quote:Originally posted by raybond: Why do you care so much seekingfreedoom is the fact two people form a union that does not suit you what is it that makes you so upset? You are never going to stop gays from living together
it's a big issue at the Mormon Church, they've had to do a lot of fundraising in defense of marriage.... they have spent alot of money fighting same sex marriage laws... i guess they figure that if they can't have multitple wives anymore, then gays should not be married...
they do seem to say that civil unions should be legal tho:
Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.
It is important to understand that this issue for the Church has always been about the sacred and divine institution of marriage — a union between a man and a woman.
a man and a woman? how many wives did the founder of the Church have exactly?
-------------------- With lies, you may move ahead in the world, but you can never go back. Posts: 30305 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
A previous leader of our faith once said, "A Nation can rise no higher than the strength of its Families."
In a nutshell, that what this is all about to me. The family unit is where children are supposed to be taught many of the life lessons that will help them throughout their lives. Lessons like proper ettiquette of behaviour between the sexes. A loving father and mother provide the kind of example that should show the child what kind of healthy relationships they should be seeking in life. That can\should translate to other relationships (work environment, social interractions, etc.)
While I won't argue that gays cannot create a supporting home environment, I do believe that by definition they are teaching the child that there is something wrong with the opposite sex due to the exclusion of it from the parents' lifestyle. This can lead to all sorts of social issues for the child later in life.
This is why I support civil unions. I think that they (gays) should enjoy every legal privelege that anyone else enjoys. But I believe that the term 'alternative lifestyle' needs to keep the 'alternative' part and not be seen as equivalent to the traditional family unit.
Posts: 931 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
You are the very picture of stubborn futile resistance.
You also seem to paint the picture that acceptance should come before protection when it has been the other way around on every other example of persecution throughout our history.
It IS an inequality issue SF.
If there is a racial overtone (which there wasn't in my post last night. I spoke of persecution, not race) it is because that has been the predominant focus of persecution and injustice in out society since slavery was abolished and before (think American Indians).
I don't care much about your acceptance. Be truthful, you will never accept an openly gay relationship to be recognized as equal to your marriage. You can accept homosexuality or not as you choose so long as you tolerate. If you do not tolerate you will run up against civil rights and possibly even hate crime laws now that they have finally been passed.
Your assertion that since equality in marriage is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights then it is not an equality issue is wrong headed. Slaves who had no rights could marry with their owners approval. Freed men who had not yet been granted civil rights could marry as they chose without anyones approval. Currently every other member of every other race, gender, and religion practiced in this country including satanists, aethiests, and wikens can marry without complaint save for the homosexual. Marriage is a common right not specifically enumerated in the bill of rights yet protected by the 9th amendment under the authority of government officals being granted the power to perform marriage cerimonies regardless of the religious affiliation of the participants.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 4567 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
S.F.,,,,it all comes down to the fact that you dont see gays as being equal(that there is something "strange" with them),to you, and you need to have a law that supports your belief.....
again...homophobic.......buts thats ok,, lets call it as it really is,tho.
-------------------- jordan Posts: 4995 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When it comes right down to it who the hell are you SF or anybody else to tell other people how to live and other guide lines that they should live under as long as they are not hurting anybody. You even want to make laws that enforce your insane reactionary attitude.
As for making us a weaker country which I have seen the post claim on this board because we are getting away from christian principles. This is a country that politically never followed christian principles. The only time they did was when they could make money on them or control masses with them.
The two counties that accepted Homosexuality were the Greek and Roman that viewed it as just another preference a person has , they went on as the longest Empire and culture in the history of mankind.If you want to use the age of existence as a guide line to justify right and wrong with a people and society I don't but it seems to be a right wing point that they love to make.Gays have there rights, I don't personally like there life style, they are like any body else they have the right to live ,protection under the law,not laws that tell them how they are going to be restricted in society, If you feel different nobody says you have to wed another man or women.
-------------------- Chicken Little was wright Posts: 938 | From: phx az | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny that i STILL don't see anyone actually making the point that it is NOT government's duty to decide who gets married... Well.. except me. I see me do it. And I do it well... You know, straight to the point.. no fluff... Just out and say it.. Of course no one ever takes note as they are so mislead by some moron on the cube telling them they should care that they can't for an instant see it is nothing but a ruse. Oh well...
Posts: 2167 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Legalist society Relent. No matter if it is a good thing or not nowdays we have to have everything written down and in triplicate which inevitably involves the judicial branch and when have you ever know the legislative and executive branches to leave judicial decisions alone without comment?
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 4567 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: It's funny that i STILL don't see anyone actually making the point that it is NOT government's duty to decide who gets married... Well.. except me. I see me do it. And I do it well... You know, straight to the point.. no fluff... Just out and say it.. Of course no one ever takes note as they are so mislead by some moron on the cube telling them they should care that they can't for an instant see it is nothing but a ruse. Oh well...
excellent point. one of those inconvenient questions that conservatives have a hard time with.
they always speak of Freedom and "freemarkets" and the Constitution, but when it comes right down to it? they want the Govt to legislate many facets of our private lives...
if Pat Robertson had been alive in the 1700's? he would have been the States Attorney at the Salem Witch trials, and Limbugger would have been the "town crier" spreading all the news about what teh witches had been doing.
-------------------- With lies, you may move ahead in the world, but you can never go back. Posts: 30305 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, Big, spent the weekend taking care of a different kind of insurance issue. Some idiot rear-ended my Durango while my wife was stopped at a traffic light. Everyone's ok, thankfully, but it's still annoying.
Anyway, back to the debate:
quote:UGH! You frustrate me SF. lol
Just doing my part.
quote:You are the very picture of stubborn futile resistance.
Thanks, I've always been photogenic. lol
Seriously, though, when it comes to certain things that one considers moral issues, one has a duty to be stubborn and resist...even when it is eventually futile. (shrug)
quote:You also seem to paint the picture that acceptance should come before protection when it has been the other way around on every other example of persecution throughout our history.
No, I have to disagree here. The Jim Crow style laws were ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court for many years because the people (as a whole) had not yet come to 'accept' blacks as equals. It is only after generations seperated the original slave owner society and the new people of the U.S. (which were more mixed racially) that 'suddenly' the same laws began to be overturned. Acceptance (by the majority if not the whole) must ALWAYS precede legislative acting else other legislators that DO agree (and act) with the popular opinion will be voted in.
Right or wrong, it is what it is.
Posts: 931 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
hmmmm... how many "Jim Crow laws" were ruled constitutional by SCOTUS, and why? only couple were ever tested and upheld.
separate but equal was considered to be rational until it became obvious that, in practice, there was no equality under the laws. The other argument that held was that the Govt had no right to "interfere" in private business practices.
Jim Crow is the best answer, of three, to people who keep asking why the Federal Govt has so much power today. The Supreme Court most definitely took the lead in creating an environment that forced States to repeal laws that were overtly discriminatory. The other answers to why the Feds have so much power today would be tied to the Temperance movement and the Great Depression.
The Jim Crow laws were actually created by Whites in response to reconstruction. Reconstruction gave the power to the majority in the Southern States, and guess who the majority was?
-------------------- With lies, you may move ahead in the world, but you can never go back. Posts: 30305 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately this issue of acceptance vs protection must remain a matter of opinion (unless you can find better material than I) because I can find no polling data regarding popular opinion during the civil rights movement.
I can point to lynchings, murders, white jury's openly unjust court decisions, burnings, assassinations, police brutality, and governors sending guards to stop desegregation and only backing down after that national guard is activated by the president, all of this happening during the time period that the laws 'suddenly' began being overturned to substantiate my position but I can't give you a percentage.
I do think it is telling though that only twice since the civil war has a democratic presidential nominee ever won a majority of the white protestant vote.
1936 Roosevelt vs Landon (Landslide election just after Great Depression campaigned on the 'New Deal' programs he had started during his first term)
1964 Johnson vs Goldwater (1 year after Kennedy assassination, opponent wanted to break the New Deal coalition and end social security)
P.S. Glad everybody is ok in your household.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 4567 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Everyone's ok, thankfully, but it's still annoying. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
