-
Smogon Premier League is here and the team collection is now available. Support your team!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Prop 8
- Thread starter Kristy Haruka
- Start date
- Status
marriage is a church ceremony, nothing really more or less, and for that reason I'd say gay people can't really get married if their church doesnt say so, but the key thing is that we're talking about their church here and we're not living in a theocracy. since marriage is a church issue, we've just got to take the word marriage out of our laws and everything will be a lot better, with equality for homosexuals of course. since we're still sticking to the word marriage, NO is obviously the best way to vote here cause anything anti-equality is just plain intolerant, and the only argument I could see against it is purely semantic.
You realize that the Bible was written by men, right?
The bible says a lot of idiotic things. I believe in god, but I don't take the bible seriously mainly because it was written 2000 or so years ago. I don't understand how people can just pick things from the bible that they accept like "homosexuality is bad" and don't even mention things like "Disobedient children should be executed." Surely you wouldn't kill your children just because they didn't do their homework?
My final stance on this subject is...
God is perfect, the bible isn't. The only things in that book to be taken as 100% true are the things God actually said or wrote himself. And if God has a problem with gay people, then he isn't truly a loving God.
I don't know, I have come to realize that I was afraid of gay people because my christian friends all are... and that is just stupid. I would like to take back all the garbage I spouted, but it's a little late for that.
My only regret is that my stupid quotes are literally EVERYWHERE...
http://www.theology.edu/diatribes/diatribe04.htm
See, now this here makes sense...
http://www.theology.edu/diatribes/diatribe04.htm
See, now this here makes sense...
I don't have to admit that. :P.
For starters, the 'good' commandments are all obvious ideas that every society throughout history has invented (Including the non-commandment ones, like the golden rule). And the 'bad' commandments (i.e., the 50% of them dealing with religious issues) are just silly. I mean, the first one explicity condemns freedom of religion!
And that's even assuming we talk about the set of rules commonly called the commandments, not the only rules ever called that in the Bible (Which are more along the lines of "Do not boil a baby goat in its mother's milk"), which are in Exodus 34 if you'd like to look.
I don't live in the US. Would vote no, though, obviously.
Australia hasn't really been great in this regard. The Australian Capital Territory passed a law allowing same-sex marriage during the John Howard years, but Howard, traditionalist that he is, sued the state government - claiming that the federal government was the only body with the right to make such a law, and won. Succeeded in squashing it. It's a real pity.
Our current PM, Kevin Rudd, is of the seperate-but-equal opinion. At least he's trying to give homosexuals pretty much the same rights, but I can't see it as any more than apartheid.
Australia hasn't really been great in this regard. The Australian Capital Territory passed a law allowing same-sex marriage during the John Howard years, but Howard, traditionalist that he is, sued the state government - claiming that the federal government was the only body with the right to make such a law, and won. Succeeded in squashing it. It's a real pity.
Our current PM, Kevin Rudd, is of the seperate-but-equal opinion. At least he's trying to give homosexuals pretty much the same rights, but I can't see it as any more than apartheid.
as you can see by my quaint antipodean ways, i am not in the states
so do me a favour all in California and vote for me. vote no on prop 8.
speaking of US residents, i'm a bit unsure: if it would, if it unfortunately did gain the majority vote, take effect on november 5, we get the results later? or whenever. it's just the 5th now, nearly 2 AM, in australia.
thanks
@jamespicone: yeah, the ACT had balls doing that considering it was during the Howard reign. it's a pity it didn't wait until we ousted him, because Rudd might not have reacted the same way. i generally find that this nation -- at least governmentally -- is progressive in all the ways except social policy. of course, my social policy means a lot to me, so i find this country pretty backwards.
Rudd is definitely better than Howard, but separate-but-equal makes me angry because it's pretty flawed. as long as we're separated we're not going to be equal because we're being treated pretty differently. :/
This is a late reply, but I think people (Misaki, Gorm) kinda misunderstood me, I wasn't arguing whether gays had the right to be married, I was just arguing why it could be better to leave the term "'civil union". Marriage is more of a religious term, and...well just read Misty's post for what I basically think, the only thing I didn't consider in my post is considering statewise every marriage a civil union, even though Hip said it might piss off certain hetero couples...sucks that such controversy could exist over a word =/. I'm all for no on prop 8 though.
exactly true. equality isnt equality if its unequal.... obvious, but for the legislation
Vote NO on Prop 8.
this is beyond marriage/civil unions (defining of which is obviously extremely needed), its about equality. to have same-sex marriage on the table, then ripped off is 1 step forward 2 steps back... soon 'homosexuality' will be back on the disease register, we will all die in a pit of inequality...extreme?
having the right to get married and getting married are different things.
related: i respect john barrowmans view on this
'Barrowman has been with his partner, Scott Gill, since 1993, after meeting during a production of Rope at the Chichester Festival Theatre.
Despite this long-standing relationship, Barrowman told Scotland's The Herald newspaper that he had no plans to marry, saying, "Why would I want a 'marriage' from a belief system that hates me?" However, he and Gill did become civil partners on December 27, 2006.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Barrowman
That's probably the most intelligent thing in this thread.
Even though people voting NO won't affect me, as I live far away from California (yay for England), but I respect a person's decision. Who am I to tell them who to marry? If they are religious, then obviously they are defying whatever religion they have chosen (if that religion condemns same sex relationships). So, if it came down to it, I'd probably vote NO!.
If marriage is a religious term, as mentioned earlier by someone else, it should not be used as a word in law. Everybody should be in a civil union - both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Gorm, the Bible states nowhere in it that God hates gays. Honestly, I'm sure you've read some of it - where are you getting this idea, from today's "Christians"? I myself am a Christian, and sometimes I feel almost ashamed to say it because of the horrible image we've been given by other "Christians". We've all seen those people holding up signs saying "God hates x/y/z people", and that's absolutely not true.
If you look back in the Old Testament, you'll obviously find dozens of strict rules and penalties for breaking them. Yeah, it is extremely harsh to be killed over having sex with another man's wife, but that's just how it was. If you look at the context, though, and the general reason for all the rules being written, you'll see that they were for the better good of the Israelites. Example:
In reality, God hates the act of sin, not the person him/herself. In his eyes, somebody having gay sex is comparable to somebody telling a lie or sleeping with another man's wife. I don't believe in hating homosexuals simply because God says it's not right, along with the fact that I would then be burdened with hating all other sinners. We are all sinners, and just because somebody prefers one over the other doesn't mean we should pick them out. Just because somebody is gay doesn't mean I won't hang out with them or that I'll bag on them. I know plenty of gay people, and they know my stance; it's the same as one friend telling another that "smoking kills", but in the end they're still friends.
However, that doesn't mean I'll promote homosexuality just because they have a tougher time than smokers. In my eyes, it's still wrong (and not just because of Christian reasons), and I wouldn't vote yes on anything that promotes it or no on anything that states it as wrong. Those are my beliefs, and I will stick to and vote by them. I just wanted to clear that "God hates x/y/z" thing up, it was getting on my nerves.
Edit: I just used my 1k post on this so you'd better be thoughtful about this post!
If you look back in the Old Testament, you'll obviously find dozens of strict rules and penalties for breaking them. Yeah, it is extremely harsh to be killed over having sex with another man's wife, but that's just how it was. If you look at the context, though, and the general reason for all the rules being written, you'll see that they were for the better good of the Israelites. Example:
- they were required to go out of their camp to take a dump. This kept the area clean and helped keep infections from spreading around.
- they weren't allowed to eat certain animals (birds of prey, etc.) because they were literally "dirty" animals that were likely to cause sickness among those who ate them
- one was not allowed to sleep with any relatives; God knew about inbreeding even if the population didn't
- people weren't allowed to have sex with animals. I sure today that if it weren't for animal protection rights people would be doing that today and arguing for acceptance and such but that's for another topic I guess.
- people with leprosy/a sickness were kept away from those who didn't have it so as not to spread the infection.
- they burned any pots/jars/tools that came in contact with somebody who was ceremonially unclean. This stopped the spread of infection.
- women became ceremonially unclean during their period (blood can contain all sorts of nasty stuff and back then they didn't have pads or tampons)
- and then you have the Ten Commandments; we can all conclude that if one followed these, you would for the most part have a happier, more enjoyable life
In reality, God hates the act of sin, not the person him/herself. In his eyes, somebody having gay sex is comparable to somebody telling a lie or sleeping with another man's wife. I don't believe in hating homosexuals simply because God says it's not right, along with the fact that I would then be burdened with hating all other sinners. We are all sinners, and just because somebody prefers one over the other doesn't mean we should pick them out. Just because somebody is gay doesn't mean I won't hang out with them or that I'll bag on them. I know plenty of gay people, and they know my stance; it's the same as one friend telling another that "smoking kills", but in the end they're still friends.
However, that doesn't mean I'll promote homosexuality just because they have a tougher time than smokers. In my eyes, it's still wrong (and not just because of Christian reasons), and I wouldn't vote yes on anything that promotes it or no on anything that states it as wrong. Those are my beliefs, and I will stick to and vote by them. I just wanted to clear that "God hates x/y/z" thing up, it was getting on my nerves.
Edit: I just used my 1k post on this so you'd better be thoughtful about this post!
- Status