And how is that different if they had passed the amendment before the marriages had ever been deemed legal? Wouldn't an amendment, like what several other states already have, that defined marriage as between one man and one woman be doing exactly this already? So how can they rule that this situation is unconstitutional but the other situations are not?
From 2005-2008, same-sex marriage was legal.
The prop 8 amendment did not annul those marriages. People who were married between 2005-2008 would remain married.
Now, same-sex marriage was no longer legal, but people already married would remain married.
You now have two classes of people. Those who were allowed to be married and those who weren't. The appellate court decided that it is federally unconstitutional because this creates two classes of people.
This wouldn't apply to any other state, unless that state had a similar time-line.
From the decision, I sort of got the impression that the court was itching to actually tackle the greater issue of gay rights and the constitutionality of restricting them, but had to restrain themselves.
|
Why do you keep blaming religion? "on religious grounds", "So long as you (and everyone else) arguing against allowing 'gay marriage' keep defending that narrow "only between a man and a woman" definition based on religious views. . .", "were driven by groups and organizations motivated by religion-- as best as I can tell, religion taken to the point of fanaticism (and here I do say "most", not "all")", . . .
Blaming everything that one doesn't like on religious descrimination (or counter descrmination as it where) get old fast. It;s almost like your saying people with religious views/motives/beliefs are not entitled to have thier own opinions. . .
Beckett,
Maybe because the people who supported Prop 8 overwhelmingly used the Bible as their justification? Just a thought, but, you know, they did.
A couple of very rich churches spent a boatload of money creating and advertising the legislation, and preached politics from the pulpit to deny fellow citizens rights that straight people have.
Yeah, it was religious people. I blame religion because it is, in fact, the sole reason for all this hoopla. There's no escaping that one glaring fact. Or did Atheists Against Gay Marriage spend a fortune, too?
|
|
And he fact that they might have done so for reasons in addition to their religion, that religious that there are relgious people out there en masse who believe the exact opposite, that there are non-religious groups funding the smae or similar things, etc. . . has nothing to do with it? Religion is the old go-to badguy to slander in areas like this. The Bible is filled with so much, anyone can use it to justify just about anything, and atheists do it all the time. The point is your (general you) discrimination and bigatory is no different than all the discrimination and bigatory your accusing.
Beckett,
Maybe because the people who supported Prop 8 overwhelmingly used the Bible as their justification? Just a thought, but, you know, they did.
Actually no, I have no idea. This is the first time I (or anyone from Cali I'm deployed with) seems to have heard of Prop 8. Honestly, after reading the majority of this, I', still not entirely clear what exactly happened. It seems like the same thing with the weed Cali tried to/is trying to pull.
F'ing Cali. . .
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And he fact that they might have done so for reasons in addition to their religion, that religious that there are relgious people out there en masse who believe the exact opposite, that there are non-religious groups funding the smae or similar things, etc. . . has nothing to do with it? Religion is the old go-to badguy to slander in areas like this. The Bible is filled with so much, anyone can use it to justify just about anything, and atheists do it all the time. The point is your (general you) discrimination and bigatory is no different than all the discrimination and bigatory your accusing.
Beckett,
Maybe because the people who supported Prop 8 overwhelmingly used the Bible as their justification? Just a thought, but, you know, they did.Actually no, I have no idea. This is the first time I (or anyone from Cali I'm deployed with) seems to have heard of Prop 8. Honestly, after reading the majority of this, I', still not entirely clear what exactly happened. It seems like the same thing with the weed Cali tried to/is trying to pull.
F'ing Cali. . .
Really? I'm in the UK and I know what they're talking about. How can you not? And how can you expect to be taken seriously when you've admited you don't know anything about the situation? You're knowingly speaking from a position of ignorance. Why do you think that's a good idea?
Oh, and can you find an example of similar Atheist bigotry? Campaigns to ban Christian marriage? Presidents and presidnetial candidates saying Christians aren't real Americans? Christains getting death threats for daring to take atheists to court (and winning) to get the constituion upheld? No? Then maybe they're not the same.
|
|
Yes, absolutely, except for maybe that last one. It should be an interesting read.
Also interesting how it's Christians now. . .
Ok. Please show me those campaigns. They need to be mocked and condemned as much as Prop 8 does.
As for using Christianity not religion, yeah, that is sloppy on my part. However, Christianity is the most prevelant religion in America, and several church groups funded much of the campaign for Prop 8. Minority religions rarely throw their weight around having very little weight to throw around. A mouse needs more protection from the 800lb gorilla than the gorilla does from the mouse. So yeah, Christianity was used as Chrsitianity was the driving force through weight of numvers. I'm quite sure Muslims and Jews and atheists supported Prop 8 but the main driving force was a flavouir of conservative Christianity.
|
|
Are you not from the UK? I'll give it a try. I'm about to head off, I'm just covering for someone, but I'll give it a try for some link hopefully tonight. Also note, I'm not being sarcastic or condecending. <edit which on a reread isn't what you said> I am justso sick and tired of a.) religion being the big evil on anything and b.) lumping all religion together, especially when it serves a purpose like this.
|
|
I am from the UK. However, as this thread proves, I'm quite ok with interfering with the USA's issues.
As for religion being the big evil, take a look at Aretas' post. He supports this, which I consider evil, because of his religion. Hard to argue religion doesn't play some role there.
Look forward to the links and hope you and your comrades stay safe.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
With all do respect, I won't do it. I find I agree with democrats more than republicans, but I still disagree with you guys a lot.FYI I am Independent, I care less for either side...If I can make a humble suggestion: Please become a Democrat. We're probably not exactly what you want, but democracy isn't about getting exactly what you want. It's about finding compromise with those around you, and banding together to empower both change and stability. Even better, get involved at a local level and push for the issues that you believe in. There's so much opportunity for that right now, and a lot of people simply aren't doing what they could be doing. A party is only as good as the people who belong to it, and you will find like-minded people in the Dems.I get that. I'm in the same boat. But as an independent (I'm assuming you're an independent here, let me know if you're registered with a third party), you have very little power. Your voice does not count for much, and you lack the institutional tools to amplify it. As a member of a party, you have the backing of the entire party on the issues that make up its platform (some of which you clearly care about), and you have the ability to influence that platform from within if you want to change it to encompass more of the issues you care about. There's really no downside to party affiliation, and there are a lot of upsides if your goal is to improve the things you want to see improved.
And, honestly, we could really use your help. The challenges we're up against are kind of enormous.
Translation: Please be a Democrat. They're slightly less abhorrent on SOME issues. Unless being MORE abhorrent might get them re-elected.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just b/c I agree to civil unions that does not mean the constitution can be used to change the definition of Marriage, a Sacrament in the Christian Church. Its a Sacrament not a right to get Married.
Well, tell that to every other religion who also have a marriage ritual, or to ancient romans who did enter in this kind of legal contract before Jesus Christ was even born. I seriously doubt the Christian Church has any right to the doubious claim the concept is their intellectual property.
|
Translation: Please be a Democrat. They're slightly less abhorrent on SOME issues. Unless being MORE abhorrent might get them re-elected.With all do respect, I won't do it. I find I agree with democrats more than republicans, but I still disagree with you guys a lot.FYI I am Independent, I care less for either side...If I can make a humble suggestion: Please become a Democrat. We're probably not exactly what you want, but democracy isn't about getting exactly what you want. It's about finding compromise with those around you, and banding together to empower both change and stability. Even better, get involved at a local level and push for the issues that you believe in. There's so much opportunity for that right now, and a lot of people simply aren't doing what they could be doing. A party is only as good as the people who belong to it, and you will find like-minded people in the Dems.I get that. I'm in the same boat. But as an independent (I'm assuming you're an independent here, let me know if you're registered with a third party), you have very little power. Your voice does not count for much, and you lack the institutional tools to amplify it. As a member of a party, you have the backing of the entire party on the issues that make up its platform (some of which you clearly care about), and you have the ability to influence that platform from within if you want to change it to encompass more of the issues you care about. There's really no downside to party affiliation, and there are a lot of upsides if your goal is to improve the things you want to see improved.
And, honestly, we could really use your help. The challenges we're up against are kind of enormous.
Logic: it is being done wrong.[/spock]
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the number of Christians out there that do not truly understand what it means to call themselves that, I'm not suprised 'religion' or 'Christianity' gets a bad rep.
It saddens me, and I don't like it. But I won't get mad at people for having an honest opinion about religion or Christianity based on a professed Christian's behavior. All I can really do is try to educate people, and be a better example. It is what it is.
I would like it if the overall hateful rhetoric would cease, though. On a great many subjects.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really like the idea of changing the legal union from "marriage" to "civil union". I am an atheist with a Jewish background and my wife is an atheist with an atheist background. Allowing religious people to claim that word as their own belittles our relationship. Let the Christians call their marriages in church Christian marriage, the Muslims Muslim marriages, the Hindus Hindu marriage, and the Pastafarians Pastafarian marriage. Then let the legal term just stay marriage. If the word marriage becomes civil union then do I still call my wife "wife"? It is all semantics anyway...but why even let them win those?
What I don't get from this whole ordeal...don't anti-gay marriage folks realize in twenty or so years that gay marriage will be legal in the United States. Don't they realize there is no stopping it just as there was no stopping civil rights. If they do and they are just trying to prolong it then they are just being spiteful.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Logic: it is being done wrong.[/spock]
We're discussing religion and politics, and you're looking for logic?! Hi, I'm an Earthling; what planet are you from?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the number of Christians out there that do not truly understand what it means to call themselves that, I'm not suprised 'religion' or 'Christianity' gets a bad rep.
It saddens me, and I don't like it. But I won't get mad at people for having an honest opinion about religion or Christianity based on a professed Christian's behavior. All I can really do is try to educate people, and be a better example. It is what it is.I would like it if the overall hateful rhetoric would cease, though. On a great many subjects.
So, If I understand, those christians you disagree with are not "real" christian so we should not judge what it means to be christian based upon their behavior?
No true Scotsman?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did not say they were not real Christians. I said they do not understand Christ's teachings. Whether they are 'real' Christians or not is between them and Christ.
You dig?
With the number of Christians out there that do not truly understand what it means to call themselves that, I'm not suprised 'religion' or 'Christianity' gets a bad rep.
It saddens me, and I don't like it. But I won't get mad at people for having an honest opinion about religion or Christianity based on a professed Christian's behavior. All I can really do is try to educate people, and be a better example. It is what it is.I would like it if the overall hateful rhetoric would cease, though. On a great many subjects.
So, If I understand, those christians you disagree with are not "real" christian so we should not judge what it means to be christian based upon their behavior?
No true Scotsman?
I dont want to put words into K's mouth but it looks to me like he said nothing of the sort. It looks to me like he said judge Christians as individuals instead of deciding that the entire religion is bigoted?
|
|
With the number of Christians out there that do not truly understand what it means to call themselves that, I'm not suprised 'religion' or 'Christianity' gets a bad rep.
It saddens me, and I don't like it. But I won't get mad at people for having an honest opinion about religion or Christianity based on a professed Christian's behavior. All I can really do is try to educate people, and be a better example. It is what it is.I would like it if the overall hateful rhetoric would cease, though. On a great many subjects.
I am pretty sure they would say the same about you. That has always been the problem with religion. Anyway, I believe there is biblical support for being against gay marriage:
Leviticus 20:13
And yes I have watched people jump through hoops to try and explain that away. Why didn't god just make things transparent instead of muddled and convoluted?
|
|
I dont want to put words into K's mouth but it looks to me like he said nothing of the sort. It looks to me like he said judge Christians as individuals instead of deciding that the entire religion is bigoted?With the number of Christians out there that do not truly understand what it means to call themselves that, I'm not suprised 'religion' or 'Christianity' gets a bad rep.
It saddens me, and I don't like it. But I won't get mad at people for having an honest opinion about religion or Christianity based on a professed Christian's behavior. All I can really do is try to educate people, and be a better example. It is what it is.I would like it if the overall hateful rhetoric would cease, though. On a great many subjects.
So, If I understand, those christians you disagree with are not "real" christian so we should not judge what it means to be christian based upon their behavior?
No true Scotsman?
Bigotry and misogyny are encoded in the bible.
Leviticus is not part of Christ's teachings. So, yeah...
"Love thy neighbor as thyself" and "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" are Christ's teachings.
So, then, do I want to be unable to marry the person I love? No, so then I shouldn't keep others from doing it either.
It's not rocket science.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the older I get, the more I wonder if I have not slipped into the twilight zone.Logic: it is being done wrong.[/spock]We're discussing religion and politics, and you're looking for logic?! Hi, I'm an Earthling; what planet are you from?
Bigotry and misogyny are encoded in the bible.I dont want to put words into K's mouth but it looks to me like he said nothing of the sort. It looks to me like he said judge Christians as individuals instead of deciding that the entire religion is bigoted?With the number of Christians out there that do not truly understand what it means to call themselves that, I'm not suprised 'religion' or 'Christianity' gets a bad rep.
It saddens me, and I don't like it. But I won't get mad at people for having an honest opinion about religion or Christianity based on a professed Christian's behavior. All I can really do is try to educate people, and be a better example. It is what it is.I would like it if the overall hateful rhetoric would cease, though. On a great many subjects.
So, If I understand, those christians you disagree with are not "real" christian so we should not judge what it means to be christian based upon their behavior?
No true Scotsman?
Ok. and so what? If a christian only follows the golden rule and always treats people with love, compassion, and respect 100% of the time, you would still label them bigoted? Or would you judge them as an individual?
|
the older I get, the more I wonder if I have not slipped into the twilight zone.Logic: it is being done wrong.[/spock]We're discussing religion and politics, and you're looking for logic?! Hi, I'm an Earthling; what planet are you from?
Nah, if it were the twilight zone, you'd be saying 'the younger I get'.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Leviticus is not part of Christ's teachings. So, yeah...
If the Old Testament is to be completely discounted, then why is it in the Bible still?
If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-powerful; why doe he feel the need to apparently change his mind on occasion?
|
|
"Love thy neighbor as thyself" and "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" are Christ's teachings.So, then, do I want to be unable to marry the person I love? No, so then I shouldn't keep others from doing it either.
It's not rocket science.
Actually it does. If homosexuality is defined as a sin, and Jesus did not reject this (he explained the law he did not reject it), then homosexual marriages are abominations because you would be entering a union of perpetual sin. Once you ask for salvation you are meant to strive to be Christ like. This means you reject sin as much as possible and pray for forgiveness during bouts of momentary weaknesses. This is how Christianity has been practiced since the council of Nicaea. What was before he vague and incoherent. Who are you to say what Christianity is 2000 years later after reading a heavily revised translated version of the rules?
If a[n individual] only follows the golden rule and always treats people with love, compassion, and respect 100% of the time, you would still label them bigoted? Or would you judge them as an individual?
Disclaimer: word replaced & italicized to expand demographic; phrase bolded for emphasis.
Such carbon life forms do not exist on Terra Firma. It is more statistically probable to discover extraterrestrials. Whether they're intelligent life forms depend solely on how one defines intelligence.
=)
If (and its a big IF) God is omniscient, omnipotent, and all powerful, Then (S)He probably had a really good reason to change his mind. Maybe that era's Mayan Calender came to an end?
Im not a Christian, but I dont like stereotyping people due to religion any more than by race, age, or anything else really.
It seems to me that bigoted is a description of behavior, rather than an insult; It also seems to me that the majority of people exhibiting said behavior self-identify as Christian. I would suggest anyone who's bothered by that should rally behind the Right Reverend Gene Robinson, and resolve the issues of bigotry vs christian acceptance within the religion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did not say they were not real Christians. I said they do not understand Christ's teachings. Whether they are 'real' Christians or not is between them and Christ.
You dig?
No, I don't. Seems to me being a real christian and understanding christ's teaching is the same thing. If not that, what else? Please explain, because I really don't get the distinction you are trying to make here.
By the way, I have many christian friends, and I think many decent people are christians. I even took some theology class, and have read a lot of christian thinkers (Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas to name a few.)
But I also see in the kind of apology you are offering a refusal to accept a certain moral responsibility for what your religion is doing. "Hey, they don't speak for my religion, they just did not get it."
Well, seems to me they are doing just that, speaking for your religion.
So, If I want to judge the political impact of a religion, as I am well entitled to as a citizen who is touched by religion in a very direct way by ties between some churchs and some politicians, I will look at the things people who have a political power and impact are saying and doing.
I don't care if they are people inside this political movement who disagree with it. I'm judging the movement as a whole, not the few members who disagree but are somehow powerless to change things at the global political level.
So yes, I think some christians are very decent people, even great people sometimes. But I also think the global political power exerced by christianity in north america is harmfull. I finally think the kind of defense you are proposing is part of the problem - shall we not be allowed to judge a political movement because some of its member are decent people? I don't think so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a[n individual] only follows the golden rule and always treats people with love, compassion, and respect 100% of the time, you would still label them bigoted? Or would you judge them as an individual?Disclaimer: word replaced & italicized to expand demographic; phrase bolded for emphasis.
Such carbon life forms do not exist on Terra Firma. It is more statistically probable to discover extraterrestrials. Whether they're intelligent life forms depend solely on how one defines intelligence.
=)
It was a theoretical question on a game-makers message board after all. 8p
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If (and its a big IF) God is omniscient, omnipotent, and all powerful, Then (S)He probably had a really good reason to change his mind. Maybe that era's Mayan Calender came to an end?
If you know how something is going to turn out, then why do it wrong for a few millennia?
If you know that Eve is going to grab the apple and give it to Adam, why put the damned tree in the Garden of Eden to begin with?
I could go on and on...the Jewish/Christian god seems to be a big fan of knowing that someone is going to f~@! things up, and then jumping up to say "GOTTCHA!" when they do so.
If (and its a big IF) God is omniscient, omnipotent, and all powerful, Then (S)He probably had a really good reason to change his mind. Maybe that era's Mayan Calender came to an end?If you know how something is going to turn out, then why do it wrong for a few millennia?
If you know that Eve is going to grab the apple and give it to Adam, why put the damned tree in the Garden of Eden to begin with?
I could go on and on...the Jewish/Christian god seems to be a big fan of knowing that someone is going to f!$* things up, and then jumping up to say "GOTTCHA!" when they do so.
Why create an angel that's just going to rebel? Especially when according to Christian mythology, that same angel goes on to spread misery and damnnation to billions of humans and half the angels in Heaven?
Why make hedgehogs so cute when it hurts to pet them?
Platypi...WTF, God ?
We're straying off into religion, but are you familiar with gnosticism and demiurge vs. God?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why make hedgehogs so cute when it hurts to pet them?
It only hurts to pet them if you go against the spines. It's the creator's way of saying "You will pet them the way I intended."
Also, mad scientist syndrome.
Actually it does. If homosexuality is defined as a sin, and Jesus did not reject this (he explained the law he did not reject it), then homosexual marriages are abominations because you would be entering a union of perpetual sin. Once you ask for salvation you are meant to strive to be Christ like. This means you reject sin as much as possible and pray for forgiveness during bouts of momentary weaknesses. This is how Christianity has been practiced since the council of Nicaea. What was before he vague and incoherent. Who are you to say what Christianity is 2000 years later after reading a heavily revised translated version of the rules?
He also said on numerous occasions that we are not to act as judges of other people. He said that 'punishment' for commiting sin was His and God's alone to punish, not us. He told us to worry about what we ourselves were doing before going and pointing out what other people were doing. "He who is without sin, cast the first stone...", as it were.
No where in there did He say, "If you observe people committing sin, turn into militant a@+$+&$s and make it your life's mission to harrass and deprive them of their happiness to prove how much My way is more better."He said, in a nutshell "live and let live."
TL;DR: Just because it's identified as sin, doesn't give Christians license to act like a#~*&&*s toward those people. Pretty much the opposite, actually.
EDIT: I should take a moment to say, this is what I've gotten from reading what Jesus said. If you don't agree, s'ok.
|
|
Actually it does. If homosexuality is defined as a sin, and Jesus did not reject this (he explained the law he did not reject it), then homosexual marriages are abominations because you would be entering a union of perpetual sin. Once you ask for salvation you are meant to strive to be Christ like. This means you reject sin as much as possible and pray for forgiveness during bouts of momentary weaknesses. This is how Christianity has been practiced since the council of Nicaea. What was before he vague and incoherent. Who are you to say what Christianity is 2000 years later after reading a heavily revised translated version of the rules?
He also said on numerous occasions that we are not to act as judges of other people. He said that 'punishment' for commiting sin was His and God's alone to punish, not us. He told us to worry about what we ourselves were doing before going and pointing out what other people were doing. "He who is without sin, cast the first stone...", as it were.
No where in there did He say, "If you observe people committing sin, turn into militant a#++$#*s and make it your life's mission to harrass and deprive them of their happiness to prove how much My way is more better."
He said, in a nutshell "live and let live."TL;DR: Just because it's identified as sin, doesn't give Christians license to act like a!@@!!#s toward those people. Pretty much the opposite, actually.
EDIT: I should take a moment to say, this is what I've gotten from reading what Jesus said. If you don't agree, s'ok.
Many would claim you've read wrong. They would say that Matthew 7:1 says that you may only judge after you have judged yourself. They would point to I Corinthians 1:10, I Corinthians 2:15, I Cor. 6:1-5, Romans 16:17-18, II Corinthians 6:17, II Timothy 3:5-6, I John 4:1, Malachi 3:18, Revelation 2:2...they would say that the new testament gave rules for the righteous to judge and use these passages as support. That is the problem...you read it and get something different out of it. Why is it so vague and seemingly contradictory? The answer: it was put together by many different people, with many different ideas, over a long period of time.
I finally think the kind of defense you are proposing is part of the problem - shall we not be allowed to judge a political movement because some of its member are decent people? I don't think so.
I think I already answered this:
But I won't get mad at people for having an honest opinion about religion or Christianity based on a professed Christian's behavior.
Meaning, if people have a bad impression of Christianity based on what Christians do, then its a legitimate opinion, and 'we're' doing it wrong.
stuff
And 'they' would be completely entitled to their opinions.
Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled "Why Prop 8 is a horrible idea" thread.
I finally think the kind of defense you are proposing is part of the problem - shall we not be allowed to judge a political movement because some of its member are decent people? I don't think so.I think I already answered this:
But I won't get mad at people for having an honest opinion about religion or Christianity based on a professed Christian's behavior.Meaning, if people have a bad impression of Christianity based on what Christians do, then its a legitimate opinion, and 'we're' doing it wrong.
Thanks. Seriously, I'm very, verry happy to still find this open-mindedness among religious people.
Well, you're welcome. Christianity is supposed to free people from sin, not oppress them because of it.
|
|
stuffAnd 'they' would be completely entitled to their opinions.
Exactly. The same goes for your opinion that:
With the number of Christians out there that do not truly understand what it means to call themselves that, I'm not suprised 'religion' or 'Christianity' gets a bad rep.
I have read the New and Old testament several times without believing that Jesus was some sort of peace loving liberal hippie and when you read it like that you walk away with a different understanding than you would otherwise. This is a problem with the bible's continuity - this is what leads to so much political influence. Because of this I feel quite content with criticizing the religion that the bible attempts to outline.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you're welcome. Christianity is supposed to free people from sin, not oppress them because of it.
Weel, I find the best way to free people from sin, is to free them from the concept of sin. ;-)