zoobaby
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,179
Look what you highlighted of my post....I said I find religions are useless...I didn't say anything about people that believe in them.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Supreme Court Blocks Video Coverage of Prop. 8 Trial
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Look what you highlighted of my post....I said I find religions are useless...I didn't say anything about people that believe in them.
zoobaby
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,179
It clouds the discussion and leads the discussion down rat holes. I say take each topic separately and debate the merits of it on it's own.
I find it funny that the same religious right that wants to ban gay marriage also worked to ban polygamy. And now use the what about polygamy to cloud the discussion.
Practice what you want... And we'll use our freedom of speech to express our opinions.
Expressing our opinion has nothing to do with people practicing their religion.
Do what you want, just don't expect everyone to agree with you
Just as a reminder:
People are free to practice their religion all they want, but they are not free to chill commentary on their practices when they inject themselves into the laws of our nation.
Sorry, when your basis for denying a group of people the same legal rights as you enjoy is because your religion says so (and anyone disagreeing with you is infringing your nonexistent right to be free from people criticizing you), you are entering Theocracy territory.
That's the royal "your" by the way.
My religion says that only gay couples are allowed to be married. What laws can we change to accommodate that?
Discrimination is discrimination no matter how you look at it. Disallowing gay marriage is only discriminating against gays. Allowing it is discriminating against no one.
It's a pretty simply discussion really.
Discrimination is discrimination no matter how you look at it. Disallowing gay marriage is only discriminating against gays. Allowing it is discriminating against no one.
It's a pretty simply discussion really.
westrock2000
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 9,435
And as far as Polygmy being the same as gay marriage is not quite valid. The general "belief" in this country is that all people are created equal. This means that a 1 man has the same importance and representation as 1 women.
So therefore many Americans base their belief of relationships on the idea that one man and one women create a whole, both being equal halfs. When you talk about Polygamy with 1 man and 4 wives or vice versa you are inherently implying that the single man has more value then the multiple women. This just doesn't mesh with our accepted system.
But you can adapt Homosexual marriage to this belief because it still applies the same equal value to each party member.
So therefore many Americans base their belief of relationships on the idea that one man and one women create a whole, both being equal halfs. When you talk about Polygamy with 1 man and 4 wives or vice versa you are inherently implying that the single man has more value then the multiple women. This just doesn't mesh with our accepted system.
But you can adapt Homosexual marriage to this belief because it still applies the same equal value to each party member.
Peteman100
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,466
The whole argument is so ridiculous. Yes, we all have freedom of religion. So if you are Christian, by all means, don't marry someone of the same sex. But to think your religious beliefs actually give you justification to deny legal rights to another human being is absolute insanity. Hell, why don't we hop right back into eugenics while we're at it, and start deciding who gets to procreate. I nominate close-minded gay bashers as the first group off the list. 
Plus, think of the economic boost that the inevitable flood of gay marriages would generate!
Plus, think of the economic boost that the inevitable flood of gay marriages would generate!
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,114
The whole argument is so ridiculous. Yes, we all have freedom of religion. So if you are Christian, by all means, don't marry someone of the same sex. But to think your religious beliefs actually give you justification to deny legal rights to another human being is absolute insanity. Hell, why don't we hop right back into eugenics while we're at it, and start deciding who gets to procreate. I nominate close-minded gay bashers as the first group off the list.
Plus, think of the economic boost that the inevitable flood of gay marriages would generate!
Yeah, a whole new untapped market for the divorce lawyers.
The issue here is regarding streaming video of the trial, not gay marriage.
If they are stupid enough to marry, I say let them. They deserve to suffer as much as normal people.
Who said anything about 1 or 2 woman and 1 man in polygamous relationships? Why not 3 men? Or 2 men, 3 women, 1 woman, 1 transgender and 1 man?
Religion is what causes most of us to loose our rights. Without religion or laws etc you have the right to do anything. I think the right to walk around naked in public shouldn't be infringed. It probably offends some religious person who wants to inflict their morals on me, but there isn't much of a logical reason for the laws against it. I think poligamy with consenting adults is just dandy. The law discriminates all the time against drug users, prostitutes, bums, 17 year olds, bad drivers etc. I'm against some of it, and I'm for some of it. It's not a slippery slope, just nail down what you are or are not permitting and why.
Speaking of the video of the trial, "the defenders of Prop. 8 said their witnesses could be subjected to harassment and intimidation if they testified in favor of the ban on marriage for gay and lesbian couples." They probably would be harrased, but I'm guessing people on both sides would be, and I want to hear their arguments!
Religion is what causes most of us to loose our rights. Without religion or laws etc you have the right to do anything. I think the right to walk around naked in public shouldn't be infringed. It probably offends some religious person who wants to inflict their morals on me, but there isn't much of a logical reason for the laws against it. I think poligamy with consenting adults is just dandy. The law discriminates all the time against drug users, prostitutes, bums, 17 year olds, bad drivers etc. I'm against some of it, and I'm for some of it. It's not a slippery slope, just nail down what you are or are not permitting and why.
Speaking of the video of the trial, "the defenders of Prop. 8 said their witnesses could be subjected to harassment and intimidation if they testified in favor of the ban on marriage for gay and lesbian couples." They probably would be harrased, but I'm guessing people on both sides would be, and I want to hear their arguments!
zoobaby
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,179
You will be be able to read transcripts. Witness lists will likely be public domain.
As far as I am aware marriage is not a right, it is not even mentioned in the US Constitution. Unless I am missing something it is just a contract between a, currently heterosexual, couple that is acknowledged by a State Government and thus the Federal Government. So, it is a State's right to determine who may receive this status. I don't know every States Constitution, but I assume that in California if a proposition can be voted on by the people of that State in a general election to determine whether it can become law or part of their Constitution, then it is legal and not unconstitutional. I am no lawyer, so the above could be wrong.
Peteman100
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,466
Marriage sure, but the rights and privileges which come with marriage are discussed in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment states:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
There are hundreds of "rights" guaranteed to married couples under the law. A few include right of adoption, right of inheritance, privileged legal status in terms of medical decisions, access to benefits, domestic abuse protection, etc. Denying an American citizen the same protections under the law is completely unconstitutional, plain and simple.
Every time this debate comes up, I find myself thinking long and hard about it. I always eventually come to the conclusion that I really don't give a shit whom gets married to whom and where.
I can't believe that anyone's life can be so easy and boring that they have time to even worry about this shit.
I can't believe that anyone's life can be so easy and boring that they have time to even worry about this shit.
Would that include getting married to a family memeber? Both citizens.
Peteman100
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,466
I can name actual health concerns with incest. I double dare you to come up with an equivalent problem with gay marriage.
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,114
You can only name them as it pertains to children. Which gays still can't do without a 3rd party. And if we are adding a 3rd party to help create children, then an incestuous relationship's health concerns go away as well.
I am not defending incest, bestiality, or homosexuality, merely pointing out that the gay side of this argument is not immune to hypocrisy either. Don't judge lest ye be be judged. One of a few sayings in the Bible I can really get behind.
So, how does bestiality get lumped in with incest and homosexuality? Are you trying to say you believe them all to be aberrant practices? I think a few people might disagree.
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,114
So, how does bestiality get lumped in with incest and homosexuality? Are you trying to say you believe them all to be aberrant practices? I think a few people might disagree.
Don't try to read between the lines, and don't put words into my mouth. Unless you are just looking to troll me.
I tossed it in there because, (meant to toss polygamy, necrophilia, and heterosexuality in as well), I wished to mention I had no intention of defending, or attacking any of those practices. Merely pointing out that gays cry over how they are judged by society at large, while at the same time judging others by (gasp) the same values used by society at large to judge them. Then top it off by trying to explain their own judgements as being based on something credible, when it's just the same old hoodoo.
Parmenides
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,578
Why do gays continue to try to go through the courts to go against the will of the people? And why do they want the word "married"? Give them 'civil unions' with the partner economic benefits and be done with it! Go take Elton John's advice. What's the big deal of having the words "married?"
And why aren't the gays "tolerant" of opposing views? Someone from the right will just debate your beliefs if he thinks you're wrong. Someone from the left will just go to courts and say "by new laws, your beliefs are wrong." Who's the tolerant one?
And why aren't the gays "tolerant" of opposing views? Someone from the right will just debate your beliefs if he thinks you're wrong. Someone from the left will just go to courts and say "by new laws, your beliefs are wrong." Who's the tolerant one?
Just to throw this out there, but adoption has nothing to do with sexual preference. I know you weren't implying this directly so this is more aimed at those who might make crazy assumptions on your post. A Hetero couple that can't have kids would go through the same process as a non hetero. Still third party, yes you are most correct. I am just pointing this out for reference.
Back to earlier points, while marriage "Technically" is not a right, because of all the rights associated, it becomes a right by default. Simply put you cannot deny a person their rights just because they share a different belief system then you.
FranklyShankly
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 1,024
Actually someone from the religious right will fire bomb your abortion clinic, murder doctors in cold blood, and drag homosexuals and minorities from ropes behind their truck. In god's name, amen.
zoobaby
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,179
Because the religious right wont go for "Civili Unions" that grant the same rights as marriage. And if you are going to grant the exact same rights as marriage, you might as well call it marriage. It can then be left to the churches if they want to perform the ceremony.
Why should gays be tolerant of a bigoted and ignorant view? Civil rights had to be dragged through the courts because and laws crafted and implemented.
To chime in on this...
I live in MA where gay marriage has been legal for years now. Several things have not happened.
1. Families have not eroded.
2. Gays have not taken over. The predominant couples you see in public are straight. It is rare to see a gay couple.
3. Socierty has not fallen down
4. Gay marriage is not being taught in schools
5. Religion has not been abolished.
To summarize, what has changes since gay marriage was legalized in MA? Not much. People still lead lives exactly the same as they did before. The effect on the hetorosexual population is minimal to non-existant.
I live in MA where gay marriage has been legal for years now. Several things have not happened.
1. Families have not eroded.
2. Gays have not taken over. The predominant couples you see in public are straight. It is rare to see a gay couple.
3. Socierty has not fallen down
4. Gay marriage is not being taught in schools
5. Religion has not been abolished.
To summarize, what has changes since gay marriage was legalized in MA? Not much. People still lead lives exactly the same as they did before. The effect on the hetorosexual population is minimal to non-existant.
Parmenides
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,578
How are gays any less bigoted and ignorant? To be sure enough say that, you would also have to assert that their religions have false beliefs. You would have to say that there is no God that sanctioned marriage. Or that God doesn't care about homosexual marriage. To say that gays should have the right to "marry" is a moral statement. Making this statement is making a moral religious opinion that their is no God given moral law that condemns it.
That would be a hasty generalization. You say those people are very representative of the right? Can I say the same about violent leftist?
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,114
Some people consider the veiws of gays to be ignorant, foolish, and bigotted against Christians and straights as well. Why should straights or Christians be tolerant of the gay's veiws?
Tolerance, and respecting the veiws of others, goes both ways, or it does not work. That's the big rub that so many people just can't seem to wrap their heads around. If you want tolerance and respect, display them your damn self. Otherwise STFU when you don't get them in return.
It's bit ironic listening to you complain about bigotry. Look at your own posts with a critical eye, and then try to claim they don't paint you bigoted against deity based religions and their followers.
(I may have to start praying at the alter of the pink unicorn again. The anti religion zealots are out in force.)
Peteman100
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,466
The difference is that a gay couple CANNOT have a kid sexual means. So there is no threat of genetically decimated offspring. Societal rules against incest are based on thousands of years of experience of the negative effects. You can't say anything similar about homosexuality. And coming back to bestiality, if you could prove to me that the animal is a consenting party in the ordeal, it would be a totally different discussion. Of course, that's not possible.
You know, I think everyone would be fine with your solution. However, that would be mean that the institution of marriage would have to be abolished entirely in the eyes of the government and replaced with civil unions, since all citizens are created equally. So marriage would be granted solely through the church and would no longer grant any legal benefits. I think that would be the best solution.
That is just wrong on so many levels... Saying that allowing others to engage in gay marriage damages your religious beliefs is equivalent to saying that the existence of Hinduism is damaging to Christianity's principle of monotheism. So you are already boned, my friend. Plus, your analysis isn't even correct. In the worst case, a homosexual couple would be going against God's will and are damned to hell and whatnot. But thanks to the Bible's assertion of each person's "free will," that is their choice to make and you really have no say in the matter.
Minorities don't have the choice of being tolerant to the majorities views, they are subject to them. This is one of the dangers of a democracy. I've heard it described as two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
The only truly moral course we have is to strive to protect the rights and liberty of all.
Not that I know that marriage is a right. As I'm neither married nor gay, I don't have a dog in this fight. But hell, if two people want to make a go of it, good for them and best wishes.
The only truly moral course we have is to strive to protect the rights and liberty of all.
Not that I know that marriage is a right. As I'm neither married nor gay, I don't have a dog in this fight. But hell, if two people want to make a go of it, good for them and best wishes.
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,114
Then how about polygamy? Or if the Arkansas family did not have children only adopted? That it is physically immpossible for gays to produce children without 3rd party aid, does not diminish that argument or the fact that bigotry is no less prevalent among them as it is the straight population.
What does bestiality have to do with that argument? It was mentioned, but not in the context you are alluding to.
What does bigotry have to do with anything?
A black bigot and a white bigot back in the days of segregation and slavery doesn't change the facts about segregation and slavery.
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,114
I don't liken homosexuals to slaves or segregation era blacks. In fact it is insulting to do so. The domestic issues of people who choose to engage in sexual acts with members of their own sex are not comparable to the plight of individuals based on being born black in and b4 the segregation era ended. (They are still looking for the gay gene, they thought they found it, but too many people with it are straight, and too many without it are gay for it to be considered an indicator outside of the gay community. So you still can't say people are born gay without ignoring science.) Now that that is out of the way.
My point was that if you totally disregard another group's point of view based solely on your personal belief that they are bigoted, you can hardly complain when they do the same to you.
I'm actually all for gay marriage. I don't really feel it should be called marriage, but what the hell, it ain't really my business.
You know what never mind. I am sorry I challenged the great gay gods of truth and righteousness. It has become as bad as Jews or Blacks. Anything you say that is the slightest bit disparaging or unflattering to their group or their beliefs/POV gets you labeled a bigot regardless of how true your statement is, or how neutrally you put it.
Meanwhile, the real issue in the article had nothing to do with gay rights and everything to do with how and why the courts are not allowing live audio or vid feeds from the court room. The gay issue came up and everyone, myself included got dragged so far off topic into lala land it ain't even funny.
/unsubscribe. I'd much rather argue about tech. More logic, less feelings involved in that, well except the fanatics.
My point is that bigotry is completely irrelevant to the topic. If you are an idiot, it does not mean you are less entitled to justice or fairness. If you are a bigot, it does not mean you are less entitled to protection under the law. Irrelevant.