And the majority voted for Obama. Whoops. The Batman guy stated that the majority are bigots and should hold their head in shame. Don't tell me this isn't about enforcing an agenda and defining morality.
Just like it was with equal rights for blacks. If you'd been alive then, I'm sure you would have been on the wrong side of that one too. This country has a long history in which the majority was shamefully wrong. "Whoops."
So if you have a belief, shared by all major religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so on) that homosexual behavior is wrong, and a homosexual union can not be a marriage. All of these people are bigots? Should the Dalai Lama hold his head in shame? Or maybe you could become his spiritual advisor...
Yes. Yes. (If he still opposes gay marriage.) That doesn't mean they're not good people with good intentions. But they're still wrong.
Wow! That didn't take long! I think there's a music thread in Hangout that doesn't blame Obama for anything yet. Maybe you could go there and pin emo music (or more likely you could pin some sort of rap music) on him.
I've always wondered - and I mean law of averages and all that there must be plenty of instances of this - what happens to the staunch religious folks who have a child that ends up being gay? Is that like an automatic 'you're not a part of this family' or a lifetime of denial and trying to 'fix' the poor kid (probably leading to more suffering)? I mean, if you're one of those folks who is very hard line, protesting about this sort of thing, how do you react when a kid you've raised and loved all his/her life is denied because of that? And how then do you reconcile this with the religion you've followed all your life and now tells you your family/children are 'wrong' somehow? I'm not trying to be rude or anything this is something I'm honestly curious about. The subject isn't like 'dad I want the car this weekend' it's much bigger than that and as such I think I would want my kid to have the chance to be happy even if I can't relate to the situation.
LOL! Dude went nine minute later to start a music thread in hangout. I could not make it past 3 seconds of the rap (?) soundtrack though, so I don't know if it's about Obama or not. ShovelFace, well played!
so, basically if a parent doesn't approve of his childs actions, they "are not apart of the family"? I have taught my kids that a sin is a sin. Whether it be adultery, fornication, lying, stealing or *gasp* homosexuality. I have also taught my kids that God will love them regardless of who they are, and so will I. I don't teach my kids that homos will burn in hell. I don't think that was God's message, but that homosexuality itself is a sin. Newsflash: I also sin. Just because I am not a homosexual, doesn't mean I am a "better sinner". if one of my kids turns out to be a homosexual, I'll deal with that when it happens. Anything I tell you now about how I'd deal with it is probably just an assumption. One thing I do know...I'm not kicking them out of the family, and I'm not going to stop being their father.
Actually the Dalai Lama has said that homosexual marriage and practice although banned in Tibetan Buddhist practice he is for equal rights for homosexuals and wouldn't impose Tibetan Buddhist restrictions, on non-Buddhist. He does outrightly support Gay marriage but he isn't totally against it either and attitude appears to be to leave it for individual governments to decide. http://www.quietmountain.org/links/teachings/gayrites.htm [rquoter]The Dalai Lama, world-revered leader of millions of Buddhists and leader of the Tibetan people, spoke out strongly against discrimination and violence against lesbians and gays during an extraordinary Wednesday, June 11 meeting in San Francisco with lesbian and gay Buddhists, clergy, and human rights activists. The religious leader said at the press conference that he had previously been asked his views on gay marriage, and said that such social sanction of gay relationships "has to be judged in the context of the society itself and the laws and social norms." ... From a "Buddhist point of view," lesbian and gay sex "is generally considered sexual misconduct," the Dalai Lama told reporters at a press conference a day earlier. However, such proscriptions are for members of the Buddhist faith - and from "society's viewpoint," homosexual sexual relations can be "of mutual benefit, enjoyable, and harmless," according to the Dalai Lama. "His Holiness was greatly concerned by reports made available to him regarding violence and discrimination against gay and lesbian people. His Holiness opposes violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation. He urges respect, tolerance, compassion, and the full recognition of human rights for all," said Office of Tibet spokesman Dawa Tsering in a statement issued within an hour of the meeting. [/rquoter] Also the Buddha himself never commented on homosexauality.
A majority view of itself isn't a justification or a principle except for the principle of majority rules. In the end there are other principles that can conflict with that view. Also in this case given the numbers that majority has been shrinking for a while. As to saying it is silly or ridiculous yes you are right that is not that respectful but at the same time I don't think it is completely insulting. BJ doesn't agree and is expressing his disagreement. While brusque I don't think it is insulting anymore than Grizzled telling him or me that our opinion is wrong. Their vote does count and given they have won the position ballots so far it definately counts. That said we aren't just discussing the ballot but debating the issue. I would say as a non-religious person you are free to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and even if gay marriage is allowed you are still free to believe it and will not be forced to enter into or partake of a gay marriage. The problem with the view that government is imposing a view on those who believe in only heterosexual by allowing gay marriage misses the point that if gay marriage isn't allowed that isn't an imposition, it is the removal of an imposition. The current situation is that government is imposing a specific view of marriage which is that it can only be heterosexual.
I'm going to hopefully head this off before it goes downhill. As I said in the other thread you are free to teach your children what you feel and if gay marriage is legalized you still are. Just because you don't think it is right doesn't mean that automatically that is imposed upon the rest of society. For instance should vegetarians who believe that eating meat is wrong impose that view on the rest of society? Is it a fair argument for them to make that because meat is legal and there are McDonalds and Burger Kings all over the place that society is intruding on their ability to raise their kids in a meat free environment?
Grizzled, as any other sane person here would feel, I have the utmost respect for you and, if anything, wish you posted more in the forum, but I just have to disagree with this. I skimmed the thread up until this point, so if I'm repeating someone else's take, my apologies, but what on earth makes you think same sex couples don't want to be married, in the full sense of the word, as so many of them were brought up to believe in? That their sexual orientation, not being a choice on their part, but how they were born, is an accident of birth, and that "that accident of birth" makes no difference to them when it comes to taking vows of marriage? That many and many of them are just as religious as you, or Max, or most of the other people around here? That they want the sanctity of marriage as well as the rights and privileges they are being denied in this country? And I also want to put my two cents in with rimbaud's. The religious holidays celebrated wherever Christianity prevails were appropriated wholesale from the crushed and conquered "pagans" the new rulers were trying to assimulate, an assimilation that took some time, in many cases, but one that was brutally enforced and ultimately successful.
I don't know; that's what I was asking (and of course by 'actions' we are talking about a very specific topic). I was wondering how those with this viewpoint approach such a situation. I think that last point is definitely a good approach, and that's the sort of thing I was asking. It just seems like quite an internal struggle; to be so against this situation that one would rally and protest and expend so much energy, what happens when faced with it on such a 'close to home', personal level. I would hope that most parents would take this route. Another interesting point, though, is this: This is the sort of thing that I am wondering would cause real conflict in such a scenario. I mean, certainly there is the potential for a real significant difference between homosexuality and the rest of this list. At least, it would stand to reason it could be rather significant for the kid in question. It seems like this would be a way to try and reason out the situation for the parent, but maybe not so much for the son/daughter. In other words; if you go out and commit adultery or theft, it is easy to say what you went out and did wrong. It is possible that the child in this hypothetical can be told they've just simply done something 'wrong'? Do such parents believe this is a reasonable approach? Unless of course, you believe that such a thing could be 'cured'. I don't have an answer for that, but again that seems like an approach that could be viewed quite differently between the outside parent that believes they can do the 'curing' and the person who is told need to be/can be 'cured'. In addition, I still have the other question; how do you rationalize this if you have a staunch religious outlook on the subject. Sure, you could say we are all 'sinners', but in the case of something like adultery, it's clear you went out and did something you were not supposed to do. What then, is the rationalization if the child you raised and loved tells you he/she is gay? Has he/she done some 'sin'? What sin have you committed, as the parent? Again, this is all just something I wonder about when I see these topics; I've never known personally someone who rallied so hard against gay marriage who then had to face their own child being in this situation.
Well this is ridiculous. First of all, homosexuality has not existed before MY religion. I can't speak for anybody else. My religion is Islam, and the message of Islam was COMPLETED ~1500 years ago and began when the first human came into existence. Stop using this silly argument about which came first. There are no records of anything old enough to show if homosexuality came before or after any specific religion. DUH. Way to show your depth of knowledge regarding major religions. Second of all, if I don't believe the government should marry homosexuals, I may feel the same about heterosexuals. I may feel that the government should not marry ANYONE. This mindset might not be the majority, but in this case would vote to repeal what they think is already a poor practice (government-control in marriage). Finally, if this decision changes, then it changes. Big deal. That's why there's a system in place. To reflect the preferences in a democracy. That doesn't necessarily make anyone a bigot. It may mean they are wrong, misunderstand their religion, have not seen all sides of the story, or simple believe what they believe regardless of the vote. In 20 years when (as you say) the majority supports gay marriage, you will be able to use the same argument >> The majority isn't always right. So who was ever right? The correct answer is that no one is right. Everyone has an opinion. The system should reflect the best course of action based on the people most affected by these decisions. That's it. IMO, if marriage is taken out of the hands of the government, it will become far less of an issue for all. IMO, based on the US system, the removal of marriage from government hands and provision of equal rights to all go hand in hand. The US can not claim to be secular as long as this is happening. Also, it is unacceptabe to the majority of the religious population that the government decides that heterosexual marriage is equal in all ways to homosexual marriage - that is a personal decision for each person and the government has no right to make a judgement on that end. More perplexing than all of this is that the solution is to remove the rights from everyone rather than give the "bonus" rights to everyone. The government can not afford to provide all the rights to everyone while opening a can of worms on the single + unmarried couples side.
Great, so when are all those folks going to be able to marry their barnyard animal of choice? Can we call that marriage, too?
