[Freezie KO]

This is a reminder of why not everything needs to be left to popular vote.

Individual rights in the US are never protected by popular vote. In fact, it's always the complete opposite.

A group of elites drafted the Bill of Rights and then decreed that it would take way more than a majority to change that.

Abraham Lincoln essentially ended slavery with a decree, a war, and Martial law.

Civil rights for blacks were upheld by 9 elites in the Supreme Court, not a democratic institution. Same for countless civil rights cases for minorities (religious, gender, and racial) as well as a woman's right to choose.

Rights tend to be guaranteed by elites and taken away by the masses. Fuck democracy.

Yes, I am simplifying history for effect, but my point stands.

[Sofo]

It's so sad. I can't imagine how some of you guys feel about your country... I'd be really disappointed. I hope one day we can achieve what (sadly not so many) other countries have.

[SomeDude]

Individual rights in the US are never protected by popular vote. In fact, it's always the complete opposite. A group of elites drafted the Bill of Rights and then decreed that it would take way more than a majority to change that. Abraham Lincoln essentially ended slavery with a decree, a war, and Marshall law. Civil rights for blacks were upheld by 9 elites in the Supreme Court, not a democratic institution. Same for countless civil rights cases for minorities (religious, gender, and racial) as well as a woman's right to choose. Rights tend to be guaranteed by elites and taken away by the masses. Fuck democracy. Yes, I am simplifying history for effect, but my point stands.

Abortion should be left up to the states

[Matt]

Abortion should be left up to the states

Why? It's a human rights issue that the Constitution protects. There is nothing for the states to decide.

[SomeDude]

Why? It's a human rights issue that the Constitution protects. There is nothing for the states to decide.

Read the 10th amendment

[soundscream]

Wow it blocks civil unions as well, that's kind of extreme. Its bad enough about getting all hung up on the word marriage, but the civil union part, is just kind of evil as apposed to just ignorant.

[Korey]

[Devolution]

I'll never understand bringing up homosexuality in ancient Rome or Greece when pretty much anyone who wasn't a rich wealthy man would expect a dick up their ass. There wasn't a concept of two adult men being romantically involved and living together, it was mostly pederasty.

[krypt0nian]

Read the 10th amendment

Plays no part in this as its a rights issue.

[Matt]

Read the 10th amendment

Read the 14th.

[CrushDance]

2012 folks. Too many old and middle aged people still kicking around with ancient viewpoints. Shame though that quite a few young people have learned from them too though by the looks of things.

[Dunlop]

Wow, what an embarrasment

[Korey]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/inte...-united-states







There's interactive breakdowns of each state and category at the link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/inte...-united-states

Basically the further from the ocean you go, the more bigoted your state probably is, unless you're in the South, in which case your state is bigoted no matter what.

[soundscream]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/inte...-united-states There's interactive breakdowns of each state and category at the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/inte...-united-states Basically the further from the ocean you go, the more bigoted your state probably is, unless you're in the South, in which case your state is bigoted no matter what.

DAT North East. We da best.

[Trakdown]

If Jesus accepted both then why did God bring his wrath on the people at Sodom and Gomorrah?

Fuck your arcane texts. Canada legalized gay marriage and is doing just fine, Harper-run government not withstanding. There aren't vast pillars of salt in the great white north.

One thing I don't get: I've heard all these bible-thumping evangelists say "HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN"! So the fuck what? So is believing in a god other than yours (hell it's a violation of a commandment, not that that means anything to them apparently), and I don't see any standing to stop those people from marrying.

I will say this - I'm not gay and I'm probably not getting married, but I'm going to party once gay marriage is legalized. People who pay their taxes and do their duty as citizens shouldn't be given lesser treatment just because some zealots aren't comfortable and misconstrue their religious freedoms as an entitlement to have their dogma be law.

[SomeDude]

Read the 14th.

nm

[Novid]

Individual rights in the US are never protected by popular vote. In fact, it's always the complete opposite. A group of elites drafted the Bill of Rights and then decreed that it would take way more than a majority to change that. Abraham Lincoln essentially ended slavery with a decree, a war, and Marshall law. Civil rights for blacks were upheld by 9 elites in the Supreme Court, not a democratic institution. Same for countless civil rights cases for minorities (religious, gender, and racial) as well as a woman's right to choose. Rights tend to be guaranteed by elites and taken away by the masses. Fuck democracy. Yes, I am simplifying history for effect, but my point stands.

These are oversimplifcations. All of it.

[Novid]

Fuck your arcane texts. Canada legalized gay marriage and is doing just fine, Harper-run government not withstanding. There aren't vast pillars of salt in the great white north. One thing I don't get: I've heard all these bible-thumping evangelists say "HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN"! So the fuck what? So is believing in a god other than yours (hell it's a violation of a commandment, not that that means anything to them apparently), and I don't see any standing to stop those people from marrying. I will say this - I'm not gay and I'm probably not getting married, but I'm going to party once gay marriage is legalized. People who pay their taxes and do their duty as citizens shouldn't be given lesser treatment just because some zealots aren't comfortable and misconstrue their religious freedoms as an entitlement to have their dogma be law.

The problem is dogma is all they have when everything else fails.

[SmokyDave]

If Jesus accepted both then why did God bring his wrath on the people at Sodom and Gomorrah? Would God just change his mind and be like "oh my b about that stuff earlier guys but it's cool now" it doesn't make sense. God is consistent throughout the bible about homosexuality. It's pretty clear. And let me be clear I'm not condemning or saying i want any persons to die today

I fucking love this post. I don't know why because ultimately this is some dangerous thinking but it just has some archaic charm to it.

I wonder why god doesn't bring his wrath today if shit is so fucked up? Have his powers weakened? Has his attitude changed? Is he busy elsewhere?

Or, maybe, just maybe, he never brought any wrath in the first place. Which is good, because I guarantee that Canuck has transgressed some old testament law or other and would be a candidate for smiting himself.

[CHEEZMO™]

I fucking love this post. I don't know why because ultimately this is some dangerous thinking but it just has some archaic charm to it. I wonder why god doesn't bring his wrath today if shit is so fucked up? Have his powers weakened? Has his attitude changed? Is he busy elsewhere? Or, maybe, just maybe, he never brought any wrath in the first place. Which is good, because I guarantee that Canuck has transgressed some old testament law or other and would be a candidate for smiting himself.

God is on holiday.

[scorcho]

If Jesus accepted both then why did God bring his wrath on the people at Sodom and Gomorrah? Would God just change his mind and be like "oh my b about that stuff earlier guys but it's cool now" it doesn't make sense. God is consistent throughout the bible about homosexuality. It's pretty clear. And let me be clear I'm not condemning or saying i want any persons to die today

Masterful troll. Next to somedude's love of the 10th amendment, these last few posts have made for interesting reading.

I'm somewhat shocked that the NC GOTV campaign against this amendment wasn't more successful. According to the polling data that's been reported, this measure could've easily failed had voters known how deep this law reach beyond simply defining marriage.

[CommonSense]

I am not sure why we feel the need to decide what is acceptable in a person's romantic life. Personally I think a person has every right to pursue happiness as long as it doesn't interfere with mine and two same sex people marrying has NO effect on my life....go for it!

I also am not sure why someone who opposes this viewpoint if vilified. It is their right to oppose as much as it's someone's right to defend this subject....as long as they refrain from biggoted comments.

Stop attacking each other....makes you all look petty and snide.




Live and let live Gaf. Jesus.....

[Dead Man]

So I just saw this, thought it was relevant to the discussion:

[ReBurn]

If Jesus accepted both then why did God bring his wrath on the people at Sodom and Gomorrah? Would God just change his mind and be like "oh my b about that stuff earlier guys but it's cool now" it doesn't make sense. God is consistent throughout the bible about homosexuality. It's pretty clear. And let me be clear I'm not condemning or saying i want any persons to die today

I would say that if someone believes the Bible and what it says, then that person doesn't get to question why God would do what God does, much less make judgments about how to treat others from it.

I would also say that Christians obsessed with judging the sins of the world need to actually read the Bible. Matthew 7:1-2:

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you."

And it's backed up by Paul, whom many people hate for many reasons, but in Romans 14:1-13 he says:

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for The Lord is able to make him stand." "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to The Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to The Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to The Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord." "For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that He might be The Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. It is written: "'As surely as I live,' says The Lord, 'every knee will bow before Me; every tongue will confess to God.'" "So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another."

I'm not normally given to quoting scripture, but the religious arguments given in opposition of gay marriage are horrible and terribly irrelevant in their application. God isn't going to be proud of you for standing up to the sin of others. I think God would much prefer that you focus on cleaning up your own life and leave everyone else to Him.

[Pctx]

^ to your point....

Having somewhat argued a religious stance on gay marriage prior to such things as the NC case, I believe what ends up happening is evangelical Christians are getting their dogma confused with their nationalistic heritage of social American norms. What I find interesting is you're correct, Jesus and Paul both list out virtues to those of whom live by a different code or directive of which is the basis for the Jewish and Christian faiths.

Where I think this gets tricky and the mud slinging happens to be flung back and forth is where you have an exchange like we're having in this thread:

"A" typical Christian: Homosexuality is a sin!
Proponent of Gay rights: STFU with your old books, so what?

Christian: God said that he will strike those down who commit sodomy.
Gay rights: And? God said he would strike a lot of other people down for all sin.

...

You can imagine where the rest of this goes. What is important for Christians to realize is that Jesus didn't come to teach people from 20 CE - 40 CE (or there about) on how to fight against gay marriage, civil unions or how to protect American cultural norms of the early 20th century. If we believe that Jesus sat, ate and drank with tax collectors, prostitutes, adulterers, people who swear, people who don't go to church regularly, basically anyone and everyone, then why are "we" (using we as Christians) so quick to judge on something like this?

I think people get defensive when their beliefs can't overcome the reality that all people, not just evangelical Christians are to be loved and cared for as well as having the same opportunities as the rest.

I hope that brings some sanity to the discussion as I do think the law it is a determent to our society.

[Woody Invincible]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/inte...-united-states Basically the further from the ocean you go, the more bigoted your state probably is, unless you're in the South, in which case your state is bigoted no matter what.

Oh, Mississippi, how I weep for the ignorance of my neighbors.

[JGS]

Why? The only reason that this amendment was put forward is because of what people believe is said in the bible. It is completely relevant here.

Not really since Scripture interpretation isn't germaine to why people voted on the law.

There is more than enough sufficient evidence to believe Scripture thinks homosexuality is yucky (Although Sodom & Gomorroah ain't it and gay people should never try to identify with that group) and Paul being scared of who he was talking to is a weak argument against that.

The main reason religion should be discussed in this context is to help people be aware that local cultures shouldn't have much of a say in what should be national issues. It's stupid to acknowledge gay marriage from state to state to begin with.

[coldfoot]

This is way non-rational people who believe in the man in the sky should not be able to vote.

[captainraincoat]

In Aus the issue of gay marriage always gets attention then shot down in flames by bible bashers.

People think it will improve with time but in fact it will probrably get worse as todays bible bashers are breeding and it will only repeat the cycle.

My take on it...for Aus at least
Gay people want to marry in a Church...but the person who wrote the rulebook for the church (the bible) didnt allow it and its sure as shit not going to get ammended like a law so the only thing gay people can do is start their own Gay church and follow their own thick book of verses....that will probrably be the reality but i really dont see thousands of years worth of boring sundays getting undone anytime soon.

Fyi
I was bought up as Catholic but i am now borderline Atheist
the only reason why i have some ounce of faith is because i want all young children who go through horrible things such as cancer and adults horrible choices a place to go after they die...in saying that its also the same reason why i dont fully believe in god as the world does some F%%%ked up things to people we love.

In saying that.....you should be able to love who you want

[Mammoth Jones]

[coldfoot]

People in PA should not call themselves Northeasterners...

[Dragon]

Not really since Scripture interpretation isn't germaine to why people voted on the law. There is more than enough sufficient evidence to believe Scripture thinks homosexuality is yucky (Although Sodom & Gomorroah ain't it and gay people should never try to identify with that group) and Paul being scared of who he was talking to is a weak argument against that. The main reason religion should be discussed in this context is to help people be aware that local cultures shouldn't have much of a say in what should be national issues. It's stupid to acknowledge gay marriage from state to state to begin with.

While I agree with you the person Jesus Christ depicted in the New Testament in the various gospels would be supportive of rights for everyone. In fact he concentrated on the downtrodden, the prostitutes and lepers of his time. Why can't Christians acknowledge this? For the life of me picking and choosing what you believe in the Old Testament is ridiculous.

westwing.vid

Hardcore Christians are ruining this country by taking away rights from people who have done nothing to them whatsoever except want to be treated the same way. These so-called Republicans who want the government to stay out of their lives want to point the finger and say: "These people aren't as good as us, they don't deserve the same rights we have." They're hypocritical and awful people and anyone who voted for this amendment should be ashamed of themselves.

[Stumpokapow]

Yeah... you're wrong about it. Even in the Republic, Caesar being accused of sodomy was a terrible slur on his name. (Of course he took more offence that he was accused of being fellator, not fellatrix, but whatever)

Yes, construction of sexuality in Rome wasn't so much on the homosexual-heterosexual axis, but rather the subject-object or owner-chattel axes.

[Gaborn]

I think too many people are arguing from the wrong position. "The Bible says..." is totally irrelevant in a pluralistic society where people of all faiths are trying to live their lives to the best of their ability. If Muslims become the majority in this country should they ban alcohol and pork sales simply because consuming those things are against their religion? The government should be fundamentally agnostic on questions of faith and instead as a matter of policy should seek to provide the maximum of freedom of choice for individuals seeking to form different relationships with consenting adults.

Bringing religion into a discussion like this only serves to stifle debate, to inflame passions and to mute opposition and understanding. I understand that some Christians don't want to see 2 men, or 2 women marry each other, I ALSO understand that these same Christians don't want people to follow other faiths, nor do they want people to make dozens of choices that people make for better or for worse every day. At one point adultery was a criminal offense in the US. Sodomy could get you the death penalty. Society and social norms have changed and so these things have changed regardless of what religious texts say.

I think instead of relying on your particular religious text when you make public policy, you should understand... God may or may not have His/Her law... but in no way should the laws of Man be bound by that. In fact, in my view doing such is an insult to the vision of these Gods. A God does not need the government of man tell people how to live, Christians believe that God did that through the Bible... but the Bible is not instructions for Government and the Laws of Man. The Bible was intended to be the Word of God. As such it is intended as a personal code for individuals to follow - but not something that it is society's place to enforce simply because the Bible says it.

That doesn't mean that some things (murder for example, theft, etc) should not be illegal, those things directly harm other people and a rational society should of course protect society from harmful interactions with others. But that doesn't give society the moral impetus to restrict others personal individual choices.

[LiK]

smh

[Air]

^ to your point.... Having somewhat argued a religious stance on gay marriage prior to such things as the NC case, I believe what ends up happening is evangelical Christians are getting their dogma confused with their nationalistic heritage of social American norms. What I find interesting is you're correct, Jesus and Paul both list out virtues to those of whom live by a different code or directive of which is the basis for the Jewish and Christian faiths. Where I think this gets tricky and the mud slinging happens to be flung back and forth is where you have an exchange like we're having in this thread: "A" typical Christian: Homosexuality is a sin! Proponent of Gay rights: STFU with your old books, so what? Christian: God said that he will strike those down who commit sodomy. Gay rights: And? God said he would strike a lot of other people down for all sin. ... You can imagine where the rest of this goes. What is important for Christians to realize is that Jesus didn't come to teach people from 20 CE - 40 CE (or there about) on how to fight against gay marriage, civil unions or how to protect American cultural norms of the early 20th century. If we believe that Jesus sat, ate and drank with tax collectors, prostitutes, adulterers, people who swear, people who don't go to church regularly, basically anyone and everyone, then why are "we" (using we as Christians) so quick to judge on something like this? I think people get defensive when their beliefs can't overcome the reality that all people, not just evangelical Christians are to be loved and cared for as well as having the same opportunities as the rest. I hope that brings some sanity to the discussion as I do think the law it is a determent to our society.

Good post

[Sielys]

Heh, recent tweet by Seth Rogan:
Claiming that someones marriage is against your religion is like being angry at someone for eating a doughnut because your on a diet.

[Gaborn]

Heh, recent tweet by Seth Rogan: Claiming that someones marriage is against your religion is like being angry at someone for eating a doughnut because your on a diet.

Very well said.

People don't seem to understand that religion is INDIVIDUAL and should not affect society's policies which need to be COLLECTIVE by their nature. Your understanding and relationship with your faith does not mean that anyone else's life should be affected by your choices.

[BruiserBear]

"The sky is falling" posts are so weird to see in this thread. It's quite obvious the U.S. is in a direct march towards all gay people being able to marry one another. But these things don't happen overnight. A shit ton of progress has been made in just the past decade. Give it another decade and things will be that much better. A few states are going to lag behind, that's just the way it is.

One stupid state voting in the opposite direction today, does not mean the tide is turning in that direction.

[BladeoftheImmortal]

Besides minors too young to comprehend sex (so yeah, a blanket 18 or whatever i don't agree with). I see no reason why everything isn't allowed. Let's go back to the Roman days of Orgies and cousin on mother on daughter on son incest. Who's with me?

[JGS]

While I agree with you the person Jesus Christ depicted in the New Testament in the various gospels would be supportive of rights for everyone. In fact he concentrated on the downtrodden, the prostitutes and lepers of his time. Why can't Christians acknowledge this? For the life of me picking and choosing what you believe in the Old Testament is ridiculous.

Jesus as described in the NT would never affix himself to a political message such as this one. He would accept whatever law came down from Caesear that didn't interrupt his message. Then he would die holding onto that message.

Being against homosexuality is not the same thing as not offering Christianity to everyone including those that practice homosexuality. Paul did it at great risk to himself (& no fear) and he was likely imitating Jesus.

All contextual information regarding Jesus and marriage is between a man and a woman and this is still irrelevant from the standpoint of the law of the landwhich encompasses way more than Christianity...Or any other traditional view of marriage since christianity is not even close to the only doctrine that practices this view. Most cultures and traditions view it this way.

[BruiserBear]

Jesus as described in the NT would never affix himself to a political message such as this one. He would accept whatever law came down from Caesear that didn't interrupt his message. Then he would die holding onto that message. Being against homosexuality is not the same thing as not offering Christianity to everyone including those that practice homosexuality. Paul did it at great risk to himself (& no fear) and he was likely imitating Jesus. All contextual information regarding Jesus and marriage is between a man and a woman and this is still irrelevant from the standpoint of the law of the landwhich encompasses way more than Christianity...Or any other traditional view of marriage since christianity is not even close to the only doctrine that practices this view. Most cultures and traditions view it this way.

When you use the term "practice homosexuality" you imply that those people are choosing to be gay. As if it's just some lifestyle choice, like being a surfer, or guitarist in a rock band.

I've got two gay relatives, as well as a few friends, and I can assure you they didn't choose their sexuality. They were gay from day one.

[JGS]

When you use the term "practice homosexuality" you imply that those people are choosing to be gay. As if it's just some lifestyle choice, like being a surfer, or guitarist in a rock band. I've got two gay relatives, as well as a few friends, and I can assure you they didn't choose their sexuality. They were gay from day one.

That's not true at all. If you want me to say have gay sex I will, but that's stupid.

This renders the rest of the argument pointless.

[BruiserBear]

That's not true at all. If you want me to say have gay sex I will, but that's stupid. This renders the rest of the argument pointless.

So do you think having gay sex goes against "gods word" or not?


Is it a "sin"?

[coldfoot]

Just wanted to share this picture to show how great the Northeast is:

[Jason Raize '75 - '04]

... Because Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't about homosexuality? And the interpretation that it was came centuries after the interpretation that it was about hospitality? All of the passages relating to the condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible have some sort of explanation if one knows to read the Bible in context. The book I linked to earlier or this one are both good examples of books that cover that. You really seem to enjoy that tight-rope.

In this "brave and good book which shatters bad myths" (Commonweal), McNeill shows that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, and argues that the Church must not continue its homophobic practices.

So the premise of the book's argument is that gay sex isn't sinful? In this context, there is often a distinction between homosexuality and gay sex so I wanted clarification

[JGS]

So do you think having gay sex goes against "gods word" or not? Is it a "sin"?

Immorality is a sin regardless of orientation.

The only marriages mentioned in OT or NT are hetero. So....

The topic on hand is why does that matter for a secular government?

One thing that would be a good idea is figuring out whether or not you want to fight for gay marriage or fight against churches for not accepting gay marriages. They are two completely different battles and only one is winnable.

[BruiserBear]

Immorality is a sin regardless of orientation. The only marriages mentioned in OT or NT are hetero. So.... The topic on hand is why does that matter for a secular government? One thing that would be a good idea is figuring out whether or not you want to fight for gay marriage or fight against churches for not accepting gay marriages. They are two completely different battles and only one is winnable.

Yeah, and the OT and NT both suggest owning other human beings is perfectly acceptable, but you don't think that makes much sense anymore, do you?

Just pick and choose the parts that aren't acceptable anymore.


That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

[Emitan]

That's not true at all. If you want me to say have gay sex I will, but that's stupid. This renders the rest of the argument pointless.

Being gay is not a choice. If I had straight sex that wouldn't mean I'm straight. It would mean I'm having straight sex.

[Dead Man]

Immorality is a sin regardless of orientation. The only marriages mentioned in OT or NT are hetero. So.... The topic on hand is why does that matter for a secular government? One thing that would be a good idea is figuring out whether or not you want to fight for gay marriage or fight against churches for not accepting gay marriages. They are two completely different battles and only one is winnable.

You are not as good at obfuscation as you once were, who in the hell is fighting that battle?