Prop. 8 has flooded the political forum with a number of gay marriage topics. Being LiveWire, that more specifically means that Prop. 8 has flooded with forum with a number of shitty gay marriage topics containing shitty arguments about gay marriage.
By now, many of you know the correct answer to the gay marriage debate. The majority, however, remains in the dark and supports incorrect positions on gay marriage. I put a great deal of emphasis on "incorrect"; normally I'm somewhat accepting of differing viewpoints, but I really cannot fathom how someone would disagree with the views that I am about to outline and not automatically be an idiot or cunt. Maybe LW will prove me wrong, but I seriously doubt it.
Let me start out by establishing the axioms that I am working off of for this:
Now, where is the problem? It's not a matter of re-defining marriage; many definitions of marriage have existed simultaneously at pretty much every time in documented history. The problem is that for the government to legally define one form of marriage, they are legally mandating a religious ceremony. It is comparable to legally defining God as the father of Christ or banning the ordination of women. The problem is that our government has taken a religious term that religions historically haven't and currently don't agree upon a set definition for and made it into a legal institution that they then are being forced to definitively define.
The solution should be obvious. The government has no place in marriage. None. The government should only issue federally-standardized, gender-blind civil unions that carry all of the legal benefits associated with marriage. Marriage would then return to its rightful place in the private sector as a personal ceremony with no legal weight. So:
Example 1) A Roman Catholic man and woman decide to get married. They go to their church and do all the Catholic stuff that it takes to get married. Then they get married. Yay! In the eyes of their religion/ creator they are eternally wed together and all that bullshit. In the eyes of the law, nothing is new until they go downtown and get a civil union.
Example 2) Two LaVeyan Satanist butt-buddies decide to get hitched. If they tried to go to a Catholic Church they would be denied, but since their religion openly embraces gay marriage they can get in touch with their local grotto and organize a ceremony. Like the Roman Catholics, they need to get a civil union to make it legal and obtain power of attorney rights and the like, though.
Example 3) A postmodern theorist decides to marry a box turtle. He gets a drunken hobo to perform a ceremony, and considers himself married. Neither the Catholics nor the LaVeyan Satanists (nor pretty much anyone else) consider him married, he can't get a civil union, and if he tries to get frisky with his wife (husband?) he'll be facing legal charges, but he's free to make his social statement by proclaiming himself married.
Quote: from Raging Inferno at 6:43 pm on Nov. 11, 2008 You know, I just have this to say, First off I completely disagree with you, and I don't believe I should feel or be insulted by you or anyone else that posted here. Why do I disagree with you? I obviously do not support it. I am posting this response because I cannot believe people. I am against everything, especially when it comes to you (Topic Creator) and the rest of you saying political bullshit to get your way, or in your case help people get their way. I can't believe your trying to convince people, you will never convince me, for one. You say "you know the correct answer" which is an obvious mental suggestion following the content of your post. I have had enough of this bullshit and demand that things go back to the way they were, when there wasn't arguments about it, there was just death, something I do agree with. The government controls everything. It doesn't matter what you say at all. I would much rather live in a world without sexually deviant people and others such as terrorists, murderers, dictators and furthermore, I would much rather die than be forced to accept what some political rights group (backed by the mass media when its profitable for them) tries to get me to believe, which I never do and never will. Did you actually read the post or did you just read the title?
You know, I just have this to say, First off I completely disagree with you, and I don't believe I should feel or be insulted by you or anyone else that posted here. Why do I disagree with you? I obviously do not support it. I am posting this response because I cannot believe people. I am against everything, especially when it comes to you (Topic Creator) and the rest of you saying political bullshit to get your way, or in your case help people get their way. I can't believe your trying to convince people, you will never convince me, for one. You say "you know the correct answer" which is an obvious mental suggestion following the content of your post. I have had enough of this bullshit and demand that things go back to the way they were, when there wasn't arguments about it, there was just death, something I do agree with. The government controls everything. It doesn't matter what you say at all. I would much rather live in a world without sexually deviant people and others such as terrorists, murderers, dictators and furthermore, I would much rather die than be forced to accept what some political rights group (backed by the mass media when its profitable for them) tries to get me to believe, which I never do and never will.
Did you actually read the post or did you just read the title?
Why respond to the arguments that I made when you can just throw out some irrelevant talking points without conceding any ground?
It's a grand majority of them. They're the most outspoken of the religious groups when in comes to politics. I mean you don't hear CNN droning on about the Muslims or Jews voting in this election and making a huge difference. It's always "What role will the evangelical role play in this election/referendum". I'm not being discriminatory. They put themselves out there as a group and I'll comment on them as though they had done such. Sorry if it offends you but it's a fact that they have played a good part in elections in these past years.
Ever heard of Roman Catholics?
Further more, just because the media likes to talk about them often doesn't mean that they are the only ones responsible for everything that happens in this country. Particularly where Prop 8 is concerned, I'm willing to bet that a great number of people who voted for it weren't Evangelicals.
Quote: from Chava at 12:20 pm on Nov. 11, 2008 This whole thing was stupid. The government needs to quit interfering with our lives and evangelicals need to get off their high horse, holier-than-thou pedestal, and quit shoving outdated beliefs down our throats. It's not just Evangelicals.
This whole thing was stupid. The government needs to quit interfering with our lives and evangelicals need to get off their high horse, holier-than-thou pedestal, and quit shoving outdated beliefs down our throats.
It's not just Evangelicals.
I have to say that the bible's disapproval of homosexuality is totally outdated. It was only believed to be disapproved by God because people (specifically men) who were gay couldn't reproduce, and they were thought to be evil because of their indirect hindering of reproduction. Scholars thought that by being homosexual, you were intentionally trying to stop the procreation of mankind. but nowadays, same sex couples have the choice of adoption, or artificial insemination. i believe the bible shouldn't even be mentioned in the court when it comes to the subject of same-sex marriage, its irrelevant.
While this is a decent point concerning when homosexual sex was originally condemned in the Bible (when it was part of the Law of the Hebrews, way back in the day, when they were still trying to grow from a wandering tribe into an actual nation and the only way to do that properly is to make babies), a more logical explanation when it came to homosexual acts' future condemnation was to set Christianity apart. I agree with your last sentence, though...but you seem to be kind of missing the point of Wilder's original post in the writing of it.
letting gay marriage happen will interfere with the rights of the church in other words: if gay marriage is legal they'll ask us Christians to marry them we'll have to say no or we will be lieing to our beliefs then they sue us the church falls and everyone is sad
I was just pointing out that any time government gets involved with religion or marriage it doesn't end up good. Those kids are still being abused after they were forced to be given back.
I agree with that point; however, my point was that the government's recent beef with polygamy has nothing to do with polygamous marriages that are just a bunch of people who love each other and freely chose to be married in that way, but rather with situations in which thirteen- and fourteen-year-old girls were being forced to enter into sexual relationships with men who were much older than they were. Frankly, I'd be appalled if the government didn't step in and help in that situation.
Regarding the recent problems with the YFZ, the main issue there is that the government was chomping at the bit too much to find more evidence against the FLDS, to the point where they didn't bother to find the girl who called in saying that she'd been abused, and just swept in without gathering further evidence. It had nothing to do, really, with it being a religious matter or cultural matter, and everything to do with the government having a vendetta against the FLDS (understandably so, but that it caused them to act so irrationally and hastily is obviously a serious problem). It's just what happens when the people in power take issue with a certain group.
Right now the government is involved, and we're saying it shouldn't be.
FP
796 users online 
222938 members 1267 active today Advertise Here
796 users online 222938 members 1267 active today Advertise Here
burn the banks
You have 1 new message.
