Printable View
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08...ands_vict.html
Sorry hetero couples, now that the gays can marry, obviously your love means nothing anymore. Just take your marriage certificate and burn it since it's now just a piece of paper in the eyes of god now.
I'm betting the 9th will uphold this ruling on the appeal, and it will go to the Supremes. Which should be hilarious.
Do people really care that much whether homosexuals can marry?
I guess? I only care because the gays have been hitch-hiking up to Canada for their marriage. For the past few years, I had to hold my tongue when a couple guys would emerge from a church, with one partner suddenly lustily eyeing me up and the more testosterone-induced partner getting angry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wishazu
It sucks where I live, but this is how it is. Plus it's really hard gettin' ahead in life when you have dark skin.
If only having marriages for heterosexual couples is unconstitutional, I don't see how allowing marriages for homosexuals as well can suddenly make marriage constitutional.
OK so homosexuals were denied the right to marry in the past, but what about asexuals* or people who can't get married for various reasons? How are they being discriminated against any less than homosexuals were?
* Yes, people will point out that asexuals can marry, but that is akin to the old argument that heterosexual-only marriage laws didn't discriminate against homosexual men, since they could still marry a woman like any other man!
What a crock of BS.
Who needs legislatures or constitutions anymore? We can just have judges declare what's a right and what isn't.
It's ridiculous that this judge could declare a part of the California Constitution unconstitutional.
This isn't justice. It's a judge deciding based on what he believes the law should be, not what it is.
CR
Yes, it is ridiculous that a Federal judge can declare part of a state constitution, unconstitutional to the Federal constitution as if it is subservient to it. Which it is, which is also why America has been going downhill for the past 145 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Homophobes can exit on the left, or come out of the closet.
Wow, you managed to mention your incredible sexiness and being discriminated against in one and the same post...Quote:
Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah
I don't know why people mind that much as long as you don't force priests to marry them.
Dat's how I roll.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Yeah, I know. Who cares, provided it doesn't interfere in one's own personal life? Ok, yeah sure, it's akward when a gay guy hits on you, but life isn't perfect.Quote:
I don't know why people mind that much as long as you don't force priests to marry them.
Thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wishazu
I'm torn on this. While I agree with their sentiments, I share CR's concerns about their method. Prop 8 meant something - that a slight majority of Californians, buoyed specifically by blacks, are as ignorant as they are intolerant. Regardless, the people's will and the process should be respected.
Activists should be focused on changing hearts and minds, not winning court battles. Although I don't really blame them for using the courts as every other pressure group in America does, including the NRA.
I didn't know you hung around church entrances so much. In any event, if you're that dead sexy to lure a newlywed away from his partner, you wouldn't think your skin color would be much of a problem. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Megas
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Well if you two so strongly believe in the majority's right to determine and interpret the laws, promote a Constitutional amendment to dismantle the courts and our republic form of government and have every single issue and challenge be handled by a pure democratic vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
When a single person decides that blacks can't eat in his restaurant because they are "physically inferior due to their breed" he is discriminating and it is wrong.
When the majority of a couple million voters decides that gays can't marry in their state because they are "morally inferior due to their defiance of 'my' God's laws", it is Democracy and it is right.
One of the many purposes of law is also to protect minorities from majorities, specifically the ignorant and intolerant ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
Best way is to drop a goodwin. If they wanted to bring back the holocaust via a vote majority, does it make it right?
Because that is basically the issue.
What will you say if the 9th deems it constitutional, or more likely, the Supreme Court?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
It may be wrong but it shouldn't be illegal.Quote:
When a single person decides that blacks can't eat in his restaurant because they are "physically inferior due to their breed" he is discriminating and it is wrong.
Discrimination is a wholly subjective concept. That is why sexual orientation didn't make it into the civil rights of the '60s. I believe that changing people's minds about the nature of homosexuality is important. That's really all I was saying.Quote:
When the majority of a couple million voters decides that gays can't marry in their state because they are "morally inferior due to their defiance of 'my' God's laws", it is Democracy and it is right.
No. It isn't. The issue is a legal delineation that grants people certain tax and hospital benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Changed my mind on it, but the people who care have arguments that can't be just dismissed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wishazu
I think the threshold for constitutional ammedments in California is simply too low (50% +1). Requiring a 2/3s or even a 60% would make a clearer statement about the will of the people on a given constitutional issue. Constitutions address issues of personal rights and governance -- they should not be subject to the whims of a paper-thin majority. That too can be a form of tyranny.
Marriage, for me, is more than a civil union. It is a sacrament of my faith. As such, the term holds religious and spiritual connotations as well as denoting all of the civil rights and responsibilities. Though my church opposes same-sex marriage, I have stated before in these threads that I would have little or no objection to ALL persons declaring "civil union" status via the civil authorities and letting my church handle the sacrament of matrimony as it sees fit among its own.
I doubt that will be allowed to happen, however, since it appears clear that the purpose of the same-sex marriage movement is not just to establish unions that have all the normal rights and privileges thereunto appertaining, but to specifically co-opt the term "marriage." Should the churches change it to "matrimony," the same-sex marriage movement will become the "same-sex matrimony" movement. The goal is to FORCE acceptance of their lifestyle as normal, equal, and worthy -- reserving no terms, appelations, or concepts of any kind to same-sex unions and lifestyles.
I'd like to think that, were I gay, I would be more concerned over establishing equal treatment under the law and less concerned about trying to re-section the entire culture at a pace that it never accepts. On the other hand, it's easy to see how -- already part of a relatively rare minority -- I might become particularly adamant about attempting to force such change.
All in all, I wish we'd get some unquestionable research as to being gay being a "nature" issue and not "nurture." This would force some re-thinking that would probably be useful.
Constitutionally, the Constitution of the U.S. contains provisions noting that state costitutions cannot contravene the U.S. Constitution and that states should extend full faith and credit to those decisions made by another state pursuant to its Constitution. However, the power to issue licenses (including marriage) as well as to establish constitutional provisions regarding voter age etc. are reserved to the states. There are arguments to be made from either perspective.
It really doesn't matter. What matters is that it is not a conscious choice, and if you've ever known a gay person you know that is the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Not totally... it is more that "homosexual" feelings are natural in all of us. Deciding to follow through with our desires are our choice, having those desires exactly aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
You have male role-models and idols. There is 'Guy Love'. There are males in the media and other places which you can sit there and go "They look attractive". Perhaps you are fond of a male posters posts on this forum, perhaps a giggly feeling of joy when Lemur, Strike for the South, etc decide to post? Even on the basic level, loving your father is loving a man, and having strong emotions towards a male.
Having such feelings doesn't mean you want to grab the nearest pot of vasaline. It is just natural feelings that we all have.
It doesn't actually need to be directed towards members of a sex. There are pets, objections and random things. Even for those who actually have sexual behaviours in the forms of paraphillia, such as sexual attractions to objects. Does this mean that having a foot fetish means you have a sexual attraction to feet gene?
Ultimately, we all have preferences, they are shaped through our life based on experiences and emotions, and situation. Why do some people prefer chocolate to coffee, and others prefer coffee to chocolate? Why can some people not stand them at all? These are all things which shape our preferences and end up resulting in who we are. Are we Republican or Democrat based on genes? Is the strong distaste for the other because of genetic factors?
If anything, the churches strict code for male and female, and on top of that, only one male with one female, for life, is a very adnormal and unnatural system. It is far more natural to be sexually curious and interest in multiple partners, then never to have intercourse untill you courted this one person for a long period of time, till you decide to 'tie the knot'.
If you want to be really blunt and honest about this entire issue, you can simply get rid of 'Marriage' all together. All it is, is glorified social enginneering in a form of a tax cut. If you keep 'marriage' to the churches, and it is up to the church itself if two people are now marriaged before the lord, it is their choices. It doesn't have to have any relationship to the law of the land itself. For issues such as Wills and Children, you simply do what we do anyway, with birth certificates and wills, which are themselves a contract stating wishes or having responsibility of a child.
tl;dr, only thing unnatural in this thread is the act of marriage itself, and especially the legal enforcement of social enginneering, while it should be left alone to the churches themselves, if the two people before them are 'marriage before the lord' or not.
( "homosexual" in the quotes means attraction to a male member of society [or female if you are female], it doesn't mean it is a sexual one. )
I most respectfully do not agree. I do not see this as part of a "homosexual agenda" to have other's lifestyle's socially accepted. Perhaps it is a case of a few ruining it for the many, but my overall perceptions and in talking to my gay and lesbian friends gets me the same response, every time. It's about being able to have the same rights and privileges under the law for things such as inheritance, family matters, healthcare, and the myriad other things that we all take for granted. And no, these are not things that can be easily fixed with available legal instruments, nor should they in my opinion when the law should treat all equally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
As for the religious aspects, I could give less than a crap. There's a reason for separation of church and state. Withholding the same right to a "civil union" is wrong. How the churches deal with this, I don't give a hoot, nor is that a legal or civil matter at all and the religious institutions should be free to view it however they please.
Is Beskar tryna hit on me?
Depends on if you are secretly Pocahontas, or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah
Big Sav has a song called "Pocahontas."
One part of the judge's ruling was that gender is no longer a defining part of marriage.
What makes him better able to decide that then the millions of voters who voted to pass prop 8?
CR
You are absolutely 100% correct on your first paragraph. I have nothing else to say about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
You second paragraph though bothers me. Just because you want a particular service to not be serviced to a particular group, no matter what significance such service has to you doesn't mean it is allowed. Treat marriage as we do with businesses and other services, if it's something you can't help, don't discriminate if it is, then change your attitude or GTFO. Homosexuality is not something you can change any more then skin color. Also by having their own "separate but equal" civil union while you have your marriage, you are repeating history all over again.
The purpose of the same-sex marriage movement has been to be treated the same as heterosexuals in America, including having access to the same services under the same name. Again, having "hetero marriages" and "homo civil unions" is not different then "white drinking fountains" and "black garden hoses" you can say that both the fountain and garden hose provide the same water but you can't say that this is how a society based upon equality and unlimited opportunity is structured.
Your third paragraph puzzles me. The point of repealing Prop 8 is to establish equal treatment under the law, that was the main point brought by the judge, that the proposition violated the "Equal Protection" clause. They are not attempting to force society accept them, they are forcing government to accept them under the law as equals and the bigots who think differently are attempting to force the government to not accept them.
Gay is a nature thing, not a nurture thing. I know this, every gay knows this.
The power/ability to reject marriage licenses from other states is a violation of the Full Faith Clause and it would certainly be struck down by the Supreme Court or any Federal judge if it were ever challenged. The Constitution makes no clause giving marriage licenses an exception to the rule.
PJ is absolutely right here. Wait, did I just say that?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Probably being qualified as an impartial Judge and having access to/utilizing during his deliberations sociology texts/doctorates detailing the changes in American society since the 1960s makes him a better shall we say...judge on the role of genders in America then 7 million Christians (not even close a majority of Californians who number around 37 million) shouting "JESUS SAYS MAN AND WOMAN, THAT'S HOW IT IS!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Agreed, they shouldn't want it in the first place. I still feel that way, it's intrusive. But society does keep up so I am no longer against it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
One church should not be there to enforce its narrow views on everyone else. most churches probably don't see other marriages as binding - so what? I hope we're above letting such nonsense rule our societies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Society never accepts any change to start with. If we did change as slow as society could deal with South USA would be either owning slaves or certainly having secregation. Being against change always is fine for those with what they want already.
I can't cite, but I'm sure I've read research that shows animals of many different types act "gay" - male animals trying to mount others etc. BUT I'm sure it'd be argued that this eas down to Nurture - unnatural stresses in the group or somesuch.
I agree with the sentiment that monogamy and marriage is probably a more unnatural state than being gay, and has been enforced over the years to the detriment of millions of women, children and men who have put up with unfulfilling, loveless and often violent relationships as the alternative was either religiously sanctioned exile or even death.
~:smoking:
I think this is a government decision, if the government wants to allow them to get tax benefits and use the same family name, then it can tell its servants to act accordingly, and give them legal marriage status.
If they do however want to get a church marriage from a priest who, according to his religious beliefs, thinks that homosexuality is a sin and does not want to marry them, then it becomes ridiculous(I think we discussed such a case here a few years ago).
This would be the perfect solution, I don't know why they won't go through with it already. The liberal folk will have their equal treatment, and the religious right-wingers will have less government involvement in people's private lives. I've noticed on some evangelical boards recently that a lot of people have been questioning whether they should even get a government recognised marriage, as opposed to just having one through their church, because they are opposed to the idea of the government playing any sort of role in social engineering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Exactly. Although I do not think this moralistic crusade being led by the liberal left is really the fault of homosexuals themselves. When I've read about things like churches beginning to allow gay marriage, the homosexual rights groups might say they are happy about it, but they never drive the change themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The people who are really working an agenda are the liberal left. It's like Fragony says with the Muslims, its not the Muslims themselves that drive all the pc nonsense and try to ban Christmas (or things to that effect, I don't want to debate that one again!), it's always the liberal left. Well it's the same with homosexauls. The leftists need a cause, and gay rights will do nicely, and then they will poke their nose into everyone's business until they achieve their righteous cause. The sort of people that do this are the same sort that think skin-whitening creams in India are racist.
The difference between these leftists-with-a-cause, and actual gay people campaigning for rights, is that while the latter just want legal equality, the leftists have to make sure everyone agrees with them, because being morally opposed to something that other people do is INTOLERANT and not acceptable these days apparently. These people won't rest until every church is legally bound to allow gay marriage, and every school teaches kids that not liking homosexuality is morally wrong.
And yes you will all say I am paranoid, but this will happen. Starting with the established churches here in the UK. They will hit the Anglican Church first, especially if the Anglo-Catholics split, followed by the Church of Scotland. Should probably happen within the next decade.
You do understand that we will have to get married now
Yes, Rhyfelwyr. It isn't that I care about equality. It isn't that I can actually care about righting wrongs even when I'm not the wronged party. It's not that I honestly think that discrimination based on sexual preferences is just as wrong as discrimination based on skin colour... it's that I have a liberal agenda. (Cue spooky music.) :rolleyes:
If you ask me, the ones who are "poking their noses into other people's business" are the bigots who support prop 8. They are the ones who look into what other people do in their own bedrooms, and think that they can decide that if they don't like what they see, they have the right to strip them of their equal rights.
I'm sorry, but... no. That plane has stalled, and it's just a matter of time before it completely crashes too. In time homosexuality in general and homosexual marriage in particular will be completely accepted, and then christians will start claiming they were the ones fighting for it. Just like they now claim they were the ones for the emancipation, or how they were the ones for equal rights for black people, or how they were the ones for women's rights, and any other such social issue, when in reality they were always the chief enemy of all of them.
Who is kicking in who's door, don't have to make a point out of marriage, leave that to the people who value these traditions.
Indeed. Whatever the church, may it be Mormons, Hindu, Muslim, Fundamentalist, they decide who marries what. So if a church doesn't recognise another churches marriage of homosexuals, then that is up to them, however, if Christian Homosexuals wanted to get and married and they did, allow a christian group who are homosexual friendly to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
I really dislike this enforced social enginneering, David Cameron is doing it too, by wanting to give married couples a bigger 'tax break' so they 'stay together'. Kind of depressing when couples stay together in a loveless marriage, simply because they get a tax break. No one benefits from it.
Not really, since there are many establishments which don't stop gay marriage. This isn't about forcing a church who doesn't allow gay marriage, to do gay marriages, this is about allowing a church who believes in gay marriage to do gay marriages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
As I said, remove the legal status of marriages and the 'government social enginneering' and just allow the churches to decide for themselves. Seperate that State from those Churches.
Is this in response to my post? Because... I have no idea what you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Oh, the irony...Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
~:smoking:
I thought some people might like that. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I was going to make a reply, but TCV beat me to it, saying it better then I could anyway.
I find the current fashion for "accepting" homosexuality somewhat amusing, it's been 40 odd years now and the wheels are starting to come off the movement a bit. Mainstream Christianity has shown it isn't willing to budge beyond a certain point (In America Anglicanism isn't mainstream, it splits between right and left) and increasingly there is an awareness that homosexual relationships simply do not obey the same rules as heterosexual ones.
In view of that, I expect the movement for homosexual "marriage" to stall in ten years, and it will never be accepted by the majority of religious people now opposed to it.
Crucially, being in a homosexual relationship is something you do, not something you are, like "being" Black is. On the other hand, "being" homosexual as a nature is something you are.
Dean Jeffrey Johns has written a book on how homosexual and heterosexual relationships are often not of the same value, and how he feels they should be. He is somewhat of a lone voice at the moment though.
Maybe you don't personally, but a lot of people do. There are people who seriously argue for forcing churches to perform gay marriages (usually more in the UK than US, since due to the fact we have established churches, it could be said to be a form of state-sanctioned discrimination).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Getting a tax-break for marriage is a priviledge, or a little bonus, not a right. As I said earlier, if you want to go the route of arguing that getting this a state-recognised marriage is a basic right (and I don't see how it is), even if you extend it to homosexuals, what about asexuals or other people that won't/can't get married? They are in the exact same situation homosexuals have been in in California until recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
It is hard to tell how exactly social values progress, the opposition I see to homosexuality here is usually not even on religious grounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Although I agree with what you say about Christians claiming all these breakthrought like the abolition of slavery for themselves, it is ridiculous. I wouldn't say they were their chief enemy either though, tbh religious views tend to express the views of the society they find themselves in, regardless of what the religion itself teaches. That is what Dawkins says in his God Delusion anyway, and I'm inclined to agree with him.
But yes, I imagine liberal Christians will in the future take credit for the progress of the gay rights movement, saying they fought for it to spread the loving example of Jesus or something like that. But I'm not one of them, I'm not going to bs you. I am secular though, and I don't like people to be discriminated against - so ban marriage outright, it's the only solution.
Interesting. I percieve things completely differently. Acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marriage seems to be ascendent while religious influence - not just pertaining to this issue but all aspects of life - is declining rapidly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Just out of curiousity, can you explain the differences you described between the rules in hetero and homo relationships?
Let me quote the US Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, 1967:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Emphasis added.Quote:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
If they won't get married, that implies that they have chosen not to. I don't think you can interpret anything I've ever said to mean that I want to force people to get married...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
As for asexuals not being able to, why? I've never heard of any law forbidding them from doing it - if so, I would be against that too for the very same reason. I don't see your point.
Perhaps not here on this forum (I wouldn't know since I hardly spend any time here anyway), but outside I must say it is almost exclusively on religious grounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
The reason why I'm so sure that this will change too is that, well, take a look at the polls. I don't have them at hand, but the percentage of people among the younger generations who accept homosexuality is higher than that of the gen pop. It's been like that for a long, long time now. It's just how society rolls.
I appreciate that. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Yes, but it is exactly this that usually puts religion as the opponent to change. When the change starts to happen, the previously held views are challenged - but those are supposed to be the views of god... and believing that god agrees with you has in my experience never been a sign of a willingness to change your mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
That is a solution, though allowing everyone to marry is probably a better one. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Britian has had a severely depressed religious conciousness since WWII, but the current 20-somethings are much more likely to be Christian, devout, confident, and Evangelical. This is not so much a question of American importation or indiginous evangelism and the young themselves rejecting the current secular moral-relativistic view in increasing numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
The homosexual "rights" movement is based on the claim that there is no substantive difference between different sexual relationships, and it has flourished under a cultural-relativistic outlook promoted by university-educated teachers (who are often also very left wing). Society itself is not at all convinced and recent research has started to suggest that a male/male relationship in particular is different to a male/female one. There was a recent study in Australia that showed the most sucessful "Gay" relationshps were "open", that is to say sexually unfaithful in the traditional sense.
Personally, I don't find this at all surprising. I suspect that the monogomy in heterosexual relationships is driven by the female impulse to conserve resources more than the male desire to raise only his own offspring.
The point is, though, marriage was an institution created for a man and a woman and their subsequent children. It has nothing to do with your sexuality, just how you manage your sexual arrangements.
What about two co-dependant asexuals who want their non-sexual, mutually supportive, relationship to have the same legal protection as a sexual one? Should they be forced to have sex in order to consumate their "marriage"?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
That seems just as much an infringement, and a potentially more crual one, than only having "Civil Partnerships" for homosexuals.
Err... no? Why would you think I'd want that? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Sorry to burst your bubble, it might be in your Christian circles, but I know many churches who lack any "youth" and over the last decade or though, simply disappeared.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
There was a church near us which had a massive youth segment, and we are talking about at least a 100 under-18s. A decade or so later, it has been reduced to 20-30ish, and it isn't because they are aging and going up in the church either, they have all left.
When I was at my Nephews baptism the other day, the priest spoke about how no one even does baptisms anymore, and said about a decade ago, 8 in 10 children were baptised, now it is 1 in 10.
Most of this isn't the raise of atheism and agnosticism though. It is the raise of apathy and "cannot be bothered".
That's the established Church (like me), you'll find that the independant evangelical churches are growing quite fast now. However, this growth is from a low base, and it is unlikely that Christianity will become "dominant" again in the near future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Of course, you also have the latently Christian who turn to the Church in times of stress or bereavement - there are still a very large number of them.
So what do they get, then?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
"Marriage" or something else?
I have to disagree with that ruling then. While I appreciate it is very relevant to the OP, I have been talking about the idea of homosexual marriage more in general, not specifically for California.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
I never took you as saying people should be forced to marry, my point is a minority will be denied what is being termed a 'right' for the majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Asexuals probably won't want to marry because of their natural condition, and so saying they can still marry like anyone else is akin to saying that heterosexual-only marriages don't discriminate against homosexual men, since they can still marry women.
I realise it may be different in the USA and Sweden, but here the homophobia I have seen has been almost exclusively from non religious, working class people. I've said in the past there is a class element to it, middle-class people tend to be much more liberal. Working class people are also much more likely to be sectarian, racist etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Also, I would say young people tend to be more polarised on these things. Older people tend to be maybe conservative and traditionalist, but the young people are either very liberal or pretty radical/extreme in their 'bigotry'. For homophobia, I know some Evangelicals my age that make me look like a beacon of tolerance for understanding. For racism, a lot of BNP supporters are young working-class people. For sectarianism, look at the rise in Scotland in recent years of the Orange Order or groups like Republican Sinn Fein, it's all young people.
We seem to be living in an increasingly polarised world.
This assumes that the more committed religious folk have been happy with the status quo, and the fact is they rarely have been throughout history. Almost all religious uprisings have been radical in their political outlook as opposed to conservative. If you think about it, there's nothing conservative about the religious nuts in the USA, it's not like the country has ever been a theocracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
This presumes everyone would want to marry another individual, and yet those that don't will always be denied the state-granted privileges of the majority. Asexuals probably won't want to marry because of their inherent nature, so to offer privileges for marriage is surely to discriminate against these people?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
They get marriage. I don't really see what you're getting at. Having sex is not a requirement for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I don't mean to re-hash what PVC said in reply to this, but he is right in saying that while established churches have declined, there has been significant growth in smaller, more fundamentalist, and I dare say extreme churches. A lot of local Baptist/Brethren churches near me are full of young people, in my moments of disdain with the Church of Scotland I often feel like joining them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I think the failure of the established churches to offer anything is what has caused this polarisation, with people either turning agnostic, or turning to more fundemantalist churches. People don't grow up from a young age with the spiritual leadership of the church anymore. We don't have that 'innoculation' against religion anymore which Dawkins talked of, with the quaint old country vicar etc. Young people aren't exposed to their influence anymore by the old traditional upbringing of trailing along to church every Sunday followed by Sunday school after the service.
But people do seem to have some inherent affinity for religion, so when people look for it, they often end up with less appeasing/liberal/whatever sources than the old eccentric country vicar. When I converted, the first sources I turned to were the Protestant Reformers, eventually settling with Calvinism and reading many Puritan theologians. My other 'influences' come from my relatives in Northern Ireland, who send religious tracks entitled 'No Surrender' that would get me arrested if I tried to hand them out on the streets of Glasgow.
The same has happened in the Muslim community. I remember a documentary recently where second generation immigrants lack the strong religious network their parents had, so they turn to the more extreme forms of Islam like Wahhabism, because they never had a moderating influence when they converted. There's a phenomenon where people in their late teens do it but then their fanaticism wears off, they called it 'Salafist burnout' IIRC.
Yeah, I noticed a lot of people who go gospel often burn out. This usually happens to be people who weren't raised with religion but, as you said, converted of their own accord as young adults.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Fair enough, but you still have to justify why homosexuals shouldn't be treated as equal under the law as heterosexuals, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
If you choose not to marry as an asexual you are not being denied a right anymore than a heterosexual who chooses not to marry is (I myself am one of the latter, FWIW). It's like saying someone doesn't have the right to have sex because he chooses to be abstinent. The right is there, they're just choosing not to use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
No, it's not the same thing, or even like it. I am saying that asexuals have the right (or at the very least, should have the right) to marry anyone they want (provided the other party/ies agrees, of course ~;p). That is not the same thing as saying that homosexuals can marry, but only with someone we approve of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
No. If the only reason you don't get married is because you choose not to, then you are not being discriminated against if someone else does. They can get married with whoever they want and then not have sex if they want. Choosing not to use your right, for whatever reason, doesn't mean that you're being discriminated against if someone else does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
--------
I don't want to go into this any further since it's a little off topic (my fault), but:
Cue the "Americuh is a christian nation!!!" nutjobs. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Some people care about marriage, a union between a man and a woman, why do gays demand something they don't really care about in the first place? Marriage is also a promise of bloodline, ah well just adopt a child it's almost real! I am not against it but I do question their motivations, they want what they can't have and demand we all act as if they do. Nothing was ever born out of an anus.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Oh, I don't know... perhaps because they obviously do care about it? Perhaps because marriage gives heterosexual couples rights that are blocked to homosexuals? It couldn't be anything like that? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Why would you say a marriage is "between a man and a woman", anyway? It might be that it's the typical marriage, but that doesn't mean that it should be the only sort of marriage. Allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't devalue heterosexual marriages in any way.
So if a heterosexual couple is sterile, or for whatever other reason can't make babies, they shouldn't be allowed to marry? If a heterosexual couple doesn't want to have kids, they shouldn't be allowed to marry?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
What does it matter? You can demand others to say that a tomatoe is really blue but it remains red. Gay marriage is demanding from others to pretend, and I don't like that. Couldn't care less about gay marriage itself it's all fine with me, but why they want it is beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
As I said I think they should be equal, by scrapping marriage. If you just expand marriage, I think it leaves the problems with asexuals etc as below...Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
I know you are saying asexuals can technically marry, but my point is that they are far less likely to want to marry because of a condition they are probably born with. And their reluctance to marry will mean they miss out on all these state-granted privileges being given to heterosexual/homosexual couples. That's discrimination.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Yes legally speaking they can marry, just as homosexual men could marry women in the past... the point is they won't want to.
Haha yeah I noticed the parallel with myself, but I've never heard of a Calvinist burnout.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah
I don't see what the church has to do with getting married. If any two people want to get married in the eyes of the law then let them, if the church doesn't want to let a specific couple marry then who cares what they do. A priest doesn't have to marry a specific heterosexual couple if he doesn't want to, but that couple could still get a legal marriage. Why should any other couple be any different?
In case none of you anti-Prop 8/anti-gay marriage have done so here (link) is a pdf of the actual decision, including the judges written opinions on the matter.
Here are few portions from the PDF that will serve as sufficient to show the point of why Prop 8 is wrong:
"19. Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter.
Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize
marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil
marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently
whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that
recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship
under state law." pg 62
"California, like every other state, has never required that
individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to
procreate." pg 62
"Eliminating gender and race restrictions in marriage has not
deprived the institution of marriage of its vitality." pg 68
"d. PX0707 at RFA No 13: Proponents admit that eliminating
racial restrictions on marriage has not deprived marriage
of its vitality and importance as a social institution;" pg 69
"Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple’s
choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one
another and to form a household based on their own feelings
about one another and to join in an economic partnership and
support one another and any dependents. Tr 187:11-16; 188:16-
189:2; 201:9-14 (Cott)." pg 69
"42. Same-sex love and intimacy are well-documented in human
history. The concept of an identity based on object desire;
that is, whether an individual desires a relationship with
someone of the opposite sex (heterosexual), same sex
(homosexual) or either sex (bisexual), developed in the late
nineteenth century.
a. Tr 531:25-533:24 (Chauncey: The categories of
heterosexual and homosexual emerged in the late
nineteenth century, although there were people at all
time periods in American history whose primary erotic and
emotional attractions were to people of the same sex.);
b. Tr 2078:10-12 (Herek: “[H]eterosexual and homosexual
behaviors alike have been common throughout human
history[.]”);
c. Tr 2064:22-23 (Herek: In practice, we generally refer to
three groups: homosexuals, heterosexuals and bisexuals.);
d. Tr 2027:4-9 (Herek: “[S]exual orientation is at its heart
a relational construct, because it is all about a
relationship of some sort between one individual and
another, and a relationship that is defined by the sex of
the two persons involved[.]”)." pg 73
"44. Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic
of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a
person’s identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that
defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents’
assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is
contrary to the weight of the evidence." pg 74
"Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation.
No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual
may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or
any other method, change his or her sexual orientation." pg 76
"48. Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the
characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful
marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples
have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional
bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized
measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment
and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is samesex
or opposite-sex." pg 79
"52. Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with
marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive
expression of love and commitment in the United States." pg 82
"53. Domestic partners are not married under California law.
California domestic partnerships may not be recognized in
other states and are not recognized by the federal government." pg 83
"54. The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays
and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the
cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are
intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic
partnerships." pg 84
"55. Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the
number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit,
have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages." pg 85
"58. Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against
gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have
intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays
and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and
lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of
society." pg 87
"67. Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates
their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the
stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming
long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are
not good parents." pg 95
"68. Proposition 8 results in frequent reminders for gays and
lesbians in committed long-term relationships that their
relationships are not as highly valued as opposite-sex
relationships." pg 96
"76. Well-known stereotypes about gay men and lesbians include a
belief that gays and lesbians are affluent, self-absorbed and
incapable of forming long-term intimate relationships. Other
stereotypes imagine gay men and lesbians as disease vectors or
as child molesters who recruit young children into
homosexuality. No evidence supports these stereotypes." pg 100 Bolded because there are people perpetuating these stereotypes as fact.
"Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis for a law." pg 126
"The evidence shows conclusively
that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief
that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples." pg 132
"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to
deny rights to gay men and lesbians." pg 137
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in
singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." pg 137
Go ahead and read the PDF, for every quote I posted here, are 5 subsections proving each such quote, it's the reason why the PDF is 138 pages. Keep perpetuating bigotry under false victimization and stereotypes, it's all wrong and has been proven to be.
Yes it is, the marriage can be annulled if it is not consumated, so a man and a woman who are asexual but emotionally co-dependant do not have the same legal protection/bond as a sexually active couple.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah
"Evangelical Burnout" is a result of poor preaching and shallow emotional support, the theology breaks down as soon as it comes up against something difficult because it's more about having a communal experience than anything truly spiritual. Idaho knows about the sort of people we get here in Exeter. Often they are young students, vulnerable without parental support, and they are taken in by the "community" of the Church which teaches them it's poorly thought out theology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Rhy is suffering from something else though, likely he is coming to terms with his religion and beginning to integrate it into his life, rather than suffering huge amounts of angst.
Well, see there's the rub, isn't it? The first extension of marriage rights was the right to marry outside Church and have it legally recognised. In Britain we have "equality legislation" that would allow a priest to be prosecuted or sued if he refused to "marry" a homosexual couple should homosexual "marriage" be legal in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by miotas
What does it matter? You were making the argument that gay marriage is "a promise of bloodline", that marriage is about conceiving babies. From that it only follows that you should take the same kind of aversion to heterosexuals who can't or won't make babies getting married. But you don't care about that, so your objection is obviously not about the ability to conceive children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
As for why they want it... no, now you're just trolling.
Then you seem to be agreeing with me that they have the right to be treated the same way as everyone else. Good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
No, it isn't. They can marry whoever they want, just like everyone else. They are being treated the same as the rest by the law - ergo, no discrimination. Choosing not to get married, even if it is because of your nature, doesn't mean that you're discriminated against when others choose to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Again, that is not the same thing. Heterosexuals could marry the person they love. Homosexuals could not. The law clearly made a distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality and treated them differently. That is discrimination. By giving everyone the right to marry whoever they want, with the same benefits, name and all, regardless of whether you're homosexual, heterosexual, asexual, bisexual or Swedish, you are not making a distinction between sexual preferences. Thus, you are not discriminating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
I ask you: since I have chosen not to get married because of my nature, am I being discriminated against right now?
Nope what makes you think I'm trolling. Point is simple, they want everyone to pretend they are something they are not. Again, I have no objections, but I can understand our more conservative members. These gays only care about marriage because normal people hold it dearly. If it would be cartracing they would demand gay cartracing.
As I said, that argument is the same as "homosexual men are treated the same as other men by law, since they can still marry women - ergo, no discrimination. Choosing not to get married, even if it is because of your nature, doesn't mean that you're discriminated against when others choose to do it."Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
Removing one level of discrimination within the insitution of marriage doesn't end the discrimination for those who will, for whatever reason, always be without it. Telling an asexual they can marry is meaningless to them. They are going to be denied all the nice tax-breaks etc unless they enter into a relationship which they, by nature, would find unnatural for themselves.
First off, for the bolded bit, I agree. It is discrimination to allow only heterosexual, and not homosexual marriage.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
While that is discrimination within the institution of marriage, asexuals will be victims of discrimination because of the fact that they are excluded from marriage altogether.
As to whether you are being discriminated against... well surely you are? Even if not getting married is for you a conscious preference, why should another person who is in other respects the same as you, go on to get a big tax-break and all the other benefits from the government, purely because they are going to live with someone else? It's discrimination based on a life-style choice.
All the tax-breaks etc exist purely to promote social engineering, of the conservative kind, with keeping the traditional nuclear family etc. Maybe in the past marriage was taken for granted as a good thing, but now society has moved past that, is there really any justification for not scrapping the government's role in marriage?
Why on earth is the government concerning itself with the cultural meaning of things?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
The government should grant legal equality, not try to engineer cultural equality.
And the fact that it is doing the latter is what is annoying the conservatives.
Exactly! The government shouldn't say who people can or can't marry, they should just allow any two people who wish to do so to marry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Why should two people get legal priviledges for living together? If you think about it it's a pretty strange, arbitrary thing to do for a government not seeking to promote social engineering. And unfair on single people, especially if they will always be single due to a natural condition.Quote:
Originally Posted by miotas
I had no idea young people in Britain were so religious. I have gotten the exact opposite impression when I've been there, but of course anecdotal evidence is often misleading. Thanks for the information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I hardly think infidelity is unique to male/male relationships. Is that the big difference that you were referring to, that homosexuals are somehow incapable of monogamy? Studies have also shown this to be patently false.Quote:
The homosexual "rights" movement is based on the claim that there is no substantive difference between different sexual relationships, and it has flourished under a cultural-relativistic outlook promoted by university-educated teachers (who are often also very left wing). Society itself is not at all convinced and recent research has started to suggest that a male/male relationship in particular is different to a male/female one. There was a recent study in Australia that showed the most sucessful "Gay" relationshps were "open", that is to say sexually unfaithful in the traditional sense.
I just don't see much evidence that homosexuals are incapable of managing their sexual relationships in the same way as heterosexuals.Quote:
The point is, though, marriage was an institution created for a man and a woman and their subsequent children. It has nothing to do with your sexuality, just how you manage your sexual arrangements.
The gay movement is the single dumbest movement in the history of mankind. You can stick your willies wherever you want already. Besides, "gay" is a made-up animal anyway. We're all just heterosexual people, a small few of us stick our willies in other places, as well.
BTW 52% for Prop 8 doesn't mean that 48% are in favor of gay marriage in that state. That merely means that 48% don't want a constitutional amendment. We all know people who use the arguement "I am against gay marriage, but I am also against a constitutional amendment agaisnt gay marriage". Throw people a straightforward poll - yes or no to gay marriage - and I suspect that you will see a much bigger divide.
The mere fact that they got 52% of the vote to constitutionally solidify traditional marriage says quite a bit more than the opponents wish it did.
Speaking from my experience of these fair isles, your earlier impression was more correct. I have absolutely no idea how PVC gets that idea... but then maybe our views dictate our social crowds?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
I can't tell if you're serious or not. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Wrong. My post on the first page is the correct version.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
@Rhyfelwyr: Your arguments seem to me to be against the benefits of marriage, not marriage itself. I think that was the disconnect between us; yeah, I can agree that some of the benefits of marriage (such as tax breaks) shouldn't be there, as I disagree with the justification for them. I don't think I would agree with removing them all, but that's a different discussion though, isn't it?
I said more likely, and that the increase was from a very low starting base.Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
But surely the point in state-recognised marriages is that they give these benefits, that's the only point in having them.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking
This is probably true to an extent, most people I know are what are termed 'Huns' (<---everything beyond no. 1 on that list, no. 4 made me lol), they are into the whole loyalist culture etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
But even then I know people in the Evangelical circles (another sub-culture surrounding Christianity) and those churches are growing at an impressive rate.
But yeah, the rank and file of the established churches now don't bother to attend every Sunday. Although there is still a surprisingly high belief in God with these types of people, they would be very liberal in their theology.
I have to agree with Rhyfelwyr state-recognised marriages should have as much recognition as putting Cthulhu down on the census form as your religion
This is off topic but I would say the "The Belief in the Belief in God" is highQuote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
This video with Dan Dennet explains it better
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvJZQwy9dvE
I did say I don't disagree with all of them, didn't I? Meh. It doesn't really matter to me if they removed them all. Things would have to change, but that's not a reason not to do it, and I positively want most of the changes anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Your irish cowboy, your belief is in guilt.
To paraphrase Dara O'Briain even if I went into mass and smashed up the altar in front of everyone while flanked by two strippers I would still just be called a "Bad Catholic".
There is no way out for an Irishman were just like Patrick McGoohan on the island being chased by giant inflatabe beachballs
Take away the strippers and they'll call you a "Good Protestant". Iconoclasm ftw. :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy