Obama 7 - now what?

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Indeed, but why is it that your convictions supersedes anothers? Especially since their convictions apply only to themselves, while your try and force yours on others. Do you also think those old PC causes like anti slavery, suffrage for blacks/women were wrong?

slavery and suffrage were never referred to as PC causes. If you knew your history, you'd know that a lot of folks who would be against gay marriage were key in forwarding those issues. That's just modern rewriting of history to link those causes to PC or gay marriage in any logical fashion. But, if folks say it often enough, some people will believe it, regardless of how baseless it is.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Just got this: "Go back to your hole, you ****ing idiot." on a negative rep. Thanks for proving my point better than I ever could, whoever you are. And unfortunately, there are many such people in our society. I choose to keep my profile low and try to avoid subjecting myself or my wife to such.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Anyone who wishes to be married within most every organized religion must get a state marriage license in the State of Minnesota. I see that as me being forced to report my marriage to the state, not me and my wife demanding recognition from the state.

Not being privy to the details of marriage law in every state, I can't comment too much there. But as DC said, whether striaght couples demanded it or not, they still are entitled to the benefits that gay couples are not, and I don't exactly see too many straight couples demanding to have the government recognition and befits untied from being married, so I'm gonna assume it's something they actively want. If straight couples want to join in separating government unions from religious marriage, though, I say the more the merrier.

Every law is based on the personal beliefs of the majority. So where is the difference here? Contrary to popular belief, the United States is a representative republic, not a democracy.

Yes, in the end there is nothing preventing enough people from getting together and passing whatever they fell just because they feel it, provided that it passes constitutional muster. But as time goes in I think people believe more and more than there should be more comprehensive reasons for laws - it helps all of society in some way or prevents harm to all of society in some way - that is for the good of everyone and doesn't just enshrine one group's beliefs at the expense of others. As I said, though, there is nothing preventing such a group from advocating their beliefs all they want, that's their right, but when it is due to their own subjective reasoning they should not be too surprised that their argument doesn't win others over automatically.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Just got this: "Go back to your hole, you ****ing idiot." on a negative rep. Thanks for proving my point better than I ever could, whoever you are. And unfortunately, there are many such people in our society. I choose to keep my profile low and try to avoid subjecting myself or my wife to such.

Look, people, I probably don't agree with Bob on his stances today, but if you want to debate him ask him to explain his stance, and then explain your stance, and see where you can go from there. Do that and don't start throwing around "bigot" and other crap from the get-go, this isn't helping anyone's side at all.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

I've always assumed that our society will gradually become less and less tolerant of someone like me with traditional Christian views, likely someday leading to open persecution. But, so be it. I can only control how I conduct myself towards others, and I treat all with respect, regardless of if they disagree or agree with me on this or other issues.

Oh please...look Bob I like you and respect your posts about 99% of the time (whether I agree or not) but this is a bunch of crap. How are you respecting gays by openly praising their discrimination? You don't like gays because a book tells you not to, you show them no respect. If you were born 100 years earlier would you be respecting Blacks too by considering them less than a man?

And give me a break on how the moral will be persecuted at some point...the problem with any religiously pius group is that it stagnates, never realizes that things change. The thing is though there will always be the pius, they just make themselves irrelevant. Like the orthadox jews who hate any interpretation of God below theirs to the point of hatred. Assuming for a second that God is the Creator and that everything is going according to his/her/its plan, dont you think God wants people, religions and societies to evolve? Isnt that why he/she/it gave us the ability to learn, reason and grow? If Yahweh exists, and if Jesus is his son, do you really think that he wants us all living the life and times of the Roman Empire?

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Just got this: "Go back to your hole, you ****ing idiot." on a negative rep. Thanks for proving my point better than I ever could, whoever you are. And unfortunately, there are many such people in our society. I choose to keep my profile low and try to avoid subjecting myself or my wife to such.

That is retarded...why cant people disagree civilly? I may think your opinions are bigoted but I would never get angry about it or worse like it seems most people do these days. You and I can't change policy, and most likely we can't change each others opinion either, but we can talk and try and gain perspective. Further proof the electorate is getting dumber and the politicians are feeding it instead of ignoring it because this is the standard now.

Whoever said that to Bob should fall in vat of acid.

 

[Plante26]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

How does "demanding recognition" or not make any difference? The fact is that the government recognizes heterosexual marriages, but does not recognize homosexual marriages. Whether heterosexuals demanded that recognition or not is irrelevant.

Does the fact that white heterosexual couples didn't demand government recognition mean that inter-racial marriages should still be prohibited?

Everyone here is missing my entire f'in' point. I don't think the governement should be in the marriage racket in the first place. If anything else, it's an intrusion in matters that are not the business of the state in the first place. And no, it's not because I'm cheap and still p*ssed about the $40 for the marriage license (though that is nearly 3 12ers of Summit IPA).

I am Handyman and I approve/concur with this message

You would.

Just got this: "Go back to your hole, you ****ing idiot." on a negative rep. Thanks for proving my point better than I ever could, whoever you are. And unfortunately, there are many such people in our society. I choose to keep my profile low and try to avoid subjecting myself or my wife to such.

The "tolerant" amongst the masses are more intolerant than any of the "bigots" that are out there. Classlessness at its finest, whoever you might be.

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

\
I think the polling is closer because there are social conservatives out there who see what happens to someone like the former Miss California, who was pilloried for just saying what she believed, and in a very mild way. I think some of them would purposely avoid participating in a poll or survey. We live in a society where unfortunately many people can't control themselves when around people who have very different views on things than they do. There's no benefit to participating in a survey or poll, and if it somehow came out that you took a non-PC view, there's a lot of very vehement people who could make your life unpleasant. It's unlikely I'd participate in any sort of survey on this kind of hot button issue.

I've always assumed that our society will gradually become less and less tolerant of someone like me with traditional Christian views, likely someday leading to open persecution. But, so be it. I can only control how I conduct myself towards others, and I treat all with respect, regardless of if they disagree or agree with me on this or other issues.

Ok, two things.

The real reason people went after Miss California was not for her beliefs but because of the way she conducted herself. She was a partying ho-bag who didn't see anything wrong with the way she conducted herself but was considered moral because she was anti-gay. That's my problem with her. If you want to sling stones you better be the Virgin Mary.

Second, you expect people to become less tolerant of your intolerance like that's a bad thing.

Traditional Christian views, let me ask you some personal questions. You're married now. Have you been married before? Because while Jesus never talked about Gay Marriage he definitely talked about divorce. Did you have premarital sex? Also not ok. The way I read it is if you have been married before and you get divorced then re-marry when you have sex with your second wife you've committed adultery under the strictest interpretations of the Bible.

I am all for banning gay marriage if we ban divorce and stone adulterers and people who have premarital sex and make them crimes. And I demand all the anti gay marriage people get punished first.

Edit: Whoever negged Bob Gray is a jerk.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Everyone here is missing my entire f'in' point. I don't think the governement should be in the marriage racket in the first place. If anything else, it's an intrusion in matters that are not the business of the state in the first place. And no, it's not because I'm cheap and still p*ssed about the $40 for the marriage license (though that is nearly 3 12ers of Summit IPA).

Fair enough, and on that point I agree with you fully. But can we also agree that it will be a cold day in hell before we ever split the two? As angry as some people get about gay marriage, it doesn't really change anything about straight marriages (ignoring the whole "it will make my marriage mean less" argument), whereas if you were to tell them that their marriage was getting changed by the government to a civil union I think a lot of people would get up in arms that something of theirs was being taken (despite the fact that such a union would have the exact same benefits as marriage does now). That all said, it seems more realistic than to try to give gay couples the same title as straight couples since the other idea seems much less likely to ever happen.

 

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Everyone here is missing my entire f'in' point. I don't think the governement should be in the marriage racket in the first place. If anything else, it's an intrusion in matters that are not the business of the state in the first place. And no, it's not because I'm cheap and still p*ssed about the $40 for the marriage license (though that is nearly 3 12ers of Summit IPA).

Alright. In that case I agree with you. Keep religion in the churches and out of government. Leave marriage to the churches, and either provide no government benefit/recognition of married couples or make the benefits available to all. Most of your conservative brethren would probably disagree, and insist that the government recognize marriage as a man and a woman.

 

[Plante26]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Fair enough, and on that point I agree with you fully. But can we also agree that it will be a cold day in hell before we ever split the two? As angry as some people get about gay marriage, it doesn't really change anything about straight marriages (ignoring the whole "it will make my marriage mean less" argument), whereas if you were to tell them that their marriage was getting changed by the government to a civil union I think a lot of people would get up in arms that something of theirs was being taken (despite the fact that such a union would have the exact same benefits as marriage does now). That all said, it seems more realistic than to try to give gay couples the same title as straight couples since the other idea seems much less likely to ever happen.

Alright. In that case I agree with you. Keep religion in the churches and out of government. Leave marriage to the churches, and either provide no government benefit/recognition of married couples or make the benefits available to all. Most of your conservative brethren would probably disagree, and insist that the government recognize marriage as a man and a woman.

All right then.

Now, let's work on getting me my $40 back.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Fair enough, and on that point I agree with you fully. But can we also agree that it will be a cold day in hell before we ever split the two? As angry as some people get about gay marriage, it doesn't really change anything about straight marriages (ignoring the whole "it will make my marriage mean less" argument), whereas if you were to tell them that their marriage was getting changed by the government to a civil union I think a lot of people would get up in arms that something of theirs was being taken (despite the fact that such a union would have the exact same benefits as marriage does now). That all said, it seems more realistic than to try to give gay couples the same title as straight couples since the other idea seems much less likely to ever happen.

At this point it is the only way around it. In the perfect world we wouldn't need to classify because no previous classification would have happened but the fact is at this point to call it something else besides marriage would be a mockery of gay rights. We sort of painted ourselves into a corner.

 

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

All right then.

Now, let's work on getting me my $40 back.

In my case, the government didn't make me do much of anything. Had to go to the court house and drop like $10 on a marriage license.

The stupid Catholic church, on the other hand, made us do all kinds of classes and counseling. And we had to get a dispensation from the local Diocese since I'm not Catholic. Not that it matters, because our marriage isn't a sacrament since I was never baptized.

In this case, the government was actually MORE efficient than the "private sector", IMO

 

[SPIN CONTROL]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Stop quoting Plante26 people. I'm ignoring his brutal stupidity and ignorance.

oh you poor baby. sniff. sniff.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Contrary to popular belief, the United States is a representative republic, not a democracy.

If you truly believe that, then you should be hopping mad every time someone launches a referendum or other popular vote to legislate, regardless of the issue. If you want to see how f'ed up "democracy", individual and representative, can be just look at California, and just not on the gay marriage issue.

 

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Look, people, I probably don't agree with Bob on his stances today, but if you want to debate him ask him to explain his stance, and then explain your stance, and see where you can go from there. Do that and don't start throwing around "bigot" and other crap from the get-go, this isn't helping anyone's side at all.

I concur. I disagree with Bob strongly on this issue, but he isn't trolling or being deliberately offensive.

French has basically flushed out my point but just as a cap, there are valid reasons why some biblical prohibitions against murder and theft have been adopted into law. Its not hard to see why all of society benefits from frowning on those actions. They've got a pretty clear, rationale purpose. Biblical prohibitions on homosexuality make as much sense as biblical prohibitions on shellfish. Homsexuality appears to mostly be determined by genes and hormones present in the womb, so its not like increasing the visibility of gays will threaten the survival of the species.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

The polling all the time is very close, much closer than the actual voting is. Why is that? Is it because some people won't admit they are anti gay marriage? Are they so ashamed of their beliefs they won't admit to a stranger how they will vote? If you don't feel comfortable telling people how you feel about gay marriage maybe, just maybe, you're wrong in your beliefs if you can't tell others about them.

You're right. In fact, why do we allow voting in private at all? Everything should be placed in the public light, so that mob justice can rule all.

Who I vote for or how I vote on any given issue is no business of yours or anyone else's. If I want to share it, I will. If I don't, **** off.

To somehow insinuate that wanting to keep one's votes private indicates wrongdoing is utter lunacy from my perspective.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Homsexuality appears to mostly be determined by genes and hormones present in the womb, so its not like increasing the visibility of gays will threaten the survival of the species.

Oh, boy. Now you've done it. Now we'll have the genes vs. choice argument again.

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

You're right. In fact, why do we allow voting in private at all? Everything should be placed in the public light, so that mob justice can rule all.

Who I vote for or how I vote on any given issue is no business of yours or anyone else's. If I want to share it, I will. If I don't, **** off.

The variance between polling and actual results is way off. And again, these aren't people who refuse to answer the question. These are people that answer and LIE on their answer.

 

[moe24]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Homsexuality appears to mostly be determined by genes and hormones present in the womb, so its not like increasing the visibility of gays will threaten the survival of the species.

You might want to run that one by medical science some day soon since they don't seem to have the same information you do.