, but I'm sorry for acting all goofy on you. There was a girl at work today that admitted she voted for Bush and everyone in the office ganged up on here and she literally started crying and ran to the bathroom. I sense a lot of that is going on all over the country, and people are just venting, and some are being poor losers, others are being poor winners. I don't care for Bush at all myself, but I hope this second term, he realizes that mistakes were made in the past, and attempts to rectify them by listening to the public....both sides.

[Arex]

Wait wait. You can turn that around with the liberal argument. How about when I feel if a liberal's viewpoint is being imposed upon me even if I don't want it live by it? Same thing.The liberal argument is live and let live. A passive "policy" of permitting gay marriage doesn't have any effect on your own ability to pursue your own happiness. Nor does a policy of passively allowing a woman to choose for herself whether she wants to abort an unwanted fetus. There's no active "imposing" going on. This is in stark contrast to the conservative aims of actively preventing, through legislation or constitutional amendments, gays and women from doing these things.

To claim that simply affording gays and lesbians the same rights as everyone else, or allowing a woman the right to control her own body, is "imposing" certain viewpoints on you is as stupid as saying that building a church in my neighborhood is "imposing" Christian beliefs on me. If I don't want any part of the Christian institution that that church represents, I don't have to enter the church. Likewise, if you aren't in favor of gay marriage, don't enter into one. Or if you're opposed to abortion, don't get one. It's as easy as that.

RX

[SunWuKong]

If everyone was required to keep to this standard, wouldn't this be imposing the "moral standard" or "belief" that God either does not exist (Atheism) or is unimportant? Voters of faith who don't want to live in a society prescribing laws which ignore or trivialize the commands of the God they worship have the right to say so. It goes both ways.

no actually it doesn't go both ways. once again, the obvious difference is that certain laws based on individual moral values restrict people's social freedoms, while not doing so allows people to live their lives according to their own values. for example, being pro-choice doesn't mean we'd be legislating a requirement for all pregnant women to get abortions. it does not impose restrictions on pregnant women that want to have their babies.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

The liberal argument is live and let live. A passive "policy" of permitting gay marriage doesn't have any effect on your own ability to pursue your own happiness. Nor does a policy of passively allowing a woman to choose for herself whether she wants to abort an unwanted fetus. There's no active "imposing" going on. This is in stark contrast to the conservative aims of actively preventing, through legislation or constitutional amendments, gays and women from doing these things.

To claim that simply affording gays and lesbians the same rights as everyone else, or allowing a woman the right to control her own body, is "imposing" certain viewpoints on you is as stupid as saying that building a church in my neighborhood is "imposing" Christian beliefs on me. If I don't want any part of the Christian institution that that church represents, I don't have to enter the church. Likewise, if you aren't in favor of gay marriage, don't enter into one. Or if you're opposed to abortion, don't get one. It's as easy as that.

RX

It's not as simple as that. Many Christians also have a sense of duty to keep God's kingdom in their primary interests. A world full of people committing actions which clearly go against their God's teachings while being justified by laws promoted by 'liberal thought' is unacceptable to many people of faith. At the same time, Christians believe that by restricting people from being allowed to do such actions that are 'abominable to the Lord' for lack of better term, they are doing humanity (and God) a great service. In short, Christians believe that God frowns upon those who sit around and do nothing to stop the 'sins' of others even though they themselves may already be doing their best to keep from committing such 'sins' themselves. Atheists or those of other faiths or sects or belief systems obviously have their own idea over what constitutes righteousness, justice, or a moral individual and society, and they are also free to vote accordingly. Again, not that simple.

Regarding passive policy. Again I don't think people should approach policies which maintain or protect what has been deemed 'a human right' any differently than any other policy. Are you saying we should be more lenient when it comes to passive policy and less lenient otherwise? My moral framework is the same no matter what I'm deciding on.

[SunWuKong]

Wait wait. You can turn that around with the liberal argument. How about when I feel if a liberal's viewpoint is being imposed upon me even if I don't want it live by it? Same thing.

This argument is futile because we're just going to constantly go back and forth with no agreement.

it's not about liberal vs. conservative. in this particular case:

allowing for same-sex marriage does not impose on your own life. you are not gay. and even for a gay person, allowing for same-sex marriage does not mean s/he must get married. again, no imposition there.

allowing for abortion also does not impose on your own life. you do not have to get an abortion. no imposition there.



Are you being serious? I was thinking about the MTV voting drive and how that amounted up to nothing. I don't think even that will have an effect on changing people's morals or their viewpoint for that matter.

i'm just kidding. :smile:
i was just saying that democrats need to do more populist showman type of stuff because that'll probably appeal to the average American than talking about the real and important issues.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

no actually it doesn't go both ways. once again, the obvious difference is that certain laws based on individual moral values restrict people's social freedoms, while not doing so allows people to live their lives according to their own values. for example, being pro-choice doesn't mean we'd be legislating a requirement for all pregnant women to get abortions. it does not impose restrictions on pregnant women that want to have their babies.

So basically are you against all laws which prohibit certain actions such as robbery or murder? Laws against such crimes are based on moral values and restrict people's freedoms. Who are you or anyone else to say that such actions are wrong? Just because the majority of the population thinks it's wrong is significant enough to deem it so? In terms of abortion, there are plenty of people who believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. Who is to argue that it ISN'T or IS murder, and if you think it's not the right of the politician to decide whether or not such an act is wrong, what makes you think it's the right of the politician to deem anything else wrong either? So basically you're saying we should be more lenient about allowing people to do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't affect other people? I think it'd be too early to say that legalizing abortion and all other types of actions considered "social freedoms" would not have any type of effect on anyone other than the participant in our society.

[SunWuKong]

It's not as simple as that. Many Christians also have a sense of duty to keep God's kingdom in their primary interests. A world full of people committing actions which clearly go against their God's teachings while being justified by laws promoted by 'liberal thought' is unacceptable to many people of faith. At the same time, Christians believe that by restricting people from being allowed to do such actions that are 'abominable to the Lord' for lack of better term, they are doing humanity (and God) a great service. In short, Christians believe that God frowns upon those who sit around and do nothing to stop the 'sins' of others even though they themselves may already be doing their best to keep from committing such 'sins' themselves. Atheists or those of other faiths or sects or belief systems obviously have their own idea over what constitutes righteousness, justice, or a moral individual and society, and they are also free to vote accordingly. Again, not that simple.

sure, that would be great if everyone in this country were Christian and believe in restricting what they consider to be sins. but for one thing, not everybody are Christian, and for another, plenty of Christian believe that God gives us the freedom of choice to sin or not, for a third, plenty of Christians believe God is the only one that can judge us - something that many people in the South and the Midwest always seem to gloss over (what, there are no Christians on the coastal areas with heavy democrat support? they're not all atheists you know.)

"Judge not, that you be not judged."
Matthews 7:1

[Napoleon Chynamite]

"Judge not, that you be not judged."
Matthews 7:1

This quote has nothing to do with telling people what is sin and what isn't sin. It's about not seeing other people as less or more immoral because everyone is a sinner and you should seek to forgive rather than condemn or look down upon with contempt. This doesn't mean that Christians aren't supposed to look at other people and identify what they are doing as sin or wrong. Indeed, I believe that whether you are a Christian or not, helping each other point out visible shortcomings or weaknesses is key to 'progress' in the loosest sense.

sure, that would be great if everyone in this country were Christian and believe in restricting what they consider to be sins. but for one thing, not everybody are Christian, and for another, plenty of Christian believe that God gives us the freedom of choice to sin or not, for a third, plenty of Christians believe God is the only one that can judge us - something that many people in the South and the Midwest always seem to gloss over (what, there are no Christians on the coastal areas with heavy democrat support? they're not all atheists you know.)

Quite a variety of perspectives among Christians themselves no doubt. ^^ If people are so eager to embrace all perspectives, let each individual legislate and vote accordingly in their own capacity, and don't complain about the ones who believe in restriction any more than those who don't believe in it.

[SunWuKong]

So basically are you against all laws which prohibit certain actions such as robbery or murder? Laws against such crimes are based on moral values and restrict people's freedoms. Who are you or anyone else to say that such actions are wrong? Just because the majority of the population thinks it's wrong is significant enough to deem it so? In terms of abortion, there are plenty of people who believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. Who is to argue that it ISN'T or IS murder, and if you think it's not the right of the politician to decide whether or not such an act is wrong, what makes you think it's the right of the politician to deem anything else wrong either? So basically you're saying we should be more lenient about allowing people to do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't affect other people? I think it'd be too early to say that legalizing abortion and all other types of actions considered "social freedoms" would not have any type of effect on anyone other than the participant in our society.


abortion is one thing, because it goes back to whether an individual's right to live is being denied. that's fundamentally an endless argument of when life begins. but banning abortion would also take away the choice for women to have abortions when the pregnancy could kill them. the option to abort in those cases must be left open.

but gay marriages? whose rights are being taken away but gay people's?

the fact that the overwhelming majority of people agree that murder is wrong, we can make that illegal. and one could not only argue the illegality of murder from a moral point of view, but from a legalistic point of view, too, because a life is definitely being taken away. (whereas the law does not consider a fetus a living citizen with rights.)

[DragonKnight]

it's not about liberal vs. conservative. in this particular case:

allowing for same-sex marriage does not impose on your own life. you are not gay. and even for a gay person, allowing for same-sex marriage does not mean s/he must get married. again, no imposition there.

allowing for abortion also does not impose on your own life. you do not have to get an abortion. no imposition there.
Exactly. I'm a Roman Catholic...but who am *I* to impose MY religious faith and beliefs on those who do not share them? Am I getting hurt just cause two guys or two women want to share in the same hell...I mean, joy of getting married? :biggrin: The same for the abortion issue. It's not your body, your life to get an abortion. It's your *choice*.

[SunWuKong]

This quote has nothing to do with telling people what is sin and what isn't sin. It's about not seeing other people as less or more immoral because everyone is a sinner and you should seek to forgive rather than condemn or look down upon with contempt. This doesn't mean that Christians aren't supposed to look at other people and identify what they are doing as sin or wrong. Indeed, I believe that whether you are a Christian or not, helping each other point out visible shortcomings or weaknesses is key to 'progress' in the loosest sense.

i tend to disagree. banning gay marriage is basically a form of condemnation. and let me also quote the second verse:

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.

- Matthews 7:1-2

that specifically discourages Christians from acting upon what they consider to be more or less immoral.



Quite a variety of perspectives among Christians themselves no doubt. ^^ If people are so eager to embrace all perspectives, let each individual legislate and vote accordingly in their own capacity, and don't complain about the ones who believe in restriction any more than those who don't believe in it.

i believe i have a basic right to complain, and so i will. i was just pointing out to you that what you described as Christian tendencies hardly apply to all Christians, but really only mostly those in the South and the Midwest.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

i tend to disagree. banning gay marriage is basically a form of condemnation. and let me also quote the second verse:

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.

- Matthews 7:1-2

that specifically discourages Christians from acting upon what they consider to be more or less immoral.

How is banning gay marriage a condemnation in this sense? Is banning marijuana from a guy who wants to smoke marijuana condemnation also? Your add-on doesn't really change anything. It just means, whatever measure of condemnation or contemptuous action you use towards someone else, it will be returned to you. To me, it seems ridiculous to say that Christians are not supposed to identify the sins of others for the sake of serving God. You say "discourages Christians from acting upon what they consider to be more or less immoral". That's the whole point of the Christian life, isn't it? All your actions are supposed to be based upon what God considers moral/good or immoral, and if this includes pointing out or helping inform others about God's 'moral standards', then so be it. I hardly consider this something that God would look down upon. If you're talking about what oneself (as opposed to God) considers immoral or not, then I agree. But in many cases we are talking about allowing actions that seem pretty clearly prohibited according to the Bible.





i believe i have a basic right to complain, and so i will. i was just pointing out to you that what you described as Christian tendencies hardly apply to all Christians, but really only mostly those in the South and the Midwest.

Well of course you have the right to complain. I also have a right to tell you to stop ^^ Anyways, moving right along. Christian tendencies? Tendency towards wishing for a world in which people live closer and closer to God's standards? Hardly exclusive to certain regions. I live in the Pacific Northwest, and most of the Christians I've talked to agree and would appreciate and enjoy such circumstances. Seems like a very basic belief among Christians to me in terms of wanting to see everyone turning to God.

[Arex]

So basically are you against all laws which prohibit certain actions such as robbery or murder? Laws against such crimes are based on moral values and restrict people's freedoms. Who are you or anyone else to say that such actions are wrong? Just because the majority of the population thinks it's wrong is significant enough to deem it so? In terms of abortion, there are plenty of people who believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. Who is to argue that it ISN'T or IS murder, and if you think it's not the right of the politician to decide whether or not such an act is wrong, what makes you think it's the right of the politician to deem anything else wrong either? So basically you're saying we should be more lenient about allowing people to do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't affect other people? I think it'd be too early to say that legalizing abortion and all other types of actions considered "social freedoms" would not have any type of effect on anyone other than the participant in our society.Certain moral beliefs are almost universal. For example, people (in the U.S., at least) universally believe murder, rape, burglary, assault, robbery, etc., are wrong. I would argue that because a supermajority of people believe those acts are wrong, it makes sense to enact broad sweeping laws restricting behavior and criminalizing such acts. This is particularly so because those acts involve harm to others. Abortion, on the other hand, and whether the destruction of the fetus constitutes "murder," is highly contested. Given that there is such disagreement, it does not make sense for one side's beliefs to completely trump the other side's, particularly on a personal issue such as this. When we're talking about personal freedoms, I don't believe that 51% of the population should be able to dictate to 49% of the population what they can or cannot do with their bodies, assuming their actions are not harming others. And I don't think 51% of the population should be able to dictate to 49% of the population that destruction of the embryo constitutes murder. The trouble is deciding where to draw that line when a belief becomes so universal that it makes sense to restrict the minority's ability to engage in a particular action.

You say that you believe it's too soon to see whether legalizing certain types of social freedoms would or would not have any external effects. That may be true, but I think the burden should be on the people seeking to restrict social freedoms to demonstrate that permitting such activities has appreciable, almost universally recognized negative consequences on society before we restrict those rights. The cases for restricting murder, rape, burglary are pretty easy to make. The case for restricting abortion requires a belief that life begins at conception and that destruction of the embryo is murder. That is far from a universal belief and should, for the time being, not be sufficient to deprive the huge population who don't share that belief of the right to choose, IMHO. Drug use? That too is subject to debate and beliefs are changing. I would not be opposed to legalization of marijuana. Gay marriage? I still haven't heard a valid argument against it, much less one that is almost universal in its acceptance.

RX

[Kuchana]

it's not about liberal vs. conservative. in this particular case:

allowing for same-sex marriage does not impose on your own life. you are not gay. and even for a gay person, allowing for same-sex marriage does not mean s/he must get married. again, no imposition there.

allowing for abortion also does not impose on your own life. you do not have to get an abortion. no imposition there.

I wasn't going to post further knowing that it won't change things but what the heck, right?:P

I think it is a case of liberal vs. conservative. Religion, from my perspective, is interwined with my life. It is an integral part of who I am. Having said that, allowing for same-sex marriage would be against my morals simply because of the fact I don't agree with it (despite how some may argue it doesn't have an effect on me) but in the religious sense it does. It's difficult to explain but....If same-sex marriage (which my church is against) was legalized in the country, it would be detrimental to my religious and personal life. The same would be said for abortion. While I'm not getting an abortion or participating in same-sex marriage or don't know anyone who has except a few, I would still be effected by it because of my religious morals. I think both are wrong and both are against my morals. With abortion already rampent in the country, I despair at how women so carelessly and recklessly use it, killing lives in the process. And yes I do believe these women are killing their babies (even if you argue it's only a fetus) I don't feel comfortable with the thought nor of considering abortion Actually, let me rephrase that. I did consider it one time when my husband suggested I get an abortion if I "accidently" got pregnant. Imagine how horrified I was to even consider it in the first place! Why? Because of the fact it was so "convenient" as a reason; I could easily have used that option and a killed a life in the process. It's not only humanistic for me but religious as well. A similiar reasoning can go with the same-sex marriage. While I'm not a participant, it does have an effect on me in the environment I surround myself in. Of course I'm also in SF:P But even then, I'm uncomfortable with the notion of it. It's difficult to explain. Maybe Gumy can help me out. Legalizing same sex marriage is against my religion and against my morals. If you don't agree with that, fine. But let me be free to believe in whatever I want to, even if you don't approve of it. Vice versa. This of course doesn't mean that I hate or dislike people who practice or believe in same-sex marriage but I don't argue with it. Some people may see what I'm saying and agree/disagree with it, some people won't, and some people will think I'm an overzealous, religious person. Whatever. But that is my viewpoint and my opinion:P I hope I've explained my position and reasoning. Now this is the end because I don't want to reply further so I hope I made my point clear:P :)

[Arex]

If you don't agree with that, fine. But let me be free to believe in whatever I want to, even if you don't approve of it. Vice versa. This of course doesn't mean that I hate or dislike people who practice or believe in same-sex marriage but I don't argue with it.The irony...=) Of course everyone's free to believe what they wish to believe. What goes on in your head is, obviously, your own business. The difference is that many conservatives go beyond mere beliefs or vocal protest. It's one thing to be passively opposed to gay marriage. It's another to actually take affirmative steps to ensure that gays are deprived of the same rights afforded to every heterosexual man and woman (the right to marry the person of their choice).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems there are a lot of things that religious people tolerate that, technically, are contrary to their religious beliefs: adultery, pre-marital sex, condom use, eating pork, worshipping other gods, to name a few. But you don't see people trying prohibit those activities through legislation or constitutional amendments. Why not? It's called tolerance. Because we acknowledge that not everyone shares the same morals and beliefs, we learn to accept that people are different, even if we disagree with them sometimes.

But let me be free to believe in whatever I want to, even if you don't approve of it.You're absolutely entitled to believe what you want about anyone or anything. But it seems to me that if you can tolerate people worshipping a fake god, you should be able to tolerate someone choosing to wed someone of the same sex.

Admittedly, an issue such as abortion is much more touchy since many view that as "murder." But gay marriage? That's straight bullying the underdog.

[Mr.Lum]

I happy right now, Democrats have a 'super majority" in the state senate, like 25/6 to 15 for Democrats. They can override vetos that Gov Rell puts forth so the evil of the Republicans cannot take root in our wonderful little state. Take that Republican bitches!!!!

[deez nuts]

Aside from his proposed tax increases for the wealthy, and the fact that he looked kinda funny, what about Kerry was so bad?


i've stated what my pros and cons of each candidate in previous posts.

no, he is not my president.

I live fine with that.



:rolleyes:



oh so its worthwhile to mention he won the popular vote now?

so what happens when al gore won the popular vote?

he still get dissed by the "supreme court"!

:mad: :mad: :mad:


don't get so emotional. it was just a mere statement of fact nothing to do with the 2000 election fiasco. i have no problems saying or people saying gore won the popular vote in 2000. he did win the popular vote. i'm just looking at numbers.

[kitty]

I wasn't going to post further knowing that it won't change things but what the heck, right?:P

I think it is a case of liberal vs. conservative. Religion, from my perspective, is interwined with my life. It is an integral part of who I am. Having said that, allowing for same-sex marriage would be against my morals simply because of the fact I don't agree with it (despite how some may argue it doesn't have an effect on me) but in the religious sense it does. It's difficult to explain but....If same-sex marriage (which my church is against) was legalized in the country, it would be detrimental to my religious and personal life. The same would be said for abortion. While I'm not getting an abortion or participating in same-sex marriage or don't know anyone who has except a few, I would still be effected by it because of my religious morals. I think both are wrong and both are against my morals. With abortion already rampent in the country, I despair at how women so carelessly and recklessly use it, killing lives in the process. And yes I do believe these women are killing their babies (even if you argue it's only a fetus) I don't feel comfortable with the thought nor of considering abortion Actually, let me rephrase that. I did consider it one time when my husband suggested I get an abortion if I "accidently" got pregnant. Imagine how horrified I was to even consider it in the first place! Why? Because of the fact it was so "convenient" as a reason; I could easily have used that option and a killed a life in the process. It's not only humanistic for me but religious as well. A similiar reasoning can go with the same-sex marriage. While I'm not a participant, it does have an effect on me in the environment I surround myself in. Of course I'm also in SF:P But even then, I'm uncomfortable with the notion of it. It's difficult to explain. Maybe Gumy can help me out. Legalizing same sex marriage is against my religion and against my morals. If you don't agree with that, fine. But let me be free to believe in whatever I want to, even if you don't approve of it. Vice versa. This of course doesn't mean that I hate or dislike people who practice or believe in same-sex marriage but I don't argue with it. Some people may see what I'm saying and agree/disagree with it, some people won't, and some people will think I'm an overzealous, religious person. Whatever. But that is my viewpoint and my opinion:P I hope I've explained my position and reasoning. Now this is the end because I don't want to reply further so I hope I made my point clear:P :)

Okay, Kuchana, I find that very passionate. But now, take all that passion and reverse it: I feel exactly the same about abortion and same-sex marriage, except I fall on the other line of it. I personally will not be engaging in same sex marriage, nor am I currently faced with a need to choose between abortion and giving birth to a child, but I feel it is just as humanistic a choice: what kind of society are we in in which the gov't takes a woman's choices over her own body from her, or we deny a minority of our people the same rights that everyone else get, because we turn up our noses at what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms?

I feel just as passionately as you do. But we disagree.

Now what?

[hooligan]

Okay, Kuchana, I find that very passionate. But now, take all that passion and reverse it: I feel exactly the same about abortion and same-sex marriage, except I fall on the other line of it. I personally will not be engaging in same sex marriage, nor am I currently faced with a need to choose between abortion and giving birth to a child, but I feel it is just as humanistic a choice: what kind of society are we in in which the gov't takes a woman's choices over her own body from her, or we deny a minority of our people the same rights that everyone else get, because we turn up our noses at what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms?

I feel just as passionately as you do. But we disagree.

Now what?

Just to piggyback on your response, that's great Kuch, but let's say there was this person who believed in a religion that was the complete opposite from Christianity and thus probably have the complete opposite of your morals. Don't you think that being a "moral" person in this country, they ought to have the right to exercise theirs in the US. What makes your position more justified than this persons? How do I, as a non-Christian, believe in your morals? I'm pro-life, but the choice should be the woman's (not all are careless). I believe in same-sex marriages, because I believe that two consenting adults who love each other a lot should get the right to marry.

Your point is very clear, it's probably the same one that's been reiterated time and time again by Bush. You're either with us and against us, unfortunately, this time I've fallen on Kitty's side of the fence. Morality, at this point, doesn't have a leg to stand on. Unless you mean killing non-Christians in Iraq is somehow "moral."

[>:^|]

Yeah, is being "uncomfortable" about something reason enough to legislate against it?

Plenty of people are "uncomfortable" about my non-Whiteness. The airport personnel certainly make that really clear.

[kitty]

because being 'uncomfortable' is often a euphemism for 'i hate their f*ggoty guts and if we let them marry, then i'll have to recognize that they exist and i sleep better at night pretending that they'll all suffer and die from aids while i, good christian that i am, have my missionary-position vanilla sex and read my bible, especially the part that comforts me in the knowledge that they will all go to hell. besides, in my gut, i believe they're too degenerate to be human, so they don't have any claims to the same rights that i do'.

not all people against same-sex marriage feel this way. but let's face it: some do. and if they're in power, or are the base of those in power, then legislation will favour them.

[hooligan]

because being 'uncomfortable' is often a euphemism for 'i hate their f*ggoty guts and if we let them marry, then i'll have to recognize that they exist and i sleep better at night pretending that they'll all suffer and die from aids while i, good christian that i am, have my missionary-position vanilla sex and read my bible, especially the part that comforts me in the knowledge that they will all go to hell. besides, in my gut, i believe they're too degenerate to be human, so they don't have any claims to the same rights that i do'.

not all people against same-sex marriage feel this way. but let's face it: some do. and if they're in power, or are the base of those in power, then legislation will favour them.
now we all know kitty's favorite postion (you're right)

[kitty]

my favourite political position or my favourite sexual position?

[SunWuKong]

How is banning gay marriage a condemnation in this sense?

uhh... gay marriages are not legally allowed and any existing gay marriages would be declared void... how is that not a condemnation?

Is banning marijuana from a guy who wants to smoke marijuana condemnation also?

of course.

Your add-on doesn't really change anything. It just means, whatever measure of condemnation or contemptuous action you use towards someone else, it will be returned to you.

yeah, and Jesus said it to discourage people from acting contemptuously on others based on a person's judgement. He's saying not to do it, because it'll be done to you in like.

To me, it seems ridiculous to say that Christians are not supposed to identify the sins of others for the sake of serving God. You say "discourages Christians from acting upon what they consider to be more or less immoral". That's the whole point of the Christian life, isn't it?

well, i would say that the most important aspect of Christian life is making sure you yourself is maintaining a personal relationship with Christ and that you are living your own life as much as it is possible like Christ lived his human life.

All your actions are supposed to be based upon what God considers moral/good or immoral, and if this includes pointing out or helping inform others about God's 'moral standards', then so be it. I hardly consider this something that God would look down upon. If you're talking about what oneself (as opposed to God) considers immoral or not, then I agree. But in many cases we are talking about allowing actions that seem pretty clearly prohibited according to the Bible.

it's good and all if you disagree with, for example, gay marriages, and think that it's a sin, but i think that when you try to prevent others from participating in it, you are condemning them. not even Christ tried to stop people from sinning, he gave people the choice, and forgave them afterwards if they made the wrong choice.


Well of course you have the right to complain. I also have a right to tell you to stop ^^ Anyways, moving right along. Christian tendencies? Tendency towards wishing for a world in which people live closer and closer to God's standards? Hardly exclusive to certain regions. I live in the Pacific Northwest, and most of the Christians I've talked to agree and would appreciate and enjoy such circumstances. Seems like a very basic belief among Christians to me in terms of wanting to see everyone turning to God.

no, it is what you said below that i disagree with to be generally a Christian's view:
It's not as simple as that. Many Christians also have a sense of duty to keep God's kingdom in their primary interests. A world full of people committing actions which clearly go against their God's teachings while being justified by laws promoted by 'liberal thought' is unacceptable to many people of faith. At the same time, Christians believe that by restricting people from being allowed to do such actions that are 'abominable to the Lord' for lack of better term, they are doing humanity (and God) a great service. In short, Christians believe that God frowns upon those who sit around and do nothing to stop the 'sins' of others even though they themselves may already be doing their best to keep from committing such 'sins' themselves. Atheists or those of other faiths or sects or belief systems obviously have their own idea over what constitutes righteousness, justice, or a moral individual and society, and they are also free to vote accordingly. Again, not that simple.

wishing that people live closer to God's standards by far does not mean restricting what they are allowed to do with their own lives. at least to me, it means spreading His message and to love one another like he commanded above all else.

[kitty]

^-- what SWK said. my understanding of Christianity was always: judge not lest you be judged.

[SunWuKong]

The irony...=) Of course everyone's free to believe what they wish to believe. What goes on in your head is, obviously, your own business. The difference is that many conservatives go beyond mere beliefs or vocal protest. It's one thing to be passively opposed to gay marriage. It's another to actually take affirmative steps to ensure that gays are deprived of the same rights afforded to every heterosexual man and woman (the right to marry the person of their choice).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems there are a lot of things that religious people tolerate that, technically, are contrary to their religious beliefs: adultery, pre-marital sex, condom use, eating pork, worshipping other gods, to name a few. But you don't see people trying prohibit those activities through legislation or constitutional amendments. Why not? It's called tolerance. Because we acknowledge that not everyone shares the same morals and beliefs, we learn to accept that people are different, even if we disagree with them sometimes.

took the words right out of my mouth.

tolerance.

without it, what's to stop people from trying to legislate, for example, whether i am allowed to speak Chinese in public or not? i know for a fact that a lot of people don't like people speaking loudly in foreign languages in public, it bothers them that they don't understand it.

don't get so emotional. it was just a mere statement of fact nothing to do with the 2000 election fiasco. i have no problems saying or people saying gore won the popular vote in 2000. he did win the popular vote. i'm just looking at numbers.


i agree. looking at the numbers, there was no way that Kerry would have won (i'm saying this as a Kerry supporter). let's move on.

[deez nuts]

speaking of numbers. someone told me that 70% of asians voted for bush in this election? is this accurate?

maybe this should be a seperate topic.

[SunWuKong]

Unless you mean killing non-Christians in Iraq is somehow "moral."


this is something that seriously confuses me about people that voted for Bush out of moral reasons.

speaking of numbers. someone told me that 70% of asians voted for bush in this election? is this accurate?

maybe this should be a seperate topic.

not according to the exit polls that CNN.com posted. according to it, Bush won 44% of the Asian American vote while Kerry won 56%.

there's a thread about the exit polls here:
http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=19824

[>:^|]

Killing non-White people like the Iraqis is moral in the name of defending democracy. Plus don't forget about oil.

Abortion is immoral because those sinners should pay for their sins like other people who have children and have to suffer. :tongue:

It's interesting that the political debates here always come down to abortion and same-sex marriage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems there are a lot of things that religious people tolerate that, technically, are contrary to their religious beliefs: adultery, pre-marital sex, condom use ...

This is an interesting comment. See, the problem is that if you want to blame somebody for the decline of morality and civilization, it's really helpful if you don't belong to that particular group. Like, I guess you could blame divorced parents, fathers who don't pay child support, MIA parents, adulterers and other sinners for it, but that would include way too many of us. Easier if you say it's all those gay people who are spoiling the United States.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

it's good and all if you disagree with, for example, gay marriages, and think that it's a sin, but i think that when you try to prevent others from participating in it, you are condemning them. not even Christ tried to stop people from sinning, he gave people the choice, and forgave them afterwards if they made the wrong choice.

Christ DID try to stop people from sinning. He friggin' came and preached and told people exactly how they should live their lives in addition to offering forgiveness. He overturned tables and kicked people out of churches who were using his 'father's temple' as a place to sell goods and make money. He commanded people to worship God and emphasized the importance/significance of his divinity (regardless of whether people believe this or not). How much more authoritative can you get? The only reason why he didn't pass any laws was cause he was born as a man with little to no power in society at the time.

Christ also said "if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off", which I (and many other people) interpret as cutting off the source of possible sin, which to me clearly supports the prohibition of what God considers as 'sinful' among the public. If something is sinful in God's eyes, if you are truly a Christian and you believe in the Christian truths, why would you not support the banning of actions that God considers bad? Of course, then it comes to the point where you ask "Who am I to say whether or not something is sinful or not?" It's true there are many things out there (smoking marijuana being one) that seem to be in the gray regarding how God would feel towards the action, but gay marriage and same-sex relationships do not seem to be one of them (according to my interpretation of the Bible).

well, i would say that the most important aspect of Christian life is making sure you yourself is maintaining a personal relationship with Christ and that you are living your own life as much as it is possible like Christ lived his human life.

I wholeheartedly agree.

wishing that people live closer to God's standards by far does not mean restricting what they are allowed to do with their own lives. at least to me, it means spreading His message and to love one another like he commanded above all else.

Well it does no good to just wish if you aren't acting upon it. If you're not Christian (or you don't share what I feel it means to be a Christian), then you will disagree or not understand what I have to say here, that's a given, but: Some Christians believe that by banning or passing legislation to prohibit certain activities considered 'sinful' (or what they consider sinful, but in the case with gay marriage I believe the Bible also considers it sinful) is doing society a service. If you guys disagree that's fine. What I'm sick of is people always assuming that Christians have some type of hostile agenda to oppress people so that they can fucking take over the world via passing laws of control and prohibition. Acting upon my morals is acting upon my morals. I don't see the justification in blaming someone for doing what they think is right when you (a rhetorical you pointed in the other direction) are doing the exact same thing.

^-- what SWK said. my understanding of Christianity was always: judge not lest you be judged.

See above responses to SWK. Furthermore, I know you're not Christian but think about this. If supposedly according to the Christian faith, God is the only one with the justifiable authority to decide what is right or wrong (and act upon it) for others, why did Christ delegate his preaching duties to his disciples? What the heck are churches for? What the heck are religious leaders for, if they are supposedly in no position to do their best to guide others into and through their journey of faith? Do you believe that these leaders should just sit on their asses and wait until people come and ask them for assistance? Perhaps you do. I've heard this perspective before as well. I'm just not one who believes in that, even though I do not support door-to-door knocking during dinner time and huge evangelical efforts across college campuses. How would people EVER hear about ANY religion if there wasn't some type of person or entity informing them of the faith in the first place? Furthermore, doesn't any type of government in the loosest sense set standards which determine what is RIGHT and WRONG? I find it annoying how people who seem to promote the allowance of more freedoms and an 'open-minded' attitude towards the acceptance of different ideologies are at the same time so against the ideologies of the very people they disagree with.

This is an interesting comment. See, the problem is that if you want to blame somebody for the decline of morality and civilization, it's really helpful if you don't belong to that particular group. Like, I guess you could blame divorced parents, fathers who don't pay child support, MIA parents, adulterers and other sinners for it, but that would include way too many of us. Easier if you say it's all those gay people who are spoiling the United States.

I agree with this too. But I don't remember meeting any Christians who said gays are spoiling the United States. I have met a surprising many, however, who seem to tolerate sex before marriage (i.e. depending on your interpretation of scripture maybe be considered "adultery").

[Mr.Lum]

I agree with this too. But I don't remember meeting any Christians who said gays are spoiling the United States. I have met a surprising many, however, who seem to tolerate sex before marriage (i.e. depending on your interpretation of scripture maybe be considered "adultery").


Yes, lots of folks do that. I met just yesterday an evangelical fellow standing outside my school telling us that gays spoiled Rome and if we let them have the same rights as herteros the country will fall apart. I think it's funy because our area is like 70+% Catholic and Orthodox and this dude thinks he's going to get converts by calling them pagan sinners. Anyway I don't see the big issue over gay marriage. It should be a churc issue not a state one. IF you give benefits to certain groups for marriage then you ought give them to everyone in that sort of union. It's unAmerican not to. People used to say it was imoral to let black and whites get married. Ever hear of Herert Armstrong? If we're going to ban gays from getting married, thne we ought to ban people from having premarital sex or other things.

[Arex]

If we're going to ban gays from getting married, thne we ought to ban people from having premarital sex or other things.Logic, reason and simple fairness are obviously not part of the equation with a lot of these people.

Lemme ask the question directly: to those of you who support legislation banning gay marriage, would you also be in favor of a ban on adultery? What about premarital sex? If not, why not?

RX

[Kuchana]

The irony...=) Of course everyone's free to believe what they wish to believe. What goes on in your head is, obviously, your own business. The difference is that many conservatives go beyond mere beliefs or vocal protest. It's one thing to be passively opposed to gay marriage. It's another to actually take affirmative steps to ensure that gays are deprived of the same rights afforded to every heterosexual man and woman (the right to marry the person of their choice).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems there are a lot of things that religious people tolerate that, technically, are contrary to their religious beliefs: adultery, pre-marital sex, condom use, eating pork, worshipping other gods, to name a few. But you don't see people trying prohibit those activities through legislation or constitutional amendments. Why not? It's called tolerance. Because we acknowledge that not everyone shares the same morals and beliefs, we learn to accept that people are different, even if we disagree with them sometimes.

You're absolutely entitled to believe what you want about anyone or anything. But it seems to me that if you can tolerate people worshipping a fake god, you should be able to tolerate someone choosing to wed someone of the same sex.

Admittedly, an issue such as abortion is much more touchy since many view that as "murder." But gay marriage? That's straight bullying the underdog.

I was hoping I wouldn't have to post further:P :)

You're right about how a lot of Christians tolerate things that are contrary to their beliefs but I'm not one of them and my church isn't either. There are some Christian denominations that see nothing wrong with cursing for example but it clearly states in the commandments not to take the Lord's name in vain. What's this about me tolerating people worshiping a fake god? Are you referring to freedom of religion?

As for gay marriage, the scriptures say what defines sexual immorality: "Willful participation in adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, incest, or any other unholy, unnatural, or impure sexual activity." I don't believe in gay marriage but I see nothing wrong with unions.

took the words right out of my mouth.

tolerance.

without it, what's to stop people from trying to legislate, for example, whether i am allowed to speak Chinese in public or not?

Ok guys. Don't try to twist my words :P I'm not denying for the need of tolerance but my opposing gay marriage because it's against my faith does not simply mean I don't tolerate people who choose to live that way. It's a matter of opinion and belief. Call it what you will but I oppose gay marriage. Does this mean I don't tolerate gays? Depends on how you see it. From my perspective though, I dont think so. However, it doesn't prevent me from accepting them or loving them or tolerating them but I don't agree with their lifestyle.


Yeah, is being "uncomfortable" about something reason enough to legislate against it?

This is an interesting comment. See, the problem is that if you want to blame somebody for the decline of morality and civilization, it's really helpful if you don't belong to that particular group. Like, I guess you could blame divorced parents, fathers who don't pay child support, MIA parents, adulterers and other sinners for it, but that would include way too many of us. Easier if you say it's all those gay people who are spoiling the United States.

I'm uncomfortable with gay marriage and I'm against it because it is against the teachings of Jesus and God.

Nobody's blaming anyone. The individual must take accountability for their own actions an transgressions. People are not perfect but if you constantly strive to reprent and follow the commandments, you are following the path of righteousness.

Okay, Kuchana, I find that very passionate. But now, take all that passion and reverse it: I feel exactly the same about abortion and same-sex marriage, except I fall on the other line of it. I personally will not be engaging in same sex marriage, nor am I currently faced with a need to choose between abortion and giving birth to a child, but I feel it is just as humanistic a choice: what kind of society are we in in which the gov't takes a woman's choices over her own body from her, or we deny a minority of our people the same rights that everyone else get, because we turn up our noses at what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms?

I feel just as passionately as you do. But we disagree.

Now what?

Stalemate:) We each see it differently.


Just to piggyback on your response, that's great Kuch, but let's say there was this person who believed in a religion that was the complete opposite from Christianity and thus probably have the complete opposite of your morals. Don't you think that being a "moral" person in this country, they ought to have the right to exercise theirs in the US. What makes your position more justified than this persons? How do I, as a non-Christian, believe in your morals? I'm pro-life, but the choice should be the woman's (not all are careless). I believe in same-sex marriages, because I believe that two consenting adults who love each other a lot should get the right to marry.

Your point is very clear, it's probably the same one that's been reiterated time and time again by Bush. You're either with us and against us, unfortunately, this time I've fallen on Kitty's side of the fence. Morality, at this point, doesn't have a leg to stand on. Unless you mean killing non-Christians in Iraq is somehow "moral."

Define what you mean by moral. I'm not arguing that my position is more justified but it's what I believe in. As a non-Christian, you don't have to believe in my morals but I'd like it if at least you could understand and respect it. I base my belief against gay marriage and abortion because it is against the teachings of God. I'm not saying all women are careless when choosing abortion but abortion is still killing babies.

I'm sorry but my morals define who I am. I wouldn't be the same if it wasn't. If you don't agree with it, that's fine:)

[kitty]

As for gay marriage, the scriptures say what defines sexual immorality: "Willful participation in adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, incest, or any other unholy, unnatural, or impure sexual activity." I don't believe in gay marriage but I see nothing wrong with unions.


Just to throw it out there, the bible also prohibits sex for fun, or any kind of sexual contact that doesn't result in procreation, such as oral sex or anal sex, regardless of the genders of the participants.

Kuchana, do you only have sex to procreate?

Ok guys. Don't try to twist my words :P I'm not denying for the need of tolerance but my opposing gay marriage because it's against my faith does not simply mean I don't tolerate people who choose to live that way. It's a matter of opinion and belief. Call it what you will but I oppose gay marriage. Does this mean I don't tolerate gays? Depends on how you see it. From my perspective though, I dont think so. However, it doesn't prevent me from accepting them or loving them or tolerating them but I don't agree with their lifestyle.

How do you tolerate someone and disagree with the (and support legislation prohibiting the) active expression of their lifestyle?

Define what you mean by moral. I'm not arguing that my position is more justified but it's what I believe in. As a non-Christian, you don't have to believe in my morals but I'd like it if at least you could understand and respect it.

Alright. I think I speak for everyone when we say we tolerate your uncomfortable-ness. I don't think it would be right for people to force you to accept something against your faith. Believe whatever you'd like to believe, but by forcing others and especially gays to be limited in their rights because of *your* belief? That's where the problem lies. You can ask people to respect your beliefs until you're blue in the face, but bottom line, legislation banning gay marriage disrespects the beliefs and lives of all the gay Americans in this country, as well as all the people who just believe that the gov't has no business restricting the rights of any citizen in this day and age. Exactly as you feel disrespected right now, they are disrespected every day, and not even for what they believe -- but for who they are.

[hooligan]

Define what you mean by moral. I'm not arguing that my position is more justified but it's what I believe in. As a non-Christian, you don't have to believe in my morals but I'd like it if at least you could understand and respect it. I base my belief against gay marriage and abortion because it is against the teachings of God. I'm not saying all women are careless when choosing abortion but abortion is still killing babies.

I'm sorry but my morals define who I am. I wouldn't be the same if it wasn't. If you don't agree with it, that's fine:)

i respect your stance, but i don't believe your morals should dictate who gets rights in this country. that should be left up to a non-religious, non-morality based entity that can decide for us.

just because you're uncomfortable with the fact that lgbtiqq cannot marry doesn't mean that they don't deserve the same rights to marry someone they love and care for. just because you stand against abortion does NOT mean you can deprive these rights from a woman who chooses for herself to control her body.

No, god, whether it be Christian or other should have a say on who gets rights in this country.

[Yeahman]

i respect your stance, but i don't believe your morals should dictate who gets rights in this country. that should be left up to a non-religious, non-morality based entity that can decide for us.
Non-morality based entity? What is that? A randomly deciding robot?

just because you're uncomfortable with the fact that lgbtiqq cannot marry doesn't mean that they don't deserve the same rights to marry someone they love and care for. just because you stand against abortion does NOT mean you can deprive these rights from a woman who chooses for herself to control her body.
Just because you stand for abortion does NOT mean you can deprive the right to life of a baby.

No, god, whether it be Christian or other should have a say on who gets rights in this country.
So the founding of this country was a farce? Apparently when the founders said "self-evident" they should have said "acceptable in our own personal opinions though others are free to disagree and we will accept their views and supress our own." :rolleyes:
Maybe what you say can apply to other countries. Not the USA.
We Christians believe that all humans, born or unborn, are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[hooligan]

Non-morality based entity? What is that? A randomly deciding robot?


Just because you stand for abortion does NOT mean you can deprive the right to life of a baby.


So the founding of this country was a farce? Apparently when the founders said "self-evident" they should have said "acceptable in our own personal opinions though others are free to disagree and we will accept their views and supress our own." :rolleyes:
Maybe what you say can apply to other countries. Not the USA.
We Christians believe that all humans, born or unborn, are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

not a robot, but someone who can best decide outside of invoking the lord on high of what's the best way to lead this country. yeah, you pretty much echoe'd what i said on abortion. if you go to another thread, the founding fathers believed that blacks, slaves, women could not vote, oh yeah and probably asians had we been around then. so, go ahead and invoke our founding fathers when you probably couldn't vote if we followed the Constitution the way they did.

if you're going to go ahead and make statements, you better give them context.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Logic, reason and simple fairness are obviously not part of the equation with a lot of these people.

Lemme ask the question directly: to those of you who support legislation banning gay marriage, would you also be in favor of a ban on adultery? What about premarital sex? If not, why not?

RX

I'd support it, although I wouldn't necessarily actively push for it. But then again, I'm not really pushing for a ban on gay marriage either.

[SunWuKong]

Christ DID try to stop people from sinning. He friggin' came and preached and told people exactly how they should live their lives in addition to offering forgiveness. He overturned tables and kicked people out of churches who were using his 'father's temple' as a place to sell goods and make money. He commanded people to worship God and emphasized the importance/significance of his divinity (regardless of whether people believe this or not). How much more authoritative can you get? The only reason why he didn't pass any laws was cause he was born as a man with little to no power in society at the time.

difference in interpretation i guess. i see that more as persuation. for example, he didn't go and forcefully prevent prostitutes from prostituting. he talked to them and preached to them.

Christ also said "if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off", which I (and many other people) interpret as cutting off the source of possible sin, which to me clearly supports the prohibition of what God considers as 'sinful' among the public.

yeah, that tells you to cut off your source of sin, but it doesn't tell you to force other people from sinning. what, you think gay people getting married is going to turn you gay? or maybe that's what a lot of Southern and Midwestern Christian conservatives think.

If something is sinful in God's eyes, if you are truly a Christian and you believe in the Christian truths, why would you not support the banning of actions that God considers bad? Of course, then it comes to the point where you ask "Who am I to say whether or not something is sinful or not?" It's true there are many things out there (smoking marijuana being one) that seem to be in the gray regarding how God would feel towards the action, but gay marriage and same-sex relationships do not seem to be one of them (according to my interpretation of the Bible).

God tells you not to sin - it doesn't tell you to force other people not to sin! it's very simple. he didn't tie up Judah so that he couldn't go and betray him, and he didn't take away Peter's ability to speak so he couldn't deny him three times.



Well it does no good to just wish if you aren't acting upon it.

you can act on it. you can preach the word of God. but banning gay marriage doesn't mean they're living any closer to God's standards. people are still having gay relationships and gay sex. even if you banned that, too, people will still want it and will do it illegally. again, no closer to living in God's standards. if you want people to live closer to God's standards, you have to change their minds, not restrict what they are legally allowed to do when they want to do it. that doesn't change a damn thing but take away people's rights.


If you're not Christian (or you don't share what I feel it means to be a Christian), then you will disagree or not understand what I have to say here, that's a given, but: Some Christians believe that by banning or passing legislation to prohibit certain activities considered 'sinful' (or what they consider sinful, but in the case with gay marriage I believe the Bible also considers it sinful) is doing society a service. If you guys disagree that's fine. What I'm sick of is people always assuming that Christians have some type of hostile agenda to oppress people so that they can fucking take over the world via passing laws of control and prohibition. Acting upon my morals is acting upon my morals. I don't see the justification in blaming someone for doing what they think is right when you (a rhetorical you pointed in the other direction) are doing the exact same thing.

yeah and slavers thought what they were doing was "right". like Arex said, it's all about tolerance for how other people live their lives. i've reiterated it many times before - the difference is that you are restricting what people can do with their own damn lives without hurting anyone else.



See above responses to SWK. Furthermore, I know you're not Christian but think about this. If supposedly according to the Christian faith, God is the only one with the justifiable authority to decide what is right or wrong (and act upon it) for others, why did Christ delegate his preaching duties to his disciples? What the heck are churches for? What the heck are religious leaders for, if they are supposedly in no position to do their best to guide others into and through their journey of faith? Do you believe that these leaders should just sit on their asses and wait until people come and ask them for assistance? Perhaps you do. I've heard this perspective before as well. I'm just not one who believes in that, even though I do not support door-to-door knocking during dinner time and huge evangelical efforts across college campuses.

Christ delegated preaching duties to his disciples, not duties to prohibit people from sinning or punish them for their sins. that job is left up to God alone.

churches are for Christian community and support.

religious leaders are for guiding people in how to live their lives, not to take the choice away from people to do what they consider to be immoral.

none of what you're saying actually supports taking away people's option to do what they want with their own lives.


How would people EVER hear about ANY religion if there wasn't some type of person or entity informing them of the faith in the first place? Furthermore, doesn't any type of government in the loosest sense set standards which determine what is RIGHT and WRONG? I find it annoying how people who seem to promote the allowance of more freedoms and an 'open-minded' attitude towards the acceptance of different ideologies are at the same time so against the ideologies of the very people they disagree with.

what they are against is having someone else's ideologies forced upon them. it's a very obvious difference. nobody is saying you have to have gay marriages, and nobody is saying you cannot worship God. but on the opposite end, people are saying gay people are not allowed to have gay marriages. the difference is what you do with your own lives.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Just to throw it out there, the bible also prohibits sex for fun, or any kind of sexual contact that doesn't result in procreation, such as oral sex or anal sex, regardless of the genders of the participants.

Kuchana, do you only have sex to procreate?

The Bible doesn't prohibit sex for fun. The Bible says that sex is a gift from God meant to be enjoyed by humans in the correct context (between a man and wife), and arguably encourages a man to make love to his wife because to not do so would be to neglect one of his greatest and most enjoyable gifts known to man.

[kitty]

So the founding of this country was a farce? Apparently when the founders said "self-evident" they should have said "acceptable in our own personal opinions though others are free to disagree and we will accept their views and supress our own."
Maybe what you say can apply to other countries. Not the USA.
We Christians believe that all humans, born or unborn, are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The First Amendment guarantees a freedom to practice whatever religion we'd like. How are we to do that if we are forced to live under the precepts of someone else's religion?

you're exactly right. YOU Christians believe that all humans, born or unborn, are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. These are all beliefs that you hold because of your religious practice. Which is fine. But how can you start citing the Constitution when the First Amendment is pretty specific about not legislating any religion or endorsing any one religion or religious belief over any other. For those of us who don't share your religion, all of your babbling up there about Creator this and Creator that, is nonsense.

Besides which, the founding fathers founded America to be a secular entity. That would be the entity of which hooligan speaks: the secular, non religiously-biased institution to govern above the religious beliefs of its members because the whole point was that the gov't itself was supposed to be the final authority, not some higher power open to interpretation.

The Bible doesn't prohibit sex for fun. The Bible says that sex is a gift from God meant to be enjoyed by humans in the correct context (between a man and wife), and arguably encourages a man to make love to his wife because to not do so would be to neglect one of his greatest and most enjoyable gifts known to man.

true, but it also prohibits sodomy, which is interpreted, particularly in the cases of anti-sodomy laws around the world, as sex for pleasure, including oral and anal sex, regardless of the genders of the participants. many anti-sodomy laws are still on the books in many states in this country.

[Yeahman]

if you go to another thread, the founding fathers believed that blacks, slaves, women could not vote, oh yeah and probably asians had we been around then. so, go ahead and invoke our founding fathers when you probably couldn't vote if we followed the Constitution the way they did.
Many of them did not practice what they preached very well but the "rights" you claim do not come from a document. They come from the authority that allowed the founders to put it in writting; the Creator.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

yeah, that tells you to cut off your source of sin, but it doesn't tell you to force other people from sinning. what, you think gay people getting married is going to turn you gay? or maybe that's what a lot of Southern and Midwestern Christian conservatives think.

What does thinking gay people getting married is going to make me turn gay have anything to do with whether or not we should decide to support rules based on our faith? I stand by my opinion that many Christians believe this 'force' is a good deed and that leaders are leaders for a reason. And as I said, any type of entity that provides leadership will enforce some type of moral standards and prohibition regarding various actions. If you disagree, then that's another discussion altogether.

God tells you not to sin - it doesn't tell you to force other people not to sin! it's very simple. he didn't tie up Judah so that he couldn't go and betray him, and he didn't take away Peter's ability to speak so he couldn't deny him three times.

See above. God may have given us free will, but I have no doubt that he encourages us to do all we can to ensure that his kingdom is free of sin, and if that includes passing or supporting laws which prohibit what God deems as sin (if it is in our power), so be it.

you can act on it. you can preach the word of God. but banning gay marriage doesn't mean they're living any closer to God's standards. people are still having gay relationships and gay sex. even if you banned that, too, people will still want it and will do it illegally. again, no closer to living in God's standards. if you want people to live closer to God's standards, you have to change their minds, not restrict what they are legally allowed to do when they want to do it. that doesn't change a damn thing but take away people's rights.

I agree to a certain extent. But then again, that's not what our discussion revolves around. You are saying we shouldn't support rules which restrict people from doing what we feel is harmful to society (and in this case God's kingdom). Here you're saying that banning gay marriage would do nothing to serve the Christian cause of bringing people closer to God. But if that is the case, then it is up to the individual Christian voter or politician to decide. There are plenty of laws I am thankful for which restrict my actions. If they weren't there, I probably would've done a lot of them by now.


yeah and slavers thought what they were doing was "right". like Arex said, it's all about tolerance for how other people live their lives. i've reiterated it many times before - the difference is that you are restricting what people can do with their own damn lives without hurting anyone else.

First of all, our own actions that seem to 'not hurt' anyone else do have societal consequences as a whole. For instance, I have the complete freedom to sit on my ass all day and do nothing and be completely unproductive, but what if everyone did this? Just because whatever people do doesn't have any immediate outward effects towards other people or society in general doesn't mean we should support a state where everyone can do whatever the hell they want as long as they don't look like they're hurting anybody. And I resent being compared to a slave owner, but whatevers, haha. The intentions behind a Christian are quite different (or should be) from the intentions of a slave owner, I hope you would agree.

Christ delegated preaching duties to his disciples, not duties to prohibit people from sinning or punish them for their sins. that job is left up to God alone.

churches are for Christian community and support.

religious leaders are for guiding people in how to live their lives, not to take the choice away from people to do what they consider to be immoral.

none of what you're saying actually supports taking away people's option to do what they want with their own lives.

Again perhaps difference in what we believe the church should and should not do. While I don't necessarily support the church acting as a restrictive and condemning entity towards the public, and I don't believe that pastors and priests need to go door-to-door warning people against homosexual activity, but I do believe church leaders have a responsibility to support and live by their beliefs in their capacity, and yes this includes voting and making decisions for large groups of people if given the right and opportunity. Other leaders of other groups in society will do the exact same thing because it's what they believe in. Why shouldn't church leaders?

what they are against is having someone else's ideologies forced upon them. it's a very obvious difference. nobody is saying you have to have gay marriages, and nobody is saying you cannot worship God. but on the opposite end, people are saying gay people are not allowed to have gay marriages. the difference is what you do with your own lives.

My last post in this thread. I'm sorry I let this drag on and I kept responding. Ideologies are forced on people all the time, in every form of government, in every society. All of a sudden when it comes to religious ideology, people become all up in arms. Anyways, you make good points. I agree to disagree.

[SunWuKong]

Ok guys. Don't try to twist my words :P I'm not denying for the need of tolerance but my opposing gay marriage because it's against my faith does not simply mean I don't tolerate people who choose to live that way. It's a matter of opinion and belief. Call it what you will but I oppose gay marriage. Does this mean I don't tolerate gays? Depends on how you see it. From my perspective though, I dont think so. However, it doesn't prevent me from accepting them or loving them or tolerating them but I don't agree with their lifestyle.

i don't get it. no offense, but how is that in any sense not a lack of tolerance? if it's against your faith, you oppose it, and you don't agree with their lifestyles, then don't get into a gay marriage yourself. how exactly does it affect you that others do? do you see it and cringe? God might not like sinners, but even He never said specifically that you should go out and force people not to sin.


I'm uncomfortable with gay marriage and I'm against it because it is against the teachings of Jesus and God.

Nobody's blaming anyone. The individual must take accountability for their own actions an transgressions. People are not perfect but if you constantly strive to reprent and follow the commandments, you are following the path of righteousness.

so religion is the ultimate justification for being intolerant? do you support doing away with seperation of church and state?

or is it just as justified if people want to legally ban the speaking of all other languages besides English in public?

FYI, men had historically used religion as justification to deny women the right to vote. they still love their women, but believe women should be subservient and not be in the work place and getting college educations. why not? it's their faith. even better - the Bible said that women should not speak up at church and that their husbands should do the talking for them. is your church like that?

I'm sorry but my morals define who I am. I wouldn't be the same if it wasn't. If you don't agree with it, that's fine:)

you see, passing a law to ban gay marriage would be taking the choice of gay people to live their lives in disagreement with you. how would you react if a law was passed to ban the existence of churches all together?

[Yeahman]

The First Amendment guarantees a freedom to practice whatever religion we'd like. How are we to do that if we are forced to live under the precepts of someone else's religion?
You are not forced.

you're exactly right. YOU Christians believe that all humans, born or unborn, are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. These are all beliefs that you hold because of your religious practice. Which is fine. But how can you start citing the Constitution when the First Amendment is pretty specific about not legislating any religion or endorsing any one religion or religious belief over any other. For those of us who don't share your religion, all of your babbling up there about Creator this and Creator that, is nonsense.
But we share the same country and the same rights both originating from a belief in a Creator.
But I'm not arguing for legislating religion.

Besides which, the founding fathers founded America to be a secular entity. That would be the entity of which hooligan speaks: the secular, non religiously-biased institution to govern above the religious beliefs of its members because the whole point was that the gov't itself was supposed to be the final authority, not some higher power open to interpretation.
I don't disagree. Though the government itself rested on the understanding that we had rights given to us by the Creator.

true, but it also prohibits sodomy, which is interpreted, particularly in the cases of anti-sodomy laws around the world, as sex for pleasure, including oral and anal sex, regardless of the genders of the participants. many anti-sodomy laws are still on the books in many states in this country.
Just to give you some examples to show that I'm not for legislating religion. I part with many Christians and non-liberals in this forum when I say that not only do I oppose the anti-sodomy laws but I also support legalization of prostitution and gambling.
People should be able to damn themselves to hell so long as they don't harm others. :wink:
As I've said many times before, in the debate over gay marriage, the common sense answer of kicking the government out of the marriage business never really saw light. Is this how comfortable we are with big brother? We don't even question the fact that government doesn't belong in marriage?
The left would like to think that abortion is just another issue like prostitution and gambling and sodomy that the right wants to ban for religious reasons. Abortion is very different from the rest because we believe it kills a human life. If you want to danm yourself to hell go ahead but we can't let you kill innocent humans.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

yes (it's the Catholic church that does, and it likes to add onto what the Bible already states). but it does prohibit sodomy, which is defined as anal sex, sometimes including oral sex, and sometimes even including anything but missionary-style sex.

The Protestant vs. Catholic argument is another discussion altogether, and...I have my own reasons for not being Catholic.

i respect your stance, but i don't believe your morals should dictate who gets rights in this country. that should be left up to a non-religious, non-morality based entity that can decide for us.

just because you're uncomfortable with the fact that lgbtiqq cannot marry doesn't mean that they don't deserve the same rights to marry someone they love and care for. just because you stand against abortion does NOT mean you can deprive these rights from a woman who chooses for herself to control her body.

No, god, whether it be Christian or other should have a say on who gets rights in this country.

And I respect you as a non-Christian, Ben. But if you don't think morals should dictate who gets rights in this country or the formation of policy, what else is there left? If not Christian or religious morals, are there not other moral frameworks ready to take its place? Do your morals and perspectives/views of how 'society should be' not greatly influence how you make decisions both for yourself and for other people?

Add-on: *sigh* I realize this is a sensitive topic for a lot of people and I see a lot of new responses that I would like to respond to, but I think I will just quit here for now. I don't want to piss anybody off for those who become enflamed easily regarding this issue, and think I've gotten as much from the other side as I think I can get, and frankly since this thread was never meant to talk about religion and gay marriage (these days on YW all I seem to do is debate regarding religion) in the first place, I'll just leave it at that.

[SunWuKong]

The Bible doesn't prohibit sex for fun. The Bible says that sex is a gift from God meant to be enjoyed by humans in the correct context (between a man and wife), and arguably encourages a man to make love to his wife because to not do so would be to neglect one of his greatest and most enjoyable gifts known to man.

yes (it's the Catholic church that does, and it likes to add onto what the Bible already states). but it does prohibit sodomy, which is defined as anal sex, sometimes including oral sex, and sometimes even including anything but missionary-style sex.


EDIT: oops, kitty already responded to this. :tongue:

Many of them did not practice what they preached very well but the "rights" you claim do not come from a document. They come from the authority that allowed the founders to put it in writting; the Creator.


i think the Supreme Court would disagree with that.

What does thinking gay people getting married is going to make me turn gay have anything to do with whether or not we should decide to support rules based on our faith? I stand by my opinion that many Christians believe this 'force' is a good deed and that leaders are leaders for a reason. And as I said, any type of entity that provides leadership will enforce some type of moral standards and prohibition regarding various actions. If you disagree, then that's another discussion altogether.

you said:
Christ also said "if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off", which I (and many other people) interpret as cutting off the source of possible sin, which to me clearly supports the prohibition of what God considers as 'sinful' among the public.

Christ didn't say, "if your brother's right hand causes him to sin, cut it off." so banning gay marriages is, to you, cutting off the source of possible sin. so is seeing legal gay marriages going to cause you to sin?


See above. God may have given us free will, but I have no doubt that he encourages us to do all we can to ensure that his kingdom is free of sin, and if that includes passing or supporting laws which prohibit what God deems as sin (if it is in our power), so be it.

i suppose we can just disagree there. for me it's more about a personal relationship, and that means making sure i don't sin, or sin as little as possible. and the Bible does not tells us to prevent other people from sinning. i mean that sounds like the Spanish Inquisition to me, but you're allowed to believe what you want.


I agree to a certain extent. But then again, that's not what our discussion revolves around. You are saying we shouldn't support rules which restrict people from doing what we feel is harmful to society (and in this case God's kingdom). Here you're saying that banning gay marriage would do nothing to serve the Christian cause of bringing people closer to God. But if that is the case, then it is up to the individual Christian voter or politician to decide. There are plenty of laws I am thankful for which restrict my actions. If they weren't there, I probably would've done a lot of them by now.

i don't follow the logic here. the fact that i think we shouldn't support rules which restrict people's social freedoms already contradicts that individual Christian voters are responsible for voting how they feel would bring others closer to God.


First of all, our own actions that seem to 'not hurt' anyone else do have societal consequences as a whole. For instance, I have the complete freedom to sit on my ass all day and do nothing and be completely unproductive, but what if everyone did this? Just because whatever people do doesn't have any immediate outward effects towards other people or society in general doesn't mean we should support a state where everyone can do whatever the hell they want as long as they don't look like they're hurting anybody.

i mean, are you talking about the chaos effect here? i can mow my lawn and in effect causes someone's allergies to act up which in effect causes him to get into some kind of car accident. i've always been talking about direct causes here. i kill someone, therefore he dies. i ban gay marriage, therefore... i won't turn gay? i don't get it.

And I resent being compared to a slave owner, but whatevers, haha. The intentions behind a Christian are quite different (or should be) from the intentions of a slave owner, I hope you would agree.

sorry. :tongue:
but anyway, my point was tolerance. gay marriages, even though they have no direct effect on how you live your live, does not agree with you. maybe you cringe when you see it or something, i don't know. but you want it banned (not you, but the theoretical anti-gay marriage voter), in doing so taking away people's right to be in gay marriages, something which they do not believe to be morally wrong. no offense, but that's not very tolerant at all.

My last post in this thread. I'm sorry I let this drag on and I kept responding. Ideologies are forced on people all the time, in every form of government, in every society. All of a sudden when it comes to religious ideology, people become all up in arms. Anyways, you make good points. I agree to disagree.

well something like banning gay marriage is especially unjustified because it doesn't hurt anybody. likewise, i'm just as upset that marijuana is still banned despite the fact that alcohol is much more harmful but legal. and that doesn't have anything to do with religious ideology.

[kitty]

yeah.... rad, i'm glad you independently picked up on that. most people think sodomy refers to gay sex but it doesn't. it refers to ANY sexual act that doesn't lead to procreative intercourse, including oral sex, anal sex, the woman on top, the woman orgasming, etc...

Your are not forced

Really? What do you call a law that says 'You will not have a same-sex marriage because my God says so.'?

re: country and Creator

Uhm. I don't believe in a Creator. And neither did the founding fathers think that any Creator bullshit should have any place in the country and its legislative branch. That's why they wrote the Constitution.

re: abortion

Okay, do you not see how it is fundamentally still trying to legislate your religious beliefs over others? When you get down to the logic of it... you use the same logic as others use against gay marriage: "My religious says this. You're trying to do that. My God is offended. Stop."

[SunWuKong]

As I've said many times before, in the debate over gay marriage, the common sense answer of kicking the government out of the marriage business never really saw light. Is this how comfortable we are with big brother? We don't even question the fact that government doesn't belong in marriage?

well i think government should stay out of marriage as far as taxes are concerned. but i feel the legislating of marriage laws is mostly for logistics, outside of taxes. beyond that, people simply put too much worth into a legal marriage document - and that's fine, that's their choice. i say if you want to get married, you don't need the government to validate it, you just need your own mutual agreements to be married.

The Protestant vs. Catholic argument is another discussion altogether, and...I have my own reasons for not being Catholic.

heh, me too. the big reason being that they believe in inheriting Apostlic powers and authority. just something i don't agree with.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Uhm. I don't believe in a Creator. And neither did the founding fathers think that any Creator bullshit should have any place in the country and its legislative branch. That's why they wrote the Constitution.

"Creator bullshit". Interesting. For someone so liberal and 'tolerant', you don't seem to be very tolerant or respectful towards religion or those following religious beliefs. I'm no right-winger or GOP flag waver, but this is the condescending crap people are talking about in reference to liberal holier-than-thou's.

[SunWuKong]

Okay, do you not see how it is fundamentally still trying to legislate your religious beliefs over others? When you get down to the logic of it... you use the same logic as others use against gay marriage: "My religious says this. You're trying to do that. My God is offended. Stop."

well i have to agree with ye110man to a certain degree. being anti-abortion doesn't necessarily mean you're against it for religious reasons. some people may believe that life begins at conception for purely secular reasons. personally i am pro-choice because i have problems believing that a fetus at the first (or even second) trimester can be considered "life", and also because i think women are better at making the decision than i, being a man, can.

[>:^|]

Lemme ask the question directly: to those of you who support legislation banning gay marriage, would you also be in favor of a ban on adultery? What about premarital sex?

And what about divorce? And while we're at it, since we're talking about responsibility, what about making deadbeat dads pay child support?

The Bible doesn't prohibit sex for fun. The Bible says that sex is a gift from God meant to be enjoyed by humans in the correct context (between a man and wife), and arguably encourages a man to make love to his wife because to not do so would be to neglect one of his greatest and most enjoyable gifts known to man.

Known to man. Not to women, eh? :tongue:

I thought Paul said it was better to stay single, but better to marry if you were going to burn. Doesn't sound like a glowing endorsement to me.

While we're at it, we should enforce the Biblical version of the death penalty and of slavery.

i say if you want to get married, you don't need the government to validate it, you just need your own mutual agreements to be married.

I think the problem is that marriage confers tons of rights, benefits and privileges that simply agreeing does not.

[kitty]

granted that people can be anti-abortion for other reasons than religion. but grant also that many people are anti-abortion because the catholic church says they should be.

re: Creator bullshit. Yeah, Gumby, I'm being irreverant. Why? Because yell0 was basically saying that we as a country as united under a belief in the Creator. That's bullshit -- not the belief itself, but the statement he made which said that we are united under this common belief. However, for the record, I'm pointing out that I don't have any inclination towards Creationism. Personally, I think that seven days garden of eden stuff is nonsense because I'm a firm believer in evolution, and pretty much think that since that scientific theory can be supported by research and facts (and because I work in a field related to evolution).

but if my use of a naughty word in close proximity to a reference to your belief system offended you, then i'm sorry.

now, please, if you're going to quote that post, how about dealing with the points I raise?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

granted that people can be anti-abortion for other reasons than religion. but grant also that many people are anti-abortion because the catholic church says they should be.

re: Creator bullshit. Yeah, Gumby, I'm being irreverant. Why? Because yell0 was basically saying that we as a country as united under a belief in the Creator. That's bullshit -- not the belief itself, but the statement he made which said that we are united under this common belief. However, for the record, I'm pointing out that I don't have any inclination towards Creationism. Personally, I think that seven days garden of eden stuff is nonsense because I'm a firm believer in evolution, and pretty much think that since that scientific theory can be supported by research and facts (and because I work in a field related to evolution).

but if my use of a bnaught word to refer to your belief system offended you, then i'm sorry.

On or off the record, you don't need to tell me this. I'm well aware of your feelings towards religion. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, and yell0 was speaking from his stance as a Catholic, and you from an atheist (?) point of view, but that doesn't mean it's okay (just cause you can legally do something doesn't mean it's okay [to me], such as intentionally breaking someone's heart) to start throwing around stuff like "nonsense" and "bullshit". That would be like me saying, "No offense, I respect your beliefs and everything, but I think it's a bunch of garbage." Simply not conducive to discussion. Anyways, apology accepted it's all good.

[kitty]

i agree with visage on what he said about the legal benefits of a recognized marriage. I'm also going to go one further and talk about yell0's and SWK's idea that the gov't should get out of marriage. While i'm all for the idea of a complete separation of church and state, the state does necessarily recognize marriage as a legal union, a status that grants certain legal and economic distinctions from two single adults. whether or not this in itself is good or bad, the only way for the state to get out of marriage, is to abolish the institituion of marriage entirely. since that's not really an option, i think gay marriage being legalized is the right way to go.

the gov't may not, on the surface, have much right to stick its nose into stuff like this, but consider also the gov't's responsibility to ensure equal protection under the law to all its citizens. if, as our libertarian friend would like, we go to the extreme of throwing our hands up when it comes to anything not specifically having to do with money and parliament, then the gov't cannot effectively guarantee those rights which all citizens are supposed to enjoy. take for example slavery: slavery stuck around in part because southern plantation owners argued that the gov't has no business dictating what they do with their private property, that it was an overextension of the gov't's right. well, that might've been a defensible position, even by today's standards, but doesn't the gov't have a greater obligation to ensure that the Constitution is upheld and that all citizens are given equal rights?

On or off the record, you don't need to tell me this. I'm well aware of your feelings towards religion. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, and yell0 was speaking from his stance as a Catholic, and you from an atheist (?) point of view, but that doesn't mean it's okay (just cause you can legally do something doesn't mean it's okay [to me], such as intentionally breaking someone's heart) to start throwing around stuff like "nonsense" and "bullshit". That would be like me saying, "No offense, I respect your beliefs and everything, but I think it's a bunch of garbage." Simply not conducive to discussion. Anyways, apology accepted it's all good.

alright. but then you need to respect that not everyone believes in a Creator. Atheists, agnostics, and all people who aren't Christian are already trodden upon enough with all this 'God Bless America' stuff -- can you not recognize that your statements (your being a general your, not you specifically) that christian law is absolute, and then trying to legislate it, is pretty much you telling me that MY beliefs are nonsense and garbage?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

alright. but then you need to respect that not everyone believes in a Creator. Atheists, agnostics, and all people who aren't Christian are already trodden upon enough with all this 'God Bless America' stuff -- can you not recognize that your statements (your being a general your, not you specifically) that christian law is absolute, and then trying to legislate it, is pretty much you telling me that MY beliefs are nonsense and garbage?

Man, we are so going in circles here. I really need to stop posting haha. Okay, so if let's say atheists take over the government. Wouldn't all their laws basically support their OWN beliefs that religious beliefs are nonsense and garbage? Wouldn't a vast majority of the policies and funding put out by the government structure be strongly in favor of atheist and secular interests, even though people may not be directly barred from practicing religion? I'm basically saying that we all have a right (a moral right) to support, vote, and push for accordingly what we ourselves feel is best for society. You as a liberal have your own concept of utopia, as do Christians, as do Hindus, etc. It is not only religious people who believe that in order for the betterment of society, there should be restrictions on certain actions, and these obviously vary greatly from faith to faith, belief system to belief system, and ideology to ideology.

Add-on: You talk about it being more sensible or 'right' to vote for economic interests rather than based upon personal morals. What incentive, then, do white people have to support programs or policies designed to take away their own institutional power and privilege in order to even out the playing field? Isn't that what YW and other similar forums are all about? If whites are not allowed to appeal to their moral intellect or structure, how are they to place any type of value on social equality and nondiscriminatory actions?

I feel there's nothing wrong with everyone simply voting and speaking for themselves, and acting in kind based upon what they believe is right and moral, because once again I'd think you'd be hard-pressed to find that moral framework doesn't play a part in daily decision-making in any capacity. So if you believe, as a liberal, in something, by all means vote and support accordingly. Would you tolerate acting in a way which goes against what you believe in? Maybe you would, but I wouldn't. Same goes for a lot of other people I would think, and I'm not saying I've never willingly done anything that I believed was wrong because I have many times. I agree that a lot of people use their religion (or a religion) to justify their actions when in fact their intentions are motivated by greed or selfishness. I am against that. I'm not against the religion. People voting based on what they think is right to me is fine. People voting for the sake of selfish gain while saying that they voted or supported a certain policy because they believed it was right or in their belief system is not.

[SunWuKong]

Man, we are so going in circles here. I really need to stop posting haha. Okay, so if let's say atheists take over the government. Wouldn't all their laws basically support their OWN beliefs that religious beliefs are nonsense and garbage? Wouldn't a vast majority of the policies and funding put out by the government structure not be strongly in favor of atheist and secular interests, even though people may not be directly barred from practicing religion? I'm basically saying that we all have a right (a moral right) to support, vote, and push for accordingly what we ourselves feel is best for society. You as a liberal have your own concept of utopia, as do Christians, as do Hindus, etc. It is not only religious people who believe that in order for the betterment of society, there should be restrictions on certain actions, and these obviously vary greatly from faith to faith, belief system to belief system, and ideology to ideology.


once again, the difference lies in whether these moral standards are legally imposed on others. if banning gay marriage comes from completely non-religious or athiest reasons, i personally would still be against it.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

once again, the difference lies in whether these moral standards are legally imposed on others. if banning gay marriage comes from completely non-religious or athiest reasons, i personally would still be against it.

But doesn't every single policy and law that comes out of the government impose the moral standards of someone or some group or groups? Are you talking only about laws that restrict people from doing things that on the surface don't seem to affect anybody else but themselves (such as gay marriage or smoking marijuana)? Although frankly I don't see how such a distinction can be made since there are all sorts of policies that may not restrict or prohibit people's actions, but may force their tax dollars to go elsewhere or to certain areas not exactly in their personal interests (resulting in the prioritizing of another social group's interests over their own as decided by the government), and prescribe rules or processes of action that individuals are required to carry out in various circumstances. In this case I don't see imposition as exclusive to restriction or action prohibition.

[SunWuKong]

But doesn't every single policy and law that comes out of the government impose the moral standards of someone or some group or groups?

not necessarily. and there's a major difference between a policy that actually takes away someone's fundamental human rights, and one that doesn't. by killing someone, i would be taking away someone else's fundamental right to live, so prohibiting murder at the expense of restricting people's freedom to kill others is completely justifiable in my opinion. but banning gay marriage? i don't know what else to describe wanting to ban gay marriage but to say that it takes an amount of intolerance. religious faith is fine and good, but wanting to legally restrict other people's lives when their actions don't directly effect any changes in yours, simply because their lifestyle does not agree with you, that's just intolerance. no offense to those of you who want to ban gay marriage, but i don't know how else to describe it personally. and i'm sure people have made similar arguments about miscongenation in the past. hell, one of my white ex-girlfriend's mother believed God didn't want people to marry interracially - but that's before she met me. :tongue:

[Napoleon Chynamite]

not necessarily. and there's a major difference between a policy that actually takes away someone's fundamental human rights, and one that doesn't. by killing someone, i would be taking away someone else's fundamental right to live, so prohibiting murder at the expense of restricting people's freedom to kill others is completely justifiable in my opinion. but banning gay marriage? i don't know what else to describe wanting to ban gay marriage but to say that it takes an amount of intolerance. religious faith is fine and good, but wanting to legally restrict other people's lives when their actions don't directly effect any changes in yours, simply because their lifestyle does not agree with you, that's just intolerance. no offense to those of you who want to ban gay marriage, but i don't know how else to describe it personally. and i'm sure people have made similar arguments about miscongenation in the past. hell, one of my white ex-girlfriend's mother believed God didn't want us to marry interracially - but that's before she met me. :tongue:

I think I'm going to have to call it a day. And I admit. If I was gay or in the religious minority, I would probably have a much harder time accepting my own argument. But...I believe what I believe because of what I am...er....yeah. You know what I mean. But my faith is not faith due to convenience. Speaking from my Christian viewpoint, there are many things I struggle with day to day that I know God would not want me to do and I have the hardest time in the world stopping, even though I know it's not nearly to the same extent as what it's like being attracted to other men.

[ChinaLama]

I think essentially, the "gay marriage" initiatives are segregation based on sexuality. Whether they're religiously based or not doesn't matter to me; I think if we as a society say that segregation is inherently unequal when based on race, how can we segregate when it's based on sexual orientation?

Legally, all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law; marriage is a legal institution (otherwise, we'd have no need for divorce courts or papers to end a marriage), so denying gays the right to marry someone of the same sex is essentially denying them equal access to marriage as a legal institution.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I think essentially, the "gay marriage" initiatives are segregation based on sexuality. Whether they're religiously based or not doesn't matter to me; I think if we as a society say that segregation is inherently unequal when based on race, how can we segregate when it's based on sexual orientation.

Our society also says we shouldn't discriminate or segregate based on sex. Enough of this shit with male and female bathrooms I say. Unisex showers and locker rooms from now on. ^^ :tongue:

[ChinaLama]

Our society also says we shouldn't discriminate or segregate based on sex. Enough of this shit with male and female bathrooms I say. Unisex showers and locker rooms from now on. ^^ :tongue:

helllll yeah!

[>:^|]

Our society also says we shouldn't discriminate or segregate based on sex. Enough of this shit with male and female bathrooms I say. Unisex showers and locker rooms from now on. ^^ :tongue:

I know you're half joking, but this is a common misunderstanding. It's like saying, "Women want equality, why should I give a seat to a pregnant woman?" There is a difference between disparate treatment validly based on different needs than disparate treatment based on differences themselves.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I know you're half joking, but this is a common misunderstanding. It's like saying, "Women want equality, why should I give a seat to a pregnant woman?" There is a difference between disparate treatment validly based on different needs than disparate treatment based on differences themselves.

Needs? What needs? I feel no need to be separated from naked women.

I wasn't half joking, I was 100% joking ^^