»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Love should be respected unclouded by discrimination such as Prop 8
| The Alley |
|
Love should be respected unclouded by discrimination such as Prop 8 |
|
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
Prop 8 is was, and always will be, unconstitutional and wrongfully discriminatory. Love is precious and not something we have the right to judge others for having. Love sees past gender, race, color, religion and is a gift rather than hating on others for having it. Prop 8 is wrong and is taking away rights! I wrote this to a Yes on 8 website and would be interested in discussing points with someone- civilly without slurs or insults. I don't know what peoples views about it are on here. ear Yes on 8 people, I'm a fifteen year old girl who was raised in tolerance and acceptance. All my life I've been taught to listen and to learn and that some things aren't something people can control. Race, gender,what family one is born to , and sexual orientation. You believe some people choose- tell me why? Why someone chooses to go to school and get spit on- told they are inferior-hated- discriminated against- bullied- told they aren't good enough- thrown out of their religion or community ? Why would someone choose that? I am who I am and I've learned to live with that and learned how to live with how others are. I won't condemn someone for something they do anything about because that is wrong as I was raised to believe. Also- in the 60s there were laws preventing people of mixed races from marrying- that was discrimination and something I'm ashamed to know my country had a part in. HOw is this any different? Discrimination is discrimination no matter who you are discriminating against- blacks, whites, latinos, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, Christians,Jews, or Muslims. Its fine for you to have your own beliefs but don't take away others rights for them. Also Prop 8 doesn't affect the schools because 1) in all the years I've been a student I've never taken a class on marriage and never heard of it being offered and 2) anything related to sex or sexual orientation is under the command of parents- if they don't want their children learning it they are allowed to pull their kids out of the class. Please don't think you are helping the schools! You want to protect kids? Like me? From what though- I have friends and family members who are lesbian and bisexuals and gay and believe me it wasn't an easy transition into finding themselves. They are all good people- they believe in doing the right thing- sticking up to ones morals and accepting responsibility. That's something I've learned from them- especially about staying true to oneself - is that what I need to be protected from? God created marriage to be between man and woman? 1) It isn't relevant to humanity since humans are more than capable of having kids without marriage and plenty do and whatever your personal beliefs on that are you don't have the right to condemn them for it. 2) Some of us don't believe in your god and or don't believe in God. I personally don't after being raised Jewish and Catholic - I've made a conscious choice to be non religious and that one religion isn't right for me. Marriage means something different to everyone- to me it means to people who love each other being legally recognized. Love is so hard to find and its one of those things you dream about and think about as a teenager. Love isn't lust- its not peer pressure, its something different. Why would you condemn someone for loving someone when almost no one gets to decide who they love? I"m a fifteen year old teenager and believe me - you can want to not feel something but you still feel it- love doesn't follow any rules. If marriage is sacred , do you mean a 55 hr marriage is sacred? Or marriages where the wives are beaten half to death is sacred? Marriages where little girls lose their innocence and hope forever because their mother married someone who was a bad person because her community says being an unmarried mother is wrong. I don't know what you judge as sacred but to me- children terrified of everything because they see their father beat their mother is not sacred- girls who grow up beaten and scarred only able to expect the same cycle to continue is certainly not sacred. Marriage is what it is- it should be people who love each other not relying on gender because a straight marriage is very capable of not being sacred. Stop judging, stop hating, stop discriminating! A proud member of GSA who believes in doing the right thing which is why she is speaking up right now. I'm fifteen but my eyes are open and I'm willing to accept people who are different than me- Are you? This discrimination is wrong- no one has the right to take away rights from someone else- regardless of what they believe! Everyone is entitled to a voice but not when it silences others. |
||
| © Copyright 2008 rhia_5779 - All Rights Reserved | |||
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Rhia I’m not sure I’m the one to discuss this with you because I agree with almost everything you say. And you said it very well, especially the points about love not being lust etc. This is an issue I feel strongly about as my sister is in a same sex relationship not based on a physical relationship yet of a “romantic” nature, if I can put it that way. In the UK at least I feel that the gay agenda has been hijacked by rather left wing politically driven personalities who tend to flaunt the sexual side of such relationships almost as a challenge to the conservative, and usually religiously driven, section of the community. This in my view has done the cause of gay people no good at all. Nevertheless that is absolutely no reason to deny same sex couples the right to express their union formally in a marriage ceremony. I suppose I’d have to say that if the religious mainstream wanted to deny gay people the right to marry in their churches then that is their prerogative. I happen to think it’s mean and wrong, but I guess that at the end of the day, if their interpretation is that the bible says gay marriage is wrong then they should be able to prevent such marriage in god’s “house”. But aside from that I can see absolutely no reason at all for religious people, or anyone else, to seek to impose their cruel and selfish beliefs on consenting adults in this matter. Gay people should be allowed to marry in a civil setting and to benefit from all the civil, social and economic rights that straight married couples benefit from. As to whether Prop8 is “unconstitutional” I don’t know. Denise might be able to help here? Thanks for a thoughtful post. M |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
It is actually because according to the equal protection clause, everyone is allowed equal protection under the law. Marriage is a right as it is a way many find happiness and taking it a way is wrong. |
||
SEA 
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676with you |
honestly? I think it's sad. I have no idea why everyone is so freaked out by it....I'm fine with it and really, I think its not up to me or a court,and for sure not a church!! I think it is up to two consenting adults. I think if they love each other and are in a loving committed relationship, they should be allowed to marry.  |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Ahh I think I see. I recently read this on someone's blog: "The California Supreme Court can NOT overturn Prop 8. It is now part of the California Constitution. However, the US Supreme Court CAN find that the CA constitution violates the US Constitution's Equal Protection clause. And someday they will do just that." Is that a correct statement of the position? |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
Agreed- marriage should be open to anyone who loves each other. I am not religions so what the churches are going to do I don't really have a point to stand on there- I think if someone is christian and gay or lesbian they shouldn't lose their rights to being married. Thats what I meant that the U.S constitution talks about equal protection |
||
|
freeand2sexy Senior Member
since 2008-09-12
Posts 704CA, USA |
Wow this is a very strong topic for me and i'm kinda scared how you may view me by what i'm about to say, but i want to show you my point of view I'm only 16 and i happen to live in california, i grew up in a Christian family, but i also happen to be in a same sex relationship, and believe it or not i was all for prop 8. Yeah some ppl even friends at school viewed me as a hypocrite, but the truth is even though i was for prop 8 didn't mean that i had problems with gays or lesbians or bisexual, i respect everyones beliefs, decision, or whatever. But, marriage has all ways been defined as between a man and a woman, since Adam and Eve, and i don't think its right to change that for everyone else. Yes it has a lot to do with religion and its all ways going to be that way. What gives us the right to change this for everyone else? I love pancakes!!! |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
Wow this is a very strong topic for me and i'm kinda scared how you may view me by what i'm about to say, but i want to show you my point of view YOu have every right to your beliefs. I'm only 16 and i happen to live in california, i grew up in a Christian family, but i also happen to be in a same sex relationship, and believe it or not i was all for prop 8. Yeah some ppl even friends at school viewed me as a hypocrite, but the truth is even though i was for prop 8 didn't mean that i had problems with gays or lesbians or bisexual, i respect everyones beliefs, decision, or whatever. But, marriage has all ways been defined as between a man and a woman, since Adam and Eve, and i don't think its right to change that for everyone else. Yes it has a lot to do with religion and its all ways going to be that way. Yes, but we aren't changing the religious definition which can stay the way it wants- we are just changing it so people who love each other can be together. Christianity is not the religion that governs our country and so it doesn't have a place in the laws- it doesn't harm christians to let gays and lesbians marry. Marriage wasn't around when Adam and Eve were- and marriage is a ceremony but is not crucial to having kids. What gives us the right to change this for everyone else? What gives Christianity to take rights from those who want to be married? You can choose to not be but others may want to. |
||
|
freeand2sexy Senior Member
since 2008-09-12
Posts 704CA, USA |
Its not just Christianity, not even religion. there are those who are not Christian or anything for that matter, that don't believe in same sex marriage. quote: Prop 8 didn't take any rights away from Gays etc. Tho i don't believe in same sex marriage, i think they should have that same rights, 'equal protection', thats why i'm all for civil unions. I love pancakes!!! |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
Yea it did take rights away- marriage is a right and it took that away. I'm curious how do you define marriage verus civil unions? |
||
|
freeand2sexy Senior Member
since 2008-09-12
Posts 704CA, USA |
Civil unions are legally recognized unions similar to marraige. The way i view it is they're the same as same sex marraige, just without calling it so. I love pancakes!!! |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: Likewise, there are still people that don't believe in treating people of different races equally in certain things. But that does not make it right. Not believing in something does not justify discriminating against people based on race, nor does it do so for gender. |
||
|
freeand2sexy Senior Member
since 2008-09-12
Posts 704CA, USA |
Well Essorant, You have a good point, no one should be discriminated against because of race, gender, age, etc But let me ask you this, where do we draw the line? What's next, a 20 year old, marrying a 12 year old, if thats what they want, why shouldn't we let them, isnt that discrimination against people because of age? I think the bigger point for me is to respect what has been a tradition for so long. i've seen and understand both sides of this, i've been on both sides , and what i see, is that both sides are right to a certain extent. Gays should have the same rights, they should have equal protection, but why should the definition of marriage change for those who view it in the traditional way, Believe it or not it would affect ppl and what they believe. i think that we should be respectful of those beliefs and fight for equal protection, but not to change what marriage means. I love pancakes!!! |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
Well Essorant, You have a good point, no one should be discriminated against because of race, gender, age, etc But let me ask you this, where do we draw the line? What's next, a 20 year old, marrying a 12 year old, if thats what they want, why shouldn't we let them, isnt that discrimination against people because of age? But theres a difference between discriminating on gender when the two people are at least 18 and following the other laws regarding it and bending them. Two people who are adults and can sign a legal contract should be allowed to marry if they love each other. The laws in the 60s where inter racial marriages were wrong and so is Prop 8., Civil unions don't have the same rights as marriage- its not like we would be telling any of you t hat your marriage is invalid so its not fair for people to tell gays that they can't marry or call it marriage. OUr country is secular so the bible doesn't really apply I think the bigger point for me is to respect what has been a tradition for so long. No one is disrespecting it by saying that it needs to coexist with tolerance. We want to open it up but we aren't disrespecting it. WE are being intolerant of intolerance, and trying to secure equal rights. i've seen and understand both sides of this, i've been on both sides , and what i see, is that both sides are right to a certain extent. Well its wrongful discrimination if you don't believe that being gay is a choice- which its not., If being gay is believed to be a choice, which its still not btw, then many people are anti it because of their religion and background and they are still allowed to have their beliefs but are not allowed to take rights because of it. Marriage affects the two people marrying- it doesn't harm anyone else. Gays should have the same rights, they should have equal protection, but why should the definition of marriage change for those who view it in the traditional way, Believe it or not it would affect ppl and what they believe. i think that we should be respectful of those beliefs and fight for equal protection, but not to change what marriage means. So what about gays who want to be married? WE can't respect their wishes? There are people who say inter racial marriages are wrong- should we respect their beliefs by reinstating laws that prevent those. How is race different than gender? I love pancakes!!! |
||
|
freeand2sexy Senior Member
since 2008-09-12
Posts 704CA, USA |
quote: Thats why we should fight to change civil unions so that it gives the same rights as marriage quote: Our coutries law were based on the Bible, so yes it does apply. Religion itself does apply, it applies to everything. quote: By changing something you do disrespect it. For example my parents don't respect some of my beliefs, so they tried to change it. (they failed by the way) quote: I understand what you are saying, i truely do and i respect what you believe because i know it comes from your heart, as do my beliefs, but you can't truely understand what i believe unless you understand both sides quote: I respect what poeple want, but i now realize that in life its not just about you want, there's a whole bigger picture. I love pancakes!!! |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Rhia Are you saying that churches/religious movements should be forced by law to allow same sex marriages? For a start churches are effectively a "special interest group" and I am not sure that it's wise to legislate to force special interest groups to make their facilities available to everyone. Secondly if I was wanting to get married to someone of the same sex and I knew that christians (for instance) were very opposed to such unions, the very last place I'd want to go would be one of their churches. And let's face it, what are these christians, or any other religion for that matter, actually offering. Some guy in black or white robes or whatever acting as a conduit to god, and an assurance that god has blessed the union. I think it's sad for christian same sex couples who truly believe the mumbo jumbo to miss out, but for the remaining majority I suspect a church wedding mainly adds romance and not much else - most rational people aren't going to believe the patent falsity that just because a marriage isn't conducted by some vicar, minister or father, they are somehow unblessed by god. It's surely got to be the case that any union based upon true and deep love is going to be blessed whether it's conducted by Donald Duck or an Archbishop and whether it's in a cowshed or in Westminster Abbey. So my view is that provided the union is in all respects granted the same status in law as a church marriage I can't see the problem. And Freeand2sexy I think you are attaching far too much importance to the concepts of "tradition" and "religion". In the former case, I am all for respecting tradition PROVIDED THAT tradition has a logical relevance to the modern day. For instance it was traditional to import African people to act as slaves, but no-one would today argue that such a practice should be re-started. I think what you need to ask yourself when you invoke the argument "it's traditional" is: "is there any other reason APART from historic custom to continue this practise?". If the answer to that question is "no" then I think there is some serious doubt as to whether the practice is still relevant to today. In the latter case you need to consider what you mean by "religion". There are many many religions out there now. Are you going to pick christianity and say that the populace of the US should abide by christian based principles and no others? Sure that used to be the case. When the Mayflower landed, and for some time subsequently I believe the Puritan influence was strong. But over time this has been diluted by multicultural influxes and divergences of thought to the point where I don't think you can seriously argue that the whole of the US should be, and is, "governed" by the "rules" of christianity. When you say "religion applies to everything" I am therefore struggling to understand where you are coming from? |
||
|
freeand2sexy Senior Member
since 2008-09-12
Posts 704CA, USA |
quote: Religion is what you believe, i'm saying it applies to everything, because it can't be disregarded. Whether is Christianiy, satanism, or atheism, religion is always going to be apart of life. I love pancakes!!! |
||
|
freeand2sexy Senior Member
since 2008-09-12
Posts 704CA, USA |
Even though this is a big topic for me because i am in a same sex relationship, i really think there are bigger issues than this. Tho i'm sure ppl will disgree. i jus think our focus, whether gay, bi, or straight, should be on the most important issues. I respect everyones beliefs but again, i see both sides, and think the best solution would be a compromise. I love pancakes!!! |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi -- One thing that is missing from this so far is the fact that marriage is not solely a sacrament within the context of a religion. I got married by a judge. Religious belief or disbelief had nothing to do with it me or at least hundreds of thousands of other married people. It's not a civil union, it's a legal marriage without interference or objection from the religious. The issue is a legal one. Some groups of people try to make it a moral one. That's their opionion, they're entitled to it, and it doesn't count for those who disagree. The extention of same sex marriage with it's legal ramifications, of which there are many, and the older one gets, the more there are, to the notion that it will lead to 20 year olds marrying 12 year olds is almost as silly as the thought that taking a drink leads to heroin addiction, except, it already happens in wacko religious cults. I put the emphasis on wacko. My suggestion is that "civil unions" are just another form of discrimination, and in the end, it's nobody's business except the two people who want to get married for whatever reason, and the judge or minister who agrees to honor their wishes. What could it possibly matter to anyone else? Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Freeand2sexy, quote: Yes, it is discrimination, but not wrongful discrimination. For age, unlike gender and race, at certain points (extremes of youth and old age being the most distinct) implies levels of mental and physical maturity and ability to understand and do things. A very young child is not mentally or bodily as developed and mature or understanding as a twenty year old generally is. Such is not found between genders and races. A man and a woman are not more physically or mentally devoloped because they are man and woman instead of man and man or woman and woman. Nor is a race because it is this race instead of that race. That is why age has points at which it is a virtue to discriminate, because we simply aren't either able at some points or likely enough at others to to deal with some things conciously, responsiblely, or very understandingly. Gender however does not imply such things. Nor does marriage show that it needs a specific gender-combination in order to be marriage. For sharing sacred vows, sharing a celebration of love, a special bond, etc. all these things may be done as well in any gender combination, just as in any race combination. Moonbeam quote: If you don't mind me answering, I would say they ought to be. It should not be much different, I believe, from beginning a business of my own. If I run a store, should I have the right not to sell to homosexuals or to people of a certain race? No. Not at all. In like wise religion, should not be able wrongly to discriminate against people in this way. You would not accept the government giving right to religions to discriminate against people of a particular race would you? Why then to discriminate against particular gender (s)? On the other hand, I am not against things such as allboy schools or allgirl schools, because it does not deny either gender education, nor does it deny the choice of a school that has boys and girls together. Instead it gives people another choice, rather than denying people the choice. Another example is a Chinese food restaurant. I am not against Chinese people only being hired at Chinese food restaurants, because there is a cultural connection and family aspect involved. And that does not deny other people the ability to run restaurants, participating in the same thing, but respects a certain cultural "area". Since there is so much room and freedom for people elsewheres, there is no need to demand Chinese restaurants to hire people that are not Chinese. But many hire other peoples anyway, of course. [This message has been edited by Essorant (11-29-2008 08:52 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Based on your reasoning if you ran a store you’d have the right to sell or not to sell to whoever you wanted to, after all denying someone the right to buy at your store doesn’t deny them the right to go shopping. quote: To my mind there’s a simple answer to the conundrum of marital status, remove the financial incentives and legal status that married couples enjoy and treat every couple, regardless of gender, as human beings who just happen to live together. With all the legal and financial discrimination out of the way the couples could exchange whatever personal vows they want to in any type of ceremony they like in whatever Church, Mosque, Synagogue, Temple, Shrine or Ale house that’ll take them. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Grinch, I don't think you understand my reasoning then. I think when the general right is established, there are some reasonable exceptions that may be within the general right, when it is like a luxury of choice. Both genders have equal the right to education. But they should also have the right to some special atmospheres, when those are wellmeaning and respectful. An allboy school for example is not based on a doctrine that education should only be among boys, but it is based on something that may be respected such as a special educational atmosphere where people shall be far less likely to be distracted by sexual inclinations and sexual relationships and the many problems that often come from them. And personally I find that comes true, especially in contrast with the kind behaviour we see among many young people that attend highschools now a days. But in any case it is a special exception to a general right that is already there, and that is not about denying the other gender the equal right. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Ess, So if you had an education shop that only sold education to girls and an education shop that only sold education to boys that would be ok because there are also shops that sell education to anyone? Got it. Education shops can discriminate - sorry I thought your point was that shops couldn’t discriminate. My bad. |
||
|
freeand2sexy Senior Member
since 2008-09-12
Posts 704CA, USA |
quote: There is a difference, because a church is not a business. A business is formed to make profit and a church is not. I love pancakes!!! |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Grinch Yes I did say so because I was implying wrongful discrimination, a discrimination that is disrespectful. A shop not "selling" education to a man because it thinks that education should only be given to a woman is unreasonable and disrespectful discrimination. It is sexism and no one should be wrongly discriminated against in such a way. But a shop not "selling" education to a man because it is an exception to a general majority of shops that already sell to men and women, and because it thinks that both men and women deserve the further luxury to be able to have the choice of special enviroments, such as allboy and allgirl schools, has reasonable grounds and is not disrespecting other people's rights. It is a reasonable and respectful discrimination within already acknowledging and respecting that both deserve and have a right to education. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: But doesn't the Church still give a service to the people, as a business does? |
||
|
freeand2sexy Senior Member
since 2008-09-12
Posts 704CA, USA |
Essorant, I'm sorry, but i'm not sure what your saying. I love pancakes!!! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
...and I thought a church WAS formed to make prophets!  |
||
|
freeand2sexy Senior Member
since 2008-09-12
Posts 704CA, USA |
No a church isn't formed to make prophets. I love pancakes!!! |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
That input from Balladeer was a joke Christine.  |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Precisely Grinch. And Ess, I think you are making the case against yourself. Freeand2sexy is right to point out that businesses make a profit and are therefore different. The point is that in arguing that allgirl/boy schools are a legitimate "exception" you invoke the idea of a "special atmosphere". This idea picks up on what is of underlying importance, the REASON for the discrimination. The rationale for a business's existence is generally to create wealth for those involved and particularly owners and shareholders. If a business turns away a black person or a gay person and won't take their money this is in direct conflict with its own reason for being. It would be quite legitimate in those circumstances to legislate to force compliance with its own ethos. In complete contrast a religion's reason for being is to guide people to their god. A church can be viewed as a society or club where people have to abide by certain rules and constraints in order to benefit from what the club has to offer. It would be fairly pointless and counterproductive for instance for a government to legislate to force bridge clubs to allow entry to people who wanted only to play poker. Similarly I don't think churches should be forced by law to carry out ceremonies for people whose way of life cuts right across the basic underlying beliefs of the church. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I am not sure about that Moonbeam. A church may believe whatever it wants. But if it is going to "serve" the people too, as it does, giving a service and "giving out" something, it needs to give a service that obeys the rights and rules of the country. What if those oneliners in the bible, that some religious folk will try to make us imagine are divine discourses against homosexuality, happened to be about people of a specific race instead? What then? Would we allow them to make ado against people of a specific race? They are allowed to believe it, of course, if their minds are so stubborn, but I don't think we may allow them to teach or preach it or deny people a special service on the basis thereof. That would be racism. The same is preaching against homosexuality or denying homosexuals a public service, a service that is important to the people. It is racism, but pointed at homosexuality instead. I don't think that should be tolerated as far as any "service" goes. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: And the owner of a the Church, like the owner of any other private space, can refuse entry to anyone they like without having to give them a reason. |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
Are you saying that churches/religious movements should be forced by law to allow same sex marriages? I'm not entirely sure how I feel about that. I feel like for people who are christian and also gay or lesbian- it must be awful to be thrown out of their community but at the same time I am not religious and so I don't feel I have the right to judge the religious community since I don't really understand maybe. I think what you need to ask yourself when you invoke the argument "it's traditional" is: "is there any other reason APART from historic custom to continue this practise?". If the answer to that question is "no" then I think there is some serious doubt as to whether the practice is still relevant to today. I agree here. Free, religion is important but our country doesn't make laws based on one religion or another or to take away rights based on religion. We aren't going to make laws based on it today when it hurts others. In the latter case you need to consider what you mean by "religion". There are many many religions out there now. Are you going to pick christianity and say that the populace of the US should abide by christian based principles and no others? Sure that used to be the case. I'm not religious though I was raised under Christianity and Judaism but a couple years ago I chose to not be religious or at least follow organized religion. Should I have to follow the beliefs of a religion I don't believe in? Religion is what you believe, i'm saying it applies to everything, because it can't be disregarded. Whether is Christianiy, satanism, or atheism, religion is always going to be apart of life. I love pancakes!!! But, I have beliefs but that isn't nessecarily my religion. I believe in things and values but I take from different beliefs systems and apply them to my life and how I think. Even though this is a big topic for me because i am in a same sex relationship, i really think there are bigger issues than this. Tho i'm sure ppl will disgree. i jus think our focus, whether gay, bi, or straight, should be on the most important issues. I respect everyones beliefs but again, i see both sides, and think the best solution would be a compromise. I can kinda get both sides but I strongly believe that intolerance is wrong. I have friends who look down on the kids at their school who call themselves 'ghetto' and who make snide comments because those kids have chosen to distance them selves from my friends. I understand that my friends don't understand what they have been through, and they feel hurt because some of them wanted to fit into that group but couldn't. I understand that side but its still not really right. I also understand from the point of view of the kids who are the minorities and who are considered 'ghetto' . My school is different then the bigger public one but we have a lot of kids who come from similar backgrounds. I understand their side , my friends who are intolerant but I also understand the side of my friends who are acting based on the way t hey have been taught. There may be more important issues relative to security and all but this is still important. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Maybe I didn't explain too well what I meant Ess. I am not arguing that it is desirable that churches effectively discriminate against homosexuals. What I am saying is that it would unproductive, and therefore inappropriate, to legislate. However much you say churches are providing a public service for the people, they are no more doing this than the bridge club I mentioned earlier. As Grinch has pointed out they are private organisations, not a publicly run bodies. If the government was to legislate to force bridge clubs to accept people who played poker, what do you think would be the result? Probably the bridge players would go all sulky and refuse to play with them, or fold the club and set up elsewhere or in a different format. What are you going to do then? Have the FBI or whoever stand over them with guns till they play poker? So with churches. Any attempt to force those who didn't want to to perform gay marriages would almost certainly result in a go slow or downing tools by recalcitrant clergy. On a day which is meant to be one of the happiest of your life this is hardly what you want. The point I am trying to make here is that many people, and for that matter many christians, want to see gay people married in church. The way to effect change is not by using the law to force a change which will fragment the "club", but to allow the members to convince themselves that they need to make changes in order to meet the requirements and expectations of today's society. After all, let's be positive, the christian churches have a long tradition of waking up to the error of their ways and recognising that being "christian" doesn't (among many other historic "certainties") involve massacring infidels, burning "witches", stoning adulteresses, and excluding women from the priesthood - sooner or later it is to be hoped and expected that they'll do the usual and reinterpret scripture to remove the ungodly prejudice against gay people. |
||
|
freeand2sexy Senior Member
since 2008-09-12
Posts 704CA, USA |
yes i know it was a joke, i should have added a lol, my mistake, i guess it sounded more sarcastic in my head. I love pancakes!!! |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Moonbeam I agree that we should inspire better changes among the churches, and most likely many better changes shall come about. That is a good thing. But until more changes come, and where the remnants remain of wrongful discrimination, the law ought to step in and defend the people, and indeed enforce the law on the church. For a church is a popular institution to which many masses of the public go for worship, weddings, funerals, etc, so it should need to be responsible not to discriminate wrongly against the public, just like a school or a library. People equally don't deserve to be a victim of wrongful discrimination from a church anymore than from a library, museum, school, etc. The service of marriage should be expected as a benefit that everyone should be able to participate in without facing sexism or racism, we expect such when seeing the museum, using resources at the library, being taught by a teacher at school, and we should expect such at a church too. The law should equally step in whenever any of these institutions wrongly discriminates against someone. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
marriage should have never been used to call a civil union. The bigger crime is this lack of separation of church and state. -Juju |
||
|
freeand2sexy Senior Member
since 2008-09-12
Posts 704CA, USA |
quote: Um, yeah i think the problem with that, in a church at least, is that their focus is not on the expectations of today's society, they focus on God's laws, and the body of Christ. As societies expectations change the less it has to do with the church. Unless they (the church) stray from God's ways, they won't make that change. (well i can't speak for all churches, of course) I love pancakes!!! |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
I agree Juju that it is iniquitous for a state to favour one religion over another. freeand2sexy, humm I am not sure you are totally right there. History shows that religions often do shift their "rules" to better fit in with changes in society - what about the relatively recent admission of women to the ministry for instance? Sure, there are always going to be some diehard evangelicals, but moderation usually wins out in the end. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Just as by having allboy schools you do not deprive girls from an education because there are allgirl schools too, so the barring of homosexuals from married in church does not bar them from being married (or it shouldn't) because they have the alternative of a registry office marriage, which is (or should be) equal under the law. (I think there is a small argument that christian gay people may be deprived of a service, but no doubt the argument would be put forward (by evangelicals) that gay people can't be christian. As long as there is an alternative to church for gay people to be married I don't see that they are being denied, except insofar as church weddings are "prettier". Private schools in the UK DO discriminate. They get to choose who is accepted into the school, normally on the basis of academic ability and also sometimes on the basis of whether a parent has attended the school. They are private. They get to set the criteria. Moreover those criteria is directly relevant to the rationale for the existence of the school, viz, to get the best academic results they can. Similarly a private church sets its criteria for membership and the benefit of its services directly by reference to its rationale for existence, viz, bringing people to their god. So if god doesn't approve of gays and if their god will not recognise a marriage of gays then it seems entirely reasonable to refuse to marry gays - because after all any minister disobeying god's law might be struck down or be sent direct to hell (without passing Go). Public schools and of course the other examples you gave of libraries and museums usually have whole or part public ownership and are therefore entirely different, being owned by the public they must serve all the public equally. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Can a Muslim man legally as a U.S. citizen have three wives, (all of whom he loves and who love him in return), in the United States? If not, why not? Mohammed had a nine year old bride who by all accounts loved him. Would that be ok in California now? . [This message has been edited by Huan Yi (12-01-2008 06:37 PM).] |
||
|
freeand2sexy Senior Member
since 2008-09-12
Posts 704CA, USA |
Moonbeam, i understand what your saying and your mostly right, but not all changes in society are view as good, and i do agree that some churches will change as they stray from God, but the Church as a whole, the body of Christ, will not. I love pancakes!!! |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Moonbeam Any school or church that denies people education at school or marriage at church because they do not believe the people deserve to have such because of their gender goes too far into the realm of unreasonable in my judgement, no matter how much they believe it is God's will. People generally get married through a church and the sacredness thereof in one way or another is important to most people. It is not offering anything equal when someone is denied it and forced to go to a different or alternative institution for what anyone else generally gets at the school or the church. No one should be victims of that kind of unreasonableness at such important institutions as Schools and Churches. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-02-2008 12:56 AM).] |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: I agree with you of course. I just don't think you are correct in thinking that legislation is the best way to achieve a harmonious outcome. We are going to have to agree to disagree I guess, and hope that one way or another eventually equity and compassion prevail. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. moonbeam, Clearly you are on the dark side of Essorant’s meaning . . . I also note the evasion of my questions. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Huan Yi, As a condition for joining the Union, Utah had to make polygamous marriages illegal. I believe. Enforcement of the law has generally been consistent. Sometimes, it's been spotty, if you'll check your newspaper files. The question as the whether this should have been the case may be more complex, given the first amendment. If we were as serious about the first amendment as we perhaps should be, them plural marriages should be legal, polyandry as well as polygamy and this would no doubt include the now somewhat controversial same-gender unions. These would seem to be logical implications of the first amendment that nobody seemed to bother writing down. In the same way that 2 plus 2 equals four, it would seem that thirty two sixteenths plus thirty-two sixteens would equal sixty-four sixteenths; it sort of a function of commutability. But just because it makes perfectly good sense to me, that doesn't mean that it's perfectly sensible to you now, does it? It seems that your question about an Islamic marriage ought to be straightforward as that, but it probably is more like the you-have-to-be-like-Utah situation. I find that a terrible thing to say to anybody, myself, but then I'm from Ohio originally, and a lot of people from back in Massachusetts where I spent 30 years pronounce "Ohio" exactly like "Utah." Sometimes they make it sound like "Iowa," too, which just makes things merrier all around. What's your thought, Huan Yi? Geographically yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Huan Yi Sorry, I seem to have missed something. First, I don't understand what you meant by my being on the dark side of Ess's meaning. Perhaps you could explain? Second, I didn't know your questions were directed at me because you didn't preface with a quote or address me personally. Even so, I have to admit I didn't understand what your questions were driving at. Perhaps I am being stupid, or perhaps coffee deficiency. Sorry to trouble you, could you elaborate? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Huan I have woken up now! As far as the example you gave of the Muslim with several wives is concerned I don't see any reason in principle why that should not be permitted. I think any loving commitment between two adults is fine, and if it was up to me I would be inclined to enact laws to the effect that a man may marry as many women as he wanted and vice versa. I think that the caveat would be that a single person should not be able to derive an economic or social benefit from multiple marriages - so any state provided benefits would have to be adjusted accordingly. As far as a 9 year old girl is concerned I think this starts to impact on the principle of equality and free consent. I think that unions where one party is very significantly less mature, or in fact any union where one party is mentally unable to understand the full implications of what is being asked of them, are problematic. But that aside, I think that, again, a fixed lower age limit is more a matter of legal workability than any fixed principle. Look at the situation in medieval times for instance. Still don't get your comment about the dark side and Essorant though! |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
