NO on Prop 8 (California)

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

What's the difference, anyway?

A lot of innocent people could get blamed for something they had nothing to do with, if you stereotype them as those responsible as "christians." Look at the nastiness that ensues when we stereotype responsible parties as "muslims", for example. I'm always in favor of peeling back some of the labels to see what's really under there.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[stevebabin 0]

Quote

Do you feel that I have danced around the issue?

No, You've made your position clear.
You have, however, imo, used a ridiculous analogy(fucking a dead deer) in a strawman argument.

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[stevebabin 0]

Quote

Quote

What's the difference, anyway?

A lot of innocent people could get blamed for something they had nothing to do with, if you stereotype them as those responsible as "christians." Look at the nastiness that ensues when we stereotype responsible parties as "muslims", for example. I'm always in favor of peeling back some of the labels to see what's really under there.

You can substitute whatever term you like. People voted for prop 8 on religous grounds, primarily, whether they met your definition of christianity or not. I should have used the more generic term, "religious people" (but I'm sure that would have pissed people off too, so whatever...)

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Can you please answer this question?

Why are gay couples not considered equal (or "ok) in religion?

Religion does not answer to logic. Your question is without meaning.

Does logic suggest to you that there should be constitutional amendments to legally define all words, just this one, or a specific list of terms including "wedding", "spouse", "wife", "husband", "newlywed", and "better half"?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[chadkal 0]

It wasn't meant to be an analogy, I was trying to find out where others would draw the line of right and wrong

--------------------------------------------------
I am a greek midget

[rushmc 18]

If I read you right, you are very close if not right on the money.

Know that I am not a religious person in gerneral. I do believe and have developed my own model as to what that means.

I do see this as just another attack on an institution. One that many believe in with more passion than I. But I have stood by and whatched as the liberals tear down, one by one (for reasons I beleive but willing not go into here) and I am now will to take a stand for traditions sake.
(and not the crazy ones they will list following my post as not all are worth saving)
Will change happen? Yes, but it does not have to happen at the speed some want. And in some cases not to the degree many want it. It has to and needs to be generally acepted to really work and allow wounds to heal when decsions made offend and hurt others beliefs.

I see the value in allowing gays to be partners. I have been asked what difference does it make. Those questions can go both ways. I have asked why is it so important to be a marriage. You have come as close to giving an answer to that as anyone. Thanks

I do not wish to be non commital here. But many on this site will take ones words literaly when it benifits them and obtusly for the same reasons. (maybe they are politiions in waiting)

But again, I think you have in your words put my position as close as anyone. Maybe even including me

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I think that if christians were truly adhering to the teachings of "Jesus", prop 8 would have failed.

I think that the LDS church is not even remotely "christian" in the commonly understood sense of the word. Are you familiar with their teachings?

Pinning this on "christians" is not very fair, since the primary proponents (the LDS church) aren't actually a christian denomination.

The LDS took a lead role in the support for the prop 8 campaign, but it's quite false to say that they were the primary Christrians (and yes, Mormons certainly are Christians). The mass rallies and prays just before the elections were not Mormons. And the large number of black Obama voters that voted for Prop 8 were not Mormons either.

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

It was and is definded in the bible. That is why I consider the attempt to change an attack or religion.

How do you feel about the parts of the Bible that go into great detail about slaves and slavery? Is this portion of the good book as valid and worth defending as that parts you select to support your position? How about the parts that instruct you to kill people who work on the Sabbath? Do you consider those that oppose slavery to be attacking the Bible? 160 years ago, the conservatives of the time sure did...

You see, Marc, the problem that those of us who aren't "christian" have is that the folks that call themselves "christian" pick and choose which parts of the Bible are valid, and which aren't anymore. Either it is all good, or it is all subject to acceptance or rejection, based on the evolution of society. You can't have it both ways.

Freedom OF religion include freedom FROM religion.

I am still waiting for examples of positive social change that came about though conservative philosophy.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Can you please answer this question?

Why are gay couples not considered equal (or "ok) in religion?

Religion does not answer to logic. Your question is without meaning.

Why?

Because in the absence of logic, all you'll get is an emotional answer to the question "why"? And extracting meaning from emotional responses is a waste of time.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Can you please answer this question?

Why are gay couples not considered equal (or "ok) in religion?

Religion does not answer to logic. Your question is without meaning.

Does logic suggest to you that there should be constitutional amendments to legally define all words, just this one, or a specific list of terms including "wedding", "spouse", "wife", "husband", "newlywed", and "better half"?

Blues,
Dave

All words that need to be used by a court to determine compliance with a law should be precisely defined. And the legal definition should hew as closely as possible to the generally accepted definition, NOT to a hijacked definition made by a special interest group to further its agenda.

And again I will add, my objection is semantic, not moral, religious or political. Civil rights of same sex couples can be achieved without usurping an existing, ancient word.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

"Ok let me rephrase then. Why are gay couples not "recognized" in religion like a straight couple? "


Because not everyone needs a book to tell them how to live their lives. Some of us are actually capable of making our own decisions!

You read the latest copy of "Grimm's Fairy Tales", too?

Still waiting for that bitch to throw her hair down, are ya?

I really don't understand what you just said and what you mean.

That because it was the normal 'illiterate redneck' insult that tends to get handed out when someone doesn't go with along with what the Enlightened Ones® deem correct.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"Ok let me rephrase then. Why are gay couples not "recognized" in religion like a straight couple? "


Because not everyone needs a book to tell them how to live their lives. Some of us are actually capable of making our own decisions!

You read the latest copy of "Grimm's Fairy Tales", too?

Still waiting for that bitch to throw her hair down, are ya?

I really don't understand what you just said and what you mean.

That because it was the normal 'illiterate redneck' insult that tends to get handed out when someone doesn't go with along with what the Enlightened Ones® deem correct.

Since you understand how his allusion to Rapunzel applies to this topic, maybe you'll explain, O Enlightened One, because I didn't get it either.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[livendive 8]

Quote

All words that need to be used by a court to determine compliance with a law should be precisely defined. And the legal definition should hew as closely as possible to the generally accepted definition, NOT to a hijacked definition made by a special interest group to further its agenda.

Which law needs to distinguish between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples and why is such a distinction necessary?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[windcatcher 0]

Quote

No.
Windcatcher once claimed that her father was arrested for protesting an abortion clinic. (I found that hard to believe, given that it's not illegal, but I digress...)

I know he was arrested while protesting an abortion clinic; not quite sure exactly for what conduct. Do you think that all cops are perfectly just and would not do a thing such as throw a bunch of protesters in jail to teach them a lesson?

Mother to the cutest little thing in the world...

[labrys 0]

Quote

I know he was arrested while protesting an abortion clinic; not quite sure exactly for what conduct. Do you think that all cops are perfectly just and would not do a thing such as throw a bunch of protesters in jail to teach them a lesson?

No, some cops cross the line and arrest people when they should not be arrested, agreed.

But.... being arrested for protesting and being arrested for some other conduct while protesting can be wildly different.

Standing on public land holding a sign isn't the same as say..... using the sign to push someone. Just an example.

What was he arrested for?

Owned by Remi #?

[stevebabin 0]

Quote

Quote

No.
Windcatcher once claimed that her father was arrested for protesting an abortion clinic. (I found that hard to believe, given that it's not illegal, but I digress...)

I know he was arrested while protesting an abortion clinic; not quite sure exactly for what conduct. Do you think that all cops are perfectly just and would not do a thing such as throw a bunch of protesters in jail to teach them a lesson?

No, I think your father broke the law and was arrested for it. I don't think the cop was to blame.

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[diverborg 0]

Not that I have any idea about this scenario, but I know a guy that was arrested because his picketing sign was 2" bigger than what was allowed by law. The cops actually came out and measured everyone's sign to find a reason to arrest people.

Just saying, that sometimes they can get nasty. A good majority of the crowd went to jail because of a technicality none of them even knew about.

This guy was protesting the states move to not recognize homeschooling. Not quite as heated of an issue.

[stevebabin 0]

Did he break the law?
Was he charged with picketing?
Is ignorance of the law a defence that ever works?

I'm just saying that it isn't illegal to protest abortion clinics, and that's not what Windcatchers father was charged with.

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[diverborg 0]

I dunno, I just wanted to tell the story cause I thought it was a good one.

[stevebabin 0]

Quote

I dunno, I just wanted to tell the story cause I thought it was a good one.

Yes it was.
Cops can be assholes just like the rest of us!

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

All words that need to be used by a court to determine compliance with a law should be precisely defined. And the legal definition should hew as closely as possible to the generally accepted definition, NOT to a hijacked definition made by a special interest group to further its agenda.

Which law needs to distinguish between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples and why is such a distinction necessary?

Blues,
Dave

Maybe you'd be happy if prosecutors could arbitrarily redefine words used in indictments, to guarantee getting a conviction regardless of what the accused had actually done.

What we have here is one special interest group usurping what had been an accepted definition for centuries, to further its agenda.

We don't call tails "legs" just so dogs can have 5 legs.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

All words that need to be used by a court to determine compliance with a law should be precisely defined. And the legal definition should hew as closely as possible to the generally accepted definition, NOT to a hijacked definition made by a special interest group to further its agenda.

Which law needs to distinguish between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples and why is such a distinction necessary?

Blues,
Dave

Maybe you'd be happy if prosecutors could arbitrarily redefine words used in indictments, to guarantee getting a conviction regardless of what the accused had actually done.

What we have here is one special interest group usurping what had been an accepted definition for centuries, to further its agenda.

We don't call tails "legs" just so dogs can have 5 legs.

You didn't answer my question. A prosecutor redefining words to win a conviction would be doing so to have a material affect, to the detriment of the accused. If two relationships are to be treated entirely the same under the law, what is the need or benefit in ensuring that the law distinguishes which relationship is homosexual and which is heterosexual. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that gay couples cannot call themselves married (privately, among friends, etc), nor are they prohibited from counting their dog's tail among his legs if doing so has some significance to them. What we're talking about is people arguing in favor of a legal distinction that *should* have no affect other than in making that distinction. But we know that's not the case...the distinction will have material affects.

Let's say that the set of rights & responsibilities inherent to Bob & Jane's legal relationship is X.
Let's further say that the set of rights & responsibiliities inherent to Chuck & Larry's legal relationship is X.
What need is there for a legal distinction identifying Chuck & Larry as queers?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Maybe you'd be happy if prosecutors could arbitrarily redefine words used in indictments, to guarantee getting a conviction regardless of what the accused had actually done.

What we have here is one special interest group usurping what had been an accepted definition for centuries, to further its agenda.

We don't call tails "legs" just so dogs can have 5 legs.

Which word are we talking about, still? Gay or marriage? You seem careful to avoid repeating it.

And frankly, you sound a bit like McCain on the lawn, shaking his fist at kids riding down the street.

BTW, what's the centuries long accepted definition for 'faggot?' Does it matter? It's now a derogatory word to label someone with.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Maybe you'd be happy if prosecutors could arbitrarily redefine words used in indictments, to guarantee getting a conviction regardless of what the accused had actually done.

What we have here is one special interest group usurping what had been an accepted definition for centuries, to further its agenda.

We don't call tails "legs" just so dogs can have 5 legs.

Which word are we talking about, still? Gay or marriage? You seem careful to avoid repeating it.

And frankly, you sound a bit like McCain on the lawn, shaking his fist at kids riding down the street.

BTW, what's the centuries long accepted definition for 'faggot?' Does it matter? It's now a derogatory word to label someone with.

The discussion is not the natural evolution of language. It is the hijacking of words to suit the agenda of special interest groups.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

And which word(s) were hijacked? (sounds like evolution to me)

Keep shaking that fist.