Gay Marriage Ban Amendment

General chitchat, advertisements for other services, and other non-Cantr-related topics

Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department

User avatar
The Hunter
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 12:59 pm
Location: In my cave, making bombs.
Contact:

Postby The Hunter » Fri Feb 27, 2004 2:08 am

Thats what makes them smart. They don't. :lol:
Life is fun. Play naked with Psycho-Pixie.

"Our enemies are resourceful and innovative".
"and so are we..."
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and people"
"and neither do we"
~G.W Bush
Missy
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 9:12 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Postby Missy » Fri Feb 27, 2004 2:11 am

I think noone could have said it better than Kroner or Sho.



Here is how I see what is happening:
Bush/rightwing says: ITS okay for you to be GAY..but we think it is WRONG so will deny you of a chance to the same opportunity as a strait person. They say it's "wrong" by simply saying that it wouldn't be a sacred marriage should gays be aloud to married. No?


That is no differant than saying...

Bush/Rightwing says: You are black and you can be black, but you can't work at the market because it wouldn't be sacred, so we'll deny you of the same opportunity a white person would have.

He hasn't been called out of name Jake, no matter what reason he has for saying what he said or if he really believes what he says or not. He's serving a purpose that is not what our country has strove to do away with for so many years.


While its two totally differant subjects, its totally the same issue. Its about what someones personal opinon of something is. We've long since made it possible for black people to have a fair chance in this country, and the same will happen for people with a differant sexual preferance. There is no doubt in my mind what President Bush has said and hopes for is WRONG. Does that make him a bad person? Well, do you see racists as bad people?

Lastly there have been more than enough posts on this board and the old one where the left has been wrongly bashed, so don't feel like you've been singled out just because of this one single post. :)
David
Posts: 696
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 5:50 am
Location: Maryland/America

Postby David » Fri Feb 27, 2004 3:53 am

Jake, its not because you aren't smart enough to argue... its that when one geniunely accepts most of the tenets of what America touts itself to be, you cannot reach the conclusion that Bush has... with out some fuzzy math and fundamentalism... and regardless of the its just politics apologetics... the point is that the ban is being put forward for whatever reason.

And if you want to get technical and truly conservative... we must bow down to our Mesopotamian masters because Modern Law comes from European Common Law which came from Canon Law.... etc..) came from Mosaic Law which came from King Hammurabi, well before Moses. (and some other things in between, like the Justinian Code etc...

ALL HAIL KING HAMMURABI, MIGHTY LAWGIVER OF CIVILIZATION. I BOW DOWN TO THEE FOR ALL MY LEGAL NEEDS.
rklenseth
Posts: 4736
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 12:46 am

Postby rklenseth » Fri Feb 27, 2004 4:18 am

Jake wrote:I don't understand some of this stuff you guys are talking about. You talk about Bush, in as bad a way as possible, you slam the republican party, you slam everyone else who doesn't agree with your viewpoint, and than you proceed to call them, hateful, bigoted, close minded.....am I the only one who sees this? Maybe I'm not being fair, I don't know...but it certainly seems that you guys sure aren't. Also, something at the beginning of this topic, about religion not being a part of government. Religion is a big part of our government, and our world. Our government was founded, by very religious persons, who believed strongly in God. If you look, there are references to God in the Constitution. This may be suprising, but our government was founded with this strange thing called "moral principles" That's why we are the greatest nation in the world.

Edit: P.S. Don't slam the president. He's got a hard enough job as it is....


I don't think I was slamming the president and I actually agree with a lot that he has done but I don't agree with this amendment banning marriage among homosexuals.

First off, Separation of Church and State isn't in the Constitution. It says that the government will not establish a religion meaning that the United States would not officially part of a religion. That was put in to stop descrimination of religion as well as to keep religion from controlling the government as we saw happen in Europe. The government does recognize that there is a higher being but does not go on to further define what that being is so that is can be defined by that person's faith (at the founding of the US, those that didn't believe in a higher power were rare). This was done so that in Bill of Rights were it says that the rights are bestowed upon us by a higher being means that the government or any people did not give us our rights so they cannot take them away. See only this higher power can take our rights away. That was the original interpretation.

Since then the Supreme Court has given itself the supreme power to interpret the Constitution as it pleases. Thus that is where the idea of Seperation of Church and State came to be. And it has since been used as a vehicle by many groups to descriminate against religious groups. Religious groups have been banned from public lands and buildings which is in direct violation of the Bill of Rights of Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Worship.
User avatar
Sho
Posts: 1732
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 4:05 am

Postby Sho » Fri Feb 27, 2004 4:36 am

Unsupported scattered thoughts:

I don't think prohibiting religious groups to use public property is discriminatory. Does the government recognize a higher being? How does a person define this higher being if he/she is an agnostic, anyway? The Supreme Court does not have power to actually take away a constitutional right. It can only interpret. Granted, this interpretation can have broad effects, but anything that directly violates the First Amendment would still be struck down by the Court. The Constitution is sovereign, and the Supreme Court's interpretation is the only accepted one.
Meh
Posts: 2661
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 10:13 pm
Location: Way away from TRUE staff abuse

Postby Meh » Fri Feb 27, 2004 5:27 am

Jake wrote:Our government was founded, by very religious persons, who believed strongly in God. If you look, there are references to God in the Constitution. This may be suprising, but our government was founded with this strange thing called "moral principles" That's why we are the greatest nation in the world.


Forget the whole gay thing for a minute this is important to understand

1) Whenever a sports team wins they always "Thank God". The losing team never blames God. "We were doing good but Jesus hates us". Well this group of people had just won a war so they were very thankful to "God" this did not mean that the Britains lost faith.

2) The "moral principles" you refer to are how people should treat on another not how they should live. If the country was based on those kinds on "moral principles" it would be nothing more than a hollow modern inquisition.
grayjaket
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 3:16 am
Location: Kentucky

Postby grayjaket » Fri Feb 27, 2004 6:19 am

What? No, that's not what I was talking abuot...I did not say Britain lost faith or anything like that. I was talking about our founding fathers. They were religious, and believed in God(most of them). And the moral principles I was talking about are things that were found in the constituion.
I just can't stop coming back....
Meh
Posts: 2661
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 10:13 pm
Location: Way away from TRUE staff abuse

Postby Meh » Fri Feb 27, 2004 6:44 am

They beilved in god no more than any winning baseball team.

The principles were how to treat one another and how the goverment should treat people NOT how people should live. The term moral is just a term. One persons morality is anothers blasphamy. The moral they desribed were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness not monogomy and hetrosexuality. Those are religious hang ups.
west
Posts: 4649
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 5:23 pm

Postby west » Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:40 am

Meh wrote:They beilved in god no more than any winning baseball team.

The principles were how to treat one another and how the goverment should treat people NOT how people should live. The term moral is just a term. One persons morality is anothers blasphamy. The moral they desribed were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness not monogomy and hetrosexuality. Those are religious hang ups.


I don't think you have any evidence for saying our founding fathers had no personal faith, any more than the collective New York Yankees. It's a nice analogy, but it falls through because the vast majority mention God in documents both well before and well after they won the Revolution. The Declaration of Independence was written before the war, after all, and it mentions God.

Aside from that, Sho, how can you say denying religious groups the right to use public property isn't discriminatory? It's denying people rights that others have, purely based on their religious affiliation. That's unconstitutional. if non-religious groups can use public property in certain ways, the government can't prohobit religious groups from using it the same way. That's against the law.

As far as marriage goes, as RKL said there's often discrepancies between the legal and religious senses of the word marriage.

My parents are both pretty hardcore christians (and were even more so when they were married) but insisted on getting married by a justice of the peace, not a priest or pastor. Why? Because they believe it's a legal contract, not something the church has any real authority over, especially not any specific church.
I'm not dead; I'm dormant.
Meh
Posts: 2661
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 10:13 pm
Location: Way away from TRUE staff abuse

Postby Meh » Fri Feb 27, 2004 3:32 pm

Are you saying that Yankee can't have personal faith?

Let me put a finer point on it.

If we stick to the God and the relgious moral of the time and accept no deviation that limits things to Methodist, Presbiterian, Quaker, and Puratin tenants.

"Catholics, Baptists, and Mormans are to stop attempting to change the govement to thier inferior relgious beliefs as they are not the founding religious of the consitution. These people are heritical and should be burned at the stake as witches. Not to mention the lack of religion and other religions."

It does not matter wheteher they had personal faith. Taking the side that the country is based on a religious code gives you the above.

I prefer to think of it as they did belive in god and gave god a high five in the documents but that is it. Anything else that mentions morals is how the goverment should treat people and how people should treat each other.

The other argument discludes 95% of the country.
Chrissy
Posts: 651
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 10:18 pm
Location: Michigan

Postby Chrissy » Fri Feb 27, 2004 3:38 pm

Sho wrote:Remember, the people on this board are probably not representative of the general American population. For every person who says Bush just lost their vote, there could well be another who says Bush just got their vote. Support for a constitutional amendment blocking gay marriage is split rather evenly.


I think that the people who agree with Bush on this issue, we're already going to vote for him. He did this to cater to a demographic, in which he already has their support. I think what he managed to do is completly alienate the people who were undecided. My demographic. 18 to 35.

People who are afraid of homosexuality, because their probably afraid of their own gayness, may say one thing in public, but when it comes time to vote, it will be a factor they think about.

Chrissy
User avatar
Bran-Muffin
Posts: 2014
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: California

Postby Bran-Muffin » Fri Feb 27, 2004 3:52 pm

'People who are afraid of homosexuality, because their probably afraid of their own gayness, may say one thing in public, but when it comes time to vote, it will be a factor they think about. '

Do you have any idea what your talking about? because they are probably afraid of their own gayness? really can anyone get any more @(&*@$&@*^$#)#@)(#)_* ? becuase people dont like gays does not mean they are afraid of their own 'gayness' they dont like them becuase they are not open minded people, becuase they are afraid of a culture not like there own. Really tell you honestly im not a supporter of gays but i do agree with everyone else and say 'hey its their life, they wanna get married let them get married and be happy in their own way.'
Chrissy
Posts: 651
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 10:18 pm
Location: Michigan

Postby Chrissy » Fri Feb 27, 2004 3:53 pm

I stand behind my statement.

Chrissy
User avatar
Bran-Muffin
Posts: 2014
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: California

Postby Bran-Muffin » Fri Feb 27, 2004 4:01 pm

What is that supposed to mean chrissy? you dont know me and you call me gay or am i just jumping to conclusions? People who are racist, yes i said racist it applies here. Racist people do not like people of different cultures becuase they are small minded people and are afraid of nothing other than change and a culture that is different then their own.
User avatar
The Hunter
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 12:59 pm
Location: In my cave, making bombs.
Contact:

Postby The Hunter » Fri Feb 27, 2004 4:11 pm

Yeah, gotta disagree here, Chrissy. Some people, mainly women, think that every man has a feminine/gay side, thoroughly tucked away behide a macho facade. Ever thought this might be untrue? I think the majority of males are just that. Male. But somehow, modern/western civilization tells us we're half females. If we deny it is to deny our feminine side, and a treachery to ourselves, blah blah.

I'm not homophobe, not at all, but some gay way's, especially the sexual side puts me off. Most of the men really, cuz "squishyness" and so forth are plainly "non male ways".

Hell, I even visited a gay bar last summer, together with 2 gay men and a GF, and had fun! (and to be quite honestly, felt like a deer in hunting season). But it's their domain which I entered, thus i couldn't object anyway.
Life is fun. Play naked with Psycho-Pixie.



"Our enemies are resourceful and innovative".

"and so are we..."

They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and people"

"and neither do we"

~G.W Bush

Return to “Non-Cantr-Related Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest