"I Care about Civil Rights... but not that much"

[FlaSoxxJim]

I kid because I care.

 

Actually, I kid to mock FlaSoxxJim

Why I oughtta. . .

[Mercy!]

Get the government out of the “marriage” biz! If something is considered sacred, then it is the providence of religion. Churches should have every right to say who can be blessed, who is going to heaven, who is going to hell, what their sacraments are, who can get married, who (if anyone) can get divorced, ad infinitum. If you don’t like it – press for change within your religion, join another one, or drop out altogether.

 

The state, on the other hand, has a vested interest in certain cultural details such as how children are protected and raised up to become functional members of the society, and how property is distributed when relationships dissolve. If government wishes to confer certain benefits on couples (as the government has the right to define this status), then these benefits should be available to ALL couples so defined.

 

It is as simple as that. It’ll get sorted out eventually, and I tend to think that it will happen a bit faster than the original civil rights struggle, since most people have homosexual relatives, professional colleagues and close acquaintances.

 

Oh yeah - The Gropinator - I assume he'll veto that bill.

[Rex Kickass]

Read the first post. He issued a press release late last night saying that "even though I support it, I'm vetoing it."

[The Critic]

"even though I support it, I'm vetoing it."

Forget announcing his candidacy.

Forget the campaigning.

Forget appearing on a ballot.

Forget winning the election.

Forget getting sworn in.

 

THIS STATEMENT officially makes Ahhhhhhhnuld a politician!!!!

Classic flip-flop doublespeak base-covering at its finest ( and by finest I mean worst and most condescending ).

[Rex Kickass]

I should say that those are paraphrase marks, not quotation marks.

[jackie hayes]

Didn't Gray Davis just compare favorably to Arnold in someone's poll?

 

Arnold's over, it doesn't matter what he spews. You know you're done when the public starts considering how much more dignified was the political career of Jesse Ventura.

[Chisoxfn]

Eeesh, somebody needs to get him a good script before he decides to go onto the White House. 

 

I guess I just REALLY don't get why people oppose it. I just really don't get it. My life will NOT change if a same sex marriage happens. My life will be effected in no way shape or form, and I probably will be oblivious to 99.99999% of the gay marriages that happen. This just baffles me soooo damn much. Why? Why is it an issue for non-gay people? Two people get to be happy, what is the big f***ing deal???

I'm kind of the same way you are. Hell I really don't have a problem if they call it marriage or a civil union, just make sure two men or two women that love each other and are going to live with each other can get the same benefits (health coverage wise, legally, etc) that a married couple does.

 

If a marriage is something people want between a man and a women, fine by me, but I think gay people deserve the same rights a straight couple has.

 

A few years ago I'd of said the opposite, but than in college you bump into people that are gay and realize they are no different than you or me, they just happen to like the same sex. They can still be baseball fans, football fans, anything else.

 

This and abortion are two areas I probably lean more left on than a typical republican. On abortion, I'd never tell my gf or any girl I knocked up to have one, but I'm also not one to go and tell someone else what to do. I don't believe in them, but I understand they are there and I'm not going to force a person to have a child even though I believe there are other options than just going for an abortion.

 

However, I'm not going to vote one way or another for a president thats going to get rid of gay marriages, allow gay marriages, or ban abortion. It is an issue I'm indifferent on in a sense.

 

I look more towards economic/social policy and other things when I vote.

[Rex Kickass]

I look more towards economic/social policy and other things when I vote.

 

Seeking to codify discrimination against a group of citizens in the constitution IS social policy.

[jackie hayes]

I look more towards economic/social policy and other things when I vote.

Kinda sorta related. "I vote for President Mubarak because I could not find any candidate more handsome than Hosni Mubarak." Repression takes many forms.

[Chisoxfn]

I would be very interested to see any evidence of said persons engaging in debate arguing a generally accepted conservative viewpoint.

I dunno, this board is actually pretty well split between republicans and democrats. I'm a staunch republican although I vary on certain social issues, but econimically I'm a big believer in the republican way of handling things.

 

I just stay out of any religious debate or anything that really ties to religion. Its not something I argue about, mainly because I don't go to church, and also becaues quite frankly I don't care what other people practice, I simply respect it. I actually think religion is a good thing (no matter what religion) because they all teach values. Its just with every religion you have people that are way radical nad frustrate me.

 

I will say this, I've never figured out why christians are the people who are always out trying to convert others. I've never been approached by a jewish person or a muslim person or a buddhist to join their religion, but I'm always handed stuff from christians telling me to join.

 

Personally I'm agnostic but I don't let that stand in my way of others. Whats best for them is best for them and I have no problem with it. As long as they don't tell me they are right and I am wrong. I think religion is just a personal choice and one I respect regardless (as long as they aren't hurting someone).

[Chisoxfn]

getting the talk back to Arnold and CA, didn't the voters there pass the referendum defining marraige as a man and a woman?  If that is the case, then the state lawmakers are going against the very wishes of their constituants by trying to get a law passed that goes against the voters.  Is the majority right?  Who knows.  However, the lawmakers were sent there to represent the people of the state, and the people voted for marraige to mean a man and a woman.  Why do these reps think they know better than their voters? Leave it to Dems to think that they know what the people want and need, even when the very people tell them otherwise.  Arnold is just following the lead of the voters in California by vetoing this bill.

I agree with you on that. Arnold is telling the dem's to screw off. The people voted for something and he is going to ensure it happens. There are a lot of political issues in California and while I don't exactly love Arnold, he's at least agressive in his approach and isn't afraid to tell some of the politicians to shove it.

 

I'm not saying its right or wrong. I'm for civil unions or something along those lines that gives homosexuals equal rights. I don't know if I'm for it being called a marriage, it really wouldn't hurt me, but at the same time I don't know if it should be considered necessarily the exact same thing (heck if I know the right answer).

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

One of the tenets of the Christian faith is to evangelize. Of all the religions you mentioned the Christian religion is probably the most driven by a sense of community.

 

I think Arnold did the right thing. He articulated his personal opinion on the issue but then recognized that he is a representative for the voters in CA & deferred to their vote.

That inspires voters trust.

[JUGGERNAUT]

The question repeated again & again is why should I care? The answer depends on one's cultural background & moral beliefs. Marriage is considered by most Americans to be a sacred & morally pure institution. It is true that both divorce & adultery taint that but generally speaking people do not get married with the intention to commit adultery or file for divorce.

 

It's safe to say that most Americans view sodomy & lesbianism as immoral acts of behavior. They are rooted solely in pleasure with no possibility of procreation. As such most Americans view the idea of allowing immoral behavior into the morally pure institution of marriage as something unacceptable.

 

That's not to say religious or family centric Americans don't practice birth control. They do. But I doubt very much that condoms are the norm. Natural methods & the pill are more common. There's a moral reason behind this. There is no desire for a full proof method. The idea of there being a chance of conception is something that makes them feel really good. Believe it or not it feels like a miracle or blessing from God when it happens against the odds.

 

Even couples who have a hard time conceiving a baby cling to hope & prayers that a miracle will happen for them. Speaking to some of them you get a sense their sex is even better with that engrained sense of hope. That doesn't mean they ignore medical technology. On the contrary they embrace it. They view that as a form of a blessing from God as well.

 

I've made several generalizations here & no doubt there are exceptions to them. But I hope it gives a better understanding of why most religious & family centric Americans seem adamantly against gay marriage.

[Mercy!]

Read the first post. He issued a press release late last night saying that "even though I support it, I'm vetoing it."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I DID read the first post, and the following 100 posts, in fact. The information you refer to was in your link, which I skipped. But now I see.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I left out another important detail of the family centric or religious American. They typically have between 3-5 children. Some more, few less. There are of course exceptions. Some can't have any. Great pity is felt for them & no one talks about.

 

The children are spaced apart between 2-3 yrs. Sexual discussion with friends & family is pretty much taboo. Relationships are discussed but sexual details are left out of it. That's between a 10-20 year commitment to the children just to see the last one reach the age of 5. To some that might seem crazy but like a mastercard commercial the act of making a son or daughter & raising it is priceless.

 

Looking at recent immigration trends the vast majority of them are either religious or family centric. I draw the distinction because I consider religious to be devout & family centric to be cultural. So if you are looking for future trends it's likely to lean more conservative. The educational paradigm that gave strength to liberalism in America has weakened substantially & will continue to do so. This is the result of commercializing education. This allows parents to essentially customize their children's education. Even IL has embraced this notion as home schooling & supplemental education is becoming more commonplace.

 

Adding it all up & you come to the conclusion that conservatism is here to stay. It's just easier to sell

Edited September 9, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[The Critic]

I should say that those are paraphrase marks, not quotation marks.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

There goes my post, then......

 

....why I oughta....

....is that a personal attack via smiley???

AY'M YOOST KEEEDEEEENG!!!!!!

[Kid Gleason]

I can agree about the subjectivity of it.  Regarding interracial marriages: I see it differently.  Different races were seen as less valueable human lives, which is always an immoral viewpoint.  Basing marriage on that is clearly wrong.  However, nobody sees gays as less then human, at least not right thinking people.  Also, having a child and raising it under a male and female influence is possible with mixed couples; not  with same-sex couples.  I appreciate your point, but I just don't think the premises here are the same.

 

SFF

 

It wasn't the "right thinking people" that thought interracial marriages were wrong either. Do you really think many people in this world don't look down on the gay population? Ever hear the phrase "gay bashing"? It's both a verbal and physical abuse.

[southsider2k5]

One thing I would like to interject here for some historical reference, many of the arguements that were made against interracial marriage had biblical references that were used to justify them. I believe the main verse used had something to do with marrying people who shared your beliefs? Can someone help me out here?

[FlaSoxxJim]

One thing I would like to interject here for some historical reference, many of the arguements that were made against interracial marriage had biblical references that were used to justify them.  I believe the main verse used had something to do with marrying people who shared your beliefs?  Can someone help me out here?

Yes, I believe the biblical reference was something like, "LouAnnne, if you run off an' marry that no-good black boy I'll hit you so hard with this here Bible you won't be able to sit for a year!!"

 

[Soxy]

One thing I would like to interject here for some historical reference, many of the arguements that were made against interracial marriage had biblical references that were used to justify them.  I believe the main verse used had something to do with marrying people who shared your beliefs?  Can someone help me out here?

Question: “What does the Bible say about interracial marriage?”

Answer: The Old Testament law commanded the Israelites not to engage in interracial marriage (Deuteronomy 7:3-4). The reason for this is that the Israelites would be led astray from God if they intermarried with idol worshippers, pagans, or heathens. A similar principle is laid out in the New Testament, but at a much different level: “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14). Just as the Israelites (believers in the one true God) were commanded not to marry nonbelievers, so Christians (believers in the one true God) are commanded not to marry unbelievers. To answer this question specifically, no, the Bible does not say that interracial marriage is wrong.

A person should be judged by his or her character, not by skin color. All of us should be careful not to show favoritism to some, nor be prejudiced or racial to others (James 2:1-10, see especially verses 1 and 9). A Christian man or woman's standard for selecting a mate should always be to find out if the person they are interested in is a Christian (2 Corinthians 6:14), someone who is born again by faith in Jesus Christ (John 3:3-5). Faith in Christ, not skin color, is the Biblical standard for choosing a spouse. Interracial marriage is not a matter of right or wrong, but of wisdom, discernment, and prayer.

The only reason interracial marriage should be considered carefully is because of the difficulties a mixed-race couple may experience because others will have a hard time accepting them. Many interracial couples experience discrimination and ridicule, sometimes even from their own families. Some interracial couples experience difficulties when their children have skin tones of different shades from the parents and/or siblings. An interracial couple needs to take these things into consideration and be prepared for them, should they decide to marry. Again, though, the only Biblical restriction placed on whom a Christian in regards to marriage is whether the other person is a member of the Body of Christ.

from: http://www.gotquestions.org/interracial-marriage.html

[southsider2k5]

Thanks Soxy

 

Thanks a lot Heathen Jim

[FlaSoxxJim]

Thanks Soxy

 

Thanks a lot Heathen Jim

de nada

[Soxy]

Thanks Soxy

 

Thanks a lot Heathen Jim

Yep, yep.

 

Although, I would like to take this moment to say. . .

 

Biblical translations have ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS been manipulated to reflect current religious tone and opinion. (I think in this respect the Muslims may be onto something: allowing the Koran to be read only in its native Arabic.) So, although the Bible may be divinely inspired (not saying either way on that) the translation of the Bible is, shall we say, guided by the hand of men. From the stupid taking of Noah's rejection of his son Ham (although, hmmmm, maybe that's why Jews can't eat pork. . .) to be a rejection of people of color and a rationalization for doing so (still scrathing my head at that one) to flat out mistranslations there are some problems with a lot of translations. So, sadly, I don't speak Hebrew or Greek, but I always, on those really tricky passages check out a bible or Greek/Hebrew dictionary to make sure I'm getting the real Bible's view--not some monk or translator.

 

I can think of some examples, but without my trusty NRSV Oxford Bible, I think I'll refrain.

[southsider2k5]

Yep, yep.

 

Although, I would like to take this moment to say. . .

 

Biblical translations have ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS been manipulated to reflect current religious tone and opinion. (I think in this respect the Muslims may be onto something: allowing the Koran to be read only in its native Arabic.) So, although the Bible may be divinely inspired (not saying either way on that) the translation of the Bible is, shall we say, guided by the hand of men. From the stupid taking of Noah's rejection of his son Ham (although, hmmmm, maybe that's why Jews can't eat pork. . .) to be a rejection of people of color and a rationalization for doing so (still scrathing my head at that one) to flat out mistranslations there are some problems with a lot of translations. So, sadly, I don't speak Hebrew or Greek, but I always, on those really tricky passages check out a bible or Greek/Hebrew dictionary to make sure I'm getting the real Bible's view--not some monk or translator.

 

I can think of some examples, but without my trusty NRSV Oxford Bible, I think I'll refrain.

 

You actually went down the road that I was thinking of going down myself. Many generations of people have manipulated context and translations of the bible, while ignoring the big picture of what Jesus Christ was teaching. The root of it all was to love one another, and leave the judgements up the big man. We are not here to judge the lives that one another leads, and if we do, we will be judged by God for that. I personally cannot condone the condeming of a group of people to a second class life, even if I were to believe that what they were doing was a sin.

[FlaSoxxJim]

From the stupid taking of Noah's rejection of his son Ham (although, hmmmm, maybe that's why Jews can't eat pork. . .)

 

*Rimshot!*

 

Thanks, thanks so much, you're too kind. I'm here through Thursday at the beutiful Stoned Blasphemer's Resort Club. Be sure to tip your winebearers. And don't forget to try the manna. . .

Edited September 9, 2005 by FlaSoxxJim