|
Post by jklinders on Feb 27, 2014 23:45:00 GMT 1
Now I am forced by the laws of logic to play devil's advocate.
Rather than bring up some histrionic theoretical example I will use a real world one. Hard as it may be for one as devout as you to believe but there are are other religious sects who also, past and possible present hold very strongly to their beliefs. One of them being the Mormon church. They were OK with polygamy. The territory of Utah was OK with polygamy as well but had to give that practice up to obtain statehood. they had to alter a significant part of their doctrine to become a full state in the union. I would argue that Gay marriage is a far more important right than the right to have multiple spouses. So now we have a Fully recognized church in the US with rights equal to any that actually rolled back on some their rights in order for their main population center to have full statehood in conjunction with the law of man. There is precedent for this.
I could roll out all manner of rather histrionic what ifs regarding religious canon, but historical record already has ruled on this.
Divine right, is a pretty basic thing. A prophet says god chose you to be king, you are king by gods will, anyone who opposes you opposes god. I don't have it from first hand reading but I am pretty sure the first kings of Israel were anointed in oil by a prophet and said to be approved by God. The last king before David lost favor and David took over, a few generations down from him, another lost Jeremiah's favor, who withdrew his support (and therefore God's) not long after the first temple burned to teh ground and Jerusalem was sacked. the allegories were there to see.
And given that every king in the middle ages up until the reformation needed Papal approval to keep their place in the church and their thrones, that's at least another 1000 years before Louis XIV of "Divine Right."
|
|
|
Post by salty on Feb 28, 2014 0:43:14 GMT 1
I'll throw this in the mix (I think Florida isthe only state to still not allow same sex adoption)
Apart from that most places allow same sex adoption, Parenthood is on the same level as marriage, total commitment in some cases same relationships could teach everyone else a thing or two,
Isn't the fundamental truth of marriage the union of two people who love each other, in sickness and in health, to honour and obey?
So who has the right to deny that fundamental truth?
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Feb 28, 2014 1:20:45 GMT 1
Utah was originally an independent territory with religion built into the system of government because the Mormons got their first and set up their own. When they wanted to merge their legal system with the USA overall (I'm not schooled enough on Mormon history to say why), the USA insisted on the abandonment of polygamy. Perhaps as a method of dominance, perhaps out of petulance, but they did. Difference between the two scenarios is one is an extraction and one is an intrusion. Polygamy was extracted from the law so that Utah's law would match the USA's. Can't have every bigamist in the country (it was illegal at the time) getting off on technicalities because they made Utah a state. Rather than repeal all existing laws on bigamy and adding legal specifications on how to approve or get money out of polygamy, they demanded Utah let it go in order get statehood and the money that came with it. Pretty much a legal squabble between two secular entities. The issue of gays being able to marry in churches is taking an established religious canon and adding material to it. AKA essentially becoming a police state escorting people to the altar (though I would hope that Christians would find other solutions than angry protest) to prove a point vs taking an element out and reprimanding people if they catch them at it. Everyone is better off if they just split it up, and say the churches that do not support the issue do not have to host weddings.
Additionally the deeper you go into forced intrusion, the more you run into the issue of the Separation of Church and State. So much emphasis has already been placed on this by the left, those who wish to encourage gay rights can hardly tell the government that now they want the two combined so the marriage issue can be streamlined.
As to adoption, I'm still on the fence. I have friends that are virulently opposed to it, calling it child abuse. I'm more hesitant, given how many broken heterosexual families exist, I don't see how Gays could do much worse. Again it falls under the secular government's purview. If someone asks a church to set up the adoption for a gay couple, it falls back under the exception I think should be set up. If they ask an adoption agency, the agency should cooperate, as they are an organization set up under different rules than a church. Or disband if they find the choice unconscionable.
I have to head out, and I may have rushed this post. Will review and respond upon my return.
|
|
|
Post by Cali on Feb 28, 2014 3:04:52 GMT 1
Imma be right here for the remainder of the thread guys...
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Feb 28, 2014 4:25:25 GMT 1
I think that was mine and Clint's version of agreeing.
Frankly unless something truly foolish gets said, I'm done. What that is defined as will be determined at the time it happens.
|
|
|
Post by salty on Feb 28, 2014 4:28:37 GMT 1
I think I said what Lily said so I'm gonna apologize, Sorry Lil I just worded what you said differently
Anyway why should same sex marriages be opposed, is that equality?
As for the adoption view yee really? I'd say those kids will have more of a tolerant and sympathetic view than society does today, maybe that's why people are still opposed, same with the marriage, future generations having to pay for past mistakes
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Feb 28, 2014 4:39:28 GMT 1
Glad we're on the same page of understanding each other's views then.
Point of interest on the Divine Right thing. David never pressed his power as "given by God" In fact even though he too had been anointed, he refused on several occasions to physically attack Saul, his predecessor that was determined to murder him. Though you're right about the middle ages and papal power. By that point the Catholic Church was more of political entity than a religious one, and I imagine they started the idea.
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Feb 28, 2014 4:40:12 GMT 1
Imma be right here for the remainder of the thread guys... *grabs an e-tool and digs a grenade sump*
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Feb 28, 2014 4:40:51 GMT 1
I think I said what Lily said so I'm gonna apologize, Sorry Lil I just worded what you said differently Why apologize? It's nice to be agreed with... nice to know someone else thinks the same way I do about this sort of thing... it really does bother me... upsets me a lot, actually... when I see or hear such drivel condemning love like that. Love is one of the most powerful things in the world, and I think if more people embraced that idea, then the world would be a less hateful place... maybe even a better place. Sorry if I sounded sappy there...
|
|
|
Post by Rascarin on Mar 3, 2014 12:08:23 GMT 1
Oh gay marriage debates. I'm sure everyone is already well aware of my stance - given that I am planning on marrying my same-sex partner as soon as we're able.
What always got me with religious folk protesting gay marriage was the way so many acted like it was mandatory. Nobody is asking you to trade in your husband/wife and wait to be assigned a same-sex spouse. It's not replacing heterosexual marriage. You don't have to get a divorce just because the homos down the street suddenly have the same last name.
Another argument I never understood was the whole thing about it infringing on religious freedom. I'm pretty sure the idea has always been a) giving gay people equal marriage rights, and b) allowing those churches that WANT to perform gay marriage ceremonies to be able to do so. It has never been said or required that a church that doesn't want to is forced to. They'll retain the right to say no. It just seems very unfair that one group of religious people gets to deny other groups of religious people rights just because they don't want them. Seems a bit "dog in the manger"-ey to me.
ALSO, I don't get the people saying "TRADITIONAL marriage is between ONE MAND and ONE WOMAN" when a ridiculous number of biblical figures had multiple spouses. "Traditional" marriage doesn't mean jack.
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Mar 3, 2014 12:26:53 GMT 1
Oh gay marriage debates. I'm sure everyone is already well aware of my stance - given that I am planning on marrying my same-sex partner as soon as we're able. Congratulations again, I wish you both many long years of happy togetherness! What always got me with religious folk protesting gay marriage was they way so many acted like it was mandatory. Nobody is asking you to trade in your husband/wife and wait to be assigned a same-sex spouse. It's not replacing heterosexual marriage. You don't have to get a divorce just because the homos down the street suddenly have the same last name. That is exactly the point I've been trying to make - a same-sex couple getting married is not going to hurt or even affect the straight couples around them... so why is it even an argument? There once was a time when people of different races were not allowed to marry... well, that's changed now, there are mixed-race couples all over the world - but I'm sure the same argument was used then, that it would be a "Bad Thing" and somehow hurt the "Normal" marriages for the Black man and the White woman (or Black / Asian, White / Indian, add whatever combination here) to get married - well, now that there are marriages and partnerships between different races all over the world, no harm has come of it, so what's the big hold-up? Sorry for getting rant-y again... I just can't help it sometimes... and given how I feel about marriage in general, I just don't see why anyone anywhere should be denied the chance to marry who they want.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Mar 3, 2014 12:50:48 GMT 1
They should not. Hear hear. Thought I'd put an opinion in here too. Obviously I'm in favour of the gay marriage too. It's one of those odd issues where I fail to see a reason why *not*, aside from homophobia. I understand that there is opposition from people who are part of religious traditions that view homosexuality as immoral, and from people who are homophobic for simple reasons of ignorance. I find it hard to respect either of those standpoints. It makes me sad that they are both still very prevalent. Homophobia, whatever causes it, is a viewpoint as valid as any other, and I'm all about that free speech. Both ignorance and religious beliefs of any kind are our within our rights to live by and preach. It's a lot easier for me to say that now though, now that the majority votes are turning my way. It's very nice to see that there are free votes on gay marriage, adaption and rights in general cropping up all over the place and with the obvious current exception of Russia, the developed world is getting more gay friendly at a faster rate than I ever expected. I figured out I was bisexual about twelve years ago, and it was a more homphobic world. The Gay Times, which I read avidly at the time having no other connection, was more like an underground political paper than the lifestyle and sof porn mag it is now! On the streets or discussing my life with people I knew, I felt a lot less safe -- and I never imagined gay marriage coming in a decade, (especially under a Tory government in my country!) There is still homophobia and shocking injustice here and all over the world, but it's dissipating at a speed that just keeps making me smile. I remember a huge uproar over a prime-time TV show featuring two guys sharing a single kiss, and Ellen Degeneres going through hell for holding a woman's hand. I remember Will & Grace seeming like some sort of giant leap for representation. When I was a kid, being in favour of gay marriage was so far from the norm it was a bit like being a hippie or a Scientoloist. Now those things seem almost silly when I look back. Good days. We need to keep getting angry when we are abused or insulted, and not falling into complacency. I'm very happy to see that 'the community' hasn't done that, and neither have the many many straight people who care as much about our rights them / us. Also check out my new book and here is an interview with the stars of my musical 'Alleigance' who---- oh wait, sorry. I mean a poem.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Oct 30, 2014 19:34:07 GMT 1
Wow. So years of forced racial submission that Gandhi and other East Indians endured is now the equivalent of insults in high school.
By all means, fight for gay political rights, but please stop cutting and pasting civil rights quotes to ascribe to the barely a decade old cause celebre of gay rights that is NOT facing the threats those other movements faced. No fire hoses, no lynchings, no troops firing on protesters. Is it easy? I'm sure it's not. But make your own quotes and stop acting like "That's so gay" (a stupid insult in my opinion) is the equivalent of using the N word. There is no comparison.
Also... am I supposed to know who the fox is? Very weird looking.
PS: Not directed at Mr. Ghost (Cali?) personally, but at people who misappropriate historical events. I get just as annoyed with people who glorify our founding fathers as saints and use them to support every tax cut bill.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Glow on Oct 30, 2014 21:06:38 GMT 1
First off Clint:
A) Being called gay is indeed the worst thing gay people have had to endure throughout history.
and
B) The poster is actually meant to represent the equally valid fight for Furry Acceptance. Or did you think a shirtless anthropomorphic bara fox was the universal symbol of homosexuality?
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Oct 30, 2014 21:39:18 GMT 1
The Rainbow threw me off. It's funnier now, but my point about the quotes still stands.
I am not saying that being called gay is all homosexuals have had to endure. I am saying that the rare beating out in crazyville is not the same as the widespread practice of lynching in the south. It's not OK, but if people would stop comparing the two, it would be much better for their cause. Using correct information is crucial to being taken seriously. It's how MLK Jr got the North to stop ignoring the issue and forced the South to adjust the entire system!
|
|