Metro Jacksonville

Quote from: NotNow on April 07, 2010, 12:49:07 PM
???
What makes him a bigot?  Him wanting to keep Christian references or being opposed to gay marraige?

I'd say opposing gay marriage pretty conclusively makes you a bigot. The arguments are the same as they were in the 1950's, and against every minority before that. Just a bunch of illogical/irrational excuses with some religious tripe thrown in for good measure. None of it really makes any sense.

As far as keeping the "christian" references, I don't necessarily believe they are christian references, just an intended reference to whatever supreme being someone happens to believe in. If it said "one nation under christ" it would already have been stricken. God is a generic term, meaning different things to different people. That's why it remains.

While I don't condone the kind of behavior shown by the council recently, I would defend a person's right to follow their own religious beliefs and even to refer to them when discussing or explaining a decision.  Whether or not that decision making process was proper for an elected official can be judged by the constituents of that person.

As far as gay marriage, I don't agree that opposing gay marriage conclusively makes anyone a bigot.  The issue is one of morals.  Your moral code is obviously different from Mr. Yarborough's.  Many people's moral codes are generally in line with their religious beliefs, or that of their parents.  Gay marriage is not legal in this state and I don't see how being on the opposite side of the issue makes anyone a bigot.  I can see your parallels with racial discrimination but I don't think that a direct comparison can be made.

I think the marriage issue is one of public policy.  Marriage is a religious institution and should remain so.  Government should get out of the marriage business and quit subsidizing coupling of any kind.   

The bottom line for me is that both you and Mr. Yarborough are entitled to your opinions.  If his constituents think he was wrong then they will let him know at the ballot box. 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/covering_gay_marriage.html

I honestly can not argue with your logic.  But I still understand that there are many who have a religious objection and want to voice it.  Again, my answer is to make "marriage" something that you do at your church and get government out of subsidizing couples and children.  Marriage is a commitment to God and your mate, not the state.  I know that the same people that I am defending would argue with me, and I am aware of the "slippery slope" argument, but that is how I see it. 

Quote from: NotNow on May 05, 2010, 05:38:01 PM
I honestly can not argue with your logic.  But I still understand that there are many who have a religious objection and want to voice it.  Again, my answer is to make "marriage" something that you do at your church and get government out of subsidizing couples and children.  Marriage is a commitment to God and your mate, not the state.  I know that the same people that I am defending would argue with me, and I am aware of the "slippery slope" argument, but that is how I see it. 

It is very distasteful to see these types of things being written by people and yet they fail to realize one very fundamental truth even after they write: it IS possible to be gay AND a Christian. People talk about "gays" as if they are something completely separate. Almost as if we have our own "gay version" of religion or we are not allowed to join the club.

QuoteThe issue is one of morals.  Your moral code is obviously different from Mr. Yarborough's.  Many people's moral codes are generally in line with their religious beliefs, or that of their parents.

Not trying to point fingers at anyone specific, or even you, NotNow, but I constantly see this type of thought process on the entire matter.

I have a question for the people reading:

Was Britney Spears' 24 hour "just for fun" marriage meaningful or moral? Or how about the way society portrays marriage on television and radio? Who wants to marry a millionaire, or marry this or that, the bachelor(ette).... are these moral?

That is precisely like Mr. Yarborough and many others who are using their "religion" as a weapon to further their agenda. Either that, or instead they use someone else's "different religion" as a cop-out crutch to prevent their agenda from being thwarted.

These guys can have their personal beliefs.  We all do.  However, I just want our representatives, like Yarborough and Redman, to spend more time and passion actually improving this city's quality of life.  Redman has been on the council for a couple of years now and I can't think of one thing he's done or advocated to make downtown a better place.  He's the complete opposite of Suzanne Jenkins, who happened to be very passionate about the district she was elected to represent.

I think you are being overly sensitive.  I did not mean to suggest that you could not be gay and a christian.  I am simply suggesting that people who voice a religious objection to gay marriage should not be called "bigots".  To simply state that "religion is being used as a weapon" ignores many years of religious dogma which has condemned homosexuality.  Right, wrong, out of date, ignorant, all of these arguments can be made but for many, this "moral code" is just how they were educated and it is still the predominant view in the worlds religions IMHO.  My argument is to feel free to condemn the government for its stand, and even debate the churches which do not recognize your sexuality, but I don't see the logic or the purpose of calling folks who have grown up this way "bigots".  Before it is brought up, I understand the parallels with the civil rights fight for blacks, but I don't thing that they are an equal situation. I realize that to many here that even suggesting that others could question the morality of gay marriage makes me a "bigot".  I would answer that only those that close their minds to the ideas of others are really "bigoted".

Britney Spears?  Really?  Of course all of the crap you named is immoral...but not illegal.  I don't believe anyone should watch that stuff but that is just my opinion.

I will agree that there is a lack of understanding here.  To abandon reasoned debate and continuously insult others who have a different opinion than yours seems...quite intolerant:

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Perhaps you should review the thread and the basis of my posts.  My arguments here is that those persons who oppose "gay marriage", are "Christian", or happen to be white males are not automatically "bigots".  If "X" church teaches that homosexuality is a sin, and expects its members to follow church doctrine, then you believe that makes the church member a bigot...I do not.  I think that there is a legitimate religious right to oppose "gay marriage".  This has carried over to just being "Christian" even though most of the worlds other religions are not as forgiving as the Christian of homosexuality (I know THAT sets up an argument of its own).  And white males, well the straight ones anyway, they MUST be bigots, right?

I don't know where you are getting the "opposite meaning" thing, my statements are very clear and accurate.  No one is not allowing anyone to have "their basic rights", nor is anyone being "banned from happily living their own lives".  It is my belief that gays live a pretty free life in this country, although I am sure that they are more comfortable in larger urban communities where open homosexuality is more common and accepted by the public.  Many more rural areas contain a population that is not as accepting and I freely admit that.  But my argument is that "marriage" is a religious ceremony that the state should not be involved in.  I believe that if you want to get married, either find or start a church that will do it and get on with it.  I believe that the state should not subsidize any form of relationship.  I understand that the current "marriage" tax advantages were designed to encourage families and marriage.  To return to the Constitutional argument, the federal government has no dog in that fight, and should tax all persons equally IMHO.  

I am not sure where you got "reverse racism" or a scam out of this either.  I have previously posted that I believe that anyone should be able to live the life that they want.  I don't care what you stick your little wee wee in at home, just behave civilly while outside it.  As far as I personally am concerned, that goes for polygamy as well.  I think we need laws to protect children, animals, the mentally disabled and the elderly from perverts but the rest of you can go about your business as you see fit.  But I understand if people are opposed to my views on religious or moral grounds, and I believe that we can all live together under some common laws.  Therefore, the point of my previous posts in this thread is NOT anti gay, but defending the rights of others to disagree based on their own moral or religious or personal values.  I know that many who post here are gay, and I have been put down pretty hard by some of them.  I understand and am trying to see from their point of view.  I am asking that you try to see others point of view as well.

And finally, I know that you have a problem with me, but the vitriol and insults in your posts do nothing to forward your points.  

Lake, I agree with you. I miss Suzanne. She was great for Downtown causes.

I am saying that a person can hold a religious objection to homosexuality. That is not bigotry. Along the lines of your own argument, what business is that of yours?

I am not personally opposed to polygamy, but I understand if someone has a religious objection to it.  I oppose prostitution on moral and health grounds, but I won't begrudge someone arguing for it on the grounds of personal freedom. 

Well, I'll just agree to disagree then.  

I don't see any basis to compare your arguments for baptists and fundementalists.  I'm not sure how you are relating the two subjects.

I would refer you to my earlier post, where I asked you to review the thread because you apparently missed the point of my posts.  You have ecome what you are arguing against.

Quote from: NotNow on May 06, 2010, 10:46:56 AM
I am saying that a person can hold a religious objection to homosexuality. That is not bigotry.

What if they have religious objection to race mixin' (which was commonly cited during the 50's and 60's).  Is that bigotry?

No, people can hold any religious view that they choose to.  That is called religious freedom.  Many churches feel that sex outside of marriage is wrong.  i will use the Westboro Baptist people as an example, I am sure that both of us despise these people.  But I am unwilling to "outlaw" their church.  Their activities must be within the laws of our society, and many of us may want to change the laws to be more restrictive of this bunch, but they are free to believe as they want.  Just as a church which espouses white supremacy, or gay rights, or islamic caliphate is free to believe and preach in this country.  As long as they live within our laws.

I asked first.

Quote from: NotNow on May 06, 2010, 10:31:43 AM
No one is not allowing anyone to have "their basic rights"

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,000 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

Quote from: finehoe on May 06, 2010, 12:06:05 PM

Quote from: NotNow on May 06, 2010, 10:31:43 AM
No one is not allowing anyone to have "their basic rights"

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,000 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

At risk of being obvious...that doesn't answer the questions...

Is it bigotry when StephenDare! says:

"It seems like you really only get upset about the whole Constitution or bigotry or 'rights' when it comes to straight, white, christians."?

Has he classified me?  

And finehoe, I have stated REPEATEDLY that the state should not subsidize coupling of ANY kind.  So in that regard, I completely agree with you, although I would remove any favoritism rather than add gay marriage on the basis that the government has no authority to subsidize ANY preferred form of residential household or personal relationship.

Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2010, 12:11:59 PM
At the risk of being even more obvious, if a person cannnot get married, then they are denied those rights.  Clem.  How old are you?  Serious question.

Yeah, here we go with you trying to redefine terms again...

1) I'm open to be convinced here, but is there actually a "right" to get married? Because if so, Brad Pitt is so totally crushing my right to marry Angelia Jolie...
2) Nobody is denied anything...every individual has access to the law as it exists. It is up to the individual to decide to make use of the law.

Keep on trying though...

Wow...not sure about anyone else, I just had a Billy Madison moment after reading that response... ;)

The government has no business granting my wife and I legal advantage because we are heterosexual, married and have children. If two people of the same sex cannot enjoy the same familial and tax advantages, why should straight couples?

I believe in equal protection under the law.

The phrase "And Justice for all." is thrown around quite casually but it certainly fits here. Homosexuals are treated unjustly regarding marital status.

If marriage were a strictly religious institution, it would not be an issue.

Quote from: Clem1029 on May 06, 2010, 12:22:28 PM
...is there actually a "right" to get married?

The United States Supreme Court says there is:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

Quote from: finehoe on May 06, 2010, 12:47:15 PM

Quote from: Clem1029 on May 06, 2010, 12:22:28 PM
...is there actually a "right" to get married?

The United States Supreme Court says there is:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

Let me start off by saying that this is actually a point of evidence that contributes to the debate. Thank you.

Going on this route though, an individual has the right to get married, but that's only up to a point, right? The "Angelina Jolie" thing is a bit of an exaggerated illustration of this isn't it? Namely, my right to get married can be superseded by other rights or other laws (her right not to marry me, her right to be married to her husband, and a law that says Brad Pitt and I both can't be married to her). So while the right may exist, the right to be married obviously has restrictions. So the first question is - are folks arguing that this right should have no restrictions whatsoever, or that restrictions on the right are ok, we just need to adjust them a little bit?

Second, as I pointed out before, the law doesn't prevent anyone from getting married. The context of the law is that "any one man can be married to any one woman." The law doesn't say "any one man except lefthanders..." or something like that. The law is equally open and accessible to every individual. No right is denied by the law. That an individual chooses not to partake in the law doesn't mean the law is denying a right.

Quote from: buckethead on May 06, 2010, 12:41:01 PM
The government has no business granting my wife and I legal advantage because we are heterosexual, married and have children. If to people of the same sex cannot enjoy the same familial and tax advantages, why should straigh couples.

I believe in equal protection under the law.

The phrase "And Justice for all." is thrown around quite casually but it certainly fits here. Homosexuals are treated unjustly regarding marital status.

If marriage were a strictly religious institution, it would not be an issue.

BH, that is my point exactly.  The state should not be involved in a religious institution at all, and should show NO preference in taxation or anyother responsibility or service.  It seems that this view makes me a bigot on this forum. 

Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2010, 12:58:34 PM
now, suddenly, you are an expert on 'context'?
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,2662.msg149220.html#msg149220

If you would argue with facts or well reasoned logic, instead of insults, you might actually communicate with someone.  Try it, really.

NN, I read your post as saying exactly that. I do not see it as bigoted.

A question for the board: Should bigotry be outlawed?

Another:

What are the differences among bigotry, racism and prejudice?

Quote from: buckethead on May 06, 2010, 01:06:02 PM
NN, I read your post as saying exactly that. I do not see it as bigoted.

A question for the board: Should bigotry be outlawed?

Another:

What are the differences among bigotry, racism and prejudice?

No.  Who gets to be the decision maker?

The differences, I feel, are rather simple.

The definition of bigotry has already been established in this thread.  Prejudice is pre-judging.  It's watching the news and hearing someone say "a young woman was raped tonight in Riverside" and saying "I bet it was blacks".  It's seeing someone speaking spanish at wal-mart and saying "I bet he's an illegal immigrant"...   If you are prejudiced you prejudge the actions and/or worth of another person based upon their group.
Racism is believing in the superiority of one race over another.  It is an asian believing that he is superior to a white simply because he is asian and the other person is white.

 a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race


a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims

preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

This could help.

I was pretty close, no?

That's why its frustrating when "racist" is thrown around all the time to describe what is, for the most part, prejudice and not racism.  Racism is a REALLY REALLY strong term.  Prejudice is bad, but it can be a result of ignorance.  Racism is the worst thing possible because you essentially believe God favors you above others simply because of the color of your skin.

We can make this easier.  What part of this offends you and I will remove it?

Unless you do not believe in God. Then you are simply a heathen... :)

Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2010, 01:09:08 PM
I do, notnow, all the time.  Unfortunately you have to be capable of doing the same thing in order to be able to notice it.

By the way, your post is a backhanded insult, it kind of defeats the sentiment that you are trying to express.

And in one post, here is Dare's approach to the forum - he can insult, mock, and offend whoever he likes, and nobody is allowed to call him on it.

To paraphrase Scott Van Pelt - "Useful post, that."

What is "bigoted" or not obviously depends on where you are standing.  

Old joke:  I stand firm on my principles.  You are stubborn.  He is a pig-headed fool."

I really, really don't like graffiti taggers. (Would consider thumb removal just punishment).  Does that make me "bigoted" against taggers?

Bigotry cannot have any objective definition as it is too emotionally loaded word.  It's an opinion.

Quote from: NotNow on May 05, 2010, 12:39:14 PM
Government should get out of the marriage business and quit subsidizing coupling of any kind. 

But the point is, it IS in the marriage business, and as long as it is, it needs to treat its homosexual and its heterosexual citizens the same.

This^

I am one who beleives the gubmint should retire from the marriage bidness.

^Again, I agree.

I certainly mean no offense, as I have stated repeatedly on this thread and others.  I'll be the first to admit that I have not "walked a mile in your shoes". 

Modified...under duress.  But I am allowed to express the above sentiment and I want to get that out, at least.

Quote from: NotNow on May 06, 2010, 01:01:46 PM

Quote from: buckethead on May 06, 2010, 12:41:01 PM
The government has no business granting my wife and I legal advantage because we are heterosexual, married and have children. If to people of the same sex cannot enjoy the same familial and tax advantages, why should straigh couples.

I believe in equal protection under the law.

The phrase "And Justice for all." is thrown around quite casually but it certainly fits here. Homosexuals are treated unjustly regarding marital status.

If marriage were a strictly religious institution, it would not be an issue.

BH, that is my point exactly.  The state should not be involved in a religious institution at all, and should show NO preference in taxation or anyother responsibility or service.  It seems that this view makes me a bigot on this forum.  

Marriage is not a "religious institution", it is a social union or legal contract between individuals.

Quote from: buckethead on May 06, 2010, 02:35:21 PM
I am one who beleives the gubmint should retire from the marriage bidness.

But until that happens, it needs to treat its homosexual and its heterosexual citizens the same.

Quote from: finehoe on May 06, 2010, 02:45:35 PM

Quote from: buckethead on May 06, 2010, 02:35:21 PM
I am one who beleives the gubmint should retire from the marriage bidness.

But until that happens, it needs to treat its homosexual and its heterosexual citizens the same.

We remain in agreement.

I think they are two separate and distinct concepts, Jagfan.  At least to me they are.  "Marriage" as I see it is a solemn vow I give to my wife and to God.  I feel that "marriage" is a three way covenant between herself, the Lord and me.  That is how I was raised in my faith.

What the government recognizes in that covenant I feel is a contract with certain specific legal benefits.

Given this rubric and being Christian, I have always felt discomfort with the idea of homosexuals getting "married" in a Church setting, based on Bible teachings.

I have no problem at all with a union between homosexuals receiving the same legal contractual benefits through the government that I do.

I think you share the feeling of most Americans, yet for some reason, polling shows a distinct disfavor for the concept of gay marriage.

This is where the law should overrule any public opinion polls. Equal protection under the law is the most important principle in our national existence.

I  honestly believe the word "marriage" probably stops a noticeable percentage in their tracks.  That's where it stops me.

If the question of whether or not to allow homosexual civil unions, receiving the same protections and benefits from a legal standpoint as a heterosexual marriage.... opposition would drop.  I don't know how much but I bet it would.

I think that we have found a point of agreement.  Many people are affected by the states preferential tax treatment, including gays and single persons.  The USG has no Constitutional authority to treat its citizens differently for any reason.   "Marriage" is a religious ceremony and should be rht responsibility of the church.  

Whew!  See what a little logical and reaasoned discussion will do?!?

Quote from: JagFan07 on May 06, 2010, 02:41:00 PM

Quote from: NotNow on May 06, 2010, 01:01:46 PM

Quote from: buckethead on May 06, 2010, 12:41:01 PM
The government has no business granting my wife and I legal advantage because we are heterosexual, married and have children. If to people of the same sex cannot enjoy the same familial and tax advantages, why should straigh couples.

I believe in equal protection under the law.

The phrase "And Justice for all." is thrown around quite casually but it certainly fits here. Homosexuals are treated unjustly regarding marital status.

If marriage were a strictly religious institution, it would not be an issue.

BH, that is my point exactly.  The state should not be involved in a religious institution at all, and should show NO preference in taxation or anyother responsibility or service.  It seems that this view makes me a bigot on this forum. 

Marriage is not a "religious institution", it is a social union or legal contract between individuals.

You are right, but that should change.  A legal contract should be just that.  The entire "marriage/divorce" system has been so fouled up we need to fix it now.  Get the state out of the business and if people want to make social contracts let them do it civilly, as they would any other legal agreement.

And finehoe, you are also right, in that the current situation is unfair and in my opinion Unconstitutional.  Let's change it. 

Oh, and people still have a right to disagree with me, or anyone else without being called a "bigot".

:)

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on May 06, 2010, 02:52:34 PM
I think they are two separate and distinct concepts, Jagfan.  At least to me they are.  "Marriage" as I see it is a solemn vow I give to my wife and to God.  I feel that "marriage" is a three way covenant between herself, the Lord and me.  That is how I was raised in my faith.

What the government recognizes in that covenant I feel is a contract with certain specific legal benefits.

Given this rubric and being Christian, I have always felt discomfort with the idea of homosexuals getting "married" in a Church setting, based on Bible teachings.

I have no problem at all with a union between homosexuals receiving the same legal contractual benefits through the government that I do.

We are in complete agreement then. The church should follow its own doctrines on what it recognizes as marriage and the government should follow its laws in recognizing the union. 2 men or 2 women getting married has no affect on the validity of my marriage, and I see no issue with it. As Chris Rock said "Gay people got a right to be as miserable as everybody else."

Who do you mean by "you guys"?

Sooooo, is that your point in this discussion?   Everyone else is a bigot?  Really?

Using the most liberal definition of the word, yes.

(Not liberal as in left/right)

Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2010, 03:13:53 PM

Quote from: NotNow on May 06, 2010, 03:12:53 PM
Oh, and people still have a right to disagree with me, or anyone else without being called a "bigot".

:)

True.  Its the people that agree with you that get called 'bigots'.

It appears to me that only those that agree completely with you are not "bigots" in your world.   Hmmm

Quote from: buckethead on May 06, 2010, 03:17:02 PM
Using the most liberal definition of the word, yes.

(Not liberal as in left/right)

LOL....?  I'm confused what this refers to.

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;

Quote from: NotNow on May 06, 2010, 03:17:13 PM

Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2010, 03:13:53 PM

Quote from: NotNow on May 06, 2010, 03:12:53 PM
Oh, and people still have a right to disagree with me, or anyone else without being called a "bigot".

:)

True.  Its the people that agree with you that get called 'bigots'.

It appears to me that only those that agree completely with you are not "bigots" in your world.   Hmmm

*sirens go off* And we have our winner!

Tell him what he's won Alex!

You get to be insulted, mocked, put down, and verbally abused by StephenDare! with no recourse whatsover!! Way to go!

;)

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on May 06, 2010, 03:19:27 PM

Quote from: buckethead on May 06, 2010, 03:17:02 PM
Using the most liberal definition of the word, yes.

(Not liberal as in left/right)

LOL....?  I'm confused what this refers to.

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;

We are all devoted, to some degree, to our own opinions. One must discern what would constitutue "obstinately" to really make the call according to this definition.
A liberal (<not strictly conforming to the stated definition) usage of the word could therefore cast all in a bigoted light.

Have you not read the thread?  We called for completely equal treatment of ALL citizens by the state.  We called for marriage to be handled by the churches.  Your church can marry you to  whoever you want.  If they won't, go to one that you philosophically agree with.  How is that wrong?

Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2010, 03:21:55 PM
all of which is so much worse than having some fundamentalist jack off explain his quaint theories about sinfulness, abortion murdering, and homosex!

(That of course, is only the prize for second place!)

What are you talking about?  Who is this?

I can see that there will not be any resolution with you.  Let's just disengage and agree that we disagree.

Quote from: NotNow on May 06, 2010, 03:17:13 PM

Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2010, 03:13:53 PM

Quote from: NotNow on May 06, 2010, 03:12:53 PM
Oh, and people still have a right to disagree with me, or anyone else without being called a "bigot".

:)

True.  Its the people that agree with you that get called 'bigots'.

It appears to me that only those that agree completely with you are not "bigots" in your world.   Hmmm

Nope, mine too.

And FWIW I made a decision after my first post in this thread to avoid this exact debate with you, because you're just not dealing with a full deck. I could get into logical comparisons and shred the fundamental basis of your religious beliefs in marriage as having to exclude homosexuals, and it doesn't matter. You're going to believe what you're going to believe anyway. Anybody who actually thinks this one out can't avoid the only logical conclusion. That's why people with your beliefs are completely unable to argue on this topic without resorting to vague biblical tripe. It just makes no sense.

But yeah, your beliefs are bigoted. Same arguments were used against blacks, jews, native americans, the irish, hell pretty much every other group of people on the planet at one time or another, and ironically enough, including christians at several points in history. Seems like you'd get the irony. Why exactly was Christ crucified by the Romans again? LMFAO. You people miss the entire point of your own !@#$%&* books.

Don't tell me what I do and don't get about my own religion, buddy.  I don't personally consider Biblical teachings to be "tripe".  Now I know you weren't personally addressing me in your comment but the comment is personally insulting to me.

Nothing in the Bible stands as a basis for the mistreatment or bigoted treatment of anyone.  Saying that the Bible was a legitimate basis for the mistreatment of Blacks, Jews, etc. is simply wrong. 

The Bible does not condone homosexuals entering into the sacrament of marriage.  I am sorry, it simply doesn't.  As I said earlier, I haven't any issue with homosexuals being able to enter civil unions and receive the same benefits, etc.

But don't pull out this "you people" business and act like a very clear tenet of the Christian faith regarding marriage can be brushed aside as only followed by those not dealing with a full deck.

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on May 06, 2010, 04:04:09 PM
Don't tell me what I do and don't get about my own religion, buddy.

STFU, seriously...

You're here telling others what they can and can't do with their own marriage, aren't you? Zero credibility.

Might want to take your own advice.

And, to be clear, I do not believe the Bible stands for mistrust, mistreatment or bigoted sentiments against homosexuals either.  I do believe the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, but to answer your question, Christ died on the cross to save us from our sins.  Everyone is sinful and homosexuals are no more sinful than I am as a heterosexual, but the Bible does call it a sin.  Thankfully everyone, gay or straight, has the ability to be reconciled to God through Jesus and we are all brothers and sisters in him.  We should treat each other as such, gay or straight.

No, Chris, I won't.  And why don't you guys try to stop and have one iota of objective thought about things instead of taking every single thing someone says as a personal assault against your belief system.

I haven't told you shit what you can do with your own "marriage".  I have said that I believe the Bible says you shouldn't be married in the Church.  I'm not the Pope and I'm not the pastor of a Church.  If you can find one that will perform homosexual marriages, fine, but I believe that to be contrary to the Bible.  I have stated repeatedly that I haven't any issue at all with homosexuals as individuals or homosexuals being able to enter what you would call "marriage".  I have only said that I believe the Bible does not stand for that union taking place in the eyes of the Church.

What I have said is perfectly logical, reasonable and entirely within line with Christian teachings.  You and Stephen have decided to tell me to STFU.  Why?  Because you think it's an attack against you or your beliefs and you get to play the victim card with one hand while pulling out the "outrage" card to play with the other.  And its total BS.  I don't know what kind of crap not now and the others have said in the past.  Maybe they have earned your mistrust about their motives.  

I have not.  And I reiterate, do not tell me what I do or don't understand about my religion.

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on May 06, 2010, 04:07:03 PM
And, to be clear, I do not believe the Bible stands for mistrust, mistreatment or bigoted sentiments against homosexuals either.  I do believe the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, but to answer your question, Christ died on the cross to save us from our sins.  Everyone is sinful and homosexuals are no more sinful than I am as a heterosexual, but the Bible does call it a sin.  Thankfully everyone, gay or straight, has the ability to be reconciled to God through Jesus and we are all brothers and sisters in him.  We should treat each other as such, gay or straight.

Yeah, screw the sunday school version and look at the actual facts as presented. Christ died on the cross because he challenged the religious beliefs of the Romans, which led to his execution for political convenience.

How the F can you people read that, and then find justification in that tale for turning around and treating others in the same fashion? If that's what you've taken away from it, you've missed the entire point.

Your point, Stephen?  Christ did not repeal the old laws but he did change the game.  You don't stone adulterers anymore, thanks to Christ.  So you can act like I am advocating for homosexuals to be stoned to death, but you would be wrong.  In fact, I haven't advocated for a damn thing yet.  All I have done is expressed my sincere displeasure with someone saying what I do and don't know about my own religion.

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on May 06, 2010, 04:11:54 PM
No, Chris, I won't.  And why don't you guys try to stop and have one iota of objective thought about things instead of taking every single thing someone says as a personal assault against your belief system.

I haven't told you shit what you can do with your own "marriage".  I have said that I believe the Bible says you shouldn't be married in the Church.  I'm not the Pope and I'm not the pastor of a Church.  If you can find one that will perform homosexual marriages, fine, but I believe that to be contrary to the Bible.  I have stated repeatedly that I haven't any issue at all with homosexuals as individuals or homosexuals being able to enter what you would call "marriage".  I have only said that I believe the Bible does not stand for that union taking place in the eyes of the Church.

What I have said is perfectly logical, reasonable and entirely within line with Christian teachings.  You and Stephen have decided to tell me to STFU.  Why?  Because you think it's an attack against you or your beliefs and you get to play the victim card with one hand while pulling out the "outrage" card to play with the other.  And its total BS.  I don't know what kind of crap not now and the others have said in the past.  Maybe they have earned your mistrust about their motives.  

I have not.  And I reiterate, do not tell me what I do or don't understand about my religion.

This is amateurish...

Really, people aren't stupid, the whole "If I accuse you of doing what I'm already doing before someone points out that I'm doing it, then I win" doesn't work. Never has, never will. Time for a new strategy.

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on May 06, 2010, 04:13:52 PM
Your point, Stephen?  Christ did not repeal the old laws but he did change the game.  You don't stone adulterers anymore, thanks to Christ.  So you can act like I am advocating for homosexuals to be stoned to death, but you would be wrong.  In fact, I haven't advocated for a damn thing yet.  All I have done is expressed my sincere displeasure with someone saying what I do and don't know about my own religion.

And all I've done is express my sincere displeasure with someone not knowing WTF the point of their own belief system is, but still seeing fit to foist it upon others nevertheless. So I guess that makes us even, according to your own standards, right?

What are you talking about?  As presented, Christ was put to death because the Jewish elders believed he had blasphemed and the Roman authority on three occasions attempted to decline, stating he did not believe Christ had done anything to deserve death.  He might have ultimately been killed by Pilate for "political convenience" but that isn't why Jesus was in hot water to begin with.

And, again, tell me in what fashion I have turned around the story of Christ's death to in some way make matters bad for you?  HOW!?  Read what I... not anybody else.. not someone I have never met who is nothing more than a screen name on a computer monitor to me.. read what I have said.

What part of any of it in any way condones mistreatment of anyone?

I am a little unsure how to answer.  I stated waaaayy back at the start that my personal belief is that you can marry, live with, screw, and make miserable anyone you wish.  I also stated my personal belief that "marriage" is a religious ceremony that should be handled in ones own church.  I then stated that the State, or government, should not show any preference to any citizen...straight, gay, black, white, married, single, whatever.  

I also stated that people have a right to their personal religious beliefs.  As long as they live within our laws.

I didn't mention my religious beliefs at all.  I don't see how you will "shred" them.  I don't see how this is "bigoted" and I don't see the reason for your (or StephenDare!'s) defensiveness.  If you have a problem with one of the three beliefs that I stated above, i would appreciate a reasoned response rather than the emotional outburst.

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on May 06, 2010, 04:17:20 PM
What are you talking about?  As presented, Christ was put to death because the Jewish elders believed he had blasphemed and the Roman authority on three occasions attempted to decline, stating he did not believe Christ had done anything to deserve death.  He might have ultimately been killed by Pilate for "political convenience" but that isn't why Jesus was in hot water to begin with.

And, again, tell me in what fashion I have turned around the story of Christ's death to in some way make matters bad for you?  HOW!?  Read what I... not anybody else.. not someone I have never met who is nothing more than a screen name on a computer monitor to me.. read what I have said.

What part of any of it in any way condones mistreatment of anyone?

You have simply restated my own summary to add in some completely unnecessary details, and then act like that somehow changes the conclusion. How is the conclusion of the story any different, or how are the reasons for that conclusion any different? They're not. Stop trying to go to B.S. fall-back argument #2 that always comes out in these debates, which is the "I know more about the bible, so I win" routine. Again, amateurish.

If you'd like to answer my question, then you're free to do that. Again, how exactly can you read the tale of a religion's founder being executed for challenging the religious beliefs reigning at the time, and then take away from that tale some imaginary authority to turn around and treat others in the same fashion? Really? You don't think you've missed the point?

This thread is getting hot!

Stephen, what makes it equal? Should churches of every denomination set aside their beliefs and marry gay couples to be truly fair?

Wow...this thing exploded entertainingly...

Go figure. It's not about rights. It's not about people. It's about hatred of religion, pure and simple. Glad that much got ironed out quickly.

Ah, the forces of tolerance at work again...

Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2010, 04:19:44 PM
Well, I guess by this reasoning, I must be an afro-mexican gay muslim female.

I don't get whats so hard to understand about 'equal' or 'human rights'.

Its fine if you guys are bigots.  really.  It doesnt bother me, although you do seem to be awfully thin skinned when it comes to having your own culture/gender/race/orientation questioned.

What the hell does that mean?  How is that a response in any intelligent way to my previous post?  Chris, you want to weigh in?  If you just can't hold it anymore, and you appear to condone StephenDare!'s behavior today, can you give some kind of answer in english?

Quote from: Shwaz on May 06, 2010, 04:24:53 PM
This thread is getting hot!

Stephen, what makes it equal? Should churches of every denomination set aside their beliefs and marry gay couples to be truly fair?

You can go to the courthouse, city hall, or any notary or justice of the peace to get married. And many do.

You don't need any church at all.

Marriage is a legal transferrence of rights, not just a ceremony. Denying rights to others based on nothing more than your personal religious beliefs is rather bigoted, not to mention ethically incorrect.

Alright, I give up.  The victim card has been played and it won't be taken off the table.  The blanket assertion of "you people", which of course means all Christians not having any idea what their own religion teaches is totally cool.  My taking umbrage with it somehow means that I am some detestable person attempting to persecute all homosexuals simply for being homosexual.  Nevermind the things I have actually said.. I am damning the whole lot of you just for defending my own personal faith. 

I swear I used to read some of these threads and look at people talk about how they had given up trying to deal with you guys when you get this way and were leaving the board altogether and think "how silly", but I see where they were coming from now.  One cannot say anything that is not a regurgitation of your own philosophy without somehow making a person attack on you and your lifestyle or beliefs.  It's totally bogus, at least concerning me.  But once you decree that I clearly have hate in my heart its now an accepted and irrefutable fact.  Judge, Jury and Moral Executioner you are.  That's fine but I now agree it is entirely pointless to try to discuss.

It's simply quite absurd that you get to make blanket assertions that a Christian- who means you no ill will and has said over and over again in the last couple hours that you should be allowed to enter into a civil marriage with all the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual- doesn't know what the hell he's talking about regarding his own faith.  Then when that person gets upset at that statement, simply attempt to paint him as an intolerant ass who further doesn't understand his faith, because Jesus didn't like intolerant asses, and then when I call you on how simply absurd that series of events is.. you tell me that I was doing it to you first. 

Amazing and impossible to reason with and now I have finally learned better than to try. 

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 06, 2010, 04:28:32 PM

Quote from: Shwaz on May 06, 2010, 04:24:53 PM
This thread is getting hot!

Stephen, what makes it equal? Should churches of every denomination set aside their beliefs and marry gay couples to be truly fair?

You can go to the courthouse, city hall, or any notary or justice of the peace to get married. And many do.

You don't need any church at all.

Marriage is a legal transferrence of rights, not just a ceremony. Denying rights to others based on nothing more than your personal religious beliefs is rather bigoted, not to mention ethically incorrect.

And that's what both Trip & NN have stated over & over & over that they have no problem with that... even in a church that will perform a gay marriage. I think the only thing they are against is mandating all churches to perform a gay marriage ceremony.

Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2010, 04:30:04 PM
absolutely not.  It would be my personal hope that their congregations and scholars come to the right conclusions, but people have the right to believe and divide themselves into groups if they wish.

I would also think that since Fundamentalists, Catholics and Evangelicals seem to be primarily created to serve as employment agencies for gay men, that they would allow them to marry each other instead of condemning their entire work force to randomly groping children.

It sounds like you have more issues with the church than the counter opinions offered in this thread.

Quote from: Clem1029 on May 06, 2010, 04:27:35 PM
Wow...this thing exploded entertainingly...

Go figure. It's not about rights. It's not about people. It's about hatred of religion, pure and simple. Glad that much got ironed out quickly.

Ah, the forces of tolerance at work again...

Actually it's about religious groups' hatred of others, not vice versa.

Again, the whole "If I accuse you of doing what I'm already doing before you have a chance to point out I'm doing it, then I'm off the hook" thing doesn't work. Seriously, you guys need a new strategy, this is getting to be a one-trick pony...

I think that we can all agree that "groping children" is a crime, can we not?  And rather than discussing the sexual activities of what I hope are just a few Priests how about a reasoned answer to the three beliefs that I posted earlier...Chris.  That post was directed at you, since you felt the need to call me a bigot as well as the resident name caller.

Quote from: Shwaz on May 06, 2010, 04:34:12 PM
I think the only thing they are against is mandating all churches to perform a gay marriage ceremony.

And since nobody anywhere has ever proposed that, what is the issue here?

Quote from: finehoe on May 06, 2010, 05:04:08 PM

Quote from: Shwaz on May 06, 2010, 04:34:12 PM
I think the only thing they are against is mandating all churches to perform a gay marriage ceremony.

And since nobody anywhere has ever proposed that, what is the issue here?

Distraction is always "Plan B" in these arguments. Don't take the bait. That isn't the issue, and never was.

Quote from: Shwaz on May 06, 2010, 04:24:53 PM
This thread is getting hot!

Stephen, what makes it equal? Should churches of every denomination set aside their beliefs and marry gay couples to be truly fair?

Some people don't seem to understand the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage.  We are all citizens.  Only some of us follow certain faiths.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 06, 2010, 05:05:00 PM

Quote from: finehoe on May 06, 2010, 05:04:08 PM

Quote from: Shwaz on May 06, 2010, 04:34:12 PM
I think the only thing they are against is mandating all churches to perform a gay marriage ceremony.

And since nobody anywhere has ever proposed that, what is the issue here?

Distraction is always "Plan B" in these arguments. Don't take the bait. That isn't the issue, and never was.

Yeah, no one ever even implied that, right?

Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2010, 03:28:59 PM

Quote from: NotNow on May 06, 2010, 03:24:06 PM
Have you not read the thread?  We called for completely equal treatment of ALL citizens by the state.  We called for marriage to be handled by the churches.  Your church can marry you to  whoever you want.  If they won't, go to one that you philosophically agree with.  How is that wrong?

because it doesnt exist.

When slaves had the 'right' to 'breed', it wasnt the same thing as having family rights you know.  But its pointless to argue with you, I think.. It seems like the only thing you are interested in doing is figuring out a way to still feel the same way but not be criticised for it.

Who's distracting who?

It'd be so much more interesting debating with y'all if you were actually honest about your tactics and dropped the projection.

Quote from: Clem1029 on May 06, 2010, 05:09:09 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 06, 2010, 05:05:00 PM

Quote from: finehoe on May 06, 2010, 05:04:08 PM

Quote from: Shwaz on May 06, 2010, 04:34:12 PM
I think the only thing they are against is mandating all churches to perform a gay marriage ceremony.

And since nobody anywhere has ever proposed that, what is the issue here?

Distraction is always "Plan B" in these arguments. Don't take the bait. That isn't the issue, and never was.

Yeah, no one ever even implied that, right?

Quote from: stephendare on May 06, 2010, 03:28:59 PM

Quote from: NotNow on May 06, 2010, 03:24:06 PM
Have you not read the thread?  We called for completely equal treatment of ALL citizens by the state.  We called for marriage to be handled by the churches.  Your church can marry you to  whoever you want.  If they won't, go to one that you philosophically agree with.  How is that wrong?

because it doesnt exist.

When slaves had the 'right' to 'breed', it wasnt the same thing as having family rights you know.  But its pointless to argue with you, I think.. It seems like the only thing you are interested in doing is figuring out a way to still feel the same way but not be criticised for it.

Who's distracting who?

It'd be so much more interesting debating with y'all if you were actually honest about your tactics and dropped the projection.

We're honest. It's hardly our fault you keep dodging the only real question that's been asked.

Instead, you create arguments where there are none. Smoke & mirrors.

And Clem, just so there's no misunderstanding, I never wuss out of a debate. But it's time for me to head out to go do some (much more fun) things that you'd no doubt have be illegal if you had your way. I'll spare you the details.

Chat at you people later.

I am just amazed.  Thank God I know normal gay people or I would be really scared that this represented a common point of view.  It has been since high school since I have seen so many people that thought sixteen letter words and BS made a valid argument.

Quote from: NotNow on May 06, 2010, 06:22:38 PM
Thank God I know normal gay people or I would be really scared that this represented a common point of view. 

What makes you think any of us are gay?  I've never stated my sexual orientation on MJ.

What makes you think I was talking about you?

Oh, my goodness! Leave the room for a minute and it looks like a hurricane hit!


YOU KIDS GET THIS PLACE CLEANED UP!

So can a rainbow licking homotesticle be a christan? ;D

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on May 06, 2010, 04:30:41 PM
Alright, I give up.  The victim card has been played and it won't be taken off the table.  The blanket assertion of "you people", which of course means all Christians not having any idea what their own religion teaches is totally cool.  My taking umbrage with it somehow means that I am some detestable person attempting to persecute all homosexuals simply for being homosexual.  Nevermind the things I have actually said.. I am damning the whole lot of you just for defending my own personal faith. 

I swear I used to read some of these threads and look at people talk about how they had given up trying to deal with you guys when you get this way and were leaving the board altogether and think "how silly", but I see where they were coming from now.  One cannot say anything that is not a regurgitation of your own philosophy without somehow making a person attack on you and your lifestyle or beliefs.  It's totally bogus, at least concerning me.  But once you decree that I clearly have hate in my heart its now an accepted and irrefutable fact.  Judge, Jury and Moral Executioner you are.  That's fine but I now agree it is entirely pointless to try to discuss.

It's simply quite absurd that you get to make blanket assertions that a Christian- who means you no ill will and has said over and over again in the last couple hours that you should be allowed to enter into a civil marriage with all the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual- doesn't know what the hell he's talking about regarding his own faith.  Then when that person gets upset at that statement, simply attempt to paint him as an intolerant ass who further doesn't understand his faith, because Jesus didn't like intolerant asses, and then when I call you on how simply absurd that series of events is.. you tell me that I was doing it to you first. 

Amazing and impossible to reason with and now I have finally learned better than to try. 

Welcome to the club!

I think a church should be able to deny anyone anything it wants to.  However if their is a church willing to marry gay people than they should be able to do that as well, and gay couples should have the exact same legal rights as straight couples. 

I am however, under the impression that fighting to be part of a system of intolerance is sort of silly.  If established religion does not want homosexuals, why are they so desperate to be involved at all.  The bible says every manner of horrible thing against them so what exactly are you fighting for and what does the government have to do with it?  I guess I am in the civil unions camp but for different reasons, more like, why bother?

Defending bigotry makes you a bigot as well NN, deny it because it doesn't feel good to be called that but it is what you are. 

I do not think bigotry should be outlawed, thoughts are ok, however crazy they seem, its the action that is the problem. 

The actions being discrimination?

At what point should individuals, private groups and orginizations be lawfully permitted to discriminate?

Should a church be allowed to be exclusively black (African american, if you prefer)? (My answer: yes)

Should an private business be allowed to refuse to hire Christians? (My answer: yes)

Should an individual business owner be allowed to refuse to serve gays? (My answer... you guessed it... yes)

Should the government (legislatively or departmentally) be allowed the same the same leway? (my answer: No)

Quote from: buckethead on May 07, 2010, 08:01:09 AM
The actions being discrimination?

At what point should individuals, private groups and orginizations be lawfully permitted to discriminate?

Should a church be allowed to be exclusively black (African american, if you prefer)? (My answer: yes)

Should an private business be allowed to refuse to hire Christians? (My answer: yes)

Should an individual business owner be allowed to refuse to serve gays? (My answer... you guessed it... yes)

Should the government (legislatively or departmentally) be allowed the same the same leway? (my answer: No)

Maybe its nothing but you did not capitalize American behind African, just curious if that was intentional?

I am on the fence about this because I think government forcing inclusion has resulted in exponential increases in tolerance for some people.  I dont know, its just not all that black and white because of the history of intolerance in the US.

The lower case a was unintentional and of no significance.

People should always remain free to choose association for themselves.

As for Christians who believe homsexuality is a sin, it's kinda what the instruction manual says.

One could argue that biology suggests homosexuality is not a natural behavior, but a quick scan of animal behavior, as well as an honest assessment of biological variance (in horomone levels, for instance) says otherwise. That said, if the instruction manual says it's wrong; then those wishing to assemble the final product illustrated in the manual should comply.

Quote from: buckethead on May 07, 2010, 08:56:54 AM
The lower case a was unintentional and of no significance.

People should always remain free to choose association for themselves.

As for Christians who believe homsexuality is a sin, it's kinda what the instruction manual says.

One could argue that biology suggests homosexuality is not a natural behavior, but a quick scan of animal behavior, as well as an honest assessment of biological variance (in horomone levels, for instance) says otherwise. That said, if the instruction manual says it's wrong; then those wishing to assemble the final product illustrated in the manual should comply.

Yeah, I am not disagreeing with you, at least not yet.

I am not sure I am going to articulate this point very well so please give me some leeway before you attempt to thrash me :)

Religious leaders have extraordinary power over their followers, we have seen this in multiple instances from suicide bombings, suicide pacts, assassinations and other destructive behaviors.  Now I realize that not every religious person is capable of carrying out these acts and would argue there are only a special few who would, however, I believe that the they the propensity to act in such destructive ways comes from the same place as the tendency toward being bigoted against certain groups.  I think it is simply fear that makes people behave this way, fear of going to hell, fear of being an outcast, fear of being a pariah, fear of loss of love, whatever, its about fear plain and simple.  And in my humble opinion, when someone is acting on fear they are being irrational.  People place their religion in a neat little box inside their head where it is compartmentalized from their rational thoughts, they protect is and nurture it.  I dont mean to make this sound like an anti religious rant but I have a problem with people using the mind control of religion to make people hate!  I also think that religions can be particularly destructive because their politics, or messages of hate can easily flow into the workplace, or government.  There is evidence of this all the time!  Religions (First Baptist) are EXTREMELY powerful social networks and people will act according to doctrine while outside the workplace and this can be harmful to others.  To simplify, intolerance breeds intolerance!

^A reasonable stance.

Let's remember; these are the tactics used by almost all who wish to ascend to power.

Every great war, religious or otherwise, has been due to the very ills you ennumerate above. Cliques are no different. Even outcasts will form cliques that are exclusive.

Many religious leaders actually denounce such actions. Jesus Christ being one of those. (Jesus was a radical)

Me: antisocial (but amiable).

Are Jesse Jackson and 65% of African Americans bigots?

http://www.villagevoice.com/2004-05-18/news/whose-dream/1 (http://www.villagevoice.com/2004-05-18/news/whose-dream/1)

Quote
Whose Dream?
Why the black church opposes gay marriage
By Keith Boykin Tuesday, May 18 2004

Maybe it was destiny. As the nation commemorated the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision on May 17, gays and lesbians launched a new chapter in their own struggle for equality. But the black clergy that lit the fire for change half a century ago is now out to dampen that flame, at least where same-sex marriage is concerned.
Reverend Peter Gomes attributes black social conservatism to assimilation

"If the KKK opposes gay marriage, I would ride with them," Reverend Gregory Daniels, a black minister from Chicago, announced from the pulpit in February. A few eyebrows were raised, mostly in the gay community, but that reaction was overshadowed by the disappointment with a much more prominent Chicago minister, Reverend Jesse Jackson. In a speech at Harvard Law School in February, Jackson spoke out against same-sex marriage and rejected comparisons between the civil rights and gay rights movements. "Gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution," he said, and "they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote."

Was this the Jesse Jackson I thought I knew? I first met him in 1984 when he brought his Rainbow Coalition to my college campus for a presidential campaign that openly included gays and lesbians. I was with him again in the 1990s at Harvard Law School, when he came to lend his support to our movement for faculty diversity. I traveled with him to Zimbabwe in 1997 to speak up for gays and lesbians in that country. All along I had assumed that he supported full civil rights for us, but apparently I was wrong.

In my lifetime, African Americans were denied the right to marry white people, and now we who are black dare to deny matrimonial rights to gay peopleâ€"people like me. In a recent poll, 65 percent of blacks opposed same-sex marriage, although other surveys have shown strong support for laws banning discrimination against gays. What offends most black people is the comparison between the gay-marriage struggle and the black struggle for civil rights.

In the past six months, dozens of black ministers across the country have spoken out against same-sex marriage. And despite the common liberal portrayal of these clergy as stooges of the white religious right, some of the ministers, like Jackson and Reverend Walter Fauntroy, who once represented Washington, D.C., in Congress, have long records fighting for progressive causes. Has the black church succumbed to the machinations of the white religious right? "I'm sure they're being co-opted, but they don't need a great deal of co-optation," says Reverend Peter Gomes, a black Baptist minister. "I think they come to the prejudice on their own."

Gomes attributes the black social conservatism to racial assimilation. "The African American religious community has spent so much time trying to prove to the white community that it is the same, that for all intents and purposes it shares many of the worst prejudices of the white community."

Gomes's perspective may be influenced by his identity: He's openly gay, and the chaplain at Harvard University. That's a very different constituency than he would find in a black church, and no doubt it's significant that support for same-sex marriage is strongest among black ministers who preach at white churches. There are notable exceptions to this rule, such as reverends Al Sharpton and Joseph Lowery. Support is also strong among secular black leaders such as Coretta Scott King, Carol Moseley Braun, and Julian Bond.

It's puzzling that the black church is so much more conservative on same-sex marriage than it is on other divisive issues such as abortion. The answer may lie in the invisibility of the black gay and lesbian community. While the black church embraces single mothers, drug addicts, and ex-cons, it does not embrace black homosexuals largely because they haven’t organized to make their presence felt. Instead, black gays and lesbians have been shamed and silenced into a kind of "don't ask, don’t tell" relationship with the church.

A few years ago I interviewed Reverend H. Beecher Hicks, pastor of a popular black church in Washington, D.C. Hicks strongly condemned homosexuality and told me that "those who seek to find a way to legitimize this particular lifestyle will meet with no success." But days later when I visited his church for Sunday service, I recognized a number of black gay men in the congregation. Some were members of the choir, others were ushers, and a few had even more prominent roles. I can't imagine how this church would survive without black gay men, and I can’t imagine that the homophobia would continue from the pulpit if they spoke up against it.

But they don't speak up. Far too many black gays and lesbians maintain a truce with the church that allows them to serve quietly, and this conspiracy of silence enables the church to remain simultaneously the most homophobic institution in the black community and the most homo-tolerant. While black gays and lesbians have been sidelined, the white gay community has been caught off guard. As conservatives wisely used black ministers to speak against same-sex marriage, the gay community put out images of white couples and put white spokespeople forward, thereby creating the perception that this is an issue for white folks trying to cash in on the black struggle.

It seems obvious that black messengers are more effective than whites in communicating with black audiences. Maybe that, too, is one of the lessons of the Brown case. Despite all the progress toward integration, black people still don't trust white people, even those who suffer from discrimination themselves. Beneath the surface of racial tolerance, we're still a country divided by skin colorâ€"and certainly the gay community is divided by race.

Given their unique role straddling two worlds, black gays and lesbians may hold the key to unlocking the door of homo-tolerance in the black community. "I think the black community is going to become more accepting, more tolerant," Julian Bond predicts. "I can't place a timetable on it, but I'll tell you one thing: It depends on the degree to which black gays and lesbians begin to stand up in their churches, in their organizations, and say, 'This is me you're talking about.' That's a powerful, powerful message."
Reverend Peter Gomes attributes black social conservatism to assimilation


Keith Boykin is president of the National Black Justice Coalition, which works to build alliances between blacks and gays on the issue of marriage equality.

QuoteIs there a sour grapes club for people who start cryin' when it turns out that their absurd statements dont do so well under light of day?

Not at all.  The name calling and labeling people racist, homophobe, bigots, nazi, fascist, socialist, communist is so automatic and predictable it is not worth having a discussion about these sensitive subjects.  It certainly is a reflection of political discourse in this country from both the left and right.  It has infiltrated nearly all aspects of discussion making formerly reasonable people seemingly unreasonable.  Us vs them... we are right... they are wrong...

Meh... enjoy... :)

Quote from: buckethead on May 07, 2010, 08:56:54 AM
As for Christians who believe homsexuality is a sin, it's kinda what the instruction manual says.

This is the whole problem I have with it.  Yes, the "instruction manual" says gay sex is a no-no, but it also says lots of things fall into that category, like wearing clothes with mixed fabrics, eating various food stuffs, etc.  Plenty of "Christians" acknowledge these other prohibitions are outdated, so why do they fixate on the gay part?  Similarly, their instruction manual rails against divorce much more than it does about homosexuality, yet there is no effort to make divorce illegal in the secular world like there is against gay marriage.  Why the disconnect?  And yes, the answer seems to be bigotry.

Humans are fallible, anything humans make is thus, fallible. Humans wrote the bible. Thus the bible is fallible.

Lets not forget that in teh way back when the bible was a means of power, such as the catlickers church priests making you pay to get into heaven in alot of points in the bible. Who also would excommunicate you if you thought the earth was anything but flat, or if you believed in science. If you believed in anything that the people who were running around yelling do this not this cause its in a book, then you are wrong and going to hell and are sinning and are bad and deserve aids and all that other bs. Its always been that way.

The bible Nay RELIGION has always been the strongest form of control in the history of man. What is stronger then scaring someone into thinking if you do this, you will burn and be tormented for all eternity unless you listen to me because god spoke to me, and if you don't believe me that's fine have fun in hell. Uh nothing.

I am not saying there isn't a big giant spaghetti monster up in the heavens watching over us. I am saying that the history of man proves that you cant take the bible word from word.

Quote from: JC on May 07, 2010, 07:52:20 AM
Defending bigotry makes you a bigot as well NN, deny it because it doesn't feel good to be called that but it is what you are.

I do not think bigotry should be outlawed, thoughts are ok, however crazy they seem, its the action that is the problem.

You forgot to add IMO at the end of that.  The people that I am defending also have their opinion.  I am aware of the argument that the homosexual rights movement is exactly the same as the civil rights movement but I am also aware that there are many who do not believe that this is so.  Of course, you still get to call me any names you want to.

As for the second part of your post, I believe that is exactly what I was arguing.

Deep love hu?
Gay

It's easy to throw names around.  The real truth is that what you think is a settled issue is not in many people's eyes.  I will stand on my statement that your opponents should not be shouted down, and that they have a right to their opinion.  An honest appraisal of the view of others will ALWAYS result in a better outcome.

A conversation assumes no name calling or derisiveness.  It allows both sides to speak without censorship.  And I would point out that this has been the point of my posts in this thread all along, so I suppose I should welcome you.

Quote from: NotNow on May 07, 2010, 11:18:05 AM

Quote from: JC on May 07, 2010, 07:52:20 AM
Defending bigotry makes you a bigot as well NN, deny it because it doesn't feel good to be called that but it is what you are.

I do not think bigotry should be outlawed, thoughts are ok, however crazy they seem, its the action that is the problem.

You forgot to add IMO at the end of that.  The people that I am defending also have their opinion.  I am aware of the argument that the homosexual rights movement is exactly the same as the civil rights movement but I am also aware that there are many who do not believe that this is so.  Of course, you still get to call me any names you want to.

As for the second part of your post, I believe that is exactly what I was arguing.

We are sort of making the same argument.  I am saying Christians who work against homosexuals having equal rights are bigots while defending their right to be bigots.  That does not mean if I am talking to someone and they make some bigoted comment that I wont call them a bigot and tell them to stfu, that their opinion is meaningless because its based on some 2000 year old superstitious fiction.  Now, you are right to call me intolerant because when someone works to deny another human being the same rights they require, I become very damned intolerant!

You are saying because their religious doctrine requires them to be a bigot that they are not bigots, LOL. 

Quote from: JC on May 07, 2010, 11:15:33 PM

Quote from: NotNow on May 07, 2010, 11:18:05 AM

Quote from: JC on May 07, 2010, 07:52:20 AM
Defending bigotry makes you a bigot as well NN, deny it because it doesn't feel good to be called that but it is what you are.

I do not think bigotry should be outlawed, thoughts are ok, however crazy they seem, its the action that is the problem.

You forgot to add IMO at the end of that.  The people that I am defending also have their opinion.  I am aware of the argument that the homosexual rights movement is exactly the same as the civil rights movement but I am also aware that there are many who do not believe that this is so.  Of course, you still get to call me any names you want to.

As for the second part of your post, I believe that is exactly what I was arguing.

We are sort of making the same argument.  I am saying Christians who work against homosexuals having equal rights are bigots while defending their right to be bigots.  That does not mean if I am talking to someone and they make some bigoted comment that I wont call them a bigot and tell them to stfu, that their opinion is meaningless because its based on some 2000 year old superstitious fiction.  Now, you are right to call me intolerant because when someone works to deny another human being the same rights they require, I become very damned intolerant!

You are saying because their religious doctrine requires them to be a bigot that they are not bigots, LOL. 

You really don't hear yourself?  Are you really so wrapped up in your own world?  For many, their religion IS life.  It is their reason for being and their love of their God is as strong as any love you have ever felt.  Then they are faced with someone who practices what their religious institution teaches is a sin.  The religious institution classifies many things as a "sin".  Most for a very good reason, some are not so clear.  But they are face with this person who is arguing that he or she has an "equal right" to participate in what to most of the world's religions is a sacred sacrement, marriage.  Then the man or woman demanding to participate insults what they call the two thousand year old superstitious fiction that is the entire basis of life to our religious person.  And you are surprised that they oppose you?  Really?  What makes you so sure that you are right?  Is it possible that five thousand years of human experience might carry some wisdom?  Ever been wrong before? 

Quote from: NotNow on May 07, 2010, 11:47:22 PM
You really don't hear yourself?  Are you really so wrapped up in your own world?

I understand the reality of bigotry, racism, intolerance, I get it, I just will not offer any exemptions for it!  And yes, I hear myself loud and clear!

QuoteFor many, their religion IS life.  It is their reason for being

That's cool, they are free to believe as they see fit, and I have no beef with religion until its believers tell others how to live, you do understand that dont you?

Quoteand their love of their God is as strong as any love you have ever felt.

You have gone to far here and I am inclined to tell you what you can go do.  You have no idea about who I am and have zero idea about the feelings outside your own body and mind so please, spare me your analysis of me!

QuoteThen they are faced with someone who practices what their religious institution teaches is a sin.  The religious institution classifies many things as a "sin".

They either need to hole up or understand that people live differently than they do.  Homosexuals are not trying to force anyone to be gay or denying anyone anything.

QuoteMost for a very good reason, some are not so clear.  But they are face with this person who is arguing that he or she has an "equal right" to participate in what to most of the world's religions is a sacred sacrement, marriage.

Please give me some good reasons, I want to hear them.

QuoteThen the man or woman demanding to participate insults what they call the two thousand year old superstitious fiction that is the entire basis of life to our religious person.  And you are surprised that they oppose you?  Really?

If someone is going to use their religion as justification for their bigotry they are going to get their feelings hurt by me and I will do it with zero concern for, well anything.  It is not my responsibility to baby someone through their evolution of tolerance, you can do that.

QuoteWhat makes you so sure that you are right?  Is it possible that five thousand years of human experience might carry some wisdom?  Ever been wrong before?  

Ummm yeah, because I have been wrong about other things I should accept something that no one has any proof of outside their own head! "Better get right in case you are wrong" does not work on me.

Let me tell you about tolerance, every time someone says "God bless you" or "have a blessed day" I say thank you because I feel that person is showing me good will, like saying "namaste," "shalom," "A Salam Aalaikum."  I don't insult, I don't say shut up, I say thank you, even though by saying thank you I am giving in to the nuance.  I understand that religious people will be around long after I am gone, I realize that people I love are religious, as are people I am simply friends with.  I also realize that if people in my workplace knew about my lack of beliefs I would be treated unfairly, I would be looked down on and possibly become a pariah.  I get that my lack of beliefs is rarely held by others, but you, or anyone else will not use whatever "good" book you read from to restrict the rights of others! CAPICE?

Quote from: stephendare on May 08, 2010, 12:00:27 AM
Cant you make the exact same arguments about drug addiction, NN?

Your kidding, right?

JC, what I am trying to communicate to you is that others do not view the world as you do and they feel as strongly as you do about their own passions.  You take offense to easily IMHO.  For pages of posts and a couple of days now I have repeated that we should all be treated the same by the state, which is all any of us can ask for.  Yet the name calling and posturing continues against "religion" and against me for supporting folks right to hold a religious belief. 

I have not heard anyone here advocate restricting the "rights" of anyone.  Every poster (that I can recall) has advocated either civil union rights or (as I believe) the withdrawal of the State from subsidizing or advocating for any personal relationship or household type.  Yet in your advocacy you continue to posture.  Again, I feel that you might want to review your attitude and you might find that walls against communication are not built so fast and strong when threats and name calling are not involved.  Are you blind to the fact that no one here has called for any "restriction of rights" other than you?

You are the one who is the bigot at your work.  You are the one assuming that others are wrong.  From what you say, others are only offering you good will.  It is your fear of identifying yourself and your beliefs (or lack thereof) that is causing your consternation, not the actual acts of anyone else.  Try being honest about yourself and your opinions.  Others will not agree, just as we do not.  But if you are civil, and don't insult the beliefs of others, I think you will find that we all tolerate others differences. 

It seems to me that the only ones doing any "imposing" here are you guys.

Christianity's most sacred sacrament:

Galatians 5:14

QuoteFor all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

I dont know buckethead, I love myself a couple times a night I am not sure my neighbour could keep up.

 :-*

I love me some sportmotor!

True faith, in my opinion, comes from being secure in one's beliefs regardless of other's expressions of their respective faiths.  I appears that the fundamentalists are the ones who are afraid.  They fear being exposed to other religions because it may somehow diminish their own beliefs.  By keeping a monopoly on public expression of faith, they seem to believe that they will keep their own ranks strong.  For example, if a non-Christian gives a public prayer, it will lead to our young and impressionable citizens to explore other religions and - gasp - actually agree with them.  If we are truly secure in our faith, we would not mind others religions and faiths to be part of the public dialogue. 

Quote from: NotNow on May 08, 2010, 08:06:17 AM
JC, what I am trying to communicate to you is that others do not view the world as you do and they feel as strongly as you do about their own passions.  You take offense to easily IMHO.  For pages of posts and a couple of days now I have repeated that we should all be treated the same by the state, which is all any of us can ask for.  Yet the name calling and posturing continues against "religion" and against me for supporting folks right to hold a religious belief. 

My problem with your argument is that you use religion as an excuse for bigotry, I cant put it any simpler than that.

QuoteI have not heard anyone here advocate restricting the "rights" of anyone.  Every poster (that I can recall) has advocated either civil union rights or (as I believe) the withdrawal of the State from subsidizing or advocating for any personal relationship or household type.  Yet in your advocacy you continue to posture.  Again, I feel that you might want to review your attitude and you might find that walls against communication are not built so fast and strong when threats and name calling are not involved.  Are you blind to the fact that no one here has called for any "restriction of rights" other than you?

Again, my posturing is against your excuse making, (simpler).

QuoteYou are the one who is the bigot at your work.  You are the one assuming that others are wrong.  From what you say, others are only offering you good will.  It is your fear of identifying yourself and your beliefs (or lack thereof) that is causing your consternation, not the actual acts of anyone else.  Try being honest about yourself and your opinions.  Others will not agree, just as we do not.  But if you are civil, and don't insult the beliefs of others, I think you will find that we all tolerate others differences.

This is a joke right?

Quote"Discrimination
Main article: Discrimination against atheists

Legal and social discrimination against atheists in some places may lead some to deny or conceal their atheism due to fears of persecution. A 2006 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota involving a poll of 2,000 households in the United States found atheists to be the most distrusted of minorities, more so than Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians, and other groups. Many of the respondents associated atheism with immorality, including criminal behaviour, extreme materialism, and elitism.[3] However, the same study also reported that, “The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation--with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.”[3]" 

I have seen this happen, I have had co workers here in Jacksonville use beer and pancakes to lure me to church with them.  I have been questioned, doubted and told I am going to hell.  I would be a naive moron to think that attitude and club stops at the worker level and does not permeate upper levels of management.  So now, I presented a study and my own personal experience, this is just how it is and I accept it, at least at work.  Putting food on the table is far more important than being judged as "immoral, criminal, materialistic and elitist" although I will cop to being elitist at times.

QuoteIt seems to me that the only ones doing any "imposing" here are you guys.

Are you trying to make another joke here?  I am not trying to use the power of the state to restrict any ones bigotry, thoughts are fine, its the actions that I have a problem with.  It is Christian groups constantly trying to change laws based on their "moral" code, not the other way around!

Quote from: Jaxson on May 08, 2010, 09:09:01 AM
True faith, in my opinion, comes from being secure in one's beliefs regardless of other's expressions of their respective faiths.  I appears that the fundamentalists are the ones who are afraid.  They fear being exposed to other religions because it may somehow diminish their own beliefs.  By keeping a monopoly on public expression of faith, they seem to believe that they will keep their own ranks strong.  For example, if a non-Christian gives a public prayer, it will lead to our young and impressionable citizens to explore other religions and - gasp - actually agree with them.  If we are truly secure in our faith, we would not mind others religions and faiths to be part of the public dialogue. 

Yeah, I would love to see them open a session of congress with a dialogue by Richard Dawkins.  Very telling how you use "non-Christian" to describe people who are presumably not like you, it really says it all, as if being Christian were the default.

This 1990 letter to the NYT editor illustrates my point more clearly, just replace "white" with "Christian".

Quote
The Term 'Nonwhite' Has Racist Overtones
Published: April 1, 1990

    * Sign in to Recommend
    * Twitter
    * Sign In to E-Mail
    * Print

To the Editor:

I am not ''nonwhite''; nor are my friends of Bahamian, Cape Verdian, Colombian, Cuban, Dominican, Jamaican, Japanese, Korean, Panamanian, Puerto Rican or Trinidadian descent. I, a woman of African descent, an African-American if you will, would never be so presumptuous as to characterize ''whites'' as ''nonblack.''

''Whiteness'' is not the standard of humanity against which every other racial and ethnic population of the world should be measured. Using the term ''nonwhite'' promotes an ''us and them'' mentality, a subliminal separation of people into two groups, white and everyone else. Identity is not ''non'' anything. It is a positive self-affirmation, not a negative exclusionary basis of comparison.

It is ironic that I first became aware of the term ''nonwhite'' in your Feb. 17 report that the New York State public education system is finally incorporating contributions of various ethnic and racial groups into the history curriculum.

If writers are so desperate to save space or so fearful that they might leave out any specific group of people, let them refer to general geographic regions when describing those people, such as Africa, Asia, the Caribbean or Central America. It is not acceptable or appropriate to refer to the majority of the earth's population as nonwhite.

ALEAH BACQUIE

Roosevelt, L.I., March 14, 1990

Quote from: stephendare on May 08, 2010, 08:59:29 AM

Quote from: NotNow on May 08, 2010, 07:47:23 AM

Quote from: stephendare on May 08, 2010, 12:00:27 AM
Cant you make the exact same arguments about drug addiction, NN?

Your kidding, right?

no.  I'm not.  And If you are an Evangelical Christian, I definitely support your right to a Civil Union with your partner, notnow.  I just don't think you should be allowed to be married.  Marriage is too sacred, and according to the headlines, many of them cannot be trusted to keep its sacraments:  The ones who aren't actually homosexuals, like Haggard, Governor McCreavy, Dr Reker, are sex addicts like Mark Sanford, John Edwards and that little perv from Louisiana with the diaper fetish, David Vitter.  But I am definitely for allowing you guys to have Civil Unions.  That way you can live your lives the way you wish, and still be entititled to cohabit for as long as your relationships might last.

But considering the high incidency of child molestation involving Evangelicals and Catholic Priests, I think you should only be allowed to have children under special conditions, and tightly monitored in order to preserve the safety of the child.  Hopefully this will cut back on the number of abortions performed in the country as well, since the vast majority of women who seek them are self identified evangelicals or conservative catholics.  While many Christians are decent folks, the risk to children is just too great to let them be unprotected.

And of course, there is the matter of your employment.  If a group of normal people would like to have a completely normal workplace that doesnt involve workers talking to imaginary people or fantasizing about public executions and zombie miracles, then that is their right isnt it?  Its an act of bigotry to suggest that Evangelicals have the right to be employed.  No one has that right.  So I do not support Evangelicals having the right to force people to continue to employ them after their dangerous habits have been uncovered.  Im sorry, but considering the mass murders and the public executions of people like George Tiller and many others, employers shouldnt be forced to take those risks.

I have not heard anyone here advocate restricting the "rights" of anyone.  Every poster (that I can recall) has advocated either civil union rights or (as I believe) the withdrawal of the State from subsidizing or advocating for any personal relationship or household type.  Yet in your advocacy you continue to posture that Evangelicals would somehow be considered victims unless they had the right to traditional marriages.  Again, I feel that you might want to review your attitude and you might find that walls against communication are not built so fast and strong when threats and name calling are not involved.  Are you blind to the fact that no one here has called for any "restriction of rights" other than you?

And when it comes to Evangelicals in the workplace, You are the one who is the bigot at your work.  You are the one assuming that others are wrong.  From what you say, others are only offering you good will.  It is your fear of identifying yourself and your beliefs (or lack thereof) that is causing your consternation, not the actual acts of anyone else.  Try being honest about yourself and your opinions.  Others will not agree, just as we do not.  But if you are civil, and don't insult the beliefs of others, I think you will find that we all tolerate others differences.

I can't make sense of what your point is in this post.  I was assuming that your "drug addiction" comment was a response to what I said about JC's comments such as "2000 year old superstition".  For a guy who claims extensive exposure to the worlds religions as you do, to claim that a religious person is the equivalent of a drug addict doesn't make sense to me at all.  Either you do not understand the chemical and psychological effects of drug addiction, or you do not understand religion.  

As for your Evangelical speech...no, I am not an Evangelical Christian.  I am definitely not what I would hold up as a good example of a Christian, I just give it my best effort.  I am not real big on organized religions of any faith, but I realize that I am biased by my own life experiences.  I do have the opportunity to run across and interact with admirable Christians most days, and I am filled with respect for those that can adhere to their beliefs so well, in spite of the actions of others.  In my short experience, I have had the opportunity to meet and interact with persons of other faiths, who have also earned my respect  and admiration.  Having been given the opportunity to travel around the world, I have had a difficult time squaring my childhood training that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to God when I have met such wonderful people in areas of the world where the majority of the population is never exposed to Christianity.  It's funny that in most of those religions, they are taught that their particular faith is the ONLY way to God.  Of course, I have met awful people who claim membership in the various religions as well.  But I remain a Christian, under the watchful eye of Mrs. NotNow who is an example of Christian patience and forgiveness. I have my own ideas and questions of faith.  This subject is one of those questions.  My views on homosexuality have changed greatly over the years.  From my childhood with literally zero exposure to that world, to the military and then interactions with gay friends and family as well as professional exposure to homosexuality.  I have become quite tolerant (INHO) over the years and like most cops don't really care what people do in their private lives as long as it doesn't require me to come and separate them.  I feel the same empathy for most people that for whatever reason feel that they are alone, isolated, or condemned by the world.  I don't claim to know what it feels like to be black, gay, sixteen & pregnant, Christian in Pakistan or Moslem in Ireland.  I do know there are always two sides in any dispute, and that they must be heard.  There are competing interests in this subject and I think that without some kind of communication and understanding it will remain unsettled.  Contrary to what those of you here seem to think, I really have no dog in this fight and my "give a shit" meter tends to waver towards E when people start pointing fingers at me and calling names.  Funny how I get the same reaction from some in sunday school when I offer up these same views.

Oh, and I agree with you about the TV preachers and the child molesting priests.  I know you would not agree with my solution for such actions.  But hypocrisy (did I spell that right?  Shh! I won't mention the misspellings in your previous post) is one of my pet peeves, as you know from the Al Gore thread and others.

Quote from: buckethead on May 08, 2010, 08:32:39 AM
:-*

I love me some sportmotor!

<3

JC, I understand that our difference is that you believe that religious objections to homosexuality or gay marriage is bigotry while I believe that they have a legitimate right to that belief without the power of the State to discriminate.  I believe the key is the portion of my argument "without the power of the State to discriminate".  But if you don't think that is enough, OK.  We just don't agree, that's all.

As for your interactions with others, yes, that will happen.  People are not required to like you.  I don't associate with a lot of people because of different personal behaviors that they have.  That is my right.  I know that it is hard to believe, but there are actually people who don't like me and don't associate with me for some reason!  Why, I don't get along with some of the big wigs where I work because of differing values and ideas, and I am also sure that will limit my advancement opportunities.  (At least as long as they are there.)  I went to Key West a while back and I was actually turned away at a hotel on Duval because I am not gay.  (Some kind of event)  I must admit I was shocked, but in the long run it was no big deal and we probably would not have enjoyed being around intolerance anyway.  

The point is that people will always discriminate in some ways.  One of the beautiful things about this country is that with just a little thick skin, you can go your own way.  

Quote from: Sportmotor on May 08, 2010, 08:26:12 AM
I dont know buckethead, I love myself a couple times a night I am not sure my neighbour could keep up.

Now there is an interesting marriage!

Quote from: NotNow on May 08, 2010, 10:47:24 AM
JC, I understand that our difference is that you believe that religious objections to homosexuality or gay marriage is bigotry while I believe that they have a legitimate right to that belief without the power of the State to discriminate.  I believe the key is the portion of my argument "without the power of the State to discriminate".  But if you don't think that is enough, OK.  We just don't agree, that's all.

Ok, this is the last time I will address this. 

a)  I am not arguing that the state should interfere in the superstitions of religion.  The mere suggestion that I am is a lie, nothing more.

b)  If you want to be a bigot it is your prerogative, however, by the same power, I can and will oppose your point of view as I see fit. 

c) You are using religion as an EXCUSE for bigotry, which is at the heart of the problem and by making excuses for it you are also being a bigot.

QuoteAs for your interactions with others, yes, that will happen.  People are not required to like you.  I don't associate with a lot of people because of different personal behaviors that they have.  That is my right.  I know that it is hard to believe, but there are actually people who don't like me and don't associate with me for some reason!  Why, I don't get along with some of the big wigs where I work because of differing values and ideas, and I am also sure that will limit my advancement opportunities.  (At least as long as they are there.)  I went to Key West a while back and I was actually turned away at a hotel on Duval because I am not gay.  (Some kind of event)  I must admit I was shocked, but in the long run it was no big deal and we probably would not have enjoyed being around intolerance anyway.

Who said anything about liking?  I am talking about systematic discrimination based on religion, or lack thereof.

QuoteThe point is that people will always discriminate in some ways.

So just accept it?  Its easy to say if you are part of, what I refer to as, the club. 
 

QuoteOne of the beautiful things about this country is that with just a little thick skin, you can go your own way.

Seriously, I dont need life lessons from you, I am getting along just fine!  You are making this personal and you know nothing about me. 

OK buddy!  I think we are done.  Have a good day.

If you poor lost people would just follow the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and repent...REPENT I SAY!

Quote from: Sportmotor on May 08, 2010, 11:36:49 AM
If you poor lost people would just follow the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and repent...REPENT I SAY!

Just don't shake hands in that church!

::)

Yea............with either hand!;)

Quote from: NotNow on May 08, 2010, 11:47:42 AM

Quote from: Sportmotor on May 08, 2010, 11:36:49 AM
If you poor lost people would just follow the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and repent...REPENT I SAY!

Just don't shake hands in that church!

::)

Dont be mad becuase my god has bigger balls then yours :D

NN,

You still have not covered those "very good" reasons.  I would love to hear them.

Quote from: JC on May 09, 2010, 01:44:59 AM
NN,

You still have not covered those "very good" reasons.  I would love to hear them.

What reasons are those? 

Quote from: stephendare on May 09, 2010, 01:41:50 AM
why not be honest.  when a post has been modified, there is a modified post notation at the bottom right of the posting.  you can link to my post yourself and see it has been unchanged.

Here is yours:

QuoteFor many, their religion IS life.  It is their reason for being and their love of their God is as strong as any love you have ever felt.  Then they are faced with someone who practices what their religious institution teaches is a sin.  The religious institution classifies many things as a "sin".  Most for a very good reason, some are not so clear.  But they are face with this person who is arguing that he or she has an "equal right" to participate in what to most of the world's religions is a sacred sacrement, marriage.  Then the man or woman demanding to participate insults what they call the two thousand year old superstitious fiction that is the entire basis of life to our religious person.

Please reread your words where you say "The religious institution classifies many things as a "sin".  Most for a very good reason, some are not so clear.  But they are face with this person who is arguing that he or she has an "equal right" to participate in what to most of the world's religions is a sacred sacrement, marriage."

Can you explain please, what were you thinking when you typed this?

Quote from: JC on May 09, 2010, 01:53:05 AM

Quote from: stephendare on May 09, 2010, 01:41:50 AM
why not be honest.  when a post has been modified, there is a modified post notation at the bottom right of the posting.  you can link to my post yourself and see it has been unchanged.

Here is yours:

QuoteFor many, their religion IS life.  It is their reason for being and their love of their God is as strong as any love you have ever felt.  Then they are faced with someone who practices what their religious institution teaches is a sin.  The religious institution classifies many things as a "sin".  Most for a very good reason, some are not so clear.  But they are face with this person who is arguing that he or she has an "equal right" to participate in what to most of the world's religions is a sacred sacrement, marriage.  Then the man or woman demanding to participate insults what they call the two thousand year old superstitious fiction that is the entire basis of life to our religious person.

Please reread your words where you say "The religious institution classifies many things as a "sin".  Most for a very good reason, some are not so clear.  But they are face with this person who is arguing that he or she has an "equal right" to participate in what to most of the world's religions is a sacred sacrement, marriage."

Can you explain please, what were you thinking when you typed this?

"Marriage" is a religious institution.  When you want to participate, you are partaking in a religious ceremony.  No one has a "right" to participate in any religious ceremony.  If the organization that represents that religion refused your participation, that is their right.

And, as I have stated over and over again, any discrimination in legal rights by the State is wrong and should be corrected.  I just think that ALL discrimination in this area should be done away with.

Quote from: Sportmotor on May 07, 2010, 11:03:35 AM
Humans are fallible, anything humans make is thus, fallible. Humans wrote the bible. Thus the bible is fallible.

Lets not forget that in teh way back when the bible was a means of power, such as the catlickers church priests making you pay to get into heaven in alot of points in the bible. Who also would excommunicate you if you thought the earth was anything but flat, or if you believed in science. If you believed in anything that the people who were running around yelling do this not this cause its in a book, then you are wrong and going to hell and are sinning and are bad and deserve aids and all that other bs. Its always been that way.

The bible Nay RELIGION has always been the strongest form of control in the history of man. What is stronger then scaring someone into thinking if you do this, you will burn and be tormented for all eternity unless you listen to me because god spoke to me, and if you don't believe me that's fine have fun in hell. Uh nothing.

That was an intelligent post and I totally agree with you. Now who are you and what did you do with Sportmotor?

The bible served its purpose back in the day, before uniform laws and the means to enforce them existed. But now everyone recognizes most of its do's/don't do's are completely ridiculous and outdated. Except the gay thing, these idiots argue. Christians sure seem to have no problem with divorce, given the 70%+ divorce rate, and a lot of them have no problem with adultery, as you can watch another one getting busted (usually in a gay scandal, ironically enough) on the news weekly.

And let's not forget that coveting your neighbor's ox or working on Sunday are both worse sins in the bible than homosexuality. Those are actual commandments, but you have to go and dig up some vague reference buried in leviticus before you get to the gay = sin language. If indeed that's even what the drafter's intent was. All of that stuff has been translated so many times in and out of different languages, and the originals lost, that we'll never know what the actual intent was.

So WTF? Why fixate on that one thing? Nobody follows the dietary prohibitions, which are also worse sins than homosexuality, according to the bible. Why? Not like we don't know the answer to that question = political and economic convenience. Give people a straw man to get fired up about and out come the checkbooks. Tell them they can't eat something, or have to stay married to someone they hate, and supply and demand takes its toll as they find another church.

Bu$iness at its finest.

Quote from: NotNow on May 09, 2010, 05:25:13 AM

Quote from: JC on May 09, 2010, 01:53:05 AM

Quote from: stephendare on May 09, 2010, 01:41:50 AM
why not be honest.  when a post has been modified, there is a modified post notation at the bottom right of the posting.  you can link to my post yourself and see it has been unchanged.

Here is yours:

QuoteFor many, their religion IS life.  It is their reason for being and their love of their God is as strong as any love you have ever felt.  Then they are faced with someone who practices what their religious institution teaches is a sin.  The religious institution classifies many things as a "sin".  Most for a very good reason, some are not so clear.  But they are face with this person who is arguing that he or she has an "equal right" to participate in what to most of the world's religions is a sacred sacrement, marriage.  Then the man or woman demanding to participate insults what they call the two thousand year old superstitious fiction that is the entire basis of life to our religious person.

Please reread your words where you say "The religious institution classifies many things as a "sin".  Most for a very good reason, some are not so clear.  But they are face with this person who is arguing that he or she has an "equal right" to participate in what to most of the world's religions is a sacred sacrement, marriage."

Can you explain please, what were you thinking when you typed this?

"Marriage" is a religious institution.  When you want to participate, you are partaking in a religious ceremony.  No one has a "right" to participate in any religious ceremony.  If the organization that represents that religion refused your participation, that is their right.

And, as I have stated over and over again, any discrimination in legal rights by the State is wrong and should be corrected.  I just think that ALL discrimination in this area should be done away with.

Really? Then why is it that you can get married at any city hall or courthouse then?

Any lawyer can marry you. Any notary public can marry you. It's a conveyance of rights. Where's the religion?

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 09, 2010, 12:21:46 PM

Quote from: Sportmotor on May 07, 2010, 11:03:35 AM
Humans are fallible, anything humans make is thus, fallible. Humans wrote the bible. Thus the bible is fallible.

Lets not forget that in teh way back when the bible was a means of power, such as the catlickers church priests making you pay to get into heaven in alot of points in the bible. Who also would excommunicate you if you thought the earth was anything but flat, or if you believed in science. If you believed in anything that the people who were running around yelling do this not this cause its in a book, then you are wrong and going to hell and are sinning and are bad and deserve aids and all that other bs. Its always been that way.

The bible Nay RELIGION has always been the strongest form of control in the history of man. What is stronger then scaring someone into thinking if you do this, you will burn and be tormented for all eternity unless you listen to me because god spoke to me, and if you don't believe me that's fine have fun in hell. Uh nothing.

That was an intelligent post and I totally agree with you. Now who are you and what did you do with Sportmotor?

I have my moments were I can take the time to post rather then troll for my amusement. ;D

Quote from: NotNow on May 09, 2010, 05:25:13 AM

Quote from: JC on May 09, 2010, 01:53:05 AM

Quote from: stephendare on May 09, 2010, 01:41:50 AM
why not be honest.  when a post has been modified, there is a modified post notation at the bottom right of the posting.  you can link to my post yourself and see it has been unchanged.

Here is yours:

QuoteFor many, their religion IS life.  It is their reason for being and their love of their God is as strong as any love you have ever felt.  Then they are faced with someone who practices what their religious institution teaches is a sin.  The religious institution classifies many things as a "sin".  Most for a very good reason, some are not so clear.  But they are face with this person who is arguing that he or she has an "equal right" to participate in what to most of the world's religions is a sacred sacrement, marriage.  Then the man or woman demanding to participate insults what they call the two thousand year old superstitious fiction that is the entire basis of life to our religious person.

Please reread your words where you say "The religious institution classifies many things as a "sin".  Most for a very good reason, some are not so clear.  But they are face with this person who is arguing that he or she has an "equal right" to participate in what to most of the world's religions is a sacred sacrement, marriage."

Can you explain please, what were you thinking when you typed this?

"Marriage" is a religious institution.  When you want to participate, you are partaking in a religious ceremony.  No one has a "right" to participate in any religious ceremony.  If the organization that represents that religion refused your participation, that is their right.

And, as I have stated over and over again, any discrimination in legal rights by the State is wrong and should be corrected.  I just think that ALL discrimination in this area should be done away with.

So let's ask this then. Have you ever been divorced?

And everyone else defending this outright bigotry, please answer that question as well. And these;

Ever eat pork? Ever work on Sunday? Ever say "goddamn" in your life? Ever tell a lie in your life?

My personal favorite is, of course, Exodus 20:17:

Quote
17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

So tell me then, do you condone slavery? Because a stronger case could be made that this language signals the bible's acceptance of slavery, than the language in leviticus signals its rejection of homosexuality. There seems to be some underlying acceptance of homosexuality in that passage, actually, doesn't there? Why say "male or female"? Why not just say "slave"? Hmm...

So answer the above questions. Each of these items is a worse sin in the bible than homosexuality, I know you've done at least a couple of them. So I guess I can look down on you now, fantastic!

Hey, one more, for all of you defending this, are you married? Are you female and do you sing in church? Does your wife?

Sin sin sin...

Quote from: stephendare on May 09, 2010, 11:02:46 AM
What is your point in this 'marriage is a religious ceremony' nonsense?

Before you came along or the first (communist) christians were getting tossed to lions in rome, male to male marriages were blessed by Zeus and Apollo.  Same sex marriages are celebrated in multiple religions and cultures.

For that matter, Caligula was religiously married to his horse.  And lets not forget the story of the Minotaur.

What on earth does your religious observation have to do with marriage in american culture or law?

Do you think that people who do not share the same religious faith should also be unable to get married and instead get 'civil unions'?

People of differing faiths get married in one church or the other, or both.  If you want to be blessed by Zeus or Apollo, or marry your horse, just find a church (or start one) and do it.  

I really don't see how we have gotten twelve pages of controversy out of this (other than the usual bickering nonsense).  Marriage is for churches.  Join any church you want or start your own.  Get government out of favoring ANY relationship or type of household.  Everyone, single, gay, black, white, even SERB, should be taxed equally and be equal under the law.  

Most of you have made it clear that you are atheist at least to a great degree.  My question back to you, Chris, is what do you care what a church says?  You already think it's all BS, yet you want to quote chapter and verse.  Why?  The majority in this country favors civil unions (I don't), and that could be easily passed into law.  Why hasn't it?  Because the homosexual political institutions want religious marriage?  And thus an argument over what almost to a man you all say is "magic" and "superstition".  Why are you so fixated on a belief that you do not share?

Single people suffer the same legal penalties as homosexuals.  So do polygamist.  So does anyone other than traditional heterosexual couples.  My understanding is that traditional family life is subsidized and encouraged by the state to ensure tranquility and children.  If we are choosing to leave that model then let's not pick and choose, but leave it fairly.

We have done away with many of the Biblical laws in civil life such as observance of the Sabbath.  News:  homosexuality and sodomy is no longer against the law (at least not enforced in any state I know of).  That is the right thing to do if we are to have a secular government.  

What do you want?  Do you want the Catholic church and other established religions to be forced to marry same sex couples by the force of law?  Is the agenda to force homosexuality into our institutions as we have seen with law suits against the Boy Scouts and such?  That is what you appear to be arguing for.  I am against that.

Quote from: NotNow on May 09, 2010, 01:43:05 PM

Quote from: stephendare on May 09, 2010, 11:02:46 AM
What is your point in this 'marriage is a religious ceremony' nonsense?

Before you came along or the first (communist) christians were getting tossed to lions in rome, male to male marriages were blessed by Zeus and Apollo.  Same sex marriages are celebrated in multiple religions and cultures.

For that matter, Caligula was religiously married to his horse.  And lets not forget the story of the Minotaur.

What on earth does your religious observation have to do with marriage in american culture or law?

Do you think that people who do not share the same religious faith should also be unable to get married and instead get 'civil unions'?

People of differing faiths get married in one church or the other, or both.  If you want to be blessed by Zeus or Apollo, or marry your horse, just find a church (or start one) and do it.  

I really don't see how we have gotten twelve pages of controversy out of this (other than the usual bickering nonsense).  Marriage is for churches.  Join any church you want or start your own.  Get government out of favoring ANY relationship or type of household.  Everyone, single, gay, black, white, even SERB, should be taxed equally and be equal under the law.  

Most of you have made it clear that you are atheist at least to a great degree.  My question back to you, Chris, is what do you care what a church says?  You already think it's all BS, yet you want to quote chapter and verse.  Why?  The majority in this country favors civil unions (I don't), and that could be easily passed into law.  Why hasn't it?  Because the homosexual political institutions want religious marriage?  And thus an argument over what almost to a man you all say is "magic" and "superstition".  Why are you so fixated on a belief that you do not share?

Single people suffer the same legal penalties as homosexuals.  So do polygamist.  So does anyone other than traditional heterosexual couples.  My understanding is that traditional family life is subsidized and encouraged by the state to ensure tranquility and children.  If we are choosing to leave that model then let's not pick and choose, but leave it fairly.

We have done away with many of the Biblical laws in civil life such as observance of the Sabbath.  News:  homosexuality and sodomy is no longer against the law (at least not enforced in any state I know of).  That is the right thing to do if we are to have a secular government.  

What do you want?  Do you want the Catholic church and other established religions to be forced to marry same sex couples by the force of law?  Is the agenda to force homosexuality into our institutions as we have seen with law suits against the Boy Scouts and such?  That is what you appear to be arguing for.  I am against that.

What do I want?

The same rights everyone else has. Nothing more, nothing less. That is the point of equal rights, isn't it?

Civil unions are an exercise in "separate but equal" and therein lies my problem with those. Give me an apple but make me call it an orange as a way to signal some "different" status, and I'm supposed to be happy with that? What was so bad about the back of the bus, then anyway? Didn't it get you to the same place?

You're missing the point on that one.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 09, 2010, 01:15:08 PM
Hey, one more, for all of you defending this, are you married? Are you female and do you sing in church? Does your wife?

Sin sin sin...

It is stupid to keep up this kind of crap.  We can dip into all kinds of silly detail if you want.  The title of this thread is not about religion, but a great deal of the conversation has been about it.  Bigotry?  I am not yet convinced.  Hatred and vileness?  I am seeing my share here.

Oh and one more thing, I really don't care what goes on in your church, or the boy scounts for that matter.

This has never been about trying to force private groups to do anything. My sole and singular issue is that religious groups see fit to continue urging the government to deny legal rights to others based on nothing but their own religious beliefs. Nobody is trying to make your church perform gay weddings, this discussion has never been about that, and never will. You're just obfuscating the point here.

The point is the wrongful denial of legal rights to a minority based on the religious/moral judgments of another group. Usually using the same BS arguments that have been leveled at various minorities since the dawn of time. It's wrong, period. I am out not to make your church perform gay weddings, why would you care whether gay people get married somewhere else? You're complaining about overreaching, when really it's the religious right doing the overreaching, and nobody else.

Quote from: stephendare on May 09, 2010, 01:47:17 PM
you really cannot hear yourself can you.

Debate is easier when you point out what you disagree with.  Or you could just call me stupid, bigoted, and stuff like that.

Quote from: NotNow on May 09, 2010, 01:51:17 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 09, 2010, 01:15:08 PM
Hey, one more, for all of you defending this, are you married? Are you female and do you sing in church? Does your wife?

Sin sin sin...

It is stupid to keep up this kind of crap.  We can dip into all kinds of silly detail if you want.  The title of this thread is not about religion, but a great deal of the conversation has been about it.  Bigotry?  I am not yet convinced.  Hatred and vileness?  I am seeing my share here.

Actually it's not. According to the same book you're thumping, those are all sins...

Seems you have no problem with pointing out how ridiculous taking a word-by-word literal interpretation of the bible and applying it to modern life is, when it comes to all the stuff you do. Why single out language allegedly regarding homosexuality as requiring special literal treatment, if that's the case, then hell, all of these items should be treated literally. Where do you get slaves nowadays?

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 09, 2010, 01:48:33 PM

Quote from: NotNow on May 09, 2010, 01:43:05 PM

Quote from: stephendare on May 09, 2010, 11:02:46 AM
What is your point in this 'marriage is a religious ceremony' nonsense?

Before you came along or the first (communist) christians were getting tossed to lions in rome, male to male marriages were blessed by Zeus and Apollo.  Same sex marriages are celebrated in multiple religions and cultures.

For that matter, Caligula was religiously married to his horse.  And lets not forget the story of the Minotaur.

What on earth does your religious observation have to do with marriage in american culture or law?

Do you think that people who do not share the same religious faith should also be unable to get married and instead get 'civil unions'?

People of differing faiths get married in one church or the other, or both.  If you want to be blessed by Zeus or Apollo, or marry your horse, just find a church (or start one) and do it.  

I really don't see how we have gotten twelve pages of controversy out of this (other than the usual bickering nonsense).  Marriage is for churches.  Join any church you want or start your own.  Get government out of favoring ANY relationship or type of household.  Everyone, single, gay, black, white, even SERB, should be taxed equally and be equal under the law.  

Most of you have made it clear that you are atheist at least to a great degree.  My question back to you, Chris, is what do you care what a church says?  You already think it's all BS, yet you want to quote chapter and verse.  Why?  The majority in this country favors civil unions (I don't), and that could be easily passed into law.  Why hasn't it?  Because the homosexual political institutions want religious marriage?  And thus an argument over what almost to a man you all say is "magic" and "superstition".  Why are you so fixated on a belief that you do not share?

Single people suffer the same legal penalties as homosexuals.  So do polygamist.  So does anyone other than traditional heterosexual couples.  My understanding is that traditional family life is subsidized and encouraged by the state to ensure tranquility and children.  If we are choosing to leave that model then let's not pick and choose, but leave it fairly.

We have done away with many of the Biblical laws in civil life such as observance of the Sabbath.  News:  homosexuality and sodomy is no longer against the law (at least not enforced in any state I know of).  That is the right thing to do if we are to have a secular government.  

What do you want?  Do you want the Catholic church and other established religions to be forced to marry same sex couples by the force of law?  Is the agenda to force homosexuality into our institutions as we have seen with law suits against the Boy Scouts and such?  That is what you appear to be arguing for.  I am against that.

What do I want?

The same rights everyone else has. Nothing more, nothing less. That is the point of equal rights, isn't it?

Civil unions are an exercise in "separate but equal" and therein lies my problem with those. Give me an apple but make me call it an orange as a way to signal some "different" status, and I'm supposed to be happy with that? What was so bad about the back of the bus, then anyway? Didn't it get you to the same place?

You're missing the point on that one.

I think you missed my point.  I am not in favor of civil unions.  I would prefer the government not give preferential treatment to anyone for any reason.  

If you do not agree with that, does that make you a bigot?

Quote from: NotNow on May 09, 2010, 01:55:20 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 09, 2010, 01:48:33 PM

Quote from: NotNow on May 09, 2010, 01:43:05 PM

Quote from: stephendare on May 09, 2010, 11:02:46 AM
What is your point in this 'marriage is a religious ceremony' nonsense?

Before you came along or the first (communist) christians were getting tossed to lions in rome, male to male marriages were blessed by Zeus and Apollo.  Same sex marriages are celebrated in multiple religions and cultures.

For that matter, Caligula was religiously married to his horse.  And lets not forget the story of the Minotaur.

What on earth does your religious observation have to do with marriage in american culture or law?

Do you think that people who do not share the same religious faith should also be unable to get married and instead get 'civil unions'?

People of differing faiths get married in one church or the other, or both.  If you want to be blessed by Zeus or Apollo, or marry your horse, just find a church (or start one) and do it. 

I really don't see how we have gotten twelve pages of controversy out of this (other than the usual bickering nonsense).  Marriage is for churches.  Join any church you want or start your own.  Get government out of favoring ANY relationship or type of household.  Everyone, single, gay, black, white, even SERB, should be taxed equally and be equal under the law.   

Most of you have made it clear that you are atheist at least to a great degree.  My question back to you, Chris, is what do you care what a church says?  You already think it's all BS, yet you want to quote chapter and verse.  Why?  The majority in this country favors civil unions (I don't), and that could be easily passed into law.  Why hasn't it?  Because the homosexual political institutions want religious marriage?  And thus an argument over what almost to a man you all say is "magic" and "superstition".  Why are you so fixated on a belief that you do not share?

Single people suffer the same legal penalties as homosexuals.  So do polygamist.  So does anyone other than traditional heterosexual couples.  My understanding is that traditional family life is subsidized and encouraged by the state to ensure tranquility and children.  If we are choosing to leave that model then let's not pick and choose, but leave it fairly.

We have done away with many of the Biblical laws in civil life such as observance of the Sabbath.  News:  homosexuality and sodomy is no longer against the law (at least not enforced in any state I know of).  That is the right thing to do if we are to have a secular government. 

What do you want?  Do you want the Catholic church and other established religions to be forced to marry same sex couples by the force of law?  Is the agenda to force homosexuality into our institutions as we have seen with law suits against the Boy Scouts and such?  That is what you appear to be arguing for.  I am against that.

What do I want?

The same rights everyone else has. Nothing more, nothing less. That is the point of equal rights, isn't it?

Civil unions are an exercise in "separate but equal" and therein lies my problem with those. Give me an apple but make me call it an orange as a way to signal some "different" status, and I'm supposed to be happy with that? What was so bad about the back of the bus, then anyway? Didn't it get you to the same place?

You're missing the point on that one.

I think you missed my point.  I am not in favor of civil unions.  I would prefer the government not give preferential treatment to anyone for any reason. 

If you do not agree with that, does that make you a bigot?

If that were truly your belief, then why are we on page 12 of this thread?

FWIW, your "not in MY church" thing is preposterous. Churches have always had free reign to determine who they will and will not marry, and will continue to have that freedom, as they should. A lot of divorced Catholics have a serious issue when their own church refuses to re-marry them, that issue affects lots of people, it's not singling one group out as legally inferior to another.

The real issue here is why enact all these laws denying legal rights and status to one group based on the religious convictions of another group? Are you for or against actual equality, e.g., whoever is dumb enough to actually get married can do so? Or is it this "one man one woman" B.S.? What exactly do you and do you not support?

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 09, 2010, 01:52:29 PM
Oh and one more thing, I really don't care what goes on in your church, or the boy scounts for that matter.

This has never been about trying to force private groups to do anything. My sole and singular issue is that religious groups see fit to continue urging the government to deny legal rights to others based on nothing but their own religious beliefs. Nobody is trying to make your church perform gay weddings, this discussion has never been about that, and never will. You're just obfuscating the point here.

The point is the wrongful denial of legal rights to a minority based on the religious/moral judgments of another group. Usually using the same BS arguments that have been leveled at various minorities since the dawn of time. It's wrong, period. I am out not to make your church perform gay weddings, why would you care whether gay people get married somewhere else? You're complaining about overreaching, when really it's the religious right doing the overreaching, and nobody else.

I have been arguing AGAINST any group, religious, government, or otherwise denying ANYONE the right to get married.  I think that I have been very clear on that point for many pages now.

I do not care if gays get married somewhere else or next door.  I have been very clear on that point as well.  

Our difference seems to be, you want traditional marriage and the legal preferences currently provided to hetero couples only, while I want no government or lawful preferences base on househole or marital status.  

If a person is a bigot for denying a homosexual human rights, how are you not a bigot for not allowing others to live as they please without legal discrimination?

Geez! Go back through the thread.  I have been saying the same thing now for twelve freaking pages.  

The issue started on page one.  My first reply to you included my wish for government to get out of the marriage business.  The problem appears to be my defense of those who wish to worship in their own way, and my belief that if they want to oppose homosexuality, they have that right.  Yet I have made it clear in page after page that ANY church should be able to marry anyone they want to, or condone those living frameworks that they wish to. (Excluding the exploitation of children, mentally infirm, elderly, or animals.)  And that the government and our laws should take no interest in, nor favor any such relationship or household.

Quote from: NotNow on May 09, 2010, 02:02:54 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on May 09, 2010, 01:52:29 PM
Oh and one more thing, I really don't care what goes on in your church, or the boy scounts for that matter.

This has never been about trying to force private groups to do anything. My sole and singular issue is that religious groups see fit to continue urging the government to deny legal rights to others based on nothing but their own religious beliefs. Nobody is trying to make your church perform gay weddings, this discussion has never been about that, and never will. You're just obfuscating the point here.

The point is the wrongful denial of legal rights to a minority based on the religious/moral judgments of another group. Usually using the same BS arguments that have been leveled at various minorities since the dawn of time. It's wrong, period. I am out not to make your church perform gay weddings, why would you care whether gay people get married somewhere else? You're complaining about overreaching, when really it's the religious right doing the overreaching, and nobody else.

I have been arguing AGAINST any group, religious, government, or otherwise denying ANYONE the right to get married.  I think that I have been very clear on that point for many pages now.

I do not care if gays get married somewhere else or next door.  I have been very clear on that point as well. 

Our difference seems to be, you want traditional marriage and the legal preferences currently provided to hetero couples only, while I want no government or lawful preferences base on househole or marital status. 

If a person is a bigot for denying a homosexual human rights, how are you not a bigot for not allowing others to live as they please without legal discrimination?

Well now that's interesting, isn't it? Are you actually forgetting we can just go back and quote your previous posts? This isn't like a verbal argument where you can backpedal and get away with it, what you wrote over the last 12 pages is all right there in black and white. Or are you just forgetting what you've written altogether?

Quote from: NotNow on May 05, 2010, 12:39:14 PM
As far as gay marriage, I don't agree that opposing gay marriage conclusively makes anyone a bigot. 

Quote from: NotNow on May 09, 2010, 02:02:54 PM
The issue is one of morals

Quote from: NotNow on May 05, 2010, 12:39:14 PM
Marriage is a religious institution and should remain so.

Quote from: NotNow on May 06, 2010, 04:18:44 PM
I also stated my personal belief that "marriage" is a religious ceremony that should be handled in ones own church.

Quote from: NotNow on May 06, 2010, 04:18:44 PM
I also stated that people have a right to their personal religious beliefs.  As long as they live within our laws.

Quote from: NotNow on May 06, 2010, 03:07:35 PM
"Marriage" is a religious ceremony and should be the responsibility of the church. 

Marriage conveys legal rights, you can't just hand it over to the church, that would be grossly unconstitutional. Worse, you'll have churches refusing to grant divorces, etc., etc., and refusing to recognize cermonies, divorces, whatever, from other churches. It would be an absolute disaster, and you can't have churches issuing legal decrees in this country, that isn't constitutional either. Your entire argument is somewhat delusional, it couldn't happen.

Realistically, the state will always be involved in it somehow, and that being the case, I think it should be equal for everyone. This isn't some "what if" parallel universe, reality is reality, and the system is what it is. What it could be is irrelevant, the bottom line is that whatever it is, I don't feel it right to discriminate against one group based on the religious beliefs of another. And that is indeed what is presently occurring.

And I stand by the statements quoted by you and StephenDare!.  I believe that devoutly religious persons CAN object to gay marriage, as can their church.  I do not think that makes them "conclusively a bigot."  

I do believe that it is an issue of morals.  How can you not say that your moral code is different from a religiously devout person who opposes homosexuality.  To deny that makes no sense.

I also believe that marriage IS a religious institution.  Much like other civil laws that we discussed earlier, such as keeping the Sabbath, government should be separated from such institutions.  Civil law has traditionally included reference to religious rules, institutions, and traditions.  And in many cases they will run along parallel lines, such as "homicide" and "thou shalt not kill".  But if we are to have a secular government, we must justify each civil law utilizing only it's need in our society and it's fairness in application.  

There is no need for our laws or government to even address marriage.  By its very nature, to favor any coupling or other alliance of individuals is not fair to those who prefer to negotiate life without such things.

 Oh, and I can't tell you how great it is that you called me a Bible thumper.  If only I could send that to my family!  They would all be on the floor laughing.  :)

I really doubt that societal enactment of prohibitions on murder had anything to do with the bible, don't you think that's kind of a stretch? I mean, doesn't a basic tenet of an orderly society require that you can't go around killing whoever you want?

My point is that "marriage" should convey no legal authority.  It is no different than "baptism".  If two individuals want to make a legal contract between themselves, it should be handled like any other contract.  The current legal tangle of marriage is ridiculous and needs to be done away with anyway.  Marriage and divorce should be handled by churches as they are intended to be a promise to God.  Civil law should not enter into the picture.

OK, then use the blue laws, or the Sabbath laws as your example.  Why is the state enforcing religious doctrine?  That is exactly what is happening with marriage.  Why do couples get a tax break?  Because the state is trying to encourage marriage.  My point is that the state has no business or authority to do so.  

Do I really have to say just because we have been doing it that way for a long time doesn't make it right?  If we are really looking for the proper way for the state to handle marriage or any household contract, I believe that government hands off is the right way.  Why "must" the government be involved?

Quote from: stephendare on May 09, 2010, 02:32:31 PM

Quote from: NotNow on May 09, 2010, 02:30:28 PM
My point is that "marriage" should convey no legal authority.  It is no different than "baptism".  If two individuals want to make a legal contract between themselves, it should be handled like any other contract.  The current legal tangle of marriage is ridiculous and needs to be done away with anyway.  Marriage and divorce should be handled by churches as they are intended to be a promise to God.  Civil law should not enter into the picture.

are you serious?

Sigh....thirteen pages later....Yes!  Doesn't it make sense if you want to enter into a legal agreement with someone that you actually sit down and do it like any other civil contract, rather that rely on vague rules?

This is the kind of silliness that makes these things go on for fourteen pages.  Do you have any real arguments against my points?  Or do you want to veer off by yourself into your own little world?

About who Jesus is or is not speaking to?  No.  Your last few posts are dumb, let me know when that "critical thinking" thing returns.

Let me restate it.  You are getting off on a tangent that is just dumb. 

  Do you have any real arguments against the points I made in Post #187?

Huh?  Whether "Jesus" invented marriage is central to my argument?  How's that?

Ummm.  Let me think. Hold it.  Hold it.  Oh gosh, since you know how people talk to God, perhaps you could tell me which government "invented" marriage?

Of course, you are really arguing FOR the state administration of a social contract called "marriage".  Why?

Marriage predated recorded history.  The earliest civil entry of marriage that I know of is in the Code of Hammurabi:

"If a man takes a woman to wife, but has no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife to him."

I like that one.

But of course, none of this has anything to do with the point of the thread, but I really liked your horticulture joke and I wanted to help you out here.

OK, so make a Marriage, INC.  if you want.  My point that the government should not favor any household arrangement stands.

As for religious objection to homosexuality, it stands as well, as marriage is a side issue.

You can "marry" anyone now.  What the debate is over is the legal preferences granted to those that are "married".  There should be none.

ERGO (I like that too). Your point is...pointless.

Quote from: NotNow on May 09, 2010, 04:11:13 PM
OK, so make a Marriage, INC.  if you want.  My point that the government should not favor any household arrangement stands.

As for religious objection to homosexuality, it stands as well, as marriage is a side issue.

You can "marry" anyone now.  What the debate is over is the legal preferences granted to those that are "married".  There should be none.

ERGO (I like that too). Your point is...pointless.

No it's not.

His point is that you're claiming marriage is some church institution, when it actually predated the invention of the religion by literally thousands of years. Come on, quit ducking the point, surely you see your viewpoint is a bit ridiculous. Unless Jesus was so amazing he invented a time machine when he wasn't inventing marriage. Pfffffffffft

FYI from the earliest recorded mention, 1800 years before Christ came along, it was a LEGAL not RELIGIOUS function.

I don't think religion began when Jesus was born.  I don't think that "marriage" was "invented" in Babylon.  

But whether marriage is religious or not, the real discussion is the legal benefits of marriage, isn't it?

And your own argument mirrors mine, there should be no unequal treatment under the law.

Just as a side note, almost all of the legal mentions of marriage were to address the legal rights of the woman, who was held in a different view than men through most of history, and who in most societies required men to survive.  The same reasons drove us to the laws we have today in the US.  These ideas are outdated. 

Quote from: NotNow on May 09, 2010, 04:30:59 PM
I don't think religion began when Jesus was born.  I don't think that "marriage" was "invented" in Babylon. 

But whether marriage is religious or not, the real discussion is the legal benefits of marriage, isn't it?

And your own argument mirrors mine, there should be no unequal treatment under the law.

Yeah that has been my argument all along. Yours, however, was that religion should be administered by the churches. And for the record, none of the churches we have in this country existed ca. 2000 B.C., did they? So quit backpedaling. You said what you said.

Marriage has always represented a conveyance of legal rights, and it continues to do so. Ultimately, I am glad we agree on the conclusion of the whole debate, as I do also feel it wrong to withhold legal rights from one group based on another group's religious beliefs. But marriage has been around longer than any presently existing religion, and Stephen was just pointing this out.

OK, I'll concede that marriage has not always been a religious institution. 

But I still believe that the state should withdraw from favoring any individual or group of individuals in any way.  And that household or relationship legal contracts should be just that, contracts.

Quote from: NotNow on May 09, 2010, 04:37:56 PM
OK, I'll concede that marriage has not always been a religious institution.  

But I still believe that the state should withdraw from favoring any individual or group of individuals in any way.  And that household or relationship legal contracts should be just that, contracts.

But how do you enforce any contract without a system being set up to that end by the State?

Like any other civil contract.  Like buying property.  Or any other business agreement.  It is a civil contract.  If there is no contract, we have laws for that currently, or at least established decisions.  Why should the state favor married people?  Gay or straight?  By what authority do they do so?

Quote from: NotNow on May 09, 2010, 04:52:06 PM
Like any other civil contract.  Like buying property.  Or any other business agreement.  It is a civil contract.  If there is no contract, we have laws for that currently, or at least established decisions.  Why should the state favor married people?  Gay or straight?  By what authority do they do so?

What I'm asking, as you propose the State step out of marriages entirely in favor of their being a private contract, is how you can enforce any contract without the State setting up a system/courts in which you may do so? A State's court system is why private contracts are enforceable in the first place. Without any means to enforce an agreement, all you really have is a piece of paper. Just saying, the State can't possibly step out of it entirely.

People would be given the opportunity to contract whatever domestic situation they please.  Contractual disputes would be handled in civil court, as now.  But instead of the vague rules we have now, each household contract would be a written agreement between all parties involved.  Also the State would not favor any particular group with tax benefits or special exemptions.

Quote from: NotNow on May 09, 2010, 11:09:10 PM
People would be given the opportunity to contract whatever domestic situation they please.  Contractual disputes would be handled in civil court, as now.  But instead of the vague rules we have now, each household contract would be a written agreement between all parties involved.  Also the State would not favor any particular group with tax benefits or special exemptions.

So are you married? You're willing to give up your joint filing status? That's serious $$$...

Yes, and yes.  We should ALL be treated equally by the State.  

Often, short term pain is required for long term gain.  It is the same in our personal lives and in government.  Just as most universal rules like avoid debt and conflict, be fair, live modestly and be humble are wise goals not only for people but for their institutions as well.

I'm not a bigot, hell I HATE everybody... but I do it equally.


OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: NotNow on May 10, 2010, 10:15:42 AM
Yes, and yes.  We should ALL be treated equally by the State.  

Often, short term pain is required for long term gain.  It is the same in our personal lives and in government.  Just as most universal rules like avoid debt and conflict, be fair, live modestly and be humble are wise goals not only for people but for their institutions as well.

Statements like this blow my mind.

How so?

Quote from: NotNow on May 10, 2010, 07:25:28 PM
How so?

I am not going to go into it, you are being extremely idealistic and naive. 

:):):)

That's me!

Quote from: NotNow on May 10, 2010, 08:50:11 PM
:):):)

That's me!

If your idealistic and naive, CLAP YOUR HANDS!

Quote from: JC on May 11, 2010, 10:25:57 PM

Quote from: NotNow on May 10, 2010, 08:50:11 PM
:):):)

That's me!

If your idealistic and naive, CLAP YOUR HANDS!

If by idealistic and naive you mean....????

Trustworthy
I tell the truth. I keep my promises. Honesty is part of my code of conduct. People can depend on me.

Loyal
I am true to my family, leaders, friends, community and nation.

Helpful
I am concerned about other people. I do things willingly for others without pay or reward.

Friendly
I am a friend to all. I am a brother or sister to others in my group. I seek to understand others. I respect those with ideas and customs other than my own.

Courteous
I am polite to everyone, regardless of age or position. I know good manners make it easier for people to get along together.

Kind
I understand there is strength in being gentle. I treat others as they want to be treated. I do not hurt or kill harmless things without reason.

Obedient
I follow the rules of my family, group and organization. I obey the laws of my community and country. If I think these rules and laws are unfair, I try to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them.

Cheerful
I look for the bright side of things. I cheerfully do tasks that come my way. I try to make others happy.

Thrifty
I work to pay my way and to help others. I save for unforeseen needs. I protect and conserve natural resources. I carefully use time and property.

Brave
I can face danger even if I am afraid. I have the courage to stand for what I think is right even if others laugh at or threaten me.

Clean
I keep my body and mind fit and clean. I go around with those who believe in living by these same ideals. I help keep my home and community clean.

Reverent
I am reverent toward God. I am faithful in my religious duties. I respect the beliefs of others.

Quote from: NotNow on May 12, 2010, 06:59:26 AM
Trustworthy
I tell the truth. I keep my promises. Honesty is part of my code of conduct. People can depend on me.

Loyal
I am true to my family, leaders, friends, community and nation.

Helpful
I am concerned about other people. I do things willingly for others without pay or reward.

Friendly
I am a friend to all. I am a brother or sister to others in my group. I seek to understand others. I respect those with ideas and customs other than my own.

Courteous
I am polite to everyone, regardless of age or position. I know good manners make it easier for people to get along together.

Kind
I understand there is strength in being gentle. I treat others as they want to be treated. I do not hurt or kill harmless things without reason.

Obedient
I follow the rules of my family, group and organization. I obey the laws of my community and country. If I think these rules and laws are unfair, I try to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them.

Cheerful
I look for the bright side of things. I cheerfully do tasks that come my way. I try to make others happy.

Thrifty
I work to pay my way and to help others. I save for unforeseen needs. I protect and conserve natural resources. I carefully use time and property.

Brave
I can face danger even if I am afraid. I have the courage to stand for what I think is right even if others laugh at or threaten me.

Clean
I keep my body and mind fit and clean. I go around with those who believe in living by these same ideals. I help keep my home and community clean.

Reverent
I am reverent toward God. I am faithful in my religious duties. I respect the beliefs of others.

QuoteOn my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Had 2 boys in scouts.

WTF do we expect? Look at who we've got as our local leaders serving as role models for these idiots, e.g. Don Redman.