| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 630 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting 8ballMax: Quote:
Quoting lmoelleb:
Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax:
Quote:
I'm voting a resounding YES because of MY religious beliefs and NOT because of any "party Line". If anyone can't accept THAT then there's nothing more to be said.
Don't worry, I consider your acts just as acceptable as any other form of discremination. 
Religion has been (mis)used to oppress and discreminate for thousands of years - it's about time it stops.
You consider the right to vote my conscience discrimination?
Of course not. Your right to vote is not discrimination - it doesn't become discrimination before you vote yes. But then, yes I consider it obvious discrimination 100% comparable to for example not allowing marrages between people of different race. Quote:
Who are you to judge me? I am someone who accepts that you have the right to beleive whatever you want, but you have absolutely no right what so ever to force other people to live by your dogmas. Someone who realizes that if you use your own religious dogmas to control the rights of others, you are directly supporting the dogmas of other religions to be used as well where they are the majority. Yes, this means you can not use the Bible to condemn homosexual mariages without endorsing stoning infidel women in muslim countries. | | | Regards
Lars |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
For me, this issue is quite simple. I believe that homosexual activity is both unnatural and immoral; and I am far from alone. Immoral? Maybe, depending on your point of view. Unnatural? Not hardly. 'Unnatural' means, contrary to nature. If you do the research, you will find that there are many examples of same sex unions in nature. In fact, for some species, homosexuality and bisexuality are the norm rather than the exception. Quote:
Having the 'state' issue a license sanctioning an activity which a great many people believe to be immoral is simply wrong.
Please show me any other license that the government issues which promotes an activity that is considered immoral by so many. The 'state' should remain neutral. Last I checked, homosexuality wasn't against the law. Since it isn't, they should have all the rights any other adult has. Marriage is a legal contract. As such, morality has nothing to do with it. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 262 |
| | Posted: | | | | I would vote YES for many of the same reasons already stated but also as a statement against activist judges subverting the state constitutions of California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. In all three case it was slim majority of judges creating a right to gay marriage that heretofore hadn't existed.
In California the people voted 57% - 43% (I believe) just a few years ago to outlaw gay marriage. The court then turns around and creates the right against the clear will of the people. That's the only reason this new vote is needed. If the people of any of these states had voted for this measure I would disagree but at least I would respect the vote of the will of the people -- then it would not be some supposedly "enlightened" judges telling me that a 200 year old document (in the case of Massachusetts) suddenly madates gay marriage.
As for the right to marry -- gays can have a wedding ceremony in any state and call themselves married -- they just won't be sanctioned officially by the state in that endeavor. I have a right to vote my conscience based on whatever criteria I see fit -- to say I'm imposing my religious views on someone else by doing that is absurd --- and could be viewed as an attempt by you to impose your views on me by trying to make me feel bad about my choice.
What people are saying about protecting marriage is keeping it defined as a union between one man and one woman. That is worth protecting IMHO. As for the notion that two lesbians and a sperm donor can have a child that is medically true but who will be the child's father? Unless you believe men have nothing to contribute to the raising of their children this child is being cheated of a father before he/she is even born.
Brian |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lmoelleb: Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax:
Quote:
Quoting lmoelleb:
Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax:
Quote:
I'm voting a resounding YES because of MY religious beliefs and NOT because of any "party Line". If anyone can't accept THAT then there's nothing more to be said.
Don't worry, I consider your acts just as acceptable as any other form of discremination.
Religion has been (mis)used to oppress and discreminate for thousands of years - it's about time it stops.
You consider the right to vote my conscience discrimination?
Of course not. Your right to vote is not discrimination - it doesn't become discrimination before you vote yes. But then, yes I consider it obvious discrimination 100% comparable to for example not allowing marrages between people of different race.
Quote:
Who are you to judge me?
I am someone who accepts that you have the right to beleive whatever you want, but you have absolutely no right what so ever to force other people to live by your dogmas. Someone who realizes that if you use your own religious dogmas to control the rights of others, you are directly supporting the dogmas of other religions to be used as well where they are the majority. Yes, this means you can not use the Bible to condemn homosexual mariages without endorsing stoning infidel women in muslim countries. Believe what you will...but my conscience is clear. I have faith in the Lord, He and He alone will judge me. | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 630 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
For me, this issue is quite simple. I believe that homosexual activity is both unnatural and immoral; and I am far from alone.
That's fine. I have no problems with that. Where it becomes problematic is when you think it applies to other than yourself and people with the same thoughts. Quote:
Having the 'state' issue a license sanctioning an activity which a great many people believe to be immoral is simply wrong.
Why? How is this different from the time when people thought marriage between people of different race was unnatural and immoral? No one is forcing anyone to marry someone of the same sex. Quote:
Please show me any other license that the government issues which promotes an activity that is considered immoral by so many. The 'state' should remain neutral.
From Wikipedias page on Democracy: The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority".No, the state should not remain neutral, it should protect the freedom of it's citizens. Quote:
And please don't start throwing the homophobe word around. I do not hate nor fear any living person. In fact my brother happens to be gay, and I love him none the less for it. I do however, fear for his immortal soul! You have every right to fear for his immortal soul. You have every right to fear for the immortal soul of all homosexuals. The problem is when you start to discriminate against homosexual in your laws. | | | Regards
Lars |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,029 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lmoelleb: Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax:
Quote:
You consider the right to vote my conscience discrimination?
Of course not. Your right to vote is not discrimination - it doesn't become discrimination before you vote yes. But then, yes I consider it obvious discrimination 100% comparable to for example not allowing marrages between people of different race.
Quote:
Who are you to judge me?
I am someone who accepts that you have the right to beleive whatever you want, but you have absolutely no right what so ever to force other people to live by your dogmas. Someone who realizes that if you use your own religious dogmas to control the rights of others, you are directly supporting the dogmas of other religions to be used as well where they are the majority. Yes, this means you can not use the Bible to condemn homosexual mariages without endorsing stoning infidel women in muslim countries. Well said. Some of the statements in this and other recent topics really put the fear of God into me (pun intended). | | | | Matthias |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 262 |
| | Posted: | | | | lmoelleb,
You are clearly a anti-relgious bigot by your own statements. By your definition you are imposing your views on others just as surely as you claim they are imposing theirs on you. Your argument is silly and ridiculous.
A religious person has every right to vote their conscience despite your attempts to make them muzzle themselves. Any reasonable person understands that "imposing your views" means forcing others to actually accept your religious (or other) beliefs not simply making them follow duly made laws. You are free not to believe in the Bible, God, Jesus etc. but you do have to follow the law. Making you accept Jesus would be imposing my religious beliefs on you and would be unconstitutional but voting to make abortion illegal because I think it's murder is not "imposing my views" in the way you claim.
If we took your absurd rantings to their logical conclusion almost every law on the books would have to be repealed since virtually every law "imposes" someone elses view on others. That's why we have this thing called democracy where the majority rules (except in certain specific areas where the right of the individual is absolute - freedom of speech, religion etc. - i.e. the Bill of Rights). There are many that feel that laws prohibiting prostitution, drug use, bestiality, bigamy, incest, etc. are the result of some "imposing" their beliefs on others.
Are you arguing that all of those laws are "discriminatory" also? Your are entitled to support gay marriage and use the political process to "impose your views" on me but only if you garner majority support otherwise you have to follow the law.
Brian |
|
| Registered: April 8, 2007 | | Posts: 1,057 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'm not sure if homosexual animals is fair statement. Animals have an estrus cycle (heat) where they would mate with a female, despite showing homosexual behavior at other times. Humans & dolphins are the only known species, I'm aware of that are free of the estrus cycle, or have sex when not in heat.
Rick | | | If I felt any better I'd be sick!
Envy is mental theft. If you covet another mans possessions, then you should be willing to take on his responsibilities, heartaches, and troubles, along with his money. D. Koontz |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 262 |
| | Posted: | | | | lmoelleb,
We have rights in our constitution that prohibit certain discrimination and it is for the courts to decide if a particular policy preference of the people violates those restrictions. In the case of interracial marriage the courts IMHO properly concluded that prohibiting it would discriminate against anyone who wanted to marry someone of the oppositie race and discrimination based on race clearly violates our constitution. The reality is that society "discriminates" all the time -- by prohibiting felons from voting or possessing firearms for instance or preventing drug addicts from being school bus drivers -- obviously some discrimination is acceptable and we disagree about whether limiting gays from marrying each other constituted unlawful discrimination.
Brian |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
The 'state' should remain neutral.
California is currently neutral. It's currently legal for same-sex couples to marry in Californai. This proposition would force the state to become one-sided again. We should all be careful when legislating morality for others as we may find ourselves in the minority view at some point and find our beliefs outlawed. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 262 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lmoelleb: Quote:
I am someone who accepts that you have the right to beleive whatever you want, but you have absolutely no right what so ever to force other people to live by your dogmas. Someone who realizes that if you use your own religious dogmas to control the rights of others, you are directly supporting the dogmas of other religions to be used as well where they are the majority. Yes, this means you can not use the Bible to condemn homosexual mariages without endorsing stoning infidel women in muslim countries. You are abolutely wrong in this assumption and your use of this kind of example surely shows your bigotry -- suggesting me and others like me some support stoning women is absurd. The US constitution (which I support fully) would prohibit this kind of activity as an extreme violation of equal protection as well as other provisions about liberty and cruel and unusual punishment. I support people voting their conscience (using the Bible in your example) but I fully support the rights to individual liberty enshrined in our constitution even though those rights sometimes protect things I strongly disagree with or am offended by (such as you using your right to free speech to demonize religious people). Brian |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 630 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting bbursiek: Quote:
...I have a right to vote my conscience based on whatever criteria I see fit
Of course you have. Just as the white minority had in South Africa doing the apartheid years... Quote:
-- to say I'm imposing my religious views on someone else by doing that is absurd
Then why should the state only recognize the marriage your religion consider to be "proper"? Quote:
--- and could be viewed as an attempt by you to impose your views on me by trying to make me feel bad about my choice.
Of course I am trying to impose my views on you - that is not something I am hiding. I am always willing to impose my view that religious dogmas should not apply to anyone but those following the religion. And yes, you should fill disgusted by your choice. Just think about how we now think of the racists who made laws against marriage between races... you then know exactly how I see a law against homosexual marriages. Please explain to me (besides religious dogma as that can obviously not apply to people who do not share your religion) why this is any different. Quote:
What people are saying about protecting marriage is keeping it defined as a union between one man and one woman. That is worth protecting IMHO.
Of course it is worth protecting for you. Nothing like forcing other people to live by your religion - we are seeing that in other places of the world as well, and it isn't a pretty sight there either. Quote:
As for the notion that two lesbians and a sperm donor can have a child that is medically true but who will be the child's father? Unless you believe men have nothing to contribute to the raising of their children this child is being cheated of a father before he/she is even born.
Brian I fail to see what it has to do with allowing same sex marriages - specifically as a lesbian couple hardly needs to be married to get sperm on a "black market". I already commented on children being raised in a homosexual relationship, and nothing you said changes what I wrote then - so no need to repeat it. | | | Regards
Lars |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rico: Quote:
I'm not sure if homosexual animals is fair statement. Animals have an estrus cycle (heat) where they would mate with a female, despite showing homosexual behavior at other times. Humans & dolphins are the only known species, I'm aware of that are free of the estrus cycle, or have sex when not in heat. Please do the research yourself. There are some species...bison, gazelles, antelope...who, when given the opportunity to breed unencumbered with members of the opposite sex or the same sex, choose the same sex. So, even when their females are in heat, they choose the male of the species. And, since you bring them up, bottlenose dolphins, which are not known to form heterosexual pair bonds, do form homosexual pair bonds...including sex...which often last their lifetime. Please take it in the spirit in which it was offered. While many people believe that it is immoral...and I won't argue morals because that is a personal choice...it can't be said that it is unnatural. That simply isn't true. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 262 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting mcellophane: Quote:
Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
The 'state' should remain neutral.
California is currently neutral. It's currently legal for same-sex couples to marry in Californai. This proposition would force the state to become one-sided again.
We should all be careful when legislating morality for others as we may find ourselves in the minority view at some point and find our beliefs outlawed. It is only legal for same sex couples to marry in California because of a judicial fiat that overturned the already stated will of the people. So your argument is not an accurate one -- the prop 8 vote is designed to put things back the way they were before a group of activist judges changed it. Brian |
|
| Registered: June 3, 2007 | | Posts: 333 |
| | Posted: | | | | If I were given the chance I would vote no to descrimination in CA as I did in my own state when a similar abomination turned up on the ballot here. Homosexual deserve the right to marry every bit as much as heterosexual couples do. IMO, the equal protection protection clause make the deinal of such rights and the "defense" of marriage act clearly unconstitutional. I have no doubt that it will be found to be so as the younger generation who grows up in a world without the vehement predjudice of the previous ones finally takes the reigns.
That having been said, I fully support the right of anyone who views homosexuality as immoral to speak their mind. But when they attempt to impose their views on to those of different beliefs it makes me somewhat uncomfortable. I wonder how many of those who support the restrictions of rights based on their religious beliefs descry Sharia law in the Muslim world?
And while I do not doubt the sincerity of those who vote for the restriction of rights for homosexuals, I DO have serious doubts about the motivations of those who orchestrate these movements. Of all of the things the Bible prohibits there seems to be a fixation on one small subset while ignoring much of what is left.
I have no issue with any relgious belief set. I have my own. But I don't believe that my beliefs trump my neighbors and theirs certainly do not trump mine. I would not presume to tell them that they must adhere to my beliefs, and I will be damned before I would adhere to theirs.
Maybe I'm nuts but I think that the world would be a better place if people focused on living up to their own ideals instead of looking over the fence to make sure that their neighbors are.
But in any case, it's a done deal. Prop 8 is losing in the polls in a big way. Which is probably all for the best in the eyes of the organizers. It will drive conservative voter turnout and we'll see the same silliness in 2012. | | | | Last edited: by Snark |
|
| Registered: March 17, 2007 | | Posts: 853 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting leo1963: Quote:
Quoting lmoelleb:
Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax:
Quote:
I'm voting a resounding YES because of MY religious beliefs and NOT because of any "party Line". If anyone can't accept THAT then there's nothing more to be said.
Don't worry, I consider your acts just as acceptable as any other form of discremination.
Religion has been (mis)used to oppress and discreminate for thousands of years - it's about time it stops.
If religion doesn't mean anything than why do we print "In GOD we trust" on our money? enough said. Actually, "In God We Trust" has much more to do with the Cold War than it does religion. In fear of the Red Tide during the Eisenhower Administration, "In God We Trust" was added to our money as was "Under God" added to our "Pledge of Allegiance." It was a way of showing solidarity to the "Godless Horde" we called Communists. |
|