I think you both touched on a huge logical fallacy that so many people are hanging their arguments on:
Is Christianity the only religion in the US? No? Okay then.
-
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
I think you both touched on a huge logical fallacy that so many people are hanging their arguments on:
Is Christianity the only religion in the US? No? Okay then.
bam im not discrediting the bible back then, all of your points are actually great
hell back then it was pretty perfect given what they were going through
i take offense that people refuse to question it 2000 years later because you HAVE to believe it and cannot question that
i think knowledge that cannot be questioned and proven right is not a good basis.
hell back then it was pretty perfect given what they were going through
i take offense that people refuse to question it 2000 years later because you HAVE to believe it and cannot question that
i think knowledge that cannot be questioned and proven right is not a good basis.
That's purely opinion. I imagine many people would look upon these rules not as guidelines, but restrictions.
lol. But the only reason AIDS is linked to the gay community is because that's where it ran rampant in the 80s. It wasn't invented by gay men, it didn't come about as a direct result from gay sex... that's just the area of the human population that it first affected on a broad basis.
Are you comparing homosexuality to those "sins?" Becuase I don't remember that commandment.
Forgive me, but how can you have friendships like that? I don't want to postulate, but I really wonder how loyal these people are to you when you openly disagree with such a fundamental part of their personality.
If the government changes all terminology so that people can no longer get legally married, only civilly united, then the problem will be solved. All people will get civil unions if they want to live together. For those who still want marriage, find some religion that stamps that label on your relationship.
Marriage is one of the few places where religion and state are not yet fully separated in the minds of the people, that is the problem.
Doubt this will happen because America is too conservative in general.
EDIT: you can have friendships with people you fundamentally disagree with; I have friends who are Democrats but also have Republican friends, and as long as you don't bring up the differences or even joke about it sometimes it is fine.
Marriage is one of the few places where religion and state are not yet fully separated in the minds of the people, that is the problem.
Doubt this will happen because America is too conservative in general.
EDIT: you can have friendships with people you fundamentally disagree with; I have friends who are Democrats but also have Republican friends, and as long as you don't bring up the differences or even joke about it sometimes it is fine.
There's a convincing set of studies that demonstrate in other mammals, as the population increases, so does the rate of homosexuality. It's a biological control to help keep numbers down in future generations when predators simply cannot keep up.
I guess what I'm saying is that DM is right.
I guess what I'm saying is that DM is right.
Fixed
What I've always wondered is, legally, why can't they just call both straight and gay "marriages" the same thing? For example they could call both straight and gay marriages civil unions. It could still be declared a marriage by the church could it not? It's not like the term marriage would disappear, it would just be further separation of church and state, right? What's the problem here?
Is there some reason that the term marriage, which is religious in definition, must also be the legal term?
Is there some reason that the term marriage, which is religious in definition, must also be the legal term?
Here are the reasons why I voted YES on 8.
1. Protecting our children in schools.
.....Yes they will teach about gay marriage being ok in schools. This is a religious matter alone, and im not only talking about Christianity either, other religions included. Teaching that it is ok goes against many people's religious beliefs and it is the parents right to decide if their child hears it or not. Everyone has the right to freely practice their freedom of religion under the constitution. They already have taught it in schools. In the first weeks that the No on 8 commercials went out on TV a Kindergarten class was taken on a field trip to their lesbian teacher's wedding with the principal calling it a "teachable moment". In the mean time the NO on 8 was saying that it would not be taught in schools. Flat out lying about it is just wrong.
2. Protection Churches
.... If 8 fails, churches will be at risk of many things. Already during the election churches have been vandalized and damaged over this issue. Sadly this is not one of the most troubling problems. Already it has been seen in other countries as well as our own that there will be more problems. Ministers have been arrested for preaching in their own Church that it is wrong.
http://www.conservativetruth.org/archives/tombarrett/07-28-02.shtml
http://lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jul/04070505.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/sep/06091302.html
this here is a direct violation of the first Amendment on not one but two accounts.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.This is the first amendment. And before anyone starts talking about the "wall of separation of Church and state", I would like to point out that when Thomas Jefferson made that comment he was talking to a Boston, Baptist minister and was in full support of him and attached that comment to the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof clause, not the first half. If 8 fails we will see more of this. Marriage is a religious matter. I am all for homosexual couples getting a domestic partnership so that they can get the tax benefits, that I do not care about and by all means go right ahead. But do not bring the churches into the matter. If a Church preaches that it is wrong, don’t you dare violate the First Amendment and arrest their pastor. The second part that this violates is the freedom of speech. It is an American right to be able to freely say what you want. People in support of 8 have had their homes, cars and own bodies damaged for freely expressing that they are in support of 8, while yes supporters have not done the same things to the Nos.
3. If you want something done you have to do it the right way.
….There has not been a vote placed on the ballot to decide whether gays should be allowed to marry or not, rather they have gone behind voters backs and talked to the judges instead and have tried to win that way. That is not how it works. If you want something to be a law then put it to vote. On the contrary, when it was first voted on and California said no to allowing homosexuals to marry by 66%, the judges in San Francisco went over the voters and changed it. In America we vote, that is part of our freedom, and now the courts aren’t even caring about want 66% of Californians. If they want to be allowed to marry, do it the right way and put it to vote, don’t cheat and goo behind everyone else’s back to get your way because that is childish.
4. This is correcting something we already voted on.
….Just to go over what I have already stated, this was already voted on and passed by 66% of Californian voters. Prop 8 is simply putting back into place what was already decided months ago. The courts decided to go over California’s heads and ignore what they decided and now we are trying to correct it.
The solution to the issue is to fix Civil Unions and have the federal Government recognize it. There, problem solved, they get the same rights that a straight couple gets (tax breaks) under a Civil Union. This also opens up for people opposed to any form of marriage and also want to get the tax breaks.
1. Protecting our children in schools.
.....Yes they will teach about gay marriage being ok in schools. This is a religious matter alone, and im not only talking about Christianity either, other religions included. Teaching that it is ok goes against many people's religious beliefs and it is the parents right to decide if their child hears it or not. Everyone has the right to freely practice their freedom of religion under the constitution. They already have taught it in schools. In the first weeks that the No on 8 commercials went out on TV a Kindergarten class was taken on a field trip to their lesbian teacher's wedding with the principal calling it a "teachable moment". In the mean time the NO on 8 was saying that it would not be taught in schools. Flat out lying about it is just wrong.
2. Protection Churches
.... If 8 fails, churches will be at risk of many things. Already during the election churches have been vandalized and damaged over this issue. Sadly this is not one of the most troubling problems. Already it has been seen in other countries as well as our own that there will be more problems. Ministers have been arrested for preaching in their own Church that it is wrong.
http://www.conservativetruth.org/archives/tombarrett/07-28-02.shtml
http://lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jul/04070505.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/sep/06091302.html
this here is a direct violation of the first Amendment on not one but two accounts.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.This is the first amendment. And before anyone starts talking about the "wall of separation of Church and state", I would like to point out that when Thomas Jefferson made that comment he was talking to a Boston, Baptist minister and was in full support of him and attached that comment to the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof clause, not the first half. If 8 fails we will see more of this. Marriage is a religious matter. I am all for homosexual couples getting a domestic partnership so that they can get the tax benefits, that I do not care about and by all means go right ahead. But do not bring the churches into the matter. If a Church preaches that it is wrong, don’t you dare violate the First Amendment and arrest their pastor. The second part that this violates is the freedom of speech. It is an American right to be able to freely say what you want. People in support of 8 have had their homes, cars and own bodies damaged for freely expressing that they are in support of 8, while yes supporters have not done the same things to the Nos.
3. If you want something done you have to do it the right way.
….There has not been a vote placed on the ballot to decide whether gays should be allowed to marry or not, rather they have gone behind voters backs and talked to the judges instead and have tried to win that way. That is not how it works. If you want something to be a law then put it to vote. On the contrary, when it was first voted on and California said no to allowing homosexuals to marry by 66%, the judges in San Francisco went over the voters and changed it. In America we vote, that is part of our freedom, and now the courts aren’t even caring about want 66% of Californians. If they want to be allowed to marry, do it the right way and put it to vote, don’t cheat and goo behind everyone else’s back to get your way because that is childish.
4. This is correcting something we already voted on.
….Just to go over what I have already stated, this was already voted on and passed by 66% of Californian voters. Prop 8 is simply putting back into place what was already decided months ago. The courts decided to go over California’s heads and ignore what they decided and now we are trying to correct it.
The solution to the issue is to fix Civil Unions and have the federal Government recognize it. There, problem solved, they get the same rights that a straight couple gets (tax breaks) under a Civil Union. This also opens up for people opposed to any form of marriage and also want to get the tax breaks.
wow, that pisses me off, they arrested three pastors over this?
Since when are religions not allowed to preach what they are supposed to be preaching...
Like I've said before, homosexuality is none of my business, and I doubt god actually hates gay people because he's supposed to love everyone. But arresting a pastor over this is just stupid.
Since when are religions not allowed to preach what they are supposed to be preaching...
Like I've said before, homosexuality is none of my business, and I doubt god actually hates gay people because he's supposed to love everyone. But arresting a pastor over this is just stupid.
They can have a civil union, I never argued that. But yes, our country is based on the majority vote. Thats the way it is. We didn't allow the Mormons to have multiple wives, thats a minority group that wanted something different in marriage. We dont allow adults to marry children. And there has been no proof that they are "born different" so that statement is irrelevant. I say they can have their domestic partner ships, they can go to a church that will allow them to get married and have a ceremony, the law isnt stopping them from living together and having a privet ceremony. Prop only stated that it isnt recognized. You do not have to have a legal document to live together or have your friends get together and call yourselves married. However, the federal government does need to fix and recognize a civil union and i would be in support of that if it was voted on.Kira said:
PLEASE vote no on prop 8.
jesus, i'm honestly more occupied and worried about this than the actual president.
WHY would we eliminate the rights of gays? Why would we add discrimination?
Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for a while now and it hasn't been hurting anyone.
God i was so pissed, there were literally like a hundred of people spread out on my 45 minute drive to school with "Yes on 8" signs.
jesus, i'm honestly more occupied and worried about this than the actual president.
WHY would we eliminate the rights of gays? Why would we add discrimination?
Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for a while now and it hasn't been hurting anyone.
God i was so pissed, there were literally like a hundred of people spread out on my 45 minute drive to school with "Yes on 8" signs.
I live in Canada, so I don't know how different the teachings are from here to the US, but yeah, there was a gay couple that talked about gay marriage for a class session. Honestly, it wasn't that big of a deal, they'd give you a sheet to fill in whether or not you want to listen to the couple who were going to talk.
No students in my class wrote a "No" on the sheet and the conversation was pretty homophobia free. I live in Montreal and there are many multicultural students in school and none of them were shocked or uneasy.
I'm not really that entitle to religion (I was when I was younger though), so I can't really relate to you guys who are against it because of religion, but honestly, if they're in love, let them be.
I'm voting no.
Edit: Wait, I just realized, I can't vote, but if I could, I'd say no.
Well, the mormons were a religious group that was violating the law; if this Prop 8 gets rejected, the homossexuals won't violate *anything*; the State endorses them the right to marry, so what's the problem?
Okay, I know the problem: Marriage is a religious ritual, it's sacred, no homo, yadda yadda. But then, it's more of a matter about the state-church separation than the gays (or mormons) themselves.
Okay, I know the problem: Marriage is a religious ritual, it's sacred, no homo, yadda yadda. But then, it's more of a matter about the state-church separation than the gays (or mormons) themselves.
The problem is what i posted above, it takes away more rights of the people that have already voted against it. It takes away the church's right or freedom of speech and anyone's freedom of speech for that matter. If it fails it will open up for anyone saying anything against gay marriage to be charged with a hate crime. That violates the freedom of speech. They have the freedom to call themselves married. They have the freedom to say whatever they want. But it isnt right for them to be able to say that anyone that is against gay marriage is guilty of a hate crime. I dont care if they want to go and have a wedding ceremony, thats fine.
“ In Madison, Wisconsin, a recovered homosexual who had left the “gay” lifestyle to start a family got into a heated discussion with an open homosexual about homosexuality at a gas station. The ex-“gay” man, David Ott, was holding his child in his arms during the entire incident, and neither man touched the other. The homosexual activist later told police he had felt threatened by Ott, and local prosecutors charged the man with “disorderly conduct” with a “hate crimes” enhancement. The “hate crime” aspect, stemming from Ott’s belief that homosexuality is morally wrong, raised the potential fine from $1,000 to $10,000, and jail time went up from a possible 90 days to one year. Fearing the possibility of substantial jail time, Ott settled, and received 50 hours of community service plus a mandatory attendance at “tolerance” sessions conducted by lesbians at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. A ground rule for the session was the premise that homosexual behavior is not immoral.
The entire process cost Ott almost $7,000 in legal fees.[56]
That is wrong. He once sided with the other man and still was charged.
The issue here is not about letting them have ceremonies. They can go and have friends and familey gather to marry them. The prop only doesnt recognize it as a legal marriage. I call myself married and I havrent signed any paper or had a wedding, but i still consider myself married to Syberia. But to be able to toss someone into jail over this issue is wrong or to force someone's child to be taught about it when the parents dont want it is wrong.
Actually no. I have never heard of a school having a field trip to any wedding and it has no business what so ever in school, straight or not. No wedding is relevant to education. I would not have my kid going to a teachers wedding during school time. A class has no business at all attending a wedding and im sure schools wouldnt consider a straight wedding worthy of having a field trip to. If i were a principal i would not allow field trips to even a straight wedding. A teacher'
s personal life is outside of school. None of my teachers ever invited students to their weddings and i had a few get married. So no it doe34s not imply that it would be ok for a straight wedding. I repeat, it is not ok for a school to have a field trip to any wedding. Before this prop, field trips to teacher's weddings were unheard of. I went through school, spcifcifically life studies classes, and they never once talked about marriage. If they didnt talk about it then then they dont need to talk about it now. I would be prefictally fine with schools not talking about marriage at all and they can call tehm civil unions instead if tehy mention them.
It was a class field trip and the principal called it a "teachable moment". Im sorry, that is bringing class into it with that statement.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436961,00.html
School fieldtrip to lesbian wedding is the title of the article.
First-graders in San Francisco took a field trip to City Hall to celebrate the marriage of their lesbian teacher on Friday, but opponents of same-sex marriage in the state say the field trip was an attempt to “indoctrinate” the students, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
The field trip was suggested by a parent at the Creative Arts Charter School, and the school said the trip, where students tossed rose petals on their teacher and her wife as they left City Hall, was academically relevant.
"It really is what we call a teachable moment," said Liz Jaroslow, the school’s interim director, according to the newspaper. She said same-sex marriage had historic significance. "I think I'm well within the parameters."
California will vote on Nov. 4 on Proposition 8 which seeks to ban same-sex marriage in the state, and supporters of the measure say the field trip shows that allowing same-sex marriage will mean it’s taught to school children, the newspaper said.
"It's just utterly unreasonable that a public school field trip would be to a same-sex wedding," said Chip White, press secretary for the Yes on 8 campaign, told the Chronicle. "This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to have an understanding of its purpose."
That really sounds school related if you ask me. Given that it does not say if it was during class hours aside, school field trips are usually during school hours to be considered a field trip.
Now i will say that it is fine for schools to allow clubs for homosexuals on campus, that I am not opposed to. Those clubs are ran by the students and the students have the right to from a club. I do however see schools not allowing students to from a Christian club on campus (read my first post before saying anything about the Church-State thing). So those students are receiving more rights then even the religious students are. I say freedom of speech for both.
I call bullshit.
Not bullshit. It is true. Syberia told me that his school would not allow their students to have a Christian club. I myself have seen some of it too. I had an incident with a staff member at my school. So yes it is not bullshit.
I had a teacher do something like that once too, I didn't go myself but it's a pretty similar situation and I think it's safe to infer it was similar for the CA class too - you develop a relationship with your instructor, especially at that age where you're with them all day for most of a year, I think most kids would want to go to something that important to their teacher's life if they had the choice.
Lexite said:
Also, my high school didn't allow a LBGT type group - does that mean "schools aren't allowing (LBGT) clubs on campus"? It's an isolated situation, it doesn't mean anything without some information about a variety of schools.
- Status