|
The NO on Prop 8 thread.... (pg. 38)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| selfEvolution |
| quote: | Originally posted by naeblis
Here is the unfortunate scene of "tolerance":
|
I for one would have protected the lady and gave her the cross back. But one can only imagine if it was a "Yes on prop 8 rally" and a gay guy interrupted it by standing in the middle with a rainbow flag. Still there is no excuse for taking the cross out of her hands.
Both sides should "Do unto others as they would have them do unto you." - And that would include not interrupting a Second Amendment right to protest. For those who want to protest using god and Jesus as tools, they have every right to do so in millions of other places and venues.
If we look long enough and hard enough, we can single out examples of evil behavior in any group, but I think most honest people will agree that it is far more easier to find in anti-gay groups, not only in "god bless America" but the world over, and it's usually tied in with religion - be it Islam, Judaism or Christian Fundamentalism. The man who shot up a church in Tennessee was screaming out hate about "liberals" and a "gay agenda". The people he shot and murdered were straight Christians. The FBI found at his home well-worn and annotated books from so-called "family values", "Christians" Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right. I'm saying that hate sells, people buy and sometimes they act on it.
While I would still stand up to the Constitutional right of the lady not to have something grabbed from her, it's very telling, symbolically, that she uses a fake cross as a tool of a fake god in order to usurp a very real thing - NONheterosexuality as a natural part of nature which her alleged "all creator" crated or at least "knew" would evolve in society (and among many other animal species, are they going to hell too? - j/k)
I do not use the term "fake cross" lightly. The criminals at the time of Jesus were never nailed nor tied to a "Cross". Anthropologist have found that the Romans used T-shape stakes, not crosses, for many practical reasons - less costly, less weight, more practical for the criminal to carry it on his back. Not a single "cross" has been unearthed from the time and place of the alleged "Christ" but many T's have. The fact that Christianity has used a symbolic error for hundreds of years should come as no surprise to any religious historian or any student of the Sociology of Religion Everything we know about Jesus was written and rewritten nearly a hundred years after his death. Media such as Fox "news" with all of their technology can't even get history straight from a week ago, much less a century ago - they already blamed a down-day in the stock market on Obama and he's not even in office yet. Curiously, they haven't yet given him any credit for the recent up-days. Doesn't the bible state "barring false witness" is an abomination as well?
People are entitled to hold silly superstitious beliefs - and other people are entitled to remind them how silly their superstitious beliefs are - but no philosophy should ever result to the initiation of force - If only Bush, Rove and the Fox "news" all-stars, had adhered to that Christian "value" (which actually originated with Aristotle, other Greeks and the Syrians) - we would have thousands of less dead, butchered and mangled and nearly a trillion dollars in our economy instead of owing it to China. |
|
|
| in2muzikk |
Saw this quote in the "Needed: A Black Elton John" article in Wednesday's LA Times. This stuff has all been said many times over already in this thread, but I guess coming from a black minister, it made more impact on me:
The Rev. Eric Lee of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference opposed Proposition 8. But he understands why some black congregations endorsed it: "The African American community, for all intents and purposes, embraces Scripture as a literal message from God," Lee said. The obvious problem with that, he added, is that the Bible also endorses slavery, the subjugation of women and the beating of children.
At least some people are thinking about the issue of same sex marriage with a rational mind. I do believe that one day this will be as much an issue as black vs. white... |
|
|
| SFtrance |
Ok I've finally finished my pure hell week. Although I have a ridiculous weekend coming up (no fun :mad: ) I plan on making some headway into legal aspects of gay marriage. I'd like not to take a stance either way - defining marriage or civil rights - but it may be essential to making a constructive arguments.
I have no problem being forthright saying that I am more right leaning, yet believe proposition 8 should have been opposed.
Quickly reviewing the past couple of pages, no one is making any grounds by attacking a person's belief religious or not. You can continue yelling until you are blue in the face, but more than likely you won't change that person's beliefs. Likewise please stop mentioning political pundits as truth. They make themselves look like idiots more than anyone else. |
|
|
| naeblis |
| quote: | Originally posted by in2muzikk
Saw this quote in the "Needed: A Black Elton John" article in Wednesday's LA Times. This stuff has all been said many times over already in this thread, but I guess coming from a black minister, it made more impact on me:
The Rev. Eric Lee of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference opposed Proposition 8. But he understands why some black congregations endorsed it: "The African American community, for all intents and purposes, embraces Scripture as a literal message from God," Lee said. The obvious problem with that, he added, is that the Bible also endorses slavery, the subjugation of women and the beating of children.
At least some people are thinking about the issue of same sex marriage with a rational mind. I do believe that one day this will be as much an issue as black vs. white... |
Well Elton John said this about prop 8:
"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," John says. "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off.
"You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships." Source
That being said, I think there have been several rational arguments in favor. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by naeblis
Well Elton John said this about prop 8:
"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," John says. "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off.
"You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships." Source
That being said, I think there have been several rational arguments in favor. |
As previously posted, the liberties, freedoms, and tax benefits offered by the state are different. They were listed on that about.com page. So the thought that it is 100% the same, is just patently false. |
|
|
| djjoshuaallen |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
As previously posted, the liberties, freedoms, and tax benefits offered by the state are different. They were listed on that about.com page. So the thought that it is 100% the same, is just patently false. |
That is false for CA, but not for CT. And gays keep fighting for marriage in CT althought their civil unions have the exact same rights as of 2005. So this arguement that it is for equal rights is just a disguise, give them equal rights and they will still fight for marriage. |
|
|
| selfEvolution |
| quote: | Originally posted by djjoshuaallen
give them equal rights and they will still fight for marriage. |
As well "they" should "still fight for marriage" semantics (the use of words such as "marriage") shapes psychology and prejudices - both positive prejudices (stereotyping people or things as good) and negative prejudices (stereotyping people or things as bad). Same gender love should never be branded unworthy of the word "marriage", because their commitments and responsibilities to each other are one and the same.
I have a light-skin friend who is half black, half white and he could easily pass as an Pacific Islander. I had some assumptions based on my studies of human nature and the labels we ascribe to people. My training is in Sociology and Psychology. As an informal Social-Psychology experiment conducted in Louisianian, we brought in a third person, a lady friend, to take notes. My "Pacific Islander" friend and I introduced him to six of my white friends (Group A) as being from "Hawaii" and to six other friends as being "from Africa" (Group B) - In all cases, the difference in their behavior and language towards him was significantly telling. Specifically, all subjects in Group B were measurably more quiet (by a rough count of words) and standoffish when he was introduced as "African". Subjects in Group A were measurably more talkative and friendly (measured and noted in part by physical closeness and proximity) when he was introduced as "Hawaiian".
The difference? One word. This was not an experiment based solely on prejudice of "white" people, since groups of "other races" have been known to behave or react similarly in other similar experiments. This was an experiment primarily about the psychology of semantics, the perceived meaning of words such as "Africa" and "Hawaii" and how they can shape fear, hatred, prejudice - or the total opposite feelings.
Words matter, and the word "marriage" matters a lot to two consenting adults who happen to love each other but also happen to be of the same gender. It matters to heterosexuals too, but no one is trying to take that word away from them, no matter how much they lie and try to pretend other marriages diminish their marriage. The word "divorce" does that to heterosexual marriages - and they're using that word in record numbers, no matter how "Christian" they are or how often they go to church. If anything, their lies only amplifies the prejudice.
Make no mistake about it, the majority of the opponents of the word "marriage" are opponents either because of their own psychological weaknesses about the word, their hatred, their prejudices, their unfounded "beliefs" or their lack of compassion and understanding of a minority who has very little power. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of inequality (even if it's just a matter of semantics) --or will we be extremists for the cause of justice and equality?
From my friend, Joe at Human Rights Campaign:
"The Mormon Church played a huge role in the travesty called Proposition 8. In response, there have been protests at churches. The Mormon community faced persecution in its early years. In the wake of Prop 8, I question whether members of that community have forgotten the lessons of their struggle.
Likewise, the Roman Catholic Church disregarded the history of sectarian oppression and pursued a campaign of deceit and misinformation in support of Prop 8 reminiscent of the anti-Catholic movement of the early 1800s.
It's chilling to realize that so many in the Catholic and Mormon Churches knew they were telling lies (baring false witness - an abomination) - the lie that marriage equality would require children to learn about homosexuality in school - the lie that priests would be required to solemnize marriages of same sex couples - and they lied anyway."
Such lies do not straighten one's arguments - they show how weak and arguments are and that they are clearly built on the shabby foundations of wanton ignorance and thus prejudice.
Again, same gender love should never be branded unworthy of the name marriage, because their commitments and responsibilities to each other are one and the same as all other married couples. |
|
|
| djjoshuaallen |
| quote: | Originally posted by selfEvolution
Again, same gender love should never be branded unworthy of the name marriage, because their commitments and responsibilities to each other are one and the same as all other married couples. |
The problem is, their entire arguement is based on "equal rights" which it clearly is not, using CT as a perfect example.
Also, I am laughing at your entire arguement regarding the worthyness of a commitment or responsibities of a relationship, and the comparison you make with them and, Civil Unions, and marriage. You are suggesting that those in a "civil union" are not as committed or responsible to each other as those that are "married"? How discriminatory of you, and all those in engaged in a civil union are also saddened by your conclusions.
"civil union" and "marriage" should serve nothing more then a distinction between a homesexual couple and a heterosexual couple. Among other things, just as the two scientific terms provide an identical distinction.
Additionally, lets not disguise your arguement as one for equal rights, and allow everybody to see there is an underlying religious agenda here. Its really the gay community trying to "stick it" to the religious right wing, hardly a fight for equal rights. I site the events in CT as an example once again here.
Im confused as to why the mormon church has been singled out. Is it simply because they contributed most? How ironic that a movement based on descrimination, upholding the constitution, and a strive for equal rights, continues to violently attack the mormon church because they were organized the best in order to raise money for a cause vital to their belief system.
I am not a religous person myself, but I have mormon parents who have already seen instances of "No on 8" supporters vandalize personal estates of contributors to a polical propisition because of their stance. The "No on 8" supporters have purposly published records of contributors exceeding $1000 contributions so that the political fanatics can attack their homes.
Very sad days are here when your private property is vandalized by politcal fanatics for your contributions to a politcal cause that may represent your belief system. I harldy doubt should Prop 8 have failed, you would see the same mormon contributors destroying property of anybody who particpates in the process of a gay marriage, or anybody that had played a role in the defeat of Prop 8. |
|
|
| selfEvolution |
| quote: | Originally posted by djjoshuaallen
The problem is, their entire arguement is based on "equal rights"
|
Wrong again, DJ. "Their entire argument" is NOT based just on equal rights, but the equal right in NAME to be called a "MARRIED" couple. The Human Rights Campaign represents hundreds of thousands of NONheterosexuals, and "their" statement, which I cited is not only about rights but *also* about semantics - it's about both and more. You may find that "laughable" but it just confirms what many have suspected all along about you - conservative bias and callousness. Millions of people do not think it's a "laughable" matter. |
|
|
| djjoshuaallen |
| quote: | Originally posted by selfEvolution
Millions of people do not think it's a "laughable" matter. |
My laughing was directed at your arguement that somehow those engaged in a "marriage" are more committed and responsible to each other then those engaged in a "civil union." Especially when you site the record numbers of "divorce" that we currently see. The state should not have to consider which institution YOU seem to think represents more commitment. It should focus on other things such as ability to raise families, procreate, adopt, etc. All distinctions that should be made.
And thank you for proving my own point that this isnt just about Equal Rights, no matter what the "No on 8" commercials my say. Although the entire No on 8 campaign focused on the fact that this is a struggle for equal rights, it is true that there is an underlying agenda here, which is mainly religious. Yet they attack the "Yes on 8" side for their religious agenda.
And I have said all along this is largely an arguement of samantics, and overall meaning of words. However "No on 8" supporters have always disagreed.
And thanks for warning me that some trancaddicts may suggest that I often think conservitive LOL. I thought we all established this long ago my friend. |
|
|
| selfEvolution |
| quote: | Originally posted by djjoshuaallen
You are suggesting that those in a "civil union" are not as committed or responsible to each other as those that are "married"? How discriminatory of you, and all those in engaged in a civil union are also saddened by your conclusions.
|
You should be laughing at your quick willingness to distort and lie about what I actually have written, especially in light of all the other lies and distortions exposed by the "YES on Prop 8" people. I *never* posted that those in a "civil union" (in general) are *not* as committed or responsible to each other as those who are "married"....that goes without saying, in general....I am simply ADDING that married gay couples in Massachusetts, Canada, South Africa, The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and until recently, California, are just as committed and responsible as heterosexual couples. In fact, it was the study and investigation of such responsible marriages that compelled the California Supreme Court to vote YES FOR NONheterosexual marriage. How many "YES on Prop 8" people do you honestly think fairly looked at that kind of evidence?
"At some point in our lifetime, gay marriage won't be an issue (as in a growing part of the rest of the world), and everyone who stood against this civil right will look as outdated as George Wallace standing on the school steps keeping James Hood from entering the University of Alabama because he was black."
- George Clooney |
|
|
| djjoshuaallen |
Ive grown tired of the racial comparisons with marriage. Especially everytime i see a mixed racial person or even Barck Obama, and I remember that a black and a white CAN have kids. Just as an Asian and a mexican or a canadian and a bohemian, but unlike a male and a male. When you find the child of two males or even better, two females, please contact me immediatly.
And spare me please the infertility rebuttle. I have never met anybody that could site infertility during an interview or a handshake. Of course it happens, but all couples should not be subject to fertility tests for a marriage license. |
|
|
|
|
