HardRadio.com Main Page

HardRadio HardBoard
The Heavy Metal Supersite
 
    FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


SF to sue California for gay marriange ban
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    HardRadio HardBoard Forum Index -> Free For All Forum
Digg it Stumble it Submit to Del.icio.us Reddit it Slashdot it  
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mijarra



Joined: 28 Nov 2000
Posts: 1564
Location: Pennsylvania

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 2:44 pm    Post subject: SF to sue California for gay marriange ban Reply with quote

quote:
Originally posted by Just an average joe:
quote:
Originally posted by Mijarra:
quote:
Originally posted by Jim McCormick:
Ok, here is the facts plain & simple. When government or government fueled by religion dictates your personal choice of a marriage partner, by punishment of law, then thats is wrong.

.

Nitro, I am not trying to "impose my beliefs on you". They are not "my" beliefs, they are the beliefs of millions of Americans and the basis on which our country was founded.

.

Actually the idea that America was founded on Christian beliefs is false. The founding fathers were NOT christian. They were Deists.

Deism: (1) The belief in the existence of a God on purely rational grounds without reliance on revelation or authority; especially in the 17th and 18th centuries. (2) The doctrine that God created the world and its natural laws, but takes no further part in its functioning.
-taken from websters (i'm not trying to insult intelligence here by posting the definition)

john Adams, the second president of the United States says “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”-treaty of tripoli 1796, acticle 11

Thomas Jefferson, third prez...“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry. . . .” The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom

I could go on, but all i have to say is read Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason. I am christian myself as i have stated before, but as a historian and firm believer in the idea that this country was founded on the basis of religious freedom...that is, to escape religious persecution and for all people to worship (or not) as they want, I whole heartedlt support the idea of homosexuals being able to marry and have the same basic civil rights as every other human being in this country.

So, it's simply a coincidence that our values and laws almost mirror the laws taught in Judeo-Christian religion? C'mon. Our founding fathers were seeking religious freedom, so of course they were going to make comments to seperate religious doctrine from political concerns. Being dictated by the church was one of the main problems they had with England, so taking this stance was a main selling point for getting the average citizen on board and willing to support a revolution.

Interesting info about some of those historic figures though...and no I didn't take offense to it. [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

So, let's even say you win that point and people like Jefferson and Washington didn't want religion to interfere with politics. It still doesn't change the fact that Judeo-Christian ideals dominate our cultural sense of right and wrong. It is the basis for what is accepted and what is taboo in our society. I am not saying that's good or bad, I'm just saying that's the way it is and a minority should not win out over thousands of years of cultural belief.

What it seems that some people (the minority) wants is a re-organization of what society accepts as normal. There was a time when people were judged based on their actions, but now it seems like we are forced to accept things we don't agree with all in the name of political correctness. I fear a world where people aren't allowed to take a stand on subjects they feel are wrong, be they morally or otherwise. People don't consider that, along with the ideal that homosexuals (in this instance) should be tolerated and accepted, the same freedom should be given to those who do not condone such behavior. People who preach tolerance seem to be the most intolerant of other's points of view.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Just an average joe



Joined: 08 Aug 2002
Posts: 148
Location: Grand Rapids Michigan

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 2:49 pm    Post subject: SF to sue California for gay marriange ban Reply with quote

quote:
Originally posted by Mijarra:
quote:
Originally posted by Just an average joe:
quote:
Originally posted by Mijarra:
quote:
Originally posted by Jim McCormick:
Ok, here is the facts plain & simple. When government or government fueled by religion dictates your personal choice of a marriage partner, by punishment of law, then thats is wrong.

.

Nitro, I am not trying to "impose my beliefs on you". They are not "my" beliefs, they are the beliefs of millions of Americans and the basis on which our country was founded.

.

Actually the idea that America was founded on Christian beliefs is false. The founding fathers were NOT christian. They were Deists.

Deism: (1) The belief in the existence of a God on purely rational grounds without reliance on revelation or authority; especially in the 17th and 18th centuries. (2) The doctrine that God created the world and its natural laws, but takes no further part in its functioning.
-taken from websters (i'm not trying to insult intelligence here by posting the definition)

john Adams, the second president of the United States says “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”-treaty of tripoli 1796, acticle 11

Thomas Jefferson, third prez...“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry. . . .” The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom

I could go on, but all i have to say is read Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason. I am christian myself as i have stated before, but as a historian and firm believer in the idea that this country was founded on the basis of religious freedom...that is, to escape religious persecution and for all people to worship (or not) as they want, I whole heartedlt support the idea of homosexuals being able to marry and have the same basic civil rights as every other human being in this country.

So, it's simply a coincidence that our values and laws almost mirror the laws taught in Judeo-Christian religion? C'mon. Our founding fathers were seeking religious freedom, so of course they were going to make comments to seperate religious doctrine from political concerns. Being dictated by the church was one of the main problems they had with England, so taking this stance was a main selling point for getting the average citizen on board and willing to support a revolution.

Interesting info about some of those historic figures though...and no I didn't take offense to it. [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

So, let's even say you win that point and people like Jefferson and Washington didn't want religion to interfere with politics. It still doesn't change the fact that Judeo-Christian ideals dominate our cultural sense of right and wrong. It is the basis for what is accepted and what is taboo in our society. I am not saying that's good or bad, I'm just saying that's the way it is and a minority should not win out over thousands of years of cultural belief.

What it seems that some people (the minority) wants is a re-organization of what society accepts as normal. There was a time when people were judged based on their actions, but now it seems like we are forced to accept things we don't agree with all in the name of political correctness. I fear a world where people aren't allowed to take a stand on subjects they feel are wrong, be they morally or otherwise. People don't consider that, along with the ideal that homosexuals (in this instance) should be tolerated and accepted, the same freedom should be given to those who do not condone such behavior. People who preach tolerance seem to be the most intolerant of other's points of view.

Since i am trying to escape work at the moment, i am only going to say 2 things.
1) of course we are going to mirror judeo christian values...we were founded by europeans who had been immersed in judeo christian beliefs since Constantine.

2) South Park... TOLERANCE CAMP!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jim McCormick



Joined: 09 Oct 2003
Posts: 467
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 3:15 pm    Post subject: SF to sue California for gay marriange ban Reply with quote

quote:
Originally posted by Just an average joe:
quote:
Originally posted by Mijarra:
quote:
Originally posted by Jim McCormick:
Ok, here is the facts plain & simple. When government or government fueled by religion dictates your personal choice of a marriage partner, by punishment of law, then thats is wrong.

.

Nitro, I am not trying to "impose my beliefs on you". They are not "my" beliefs, they are the beliefs of millions of Americans and the basis on which our country was founded.

.

Actually the idea that America was founded on Christian beliefs is false. The founding fathers were NOT christian. They were Deists.

Deism: (1) The belief in the existence of a God on purely rational grounds without reliance on revelation or authority; especially in the 17th and 18th centuries. (2) The doctrine that God created the world and its natural laws, but takes no further part in its functioning.
-taken from websters (i'm not trying to insult intelligence here by posting the definition)

john Adams, the second president of the United States says “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”-treaty of tripoli 1796, acticle 11

Thomas Jefferson, third prez...“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry. . . .” The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom

I could go on, but all i have to say is read Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason. I am christian myself as i have stated before, but as a historian and firm believer in the idea that this country was founded on the basis of religious freedom...that is, to escape religious persecution and for all people to worship (or not) as they want, I whole heartedlt support the idea of homosexuals being able to marry and have the same basic civil rights as every other human being in this country.

Once again, great points Joe, but one can not deny the influence that Christianity has over our government & business, just by sheer volume of numbers. Government (elected officials) & business do anything they can in most cases not to offend Christians. It would not be good for business.

Now marriage. It is true that most marriages once again by sheer numbers, are Christian sanctioned in this country. So why can non-Christains get married? What I'm getting at is marriage is not just for Christians & their values. All major religions have marriage, but really where did the fundamental idea of marriage spring from? Way before the time of any organised religion. Marriage was born out of the necessity for survival since the beginning of man. Marriage sprang up as a economical way for two people to survive & bring up childern in a much more primitive time of hardships. It was better to pool the resources of the family as a whole than one person. That it why back (not so long ago) it was typical to see grandparents, parents & childern living all together in one household. Survival by numbers. With the industrial revolution that need for numbers in the family has greatly decreased until the last 30 years or so, that one person could support theirselve & childern. It's still not as easy as two, but it is well in the grasp of society today. So religion basically adapted marriage as an institution to sanctify what they consider a sinful union of man & woman to live & procreate together. For the practical non-religous person marriage is a commitment between two people to love & cherish one another with no religous ties at all. So there should be no problem of two people of the same sex in love making that commitment to one another. Marriage is not owned by Christianity, or any othe religion, it belongs to people for people.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Jim McCormick



Joined: 09 Oct 2003
Posts: 467
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA

PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 3:38 pm    Post subject: SF to sue California for gay marriange ban Reply with quote

"I fear a world where people aren't allowed to take a stand on subjects they feel are wrong, be they morally or otherwise. People don't consider that, along with the ideal that homosexuals (in this instance) should be tolerated and accepted, the same freedom should be given to those who do not condone such behavior. People who preach tolerance seem to be the most intolerant of other's points of view." - Mijarra

Now here is a real contradiction in terms if I've ever read one. Mijarra, you fear the day when people can't take a stand on subjects that they feel are wrong. Yet you condone an ammendment outlawing gay marriage to our constitution. So basically your condemming gay people demostrating their right of opinion to get married by doing just that, getting married.

An opinion is an opinion, but your changing your opinion into an act of law that will discriminate against gays & may have grave consequence for seperation of church & state, therefore our freedoms as individuals seeking free choice of religion. That is to be religous or not, Christain or not. That is our right.

Now I'm scared.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mijarra



Joined: 28 Nov 2000
Posts: 1564
Location: Pennsylvania

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2004 7:03 pm    Post subject: SF to sue California for gay marriange ban Reply with quote

quote:
Originally posted by Jim McCormick:
[QBNow here is a real contradiction in terms if I've ever read one. Mijarra, you fear the day when people can't take a stand on subjects that they feel are wrong. Yet you condone an ammendment outlawing gay marriage to our constitution. So basically your condemming gay people demostrating their right of opinion to get married by doing just that, getting married.

An opinion is an opinion, but your changing your opinion into an act of law that will discriminate against gays & may have grave consequence for seperation of church & state, therefore our freedoms as individuals seeking free choice of religion. That is to be religous or not, Christain or not. That is our right.

Now I'm scared.[/QB]

Jim, all laws are someone's opinion. If someone didn't believe it was right, they would never make it a law. It is most people's "opinion" that murder is wrong, so murder is illegal by law. Why else would murder, or anything else, be illegal if it wasn't someone's opinion that it was wrong? Once again I will restate...our society is outlined by the values that we hold, and those values must come from somewhere.

The point I am trying to make about what you quoted is this: As an example, why are you allowed to say gay people should be married, yet I am NOT allowed to say they shouldn't? My point is that only politically correct liberals seem to be afforded the freedom of sticking up for that they think is right, while those with traditional conservative views aren't. That is what our society is becoming, the PC police beats you to death unless you believe in soda pop and candy canes for everyone, no matter who they are or what they do. Sorry, but I still have standards. What I am saying is, I will hate to see the day when people are forced to feel it's wrong or bad to be against certain things, such as homosexuality. Just as people have to right to be for homosexuality, others have the same right to be against it.

And BTW, I said it before and I'll say it again, you are saying this law would discriminate against gays. That's your take on it, not fact. Some would say it protects an institution from those for whom it was not intended. Marriage in defined as being between a man and woman. I am a 31 year old male...if I wanted to join the Girl Scouts could I claim discrimination if they didn't let me in?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dillinger



Joined: 28 May 2003
Posts: 151
Location: Philly

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2004 7:39 pm    Post subject: SF to sue California for gay marriange ban Reply with quote

quote:
Originally posted by Mijarra:
quote:
Originally posted by Jim McCormick:
[QBNow here is a real contradiction in terms if I've ever read one. Mijarra, you fear the day when people can't take a stand on subjects that they feel are wrong. Yet you condone an ammendment outlawing gay marriage to our constitution. So basically your condemming gay people demostrating their right of opinion to get married by doing just that, getting married.

An opinion is an opinion, but your changing your opinion into an act of law that will discriminate against gays & may have grave consequence for seperation of church & state, therefore our freedoms as individuals seeking free choice of religion. That is to be religous or not, Christain or not. That is our right.

Now I'm scared.

Jim, all laws are someone's opinion. If someone didn't believe it was right, they would never make it a law. It is most people's "opinion" that murder is wrong, so murder is illegal by law. Why else would murder, or anything else, be illegal if it wasn't someone's opinion that it was wrong? Once again I will restate...our society is outlined by the values that we hold, and those values must come from somewhere.

The point I am trying to make about what you quoted is this: As an example, why are you allowed to say gay people should be married, yet I am NOT allowed to say they shouldn't? My point is that only politically correct liberals seem to be afforded the freedom of sticking up for that they think is right, while those with traditional conservative views aren't. That is what our society is becoming, the PC police beats you to death unless you believe in soda pop and candy canes for everyone, no matter who they are or what they do. Sorry, but I still have standards. What I am saying is, I will hate to see the day when people are forced to feel it's wrong or bad to be against certain things, such as homosexuality. Just as people have to right to be for homosexuality, others have the same right to be against it.

And BTW, I said it before and I'll say it again, you are saying this law would discriminate against gays. That's your take on it, not fact. Some would say it protects an institution from those for whom it was not intended. Marriage in defined as being between a man and woman. I am a 31 year old male...if I wanted to join the Girl Scouts could I claim discrimination if they didn't let me in?[/QB]

GIRL SCOUTS..HEY THAT IS A COOL IDEA!
Anyways, Mijarra, laws are laws. They have nothing to do with whether you are conservative or liberal. They are based on principles, statutes and case studies of circumstances. It is not unlike science. In science, of course, there is subjectivity, which is HUMAN NEED. However, this is not based on liberal or conservative. Your point of view resembles that of the LA music awards saying it doesn't matter what they did to me because I am transvestite. The law doesn't work that way, because if it did, there would be anarchy in the worst sense of the word. I imagine even you Mijarra would not want to see that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
rockin500



Joined: 18 Jan 2001
Posts: 739
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2004 8:01 pm    Post subject: SF to sue California for gay marriange ban Reply with quote

i kinda waver on the issue. i mean, i can understand the one viewpoint, especially from the conservative side as it should be man/woman and that the goal of marriage is to procreate. I'm sorry, but i think thats what marriage was meant for. not merely for love. sure, thats what it is for now it seems, but it is also meant to extend your family tree and create heirs.

but then i also see the point of view in that you should be able to love whomever you want, and that you love the person, not the sex organs. lol. that and i have to support a sister's POV (though i doubt she would get married any day soon if it was legalized.)

so i guess i dont have a strong opinion either way. My big problem with what san fran is doing is that its against the law and are willingly breaking the law. You cannot break the law without consequences. At the least, the mayor should be thrown out of office, and at most thrown in jail. He has no right to decide which laws he will enforce and which he will flout. Go through the legal process and repeal the law if you want to. thats how you do it, not doing what he did.

does anyone find it odd how the Judge who had the commandments in Alabama was fired over his flouting of the law, yet this Mayor is pretty much getting a free pass from the media? Just seems like a double standard...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Jim McCormick



Joined: 09 Oct 2003
Posts: 467
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA

PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 8:49 am    Post subject: SF to sue California for gay marriange ban Reply with quote

"As an example, why are you allowed to say gay people should be married, yet I am NOT allowed to say they shouldn't? My point is that only politically correct liberals seem to be afforded the freedom of sticking up for that they think is right, while those with traditional conservative views aren't" - Mijarra

Has anyone said here you can't post your opinion? Has anyone here deleted or edited your posts? The people here that have responded to your opinion have mostly disagreed with it, including myself, but no one here has said you can't post your opinion or have one contrary. Why not just face the truth that most here do not agree with you, instead of running to the ground that liberals don't allow you your opinion? This is a forum Mijarra, it is open to debate. It was your choice to post your opinion here, which just by the nature of this site, Heavy Metal/Hard Rock, you should have expected more open views, liberal, than your own. If you want more sympathy for your views, I suggest a website more to the right than this one. This is NOT, I repeat NOT, me saying you can't post your opinions here, for that is your right. All I'm saying is there are more sympathetic forums out there.

You talk about how liberals are doing this & doing that, repressing you. I've said this before, now I'll say it again. We've lost many rights in the last twenty-five years in this country, & Mijarra your to young to realise that, period. The conservatives have had a broad hand in this countrys politics & laws the last 25 years. That is a fact, no two ways about it.

Mijarra, you use murder as a example of something against the law. Murder vs. two gay people getting married is a far cry from one another. I even think many conservatives would agree on that point. What I'm saying is the law can be very wrong, (the law can also be right) just like the opinions that formed them, there are good & bad. Laws get changed all the time, as do opinions, as do religous practices through the years. The real point here is you are discriminating against gays when you make a law that eliminates them out of a process, marriage, that the rest of us can partake in. As someone else stated, "This is 2004." We are much more enlightened than 100 years ago, not even to mention 2000 years ago.

I have read your posts well Mijarra, as I'm sure everyone else has that replied to them, but just as Nitro said, " They hold no water." All you've done in your cause to sway our opinion is to state the majoriaty is right, religous views are right, the law is right, conservatives are right, but with no real valid reason as to why. Many people have brought up valid points why the marriage of gays should be allowed, but you seem to refuse to even give it a second thought. Even your statment on the majoriaty of Americans are against gay marriage is subject to argument. After all, rarely is there ever a 50% turn out of registered voters for an election, bond, or bill made into law. This does not even take into account how many Americans are of voter age, but do not register to vote. Politicians are interested in voters only, not none voters. As I said before, conservatives, especially conservatives that are Christains, are always more organized in getting their agenda in politics via organizing voters for their cause (politicians know they will keep them elected), but that does not mean there are more of them, they just get out & vote more. They have more political clout because they make theirselves heard. Again it does not matter who there are more of, but what segment of America gets out & votes, & conservatives get out & vote. That is what politicians are concerned with & will not alienate them as voters. Sorry to say, but us liberals need to get off our butts so we have a bigger voice in this countrys politics & laws by voting. Liberals by disposition are more subject to passiveness than consevatives, but believe me, the time is coming in this country, & it's not long off that even moderates & many conservatives will say, enough is enough, we've went to far in supressing freedom of choice. That is the direction this country is heading. All you have to do is go out on the street & ask people their opinion of Bush, their opinion of where this country is going, their opinion on the war. It is not pretty. The writing is on the wall.

Now I'm sure you'll reply with more of your inane reasoning, but I'm tired of arguing. Your set in your ways, much like I was a quarter of a century ago, everything was either black or white, no shades of grey in between. With age comes wisdom, 20 years from now you'll see how things have changed for the better, or for the worse, you'll be able to reflect on your life experiences & make more soundly informed judgements through experience. You'll find out that many of the things you thought of so passionately in your youth will fade in time, & new ideas will replace many of them, or at least mellow. So I'm done arguing here, I have nothing new to add to the subject, other than running it into the ground, which I have already, even for me. [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mijarra



Joined: 28 Nov 2000
Posts: 1564
Location: Pennsylvania

PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 8:17 pm    Post subject: SF to sue California for gay marriange ban Reply with quote

Whatever, Jim. Again I find the language you use and the tone of your post insulting, but I've come to expect it so no big deal. I'm sorry you find my reasoning "inane", and if I chose to I could find some excellent words to decribe how I feel about your thoughts, but I won't stoop to that level.

I'm done too. It seems like you take this way too personally. I doubt I will post on a political topic again in this forum. I enjoy the fact that people disagree with me here, but when people start calling me homophobic (which I ignored a few day ago), telling me I think the way I do because I am too young to know any better, and throwing the word "inane" at me it just gets stupid. It's like you take these posts as some kind of fight. If you think I am sitting here getting all angry and typing furiously on my keyboard you're nuts. I come here because it's fun. When people insult me for what I think, that's just not fun.

This is why I made that "I have to say something" thread. The last thing I want is to come off as some kind of troll. I am doing all of this because I enjoy talking about poltical stuff. If people aren't seeing it that way I'll keep my opinions to myself. I'll admit I'm stubborn sometimes, but I'm not trying to fight with anyone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    HardRadio HardBoard Forum Index -> Free For All Forum All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group