Forumwarz is the first "Massively Single-Player" online RPG completely built around Internet culture.

You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.

You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.

Log in or Learn about Forumwarz

Civil Discussion
Switch to Role-Playing Civil Discussion
Gay The latest in CA - the Prop 8 debacle

plk

Avatar: 9972 2010-01-24 16:28:42 -0500
65

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Emo Kid

“The Infinite Sadness”

Shii Posted:

Except you’re comparing apples and oranges. That is purely a governmental issue with no bearing in any religious organization or worldview whatsoever.

You can’t make that comparison because the parties affected are not the same and wouldn’t respond the same. No one is being compromised by more people being allowed to vote, whereas the opposite is true for forcing religions to change their marriage rituals.

Wait, what? You think that churches weren’t involved with segregation, lynchings, and maintaining the black/white apartheid in the US? There weren’t people justifying their racism by quoting the bible?

And of course people felt “compromised” when African-Americans (and hey, women!) got the right to vote. The vote represents power and what do you think that the disenfranchised would want to do when they got that power? Vote for the status quo? I don’t think so.

Samildanach

Avatar: 143751 Tue May 19 21:18:21 -0400 2009
11

Level 34 Hacker

“43 4f 44 45 20 4d 41 53 54 45 52”

Shii Posted:

Except that’s exactly what they are trying to do. While it hasn’t gained acceptance, they’re trying to force churches to be unable to reject gay couples for marriage.

This is a bald-faced lie, it has been repeatedly called out as a bald-faced lie, and I demand support for it before you continue.

If they allow gay marriage, then the gays will protest against the church for not letting them marry in a place like most others do. It’s not a slippery slope, it’s just how protests work.

And “the church” – you know there’s more than one church, right? Just checking – can say “No.” And no one can force them.

I’m aware that the government should give people equality and equal rights. That’s why I’m pushing for civil unions with equal tax rights.

Your points about “marriage” predating Christianity are moot, by nature of the fact that the rituals accompanying such unions were not Christian in nature, and shared very little beyond the outcome of man + woman together. I’m talking about Christian marriage, and that alone.

No, you’re talking about marriage in the United States of America, a nation founded by Christians, but no longer ruled by them. You’re talking about redefining an existing social institution of that country to satisfy your religious beliefs – which is a no-no in the United States of America.

I know other religions aren’t as strict about homosexuality all the time, compared to Christianity, and if they want to have bonding/marriage ceremonies, go for it.

Another Shii who apparently disagrees Posted:

... let Christians still call their civil unions marriages and undergo the religious/ritualistic aspects as they please.

Reconcile these, please. If any religious ceremony can now be a “marriage” again, even of gay couples, aren’t we right back where we started before your brilliant plan?

Just don’t tell the churches how to handle their own rituals, and who to allow to be married.

No one is doing this, it’s a common scare tactic anti-gay-marriage protesters use without justification, and you’re really getting on my nerves by claiming so. Changing the law of the land can’t change religious practice, by the same token that your religious practice should not control the law of the land. You make this specious claim about trying to straight-arm churches repeatedly. Provide evidence, or STFU.

Samildanach edited this message on 06/02/2009 10:07PM

DarkDespair5

Avatar: 77864 Thu Jun 04 08:28:46 -0400 2009

Level 56 Hacker

“Logic Bomber”

Shii Posted:

No one is being compromised by more people being allowed to vote, whereas the opposite is true for forcing religions to change their marriage rituals.

What mainstream rights movement advocates this? Fringe groups don’t, and will never count.

DarkDespair5

Avatar: 77864 Thu Jun 04 08:28:46 -0400 2009

Level 56 Hacker

“Logic Bomber”

Samildanech Posted:

Redefining an existing social institution of that country to satisfy your religious beliefs – which is a no-no in the United States of America.

This is a great point. We’re not going to change what “marriage” means to satisfy religious groups.[

DarkDespair5 edited this message on 06/02/2009 10:14PM

Acid Flux

Avatar: 6767 Tue Mar 17 11:41:54 -0400 2009
17

[Country Kitchen an-
d Flea Market
]

Level 35 Troll

KYOUBAI IS SUPER-SERIOUS BUSINESS

Shii Posted:

Except that’s exactly what they are trying to do. While it hasn’t gained acceptance, they’re trying to force churches to be unable to reject gay couples for marriage.

Where? I haven’t seen this anywhere except in the extreme fringe. Private institutions can choose to exclude anyone they want. Churches are no different. So long as they aren’t receiving any subsidization from the government, then they can choose to exclude anyone they want, for any reason they want. I haven’t seen any gay pride marches demanding to be married in a particular church or temple. They’re demanding to be allowed to hold their own, legally binding ceremonies.

In fact, your argument that gays would ‘sue a church’ for the right to be married within that church is kind of ridiculous. Do excommunicated individuals ever successfully sue a church to be married within?

Additionally, as far as the ‘ownership’ of the word marriage… how utterly ridiculous. Arguing a point based on the origin of a word is such a flawed concept that we actually have a term for it: etymological fallacy. Additionally, arguing that the concept is unique to a specific religion is belittling to anyone outside that religion. I have as much right, as a Diest, to be joined in holy union with my wife, as you would, as a Christian, to be joined in holy union with your wife. Therefore, the point that marriage is specifically religious is null & void. If people from any religion can be married, then people from all religions (including those that express no specific religion, or couples that have two different religions, such as my wife & I) can be married. And therefore, the specific tenets of any one religion cannot be applied to all marriages. Now, whether or not such a marriage is recognized by a specific church is completely a separate issue. What matters is whether or not the marriage is recognized by the state.

TL;DR: Marriage is not inherently a ‘religious institution’, because people from any/all/no religion may legally be married. Therefore, no specific religious tenets can supersede any other’s, and should not be applied to marriages in general.

markchd

Avatar: 12369 2010-01-24 16:26:11 -0500
18

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Camwhore

Craves Power like it's Crystal Pepsi

Shii Posted:

for forcing religions to change their marriage rituals.

I’d like to say that nobody is asking for that, but I know it’s not true. However, very few people are asking for that. Most folks would rather find a church that will accept them than force themselves in where they are unwelcome. There are already churches in Dallas, Texas that will perform a gay marriage ceremony.

I compare it to certain denominations refusing to wed couples in their church if both members of the couple accept the fundamental doctrines of that faith. If a fundamental doctrine of your faith is that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, it would seem unlikely that your church would be forced to marry a gay couple any sooner than it would be forced to perform services for atheists. Certainly, I’m not asking for that.

At the same time, the word marriage is used throughout legislation, and codifying one sort of union as “marriage” and another as “civil” treats them as unequal in the eyes of the law.

Honestly, in my mind the best solution would be for the (big and abstract) Government to replace the term marriage with civil union for all couples. Big hurdles for that, though.

Samildanach

Avatar: 143751 Tue May 19 21:18:21 -0400 2009
11

Level 34 Hacker

“43 4f 44 45 20 4d 41 53 54 45 52”

DarkDespair5 Posted:

What mainstream rights movement advocates this? Fringe groups don’t, and will never count.

None. It’s propaganda that homophobic groups circulate in order to fire up their base. It works because you’re talking to people who want their personal beliefs to control the lives and beliefs of others; it’s therefore easy to convince them that the opposition to control their lives and beliefs, rather than simply demanding the right to be recognized as equal.

Samildanach

Avatar: 143751 Tue May 19 21:18:21 -0400 2009
11

Level 34 Hacker

“43 4f 44 45 20 4d 41 53 54 45 52”

markchd Posted:

I’d like to say that nobody is asking for that, but I know it’s not true.

And I’d like to say that no one is viciously beating, crucifying and murdering gays just for being gay. But I know that’s not true. The difference is that while most gay marriage advocates recognize those are lunatic fringe elements not worth the dignity of a mention in the debate, opponents of gay marriage seem to think that bringing up the “rabid fringe” of the pro-gay-rights movement is fair game. I’m increasingly tempted to respond in kind by bumociating their arguments with violent murderous homophobia, because trying to be the honest debater is tiring, and their fringe is a ****ing lot worse than mine.

markchd Posted:

Honestly, in my mind the best solution would be for the (big and abstract) Government to replace the term marriage with civil union for all couples. Big hurdles for that, though.

The largest being lack of cultural weight and equality, as mentioned in one of my posts above. The second being that it’s an ungainly wording. “Cindy, I love you more than life itself, will you… uh… civilly unionize me?”

Likewise, as mentioned, the same protesters will protest the change in legal language anyway, and gays will still have a second clbum marriage. No one wins, everyone is unhappy, but the folks who can only get “civil unions” still manage to come out worse.

markchd

Avatar: 12369 2010-01-24 16:26:11 -0500
18

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Camwhore

Craves Power like it's Crystal Pepsi

Samildanach Posted:

but the folks who can only get “civil unions” still manage to come out worse.

It’s a pipe-dream of mine. In my fantasy (okay, impossible) system, nobody could get “married” by a state. Marriage as a legal concept and as a religious ceremony would be distinct and separate. A male-female or same-sex couple could get unionized without going through a religious ceremony, or vice-versa.

My intention wasn’t to literally do so, however. My suggestion of an impossible situation was intended to suggest that it’d be nice if we could separate the legal aspects of marriage from the religious ones in everyone’s mind. In reality, I’d still rather everyone were able to be married.

markchd edited this message on 06/02/2009 10:48PM

Samildanach

Avatar: 143751 Tue May 19 21:18:21 -0400 2009
11

Level 34 Hacker

“43 4f 44 45 20 4d 41 53 54 45 52”

markchd Posted:

It’s a pipe-dream of mine. In my fantasy (okay, impossible) system, nobody could get “married” by a state. Marriage as a legal concept and as a religious ceremony would be distinct and separate. A male-female or same-sex couple could get unionized without going through a religious ceremony, or vice-versa.

My intention wasn’t to literally do so, however. My suggestion of an impossible situation was intended to suggest that it’d be nice if we could separate the legal aspects of marriage from the religious ones in everyone’s mind. In reality, I’d still rather everyone were be able to be married.

Fair enough, though I was also talking about a world where no one could be “married” by the state – just one where the tradition of marriage still existed. I still think it would be better to imagine an ideal world where everybody got to have the tradition, rather than no one, but I understand your thinking. Log in to see images!

Generic Raci-
st

Avatar: 113010 Sat Mar 28 01:20:15 -0400 2009
1

Level 35 Troll

i'm a dirty fine upstanding member of society myself lulz

Personally I don’t care either way, as long as it’s put to a vote. Atrocities like what happened in Mbumachusetts and posts like this:

”It doesn’t matter, because it’s coming.” I said. “Our kids’ generation will see to that. The only choice you or anybody else has is whether, while this issue is being hashed out, you talk and behave in a way that will make you proud when all the dust has settled.”

are the only things that bother me about this issue. People tend to forget these kind of things must be voted on, and just because you think it’s a crime that gays can’t get married doesn’t make it so. If the people that live there don’t want it then it shouldn’t be forced down their throats. Conversely, if the proposition pbumes then the that’s fine, let them marry there.

Generic Racist edited this message on 06/02/2009 11:18PM

DarkDespair5

Avatar: 77864 Thu Jun 04 08:28:46 -0400 2009

Level 56 Hacker

“Logic Bomber”

Generic Racist Posted:

Personally I don’t care either way, as long as it’s put to a vote.

Majority rule, minority rights. Can’t ignore the latter in support of the former.

markchd

Avatar: 12369 2010-01-24 16:26:11 -0500
18

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Camwhore

Craves Power like it's Crystal Pepsi

Generic Racist Posted:

posts like this:{Quote from politicsdaily.com}

...bother me…

Really? I kinda figured the fact that the article is about more evangelical Christians under 25 than New Deal democrats over 65 being in favor of legalizing gay marriage pretty clearly implied that the article espouses a democratic solution in addition to finding it inevitable.

markchd edited this message on 06/02/2009 11:36PM

Generic Raci-
st

Avatar: 113010 Sat Mar 28 01:20:15 -0400 2009
1

Level 35 Troll

i'm a dirty fine upstanding member of society myself lulz

DarkDespair5 Posted:

Majority rule, minority rights. Can’t ignore the latter in support of the former.

That’s why I think state’s rights are so importiant. What may be the majority in Alaska may be the minority in Iowa. So why not let them both have what they want instead of the Federal Government just picking one and making everyone abide by the same rules when they don’t want to and shouldn’t have to.

plk

Avatar: 9972 2010-01-24 16:28:42 -0500
65

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Emo Kid

“The Infinite Sadness”

Generic Racist Posted:

That’s why I think state’s rights are so importiant. What may be the majority in Alaska may be the minority in Iowa. So why not let them both have what they want instead of the Federal Government just picking one and making everyone abide by the same rules when they don’t want to and shouldn’t have to.

Something as fundamental to a person’s rights as marriage needs to be the same at the Federal level. We don’t allow women to vote only in some states because hey, that’s okay if things work out differently there. Why would it ever be okay for civil rights issues to be determined by states when those states who want to keep the status quo are the biggest problems?

DarkDespair5

Avatar: 77864 Thu Jun 04 08:28:46 -0400 2009

Level 56 Hacker

“Logic Bomber”

plk Posted:

Something as fundamental to a person’s rights as marriage needs to be the same at the Federal level. We don’t allow women to vote only in some states because hey, that’s okay if things work out differently there. Why would it ever be okay for civil rights issues to be determined by states when those states who want to keep the status quo are the biggest problems?

Perfectly answered. Rights transcend a state’s will.

DarkDespair5 edited this message on 06/02/2009 11:54PM

Jwred5

Avatar: 24279 Mon Nov 24 22:12:21 -0500 2008
33

[Brainfreeze]

Level 35 Emo Kid

Pantsless Lord of the Sith

I would post but it’s pretty much a 1 sided debate. Nobody has yet said “I don’t want gay people to have rights recognized by the government which coincide with the rights married couples currently have”. Basically its just Shii trying to play keepaway with the word marriage. Which is slightly humorous, but not worthy of comment imo. Oops too late.Log in to see images!

Bill_Murray_-
Fan_7383

Avatar: 7241 2011-07-31 00:42:33 -0400
9

[i have a thirteen inch male reproductive organ click for proof]

Level 35 Camwhore

Oh whoops, I dropped my monster condom that I use for my magnum dong

Generic Racist Posted:

Personally I don’t care either way, as long as it’s put to a vote.

Segregation was ended by a Supreme Court decision, not a vote. Are you saying we’d have been better off waiting for voters to accept equal rights for blacks?

Wait, don’t answer that, I just realized you’re Generic Racist. Log in to see images!

That being said, the thing that ****es me off about a lot of gay-rights opponents is the male reproductive organiness. They keep going on about “We are the majority in the United States, this is about government forcing rhetoric on us, let us vote!”, while public opinion is drastically shifting in the opposite direction. They’re just digging themselves into a hole.

Also, this thread needs more BAAAAAAWWWWWWs:

Also

spacekadt

MODERATOR
Avatar: 16186 2011-11-01 00:02:40 -0400
78

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Camwhore

meh

I’ll come back and actually read this later… but what I didn’t see in my quick skim is a mention of the fact that it now only takes a majority vote to not just deny, but *strip*, the rights of a minority. And the court upheld it. That right there is a really ****ing scary thought.

Generic Raci-
st

Avatar: 113010 Sat Mar 28 01:20:15 -0400 2009
1

Level 35 Troll

i'm a dirty fine upstanding member of society myself lulz

markchd Posted:

Really? I kinda figured the fact that the article is about more evangelical Christians under 25 than New Deal democrats over 65 being in favor of legalizing gay marriage pretty clearly implied that the article espouses a democratic solution in addition to finding it inevitable.

”It doesn’t matter, because it’s coming.”

Telling someone that their opinion/vote/voice won’t matter is ignorant. The only thing inevitable in life is death. Gay marriage is FAR from inevitable. California proved that at ballot. And who is to say that those under 25 will support gay marriage in the future? Furthermore, who is to say their children will support gay marriage? This generation obviously differs in opinion from their parents.

Internet Delay Chat
Have fun playing!
To chat with other players, you must Join Forumwarz or Log In now!