|
|
Post by Anders on Nov 10, 2008 9:01:15 GMT -8
Congratulations, you have something in common with your antagonist now. You're both trying deny someone else's civil rights in order to achieve a goal. He's trying to deny gays the right to marry because he believes it's morally wrong. You're trying to deny him his right to beleive that because it's morally wrong. That's bullshit, and I think you're smart enough to know it. Nobody's trying to deny anyone their right to believe anything. That interracial marriages were made legal didn't forbid anyone from believing they were wrong. The only thing they were denied was to dictate to other people how they were allowed to live, and last I checked that wasn't a right. Words have power, and I think you know that too. I'm sure someone else will come along with better examples, but I'll just use "negro". Originally it's purely descriptive, but the connotations have become such that it's impossible to use neutrally. The same would happen with whatever term you'd use for a homosexual marriage instead of marriage. You could just as well call it "fag-marriage" right away. And just to reiterate: nobody's trying to deny anyone the right to believe anything they want. Would we like them to stop believe that Teh Gays are evil? Yes. But we're not saying "You can't believe Teh Gays are evil". |
|
|
|
Post by jbhelfrich on Nov 10, 2008 9:48:20 GMT -8
But IS it morally wrong? That's the question none of you seem to be asking. Rules based on their belief in an imaginary friend in the sky have absolutely no weight with me, Jard. They can believe whatever they want. They can be convinced I'm doomed to spend eternity burning in hell, and I don't give a fuck. But in a civilized society, equal protection has to extend to physical and legal equality over "philosophical" equality. I think it was Heinlein that said "your right to swing your fist stops at my nose." They can stand on the street corner and say whatever they want. They can go into their churches and wail and speak in tongues and rend their garments. But when they start causing material discrimination, they've gone to far. And there we agree. But there's a difference between saying something and relegating entire groups of people to second class citizen status. |
|
|
|
Post by jbhelfrich on Nov 10, 2008 9:54:21 GMT -8
Marriage is both inherently a civil ceremony and a religious one. Does a civil union provide a couple, whatever their sexuality, with the same rights and benefits that a married couple recieves under the law in regards to taxes making family decisions for the spouse, etc. And the answer is yes. Yes it does. All except one. The ability to say "We're married." That's it. That depends on the jurisdiction and the laws that define civil unions. Laws that could be changed without nearly the uprising if they tried to change the laws surrounding marriage rights.. The difference is that the person saying "no you're not" would be allowed to deny that individual what ever "religious benefits" arise from being married, but *not the civil benefits*. Random fuckwad charlatan doesn't want to marry two guys in his church? Perfectly within his rights. Random fuckwad wants to stop those same guys from going to a friendly charlatan or a judge? NOT within his rights. |
|
|
|
Post by jbhelfrich on Nov 10, 2008 10:02:09 GMT -8
But you're perfectly willing to let government tell the church what they can and cannot believe, and force churchs into allowing one of their most sacred institutions to be (In their eyes, mind you) corrupted, and then you're wondering why these people fight it with every breath they can? If they wanted to maintain control of the institution, they shouldn't have let it gain civil significance. Obviously, the current state of affairs goes back to when church and state were much more intertwined, but I haven't seen any of these fundamentalist boneheads arguing to take marriage out of the governments' hands. By that theory, Jard, we'd still be gasping in horror when a white woman and a black man held hands in the street. And in may parts of the world, people still do. You missed one important part of the equation: education. And education needs to take the form of changing things and showing the masses that the world won't end. |
|
|
|
Post by jbhelfrich on Nov 11, 2008 0:21:03 GMT -8
Olbermann: If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
Only now you are saying to them—no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry? The full text: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27650743The video: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/27652443#27652443 |
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on Nov 11, 2008 7:29:02 GMT -8
"Rules based on their belief in an imaginary friend in the sky have absolutely no weight with me, Jard."
And if it was solely religious right wingers you're talking about, you might have a point. But it's not, is it? And as for the RRW, the fact that you don't believe in the imaginary friend in the sky doesn't matter to them. So... impasse.
|
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on Nov 11, 2008 7:30:38 GMT -8
Random fuckwad charlatan doesn't want to marry two guys in his church? Perfectly within his rights. Random fuckwad wants to stop those same guys from going to a friendly charlatan or a judge? NOT within his rights. And on this we agree. Unfortunately, we're in the minority. |
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on Nov 11, 2008 7:32:20 GMT -8
You missed one important part of the equation: education. And education needs to take the form of changing things and showing the masses that the world won't end. No that's what I've been talking about all along. |
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on Nov 11, 2008 7:35:12 GMT -8
Olbermann: If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
Only now you are saying to them—no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry? The full text: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27650743The video: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/27652443#27652443 And again, I agree a constitutional amendment is fundamentally the wrong way to go. On any level. The only way to achieve the equality desired is through education and evolution. |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Nov 11, 2008 9:10:46 GMT -8
Random fuckwad charlatan doesn't want to marry two guys in his church? Perfectly within his rights. Random fuckwad wants to stop those same guys from going to a friendly charlatan or a judge? NOT within his rights. And on this we agree. Unfortunately, we're in the minority. Wait, what? In the minority here on this board, or in the minority in the US? Because I think everyone here has been arguing exactly this point. Or at least that's what I've tried to do. I'm not advocating forcing everyone who performs marriage ceremonies to have to do them for same-sex couples, just that same-sex couples should be allowed the same options regarding marriage as opposite-sex couples - i.e., that they be allowed to be married with the same obligations and benefits and have it called "marriage". |
|
|
|
Post by jbhelfrich on Nov 11, 2008 9:13:16 GMT -8
And if it was solely religious right wingers you're talking about, you might have a point. But it's not, is it? And as for the RRW, the fact that you don't believe in the imaginary friend in the sky doesn't matter to them. So... impasse. Prop 8, which is the heart of the problem at the moment, was passed largely because of the actions of the Mormon church, who threw large amounts of cash and missionaries at the problem. The supposedly "moderate" Saddleback church (the one that hosted the presidential forum) did likewise. Without their involvement, in the form of very misleading campaign materials, Prop 8 wouldn't have passed. So yes, it is mostly them. |
|
|
|
Post by jbhelfrich on Nov 11, 2008 9:15:21 GMT -8
And again, I agree a constitutional amendment is fundamentally the wrong way to go. On any level. The only way to achieve the equality desired is through education and evolution. You do realize that Proposition 8 was a constitutional amendment to *deny* gays the right to marry in California, after the courts decided that such marriages should be allowed in California under the equal protection cause of the state Constitution, right? |
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Nov 11, 2008 23:48:18 GMT -8
Anders - Jard is saying you're in the minority in AMERICA, not here on the forum.
Jard - If these assholes want to claim separation of church and state, they need to get the fuck out of politics, and that shit needs to be LEGALLY enforced. As in, if your religion becomes a Political Action Committee for certain causes, by raising funds and endorsing candidates based on political platforms? Their tax-exempt status needs to be REVOKED. If they can't hack that, then they need to SHUT THE FUCK UP. And that's not even about what's RIGHT; that's simply a matter of LAW. They can't have it both ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on Nov 12, 2008 8:52:37 GMT -8
Kirk-
telling these people they can't have it both ways doesn't work and you know it. Because it hasn't worked for 300 years.
Do you realize it's actually perfectly legal to have prayer in a public school? As long as you don't limit to what sect, denomination, or for that matter religion, it doesn't violate seperation of church and state. As long as Taoists, Islamics, Christians and Satanists can all gather in the same room and pray together without violence, it's perfectly legal.
Do you think the Christian right would ever let that happen?
Joe -
You and I live in Colorado. Remember Amendment 2? Boy did we catch hell for that, and we thought it was unfair that we caught hell for that didn't we after all, Denver and Boulder are pretty liberal. But the rest of the state isn't.
But, however, we're talking about California. Liberal Central. With arguably the most gay friendly city in the entire country, San Francisco, and proposation 8 still passed, and you're saying it's a Mormon backed Ad Campaign?
I think you overestimate how much effect these people have on the community.
|
|
|
|
Post by jbhelfrich on Nov 12, 2008 10:13:03 GMT -8
I didn't actually live in Colorado at the time of Amendment 2, or perhaps I moved here just as it was being repealed, I can't quite recall. But the state, as a unit, deserved to catch hell for it, as California, as a state, does. Denver and Boulder should have done more to stop it (turning out in larger percentages, organizing better, etc) just as San Francisco and LA should have.
And it wasn't just the Mormon church. California has some very conservative areas. The opposition was not very organized--there are some fundamental flaws with the proposition that should have stopped it from ever being on the ballot, (instead of now using them to keep it from being implemented); they didn't take the proposition seriously until it was far too late to do serious fundraising and advertising campaigns; early results from the east coast made it apparent that Obama would win and depressed late day turnout; and from what I've heard, I could have run a better state wide ground game, and I'd barely trust myself to run one in a State House district. Or maybe a precinct.
But the ground troops provided by the Mormons (who apparently sent large number of their youth missionaries to the state) and other churches, and the money they put in to run misleading ads that scared people with the prospect of kids being taught that they should all go out and be gay was a huge factor in this election.
Yes, one side was better organized and funded than the other. But that funding and organization was provided by the fundies.
|
|
