Prop 8

[Mr. Blonde]

[quote name='Korey'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]See, the difference here is that the last few issues that got past that have to deal with civil rights happened to be a lot more violent than gay rights. Am I saying that there isn't violence in association with homosexuality and gay rights. However, there is a large difference between what is happening with Gay Rights as compared to the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s. You don't see homosexual people being blasted by fire hoses and being mauled by police dogs.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

True to a point. While it hasn't been as violent there has been deaths. Therefore I don't think the urgency of passing this law is any less because not as many people have been killed or injured. It's the affirmation of someone's rights that is of importance. We can't judge this issue on the deaths that have resulted from it.

[quote name='Korey'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]I'm going to take a stab at what Allamorph is referring to here and say that if you take it straight to the decision makers first without going through the people, you present a horrible abuse of the system. The judge who hears on this case may be anti-gay rights and if he decides to pass the law to outlaw it, then wouldn't you consider that a tad bit unfair? I believe in the hands of people, that what the people decide as a collective is a better representation of public policy than that of a single group or single person. It's a flaw of our representative democracy, for sure.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

That is why the U.S supreme court has nine judges. And the vetting process is quite thorough, which is based upon neutrality in trying a wide array of court cases.

[quote name='Korey'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Can you provide a specific, recent example? I believe that the will of the masses is what decides someone's fate and to say it is always been a negative thing is rather Locke-ish. The Masses have decided many important things throughout history and not all of them have been negative, I wouldn't even think the majority of them have been bad. But if you can prove me wrong, please do.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Allow me to rephrase that: The masses deciding the equal rights of others in the positive has historically failed. These type of issues have ultimately been decided in the affirmative by the U.S Supreme Court usually with accompanying legislature passed by the house or senate.

[Vicky]

[size=1]My opinion? Oh well.

I don't live in California but it still disappoints me. Don't get me wrong, I can see exactly where all the upset is coming from, and exactly and problems following this decision. Then again, what's one less right to the rest of them, lol (and I'm not talking about being gay here, I'm talking about rights as a human being anyway). It's kind of disappointing on so many levels that I could touch on, but the fact is I don't care; I don't need the vote of the majority to be happy.[/size]

[Korey]

[quote name='Katakidoushi']True to a point. While it hasn't been as violent there has been deaths. Therefore I don't think the urgency of passing this law is any less because not as many people have been killed or injured. It's the affirmation of someone's rights that is of importance. We can't judge this issue on the deaths that have resulted from it.[/quote]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Well it's not an every day thing where these kinds of cases are reaching Segment A on the news either, so it's definitely not something that will be passed anytime soon. The civil rights movement had many deaths, many assassinations, and many crueler injustices happening at a much faster rate, thus the strong call for people to take action during that time period. It only took them about 100 years to see that legislation be passed, but I feel it's much stronger an issue. Body count does speak towards the severity of an issue, wouldn't you agree?[/FONT]

[quote name='Katakidoushi']That is why the U.S supreme court has nine judges. And the vetting process is quite thorough, which is based upon neutrality in trying a wide array of court cases.[/quote]
[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]
Yes, but the vetting process is also very cruel and the person can actually farse their way through the whole process and still be put on the bench. When it comes time to make their decision, the Judges also have their own political agenda. No decision was made in the Supreme Court with any sort of bias and the decision of 9 people can't possibly speak for the collective of the nation. [/FONT]



[quote name='Katakidoushi']Allow me to rephrase that: The masses deciding the equal rights of others in the positive has historically failed. These type of issues have ultimately been decided in the affirmative by the U.S Supreme Court usually with accompanying legislature passed by the house or senate.[/quote]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Let me ask again....

Can you provide a specific, recent example? I believe that the will of the masses is what decides someone's fate and to say it is always been a negative thing is rather Locke-ish. The Masses have decided many important things throughout history and not all of them have been negative, I wouldn't even think the majority of them have been bad. But if you can prove me wrong, please do[/FONT]

[Mr. Blonde]

[quote name='Korey'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Well it's not an every day thing where these kinds of cases are reaching Segment A on the news either, so it's definitely not something that will be passed anytime soon. The civil rights movement had many deaths, many assassinations, and many crueler injustices happening at a much faster rate, thus the strong call for people to take action during that time period. It only took them about 100 years to see that legislation be passed, but I feel it's much stronger an issue. Body count does speak towards the severity of an issue, wouldn't you agree?[/FONT][/QUOTE]

I would agree, but it's because of what has come before that we know what can happen in a similiar situation. We need to learn from the past and act on this before a higher pitch of violence is reached.

[quote name='Korey'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]
Yes, but the vetting process is also very cruel and the person can actually farse their way through the whole process and still be put on the bench. When it comes time to make their decision, the Judges also have their own political agenda. No decision was made in the Supreme Court with any sort of bias and the decision of 9 people can't possibly speak for the collective of the nation. [/FONT][/QUOTE]

It seems you have a problem with our judicial system more than you disagree with me. But again this all comes down to that fact that I don't believe the "collective voice of the nation" should be given the right to deny other U.S citzens equal rights. The only thing being considered should be equal rights to every U.S citizen.

[quote name='Korey'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Let me ask again....

Can you provide a specific, recent example? I believe that the will of the masses is what decides someone's fate and to say it is always been a negative thing is rather Locke-ish. The Masses have decided many important things throughout history and not all of them have been negative, I wouldn't even think the majority of them have been bad. But if you can prove me wrong, please do[/FONT][/QUOTE]

No civil rights law has ever been passed by a popular vote (aside from city council issues) for the equal rights of a specified group in the affirmative. Can you think of even one? If you can please inform me.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Korey'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Can you provide a specific, recent example? I believe that the will of the masses is what decides someone's fate and to say it is always been a negative thing is rather Locke-ish. The Masses have decided many important things throughout history and not all of them have been negative, I wouldn't even think the majority of them have been bad. But if you can prove me wrong, please do[/FONT][/QUOTE]
Not directed at me, but I'll take a stab at this.

Example: African-American civil rights.

Just like gay rights today, the "will of the people" was very much divided on this issue. You had people fighting for rights, but you also has many (particularly in the South) that were against it. You had Jim Crow laws and other legislation in place that was specifically meant to curtail the rights of blacks.

Due to this division, the federal government finally bypassed the people and passed civil rights legislation, which, while not ending the conflict, finally made rights constitutionally protected on a national level.

There's also the idea of civil unions or domestic partnerships being separate-but-equal. If that were really true, then I say some of those who oppose marriage rights should enter into such unions, and see if it really is just as equal. The idea of separate-but-equal is a myth that was long ago disproved.

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Darren']If/when I find the bible verse that I think promoted a large portion of slavery, I'll post it here.[/quote]
[FONT=Arial]Try Leviticus. I'd post it myself, but I'm curious to see you spin the context.

[quote name='Katakidoushi][QUOTE=TimeChaser']What I am saying is there comes a point when it has to be constitutionally recognized and no longer up for a popular vote that will never resolve the issue.[/quote]
I agree withh TimeChaser 100%.[/QUOTE]
As do I, actually. But nothing will ever be constitutionally recognised unless some of [I]the people[/I] push for it. It has to start with the people, period. If the people screw it up, then those who are wronged are able to appeal to a higher authority, put in place by [I]the people[/I].

And I understand your frustrations over the issue; but remember that while you're railing about this being an affront to homosexuals, someone else is drafting a court case so it can go through the necessary channels. I'm not saying that I believe the country incapable of change, only that change comes about through patience and perseverance. This was a setback for homosexuals, and it will only be a defeat if they stop acting. It will take time. All other civil right cases have taken time. It is not a failed system, just one you have to work at.

And basically, TC and I are agreeing about this. I just think you all are seeing the end you think is right, and I'm seeing the process that's necessary to get there.

[QUOTE=TimeChaser]Slavery was something that took so long to resolve partially because those who supported and believed in it got their justification from scripture just as much as those who fought against it.

[CENTER]/~/[/CENTER]
And the rights of women and minorities, and slavery could also, at one time, be considered religious issues because people's beliefs told them that A) women were in a subordinate position to men and had to defer to them, and B) for many centuries, people considered all non-Christians "barbarians" who either had to be subjugated or exterminated.[/QUOTE]
Yes. But I think you agree with me that this was not a doctrinal stance, but a means to justify an attitude. Slavery at its core was rooted in Southern economy. Opposition to women's suffrage was because men feared losing their dominance and public image. Racism . . . well, that was just because of a century-plus of slavery indoctrinating people into thinking black people were inferior. And unless I'm mistaken, the "racial hierarchy"was European in origin, and not exclusive to the States.

And even then, Christianity was far more prevalent in the colonial/industrial years than it is now, so it was probably more understandable if a law passed or failed because of religion. Now, though, I don't believe Christianity has that kind of pervasiveness.

Anyway, I think we're just yakkin' at each other about this now, and essentially agreeing between the two of us. So.

[quote name='Korey][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"']I'm going to take a stab at what Allamorph is referring to here and say that if you take it straight to the decision makers first without going through the people, you present a horrible abuse of the system. The judge who hears on this case may be anti-gay rights and if he decides to pass the law to outlaw it, then wouldn't you consider that a tad bit unfair? I believe in the hands of people, that what the people decide as a collective is a better representation of public policy than that of a single group or single person. It's a flaw of our representative democracy, for sure.[/FONT][/quote]
Right concept, wrong illustration.

What I meant was more that if laws were made every time a minority "felt oppressed", regardless of the truth of that statement, eventually the point to democracy would be ruined and the hands of the majority would be completely tied. The system and its channels exist to protect both, so that if your steadfastly believe in your cause you will have no qualms fighting through to get to the top.

Think of it as a weeding-out concept, where each barrier tests the mettle of those who would pass through it.

And while I was replying, another bounces up. :D

[QUOTE=TimeChaser]Just like gay rights today, the "will of the people" was very much divided on this issue. You had people fighting for rights, but you also has many (particularly in the South) that were against it. You had Jim Crow laws and other legislation in place that was specifically meant to curtail the rights of blacks.

Due to this division, the federal government finally bypassed the people and passed civil rights legislation, which, while not ending the conflict, finally made rights constitutionally protected on a national level.[/QUOTE]
And yet this decision was made because of the continual push from the Negro community, as well as backing from the Northern states. The federal government did not arbitrarily say "oh, we think you should have rights"; in fact, several times it denied blacks their rights before finally conceding to their wrong.

And that brings be back to my point about the will of the people. If there had been no push for justice in African-American rights, there would have been no concession.[/FONT]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]
And yet this decision was made because of the continual push from the Negro community, as well as backing from the Northern states. The federal government did not arbitrarily say "oh, we think you should have rights"; in fact, several times it denied blacks their rights before finally conceding to their wrong.

And that brings be back to my point about the will of the people. If there had been no push for justice in African-American rights, there would have been no concession.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Which basically says in the end this will go on until that day that the government takes the same kind of action it did with all other civil rights.

I only hope I live to see that day.

I think, though, that whether it's pervasive or not (depending on your view of how far religion reaches in today's society, and I happen to believe it still reaches very far), action will not be taken until we can uncouple homosexuality from the concept of "sin" and other religious convictions. It is this, more than anything else, I believe, that continues to hold back progress. It rather presumptuously says that the "will of the people" is backed up by "the will of God".

And I do appreciate that you agree with me on things I've said previously.

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR="Sienna"][FONT="Tahoma"][quote name='Allamorph][FONT=Arial']I just think you all are seeing the end you think is right, and I'm seeing the process that's necessary to get there.[/FONT][/quote]Here I was all set to say, guys you're on the same track and you go and beat me to it. I have one response to that: [B]._.[/B]

Anyway, as much as I think it was wrong to pass the law, I'm still in favor of letting states (and yes that means the people) have a hand in determining policy. Cutting people out of the equation would have an even greater potential to cause problems.

Realistically, what if they passed that without a vote? That would be even more unfair and a misrepresentation of what the people want, something Korey already touched on. What I'm mainly getting at is you can't just arbitrarily turn around and say people shouldn't be allowed to vote on an issue because you say so.

Those layers of the system exist to protect us from unfair laws and sometimes, as history has proven, it takes time to work through it to get rid of laws that infringe on the rights of others. Yes it's a pain and yes it's annoying, but I'm sure that in time, the ban on same sex marriages will end up being a thing of the past. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Mr. Blonde]

[quote name='Aaryanna'][COLOR="Sienna"][FONT="Tahoma"]Anyway, as much as I think it was wrong to pass the law, I'm still in favor of letting states (and yes that means the people) have a hand in determining policy. Cutting people out of the equation would have an even greater potential to cause problems.

Realistically, what if they passed that without a vote? That would be even more unfair and a misrepresentation of what the people want, something Korey already touched on. What I'm mainly getting at is you can't just arbitrarily turn around and say people shouldn't be allowed to vote on an issue because you say so.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

How is it fair to allow people to vote on the civil rights of fellow American citizens? This shouldn't be about "what people want", this is about EQUAL RIGHTS. That's all. This isn't like voting for your favorite color of M&M; this is someone's life. It shouldn't be in the hands of the public. And it's not about people not being allowed to vote on this issue "because you say so", it's about not letting the majority inhibit the rights of the minority.

Every civil rights law ever passed has passed without the vote of the people.

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]

And I understand your frustrations over the issue; but remember that while you're railing about this being an affront to homosexuals, someone else is drafting a court case so it can go through the necessary channels. I'm not saying that I believe the country incapable of change, only that change comes about through patience and perseverance.

I just think you all are seeing the end you think is right, and I'm seeing the process that's necessary to get there.
[/FONT][/QUOTE]

I understand that there are barriers that must be knocked down in order to obtain equality among all of us. However the argument for the progession of equal rights can not be one of "this is going to take years and patience". Civil rights leaders have always demanded equal rights now. Accepting that fact that this is going to take years to accomplish will just make this process take longer. This kind of change takes people getting frustrated, and saying that these rights should be here now.

And as for me "railing about this while someone else is drafting a court case". Let's just say I do my part, but I'm not here to brag about my community service record.

But as you've said it does take the people to push for such a change. I didn't mean to infer that this wasn't the case. If people didn't stand up to such hatred nothing would be accomplished, but still should this be put to a vote: No.

[Rachmaninoff]

[QUOTE=Katakidoushi]How is it fair to allow people to vote on the civil rights of fellow American citizens? This shouldn't be about "what people want", this is about EQUAL RIGHTS. That's all. This isn't like voting for your favorite color of M&M; this is someone's life. It shouldn't be in the hands of the public. And it's not about people not being allowed to vote on this issue "because you say so", it's about not letting the majority inhibit the rights of the minority.

Every civil rights law ever passed has passed without the vote of the people.[/QUOTE]You missed her point completely, she didn't say it was fair, she said that's how the law currently works. Saying it's equal rights and using the system to make it fact, doesn't mean you can turn around and toss out the system just because you say so... You have to prove it. And until that is done, the legal process isn't going to come to a halt.

History has proven time and time again that when the majority makes a move like this, it requires effort to get that changed. So basically she's saying she agrees that it's wrong to deny them rights, only that you can't just casually change how the process works. That would lead to more confusion because flawed or not the system works.

The reality is that the majority does win, until someone fights it and pushes for a change. It's easier for say you and me, but for those who have been around longer and gone through the phases of homosexuality is a mental disorder in addition to being morally wrong based on religious beliefs, it's not going to happen so easily and some may never change their opinion on it, ever.

I think it's wrong to deny them equal rights based on sexual orientation, you think it's wrong, but others do not agree and I'm not going to dismiss what they think just because I don't agree. I'll use the legal system to push for such laws that discriminate to be repealed.

[Mr. Blonde]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']
You missed her point completely, she didn't say it was fair, she said that's how the law currently works. Saying it's equal rights and using the system to make it fact, doesn't mean you can turn around and toss out the system just because you say so... You have to prove it. And until that is done, the legal process isn't going to come to a halt. .[/QUOTE]

Voting on propositions isn't a "legal process", it's a legislative intitiative. Propositions can be offered up to vote on concerning just about anything, so in that aspect the system does allow freedom of decision and the voice of the people to ring out, however I still disagree with allowing a proposition which denies the rights of others. It's just how I feel.

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']
I think it's wrong to deny them equal rights based on sexual orientation, you think it's wrong, but others do not agree and I'm not going to dismiss what they think just because I don't agree. I'll use the legal system to push for such laws that discriminate to be repealed.[/QUOTE]

I'm not dismissing what they think, however I do not agree. And using the legal system is a great idea, but voting on it is not.

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Katakidoushi']I still disagree with allowing a proposition which denies the rights of others. It's just how I feel..[/quote]Then we are in agreement. I'm just not in favor of getting rid of the process, or attempting to force a filter on it based on the potential to deny the rights of others.

Now before you answer that bit, just to be clear I do think it's a clear case of doing that in regards to prohibiting same sex marriage. And I do grow tired of seeing it happen in state after state. We had a similar law end up being passed here in Utah back in 2004, which I voted against btw.

I just think it's obvious that we still have a long way to go in terms of something like gay marriage being legal. Oh and to be clear, taking away the vote aspect doesn't guarantee that those who are higher up won't turn around and implement the exact same thing, but that was covered already.

[Nathan]

[FONT="Arial"]Ironically all these laws that states have been passing to ban gay marriage are doing is essentially shooting themselves in the foot. By allowing their fears of someone different having rights be put into actual law (to deny them those rights), they are indirectly proving that a concession[I] is[/I] necessary.

The more they fight it (gays having the same rights as straight individuals), the more they prove that protection against such intolerance is needed. [/FONT]

[Allamorph]

[FONT="Arial"]Exactly.

That's all I've been trying to get across. Instead of focusing on how this was a major slight against homosexuals, try looking at how it might help their cause.[/FONT]

[Darren]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Try Leviticus. I'd post it myself, but I'm curious to see you spin the context.[/FONT][/QUOTE]
I'm a little offended that you said that... You just assume that I'll twist the context. I guess it's payback though for what I said in the Obama thread.
But actually, I don't own a bible. That's one of the things that comes along with atheism. And even if I did own one, I wouldn't waste my time reading ALL of leviticus. Besides, that might not even be the same verse. But you've obviously heard of the promotion of slavery through christianity or wouldn't presume to know of whatever verse I'm talking about...

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Darren']But you've obviously heard of the promotion of slavery through christianity or wouldn't presume to know of whatever verse I'm talking about...[/quote]
[FONT=Arial]More accurately, I'm familiar with the laws governing the treatment of slaves—the majority of which were designed with the slave, and not the owner, in mind.

And no, not that you [I]will[/I] twist the context. Rather, I think it's a poor idea to try and use someone else's reference point to argue against them if you're unfamiliar with it, which you just admitted. So my impression is that you heard there were sections in the Bible about slavery and assumed that that was the same institution as the one that rooted itself in the Southern states.

Point is, I know what you would have quoted if you had quoted, and already know what it's really talking about. So I was just curious to see how you'd had it twisted [I]for[/I] you; I don't believe you would twist it yourself, just that you might have heard someone else do the twisting and thought it made sense.[/FONT]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]More accurately, I'm familiar with the laws governing the treatment of slaves?the majority of which were designed with the slave, and not the owner, in mind.

And no, not that you [I]will[/I] twist the context. Rather, I think it's a poor idea to try and use someone else's reference point to argue against them if you're unfamiliar with it, which you just admitted. So my impression is that you heard there were sections in the Bible about slavery and assumed that that was the same institution as the one that rooted itself in the Southern states.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Regardless of what the Bible says concerning ethical treatment of slaves, and how that might have been twisted down the centuries to the form of slavery we are familiar with in American history, I'm sure you will agree that it is morally wrong to have slaves in the first place. That is not something we can learn from the Bible, but is what we know from our objective view of morality.

Anyway, just kind of wanted to get that point out there. I am of the view that we are far better with an objective moral framework that does not appeal to scripture.

[Allamorph]

[quote name='TimeChaser']Regardless of what the Bible says concerning ethical treatment of slaves, and how that might have been twisted down the centuries to the form of slavery we are familiar with in American history, I'm sure you will agree that it is morally wrong to have slaves in the first place. That is not something we can learn from the Bible, but is what we know from our objective view of morality.[/quote]
[FONT=Arial]Actually, no. Commerce is what corrupted slavery into the treatment of people as nothing more than cheap goods and labor. The slavery I'm talking about had ethical roots.

Servitude was originally a means to free oneself from debt. If a man was indebted to another man, and he was incapable of reconciling what he owed, then he had the option to work off his debt through service to the other. Remember that money was originally a representation of your value, determined by the work which you did. All servitude did was to say that since you owe this person so much of so much, they will now receive your work as payment until you have assuaged your debt.

Along with that concept were laws concerning slaves and their masters: lawful treatment of slaves, and punishment if any of these were violated (which often resulted in the slave's freedom as well); what the slave [I]and[/I] the master are to do if a slave commits a crime or wrongs another person; punishment of slaves, especially limits thereof; limits on time of servitude (slaves were to be freed in the seventh year; and so forth.

(Actually, [COLOR="DarkRed"]Darren[/COLOR], I was wrong; this was in Exodus.)

But in plantational slavery (and likewise in the Spanish territories), there was no debt nor hope of freedom, there were really no laws, and slaves were not viewed as goods but as [I]things[/I]. If you were made a slave, you were always a slave. If you were born a slave, you were always a slave. If your master wanted to beat you to death, no one would lift a finger to help you, for you were "only a slave", and "not a person". This is what is unethical, the reduction of a human being to an item, and so now whenever we speak of the practice we are left with a foul taste in our mouths because of the massive injustice done through that institution.

So is it morally wrong to hold slaves? Only if doing so violates their rights as humans.

BUT.

Do I see it as something that should be widespread practice, or even infrequent practice? Certainly not. I think we're definitely past that now.[/FONT]

[Esther]

[FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="1"]Seeing as so many of you are already deep into the conversation, I'm just going to state my opinion and anyone is free to comment on it. :]

As most of you already know, I'm a strong advocate of marriage equality. Some of you may also remember, I also used to be a devout Mormon when I first joined the OB a while ago (I have since left after a conflict took place between myself and numerous church members). Needless to say, whether you like it or not, the Mormon church had an agenda this election cycle, as they do with everything.

Their politicking was based on the foundation of one thing only: lying their ***** off to scare Californians into thinking their kids are going to be "taught" about gay people. First and foremost, California state law says that if you are a parent of a child in school you are given the right to opt your child out of ANY school related activity. No one is holding a gun to your head and saying "YOU MUST LEARN ABOUT GAYS!" Besides, your child is going to learn about homosexuality anyways whether it be on the playground, TV, Internet, or even discovering they themselves are gay. Also, what's this notion that whatever your child is taugh in school reflects what they decide to do with their lives? Children learn about the KKK, but do they decide to burn crosses outside of black Baptist churches? Children learn about John Wilkes Booth, but do they decide they're going to go out and assassinate the President? I think people tend to forget that children are human beings with their own free will -- they will eventually get older and decide what they personally want to believe in for themselves, you can only do so much as a parent.

Another talking point the religious right loved to use was that Californians will lose their right of religious freedom. Ever heard of a little thing called the First Amendment?

I honestly do not think Californians understood the severity of the issue when they entered their local polling places on November 4th. They were spoon-fed lies by propagandic commercials funded by the Mormon church. They played dirty, very dirty. Hell, they even used pictures of children in one of their advertisements celebrating the same-sex marriage of one of their teachers. Why is this wrong? First, they didn't even have the consent of the children's parents who were opponents of Prop 8. Secondly, they took images of care-free children celebrating the happiness of someone they loved and distorted it to fit their message of hate. And that is pure evil.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[Darren]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]More accurately, I'm familiar with the laws governing the treatment of slaves?the majority of which were designed with the slave, and not the owner, in mind.

And no, not that you [I]will[/I] twist the context. Rather, I think it's a poor idea to try and use someone else's reference point to argue against them if you're unfamiliar with it, which you just admitted. So my impression is that you heard there were sections in the Bible about slavery and assumed that that was the same institution as the one that rooted itself in the Southern states.

Point is, I know what you would have quoted if you had quoted, and already know what it's really talking about. So I was just curious to see how you'd had it twisted [I]for[/I] you; I don't believe you would twist it yourself, just that you might have heard someone else do the twisting and thought it made sense.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Well, first of all, I'll say what I've been told before: Making assumptions isn't wise when you have no idea how to accurately portray the person the assumption is implying. Which in this case, you did.

Your impression is wrong. I didn't hear that there were sections in the Bible about slavery and assume that was the same institution that rooted itself in the Southern states. I heard a direct verse from the bible (And I've read it previously) and interpreted it they way I did because that's [I]my opinion[/I].

Second, just because I'm atheist now doesn't mean I wasn't a hardcore christian for the majority of my life. Just because I haven't picked up a bible in about three years doesn't mean I'm not familiar with it. I can still quote several verses that were influential to my upbringing and are still a large part of who I am today, despite having left religion behind. And I have read the bible cover to cover. (Of course, with such a long-winded, dry book, you can understand why the details are a bit fuzzy after all these years) So again, you made an assumption, which was wrong.

Lastly, you claim to know the exact verse I was going to quote, but you don't unless you can read the future or something. If you're so adamant that we're talking about the same verse, then why don't you do the honors and post it here since I'm obviously not able to at least until Thanksgiving. (Granted that I feel like sifting through that boring book instead of spending time with my family) If you're right, it would certainly make it easier for me to solidify my stance in this debate.

Exodus, Leviticus, I don't really care. Two of your assumptions were wrong, (the third: pending) and they were ultimately counter-productive to the debate. So, if you'd like to further the discussion on this tangent over slavery, then post what verses you were referring to. And other than that, I can only suggest keeping your assumptions to yourself (as I have been told to do so myself before) because they're pretty offensive.

[MaskedRider]

If you want evidence regarding Christianity and slavery, you might want to refer to this book instead:
[i][b][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_Fall_Apart]Things Fall Apart[/url][/b][/i]
Okay, so here's my statement towards Christianity as an argument against gay marriage. You're hypocrites. According to Christian beliefs, a sin is a sin. Murder is just as bad as lying, which is just as bad as homosexual intercourse. And if you read the book, quite a few things that are now common are considered sins. Eating pork is a sin, having piercings or tattoos is a sin, and premarital sex is a sin. Why is gay marriage getting such attention? Homosexual couples can already legally adopt children and start a family, and are primarily asking to just have the same rights as married couples. But apparently, someone has decided to target this issue and ignore everything else. Why aren't there any Christian groups trying to pass laws to ban eating pork, or ban premarital sex. Why are you protesting outside abortion clinics but not tattoo shops. According to your religion, these are just as bad, so why not try to deal with them. Christians focus too much on negativity, too much on "I don't want to go to hell." Here's an idea. Instead of spending your time judging other people (which is a sin itself), why don't you get out there and actually try and help someone. I always thought Christianity was about helping other people, but apparently it's all about judging each other. I apologize if I've offended anyone, but this is one of my pet peeves.

Now that that's out the way, I want to here an argument against Same-Sex Marriage that has nothing to do with religious beliefs. Come on, anyone? Alright, let me back up my beliefs with [B]FACTS[/B]. Two women can live together, and have a child through artificial insementaion. Two men can adopt a child and raise a family together. This is allowed by law. The only difference is that the law does not grant them the same rights as married couples. Under insurance, they do not receive the same recognition, and when taxes are done, it is also not recognized. Allow them to get married, or have a "civil union" and grant them these rights. It doesn't affect the majority of Americans, just the same sex couples. England passed these laws a few years ago, and now allows same sex marriage. The difference is, it will be quite a while before these laws are finally passed in America. People here are not open minded enough yet. I work at a local store, and when a man comes in and complains about a golf game having a n***** on the front, I can see a long time before we are open minded enough to allow same sex marriage. We just recently elected a black president, and all I've heard was "He's going to get shot." It makes me sad some times.

[Vicky]

[quote name='MaskedRider']If you want evidence regarding Christianity and slavery, you might want to refer to this book instead:
[i][b][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_Fall_Apart]Things Fall Apart[/url][/b][/i]
Okay, so here's my statement towards Christianity as an argument against gay marriage. You're hypocrites. According to Christian beliefs, a sin is a sin. Murder is just as bad as lying, which is just as bad as homosexual intercourse. And if you read the book, quite a few things that are now common are considered sins. Eating pork is a sin, having piercings or tattoos is a sin, and premarital sex is a sin. Why is gay marriage getting such attention? Homosexual couples can already legally adopt children and start a family, and are primarily asking to just have the same rights as married couples. But apparently, someone has decided to target this issue and ignore everything else. Why aren't there any Christian groups trying to pass laws to ban eating pork, or ban premarital sex. Why are you protesting outside abortion clinics but not tattoo shops. According to your religion, these are just as bad, so why not try to deal with them. Christians focus too much on negativity, too much on "I don't want to go to hell." Here's an idea. Instead of spending your time judging other people (which is a sin itself), why don't you get out there and actually try and help someone. I always thought Christianity was about helping other people, but apparently it's all about judging each other. I apologize if I've offended anyone, but this is one of my pet peeves.[/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]Thank you for repeating something I always touch on but never get an answer to =p.

(Except I let you off because you weren't in the other thread).

The answer is because it's easy. It's easy to condemn someone because people don't like it - and it's even easier to justify it with a religion. God is a great scapegoat for prejudice, and I feel sorry for him, being abused so much.[/size]

[Korey]

[quote name=' Masked Rider'] Two women can live together, and have a child through artificial insementaion. Two men can adopt a child and raise a family together. This is allowed by law[/quote]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]In some states yes, but not all 50 states allow civil union-ed couples adopt children. In fact, some states have laws that say the couple must be legally married in order to adopt children. Hate to be nitpicky, but I felt that was worth mentioning.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Darren[/COLOR], while your stance may have been questioned and assumptions have made on your part, please do your best to refrain from that little invective you posted, or keep it to PMs. We can't have our members getting the wrong impression. In Allamorph's defense, I don't think he was saying you unfamiliar with the scripture, but you are welcome to interpret things as you wish. But as you said, arguing the point is counter productive to the debate and you posting your retort does not make your stance any more or less valid as Allamorph's. [/FONT]

[Sabrina]

[FONT="Tahoma"]Too many things to respond to. o_O Just as on some level I don't really know what to say either. On the one hand I've been raised and taught that such relationships are wrong. Then on the other, I believe people have to make their own choices and that it's not my place to do that.

I don't agree with the sentiment that it's necessary to protect marriage by passing these laws. Especially when any religion has the right to deny performing marriages for same sex couples. A state marriage is outside the jurisdiction of any religion, or rather it should be. I support the separation of church and state for a good reason.

I do agree with the sentiment that it's something that will take time for any progress to be made. With different states enacting these laws, that's pretty clear. It's going to take a concession or intervention to restore those rights.[/FONT]

[Aaryanna]

[FONT="Tahoma"][COLOR="Sienna"][QUOTE=Katakidoushi]How is it fair to allow people to vote on the civil rights of fellow American citizens? This shouldn't be about "what people want", this is about EQUAL RIGHTS. That's all. This isn't like voting for your favorite color of M&M; this is someone's life. It shouldn't be in the hands of the public. And it's not about people not being allowed to vote on this issue "because you say so", it's about not letting the majority inhibit the rights of the minority.

Every civil rights law ever passed has passed without the vote of the people.[/QUOTE]Did I say it was fair? How about you read what I said again. I never once said the process was fair, I said the layers of the law exist to protect us. Also take note that I never said it was perfect either. Not that you said that, I'm just pointing that out.[QUOTE][COLOR="Sienna"][FONT="Tahoma"]Anyway, [B]as much as I think it was [U]wrong[/U] to pass the law[/B], I'm still in favor of letting states (and yes that means the people) have a hand in determining policy. Cutting people out of the equation would have an even greater potential to cause problems. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]The law has [I]always[/I] been about what the people want, its why they bothered to establish a new country in the first place. Because they wanted to have a government that was different than what they grew up under. The process of giving the people a say in policy is all about giving people some measure of control over what types of laws are put into place.

I'm going to ignore your comment over voting for the favorite color of M&M's since something like that wouldn't be up to vote in the same manner so the comparison is a bit absurd really.

What you see as civil rights, in this case gay marriage, is something you and many others think shouldn't be decided by the vote of the people. Well so far the majority of the people don't see it as a civil right that they are entitled to. Yes it's a pain in the butt when the law can allow something like this to happen, but that doesn't change the fact that the process works. Like I said here:[QUOTE][COLOR="Sienna"][FONT="Tahoma"]Those layers of the system exist to protect us from unfair laws and sometimes, as history has proven, it takes time to work through it to get rid of laws that infringe on the rights of others. Yes it's a pain and yes it's annoying, but I'm sure that in time, the ban on same sex marriages will end up being a thing of the past. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]All I was saying was that declarations of it's wrong because it's a right are useless (only in that right now, it isn't legally considered a right). Until someone takes the time to get through the higher processes like Allamorph mentioned, it is allowed. I don't agree with it, but I still support the general process of how states determine legislation. I wasn't saying I supported the actual law that banned the marriages.

Anyway, like Nathan said, the more these laws are passed, the more it will prove that intervention above the state level will be necessary. [/COLOR][/FONT]